|
Liquid Communism posted:To put a face on the 'we' specifically, the United States Government in the person of its agent Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer of the 7th Cavalry was responsible for the announcement of the find and beginning of the Black Hills gold rush. Custer really was a MONUMENTAL shitbag.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
blowfish posted:Privatisation is bad, therefore the proposed Dawes act 2.0 is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
I actually thought he was stating it unironically and agreed with the sentiment. Privatization is, as a rule, loving garbage, even if it helps supply my paycheck. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 22:23
|
|
Privatization IS bad. What, are you kidding me? If you live in the US, you live in place that is living proof its a gigantic mistake.
|
Jarmak posted:Accept none of this is actually true? Not a single shred of evidence of disturbed graves has been found, in fact lots of money, time, and effort has been spent mapping out cultural sites and avoiding them. The other tribes who engaged in the legal process were granted requests for reroutes 140/148 times This is basically why the goal of the protests and hypothetical sabotage is Pretty Important and needs to be clear. To be fair, the tribal elders have on multiple occasions requested that the people who are just there to protest against fossil fuels because fossil fuels pipe down and let the tribe take the lead, because that somewhat undermines the tribe's basis for both protests and legal challenge. I'm not at all sure sabotage in this case is a productive enterprise, at which point the ethics debate can stop right then and there. Edit: also I don't think it's too debatable that the police should be as humane as possible in doing their duty. Please do not link me to the inevitable posts upthread where people took the opposite position, I wish to maintain my illusion. It's possible to believe that property destruction for purpose of intimidation is generally bad, AND excessive force utilization by law enforcement is bad.
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:gently caress ethics, how is pipeline sabotage a tactically smart move? If we're going with the Robber Baron reading of the oil company, wouldn't they turn it on either way and just let any possible environmental destruction teach the opposition not to try that sabotage poo poo again? The only scenarios I can see where it's productive are: - The government is fundamentally inclined or pressurable to act in good faith, and will step in to prevent problems from escalating further, and/or can be expected to punish malicious action by Dakota Access. This is not very consistent with many of the more sabotage-supporting protest assertions, although I guess I could see a somewhat implausible reading of "well darn, the Corps of Engineers was pressured by Dakota Access and we just need to push back and get attention so that the bureaucracy treats us with the respect we deserve". Note: even this makes a lot more sense with a non-sabotage protest enterprise, and in fact whatever's been done to date seems to have made an impression - and if Uglycat's unsubstantiated sabotage hypothesis is correct, I will gloomily eat a little crow and admit that vandalism or threat of vandalism was a successful tactic, at least until the Trump Coronation. Edit: Personally, I hope Uglycat's unsubstantiated hypothesis is entirely wrong and we're arguing about something that hasn't happened, and ideally Donald Trump gets distracted by a shiny object and a further survey is done that satisfies this Sioux tribe's desire for engagement, water safety, and cultural preservation. - The government is not. In a guerilla war between anti-pipeline and pro-pipeline elements (tribal or regardless-of-tribalness, pick your poison), massive and repeated vandalism will cause sufficient costs to Dakota Access and/or the US government that they will do something else that isn't "crush the saboteurs/insurgents under the iron boot of American law". Reroute the pipeline nowhere near Standing Rock whatsoever? Cancel it entirely? I am going to be polite and describe this as "dazzlingly optimistic". Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:If you can't keep your pipeline safe, and you build it in a location where you are surrounded by populations that have the will to damage it, turning it on can only be described as irresponsible. Humans are natural fauna, and you can't ignore natural fauna when designing a machine that - when it fails to work to spec - can /destroy a good chunk of a continent's ecosystems/. I make no particular statement about other participants in the argument, but your argument is statistically moronic and borders on strategically moronic. I, personally, am provisionally supportive of the Standing Rock Sioux enterprise to protect their interests, but there is a huge huge difference between "this enterprise has not pursued adequate measures to prevent negative impact" and "this enterprise CANNOT BY DEFINITION pursue adequate measures to prevent negative impact".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Where has standing rock said they're against the infrastructure? All I've seen is Iron-eyes and Archambault say they're okay with the pipeline itself, just not the location This was my impression. I seem to recall Standing Rock telling the "gently caress all pipelines" demographic to pipe down and let the tribe take the lead and set the narrative, in fact. Edit: not that I would be surprised if some elders had a less positive opinion of pipelines in general / if that contributed to the internal discussion prior to the protest Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:IIRC his statement was "I'm the president. There's a special magic law for me - just me, and only me - which means I am not capable of having conflucts of interest because - I hate to repeat myself here - I am THE PRESIDENT." To be fair, that's basically correct, legally speaking.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
spiralbrain posted:Regardless, isnt it still a conflict of interest if hes out entirely and his children are benefiting from it?? Actually, if Kushner is part of the White House, that might make it more of a conflict of interest than if it was just Donald running things directly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'd assume the bit about dangerous springtime flood from melting ice is just bullshit to clear the site I mean, if people seriously reject this, they can stick around onsite without water wings and empirically test the question.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 06:43
|
|