|
The Justice Department directive only stops construction once the pipeline reaches the lake. It doesn't actually stop the private company from building up to that point.
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Why are we all treating a guy who just said there's an ethical obligation to murder protesters as though he has or will ever have anything worthwhile to say? For that matter, why are we treating the people who just glanced right over that and considered it a normal thing to say as if they've got anything worth listening to?quote:edit: If you're absolutely committed to sitting down in the path of a moving bulldozer, the operator is almost obligated to run you over or your gesture is for nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
It's interesting to ponder why exactly people insist that justice is irrelevant to this case, such that they can say that blockading the construction of a school is as equally justified as the water protectors are. Well, I mean, the guy who made that particular comparison is an openly racist shitbag, and many other people have no conception of right or wrong, just legal or illegal and customary or uncustomary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Arguing on the basis that legal definitions ought to be the primary ones, and all others be clearly marked, is nothing more or less than an attempt to spread law school-inflicted brain damage universally, up with which I will not put.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
From the perspective that protest is a means of influencing the actions of others in a democratic society, the question becomes one of whether the protesters are right or wrong, an environment where motherfuckers like Gobblewhatever and blowjob will be vociferously racist. So I guess we've figured out why this is a sticking point for twodot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:
To judge by your posts, your idea of morality is built entirely of universal, inflexible rules with no contingent factors involved. Thus, having demonstrated you are a nitwit, your opinions on this subject would seem to be worthless.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 20:02
|
|
about the end of industrial society if you want, I guess, but a moral realm that doesn't itneract with reality isn't relevant to much.
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Maybe you should read the post I was responding to That's an interesting interpretation of that post.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
It's interesting to note that the idea of negotiating is completely foregone in the minds of Jarmak, blowjob, etc. The Lakota must stand aside or be ground into hamburger by cops and DAPL bulldozers. We must follow proper procedure, and if that procedure leads to us massacring elderly people in the name of oil, so much the better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:NIMBYs are terrible no matter who they are. Probably the backlash in this thread would be stronger if they weren't Native Americans. People who oppose development and infrastructure under the guise of environmentalism but really to protect their property values are really terrible people. 'California Liberals' Thank you for admitting you have no soul.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, uhh, that's not what that document shows at all. drat, you're a lawyer, cop, and civil/enviromental engineer. You got a doctorate in forestry too?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Also paperwork is, in fact, important because properly run regulatory agencies staffed with bureaucrats are Stop being such a caricature of a German.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
blowfish posted:i'm sorry but trump is getting the job because america is full of apathetic retards (that fail to turn out to vote against a major human disaster) and idiots (that can't tie their own shoelaces and blame foreigners for their stupidity), both of whom need to be counteracted by competent bureaucrats. Ah, so should Mutti suspend elections, then? Or are Germans inherently superior to other peoples?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
botany posted:No, but we do have a better electoral system than you. That's a direct contradiction of blowfish's argument that Germany is superior because its democratic institutions are a fraud and all power rests in an oligarchic bureaucracy. I suppose I can't blame you for refusing to read his posts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
botany posted:I never said I agree with blowfish Well, uh, I don't know why you made the post you did, then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Also, Good, I hope they get run over by bulldozers and shot by the National Guard for having the temerity to express solidarity where a pig cop can hear them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 02:10
|
|
at the bolded part
|
The huge unquestioned assumption that the Dakota Access Pipeline is necessary and without it we will revert to the Bronze Age or whatever is fascinating to see, if only to consider how many people its proponents would be willing to kill to ensure the construction of an oil refinery.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:We've covered that. And the response was "infrastructure is good. Even when it doesn't do anything good." No, I mean that I'm tickled by people like Jarmak essentially arguing for blood sacrifices to keep the oil flowing. We may be witnessing the birth of a new religion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Infrastructure is good overall, despite occasional exceptions. If you dispute this, you should imagine your life without clean water, electricity, hospitals, roads/public transport, phones, the internet, and overnight shipping before feeling ashamed and admitting to yourself you're a dumbass. I see you're in favor of "slum clearances".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Laminar posted:This. Most EA's have a specific section meant for the public to read. I think it is very important for the public to get involved, read the summary, and submit comments. The Canadian CEAA process was frankly a little messed up under Harper, but it has made some great strides overall at getting the public involved, however it is still a huge issue. Do you agree with blowfish's assertion that the opinions of people affected by construction projects should never be considered?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nice strawman. That is exactly what you have been saying. That only expert opinions should be considered.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
It's cool how racist the defenders of oil are.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh poo poo now our secret is out. You guys are going to win so many elections with this strategy, gently caress. No, we don't have to let you murder American Indians to win elections.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Leavy posted:What the gently caress is wrong with all of you Defenders of the Pipeline, seriously? There isn't a single issue that has caused this protest to gain the attention it has, it's a culmination of many things, much like Occupy was (granted much narrower in scope with an actual central physical "thing" to protest). I did not expect to see so much backlash toward the protesters in this thread when I opened it, and I truly can't understand the motives of some of you to continue trying to hammer away the legalities of the protesters, the who and what tribe claims this and doesn't have that, and "environmentally friendly" aspects of loving oil. Well, again, you have a guy justifying genocide and ethnic cleansing on the grounds that the victims were savages, so it's obvious this is largely about hatred. Hatred of American Indians, hatred of democracy, hatred of protests.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Wow, CommieGIR claiming that two things that are very similar are actually very different without explaining why. Never seen that in this thread! You ever going to explain to the class why the Sioux's claim on land that isn't theirs is legitimate but China's claims on Taiwan, Tibet, India, Vietnam, and Uyghuristan are not? Huh, so what genocides are morally acceptable?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Why do you beat your wife? But you are saying that the Sioux have no claim to land they were ethnically cleansed and genocided off of. So clearly that genocide was morally acceptable, since there is no need for restorative justice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Do you even read the thread or are you just glancing at it occassionally while shitposting? No, they were not ethnically cleaned off of it. They had the land in 1851 by treaty. Hooray for them! Then in 1868 they decided they didn't really want it and negotiated it away in exchange for Other Stuff. Hooray for them! It's not theirs anymore. Those treaties were signed as a consequence of deliberately genocidal campaigns to steal the land of the Sioux people. Insisting that because they are law that they are right does, in fact, tell me when genocide is acceptable to you- when you write down that it is and call it a law.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Since the terms of the 1868 treaty were largely dictated by the Sioux, does that mean they were genociding themselves on purpose, or..? Why was the US government making war on the Sioux in the first place?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
It's also funny to ignore the genocidal policies of the Dawes Act, termination, and deliberate malnutrition by Indian agents and focus solely on a single treaty. Almost as if the goal was to insist that genocide was good so as to clear the way for the final solution to the Native American question.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
I like the level of historical knowledge on display where Taiwan was ethnically Han until the so-called indigenous Taiwanese invaded.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's recall what you said to me earlier in the thread. This is an extremely embarrassing post to make my man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really following your logic here. So the Sioux were in a position dictate terms, but decided to ask for what the white man would want to give them, because they knew no matter what they did that the white man would declare war on them again? Aside from being totally ahistorical (seriously, provide any evidence whatsoever that this was the Sioux train of thought) it makes no sense whatsoever. If they knew they were going to fight again, they would want to seize as much territory as they could in the interim. Nice argument that the Sioux were all loving morons.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Please point out where the law is unjust in the case of the DAPL. Probably the part where it allows paramilitary gangs to be deployed to maim and kill peaceful protesters, gives them license to lie freely, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
I really enjoy the people desperate for Big Daddy Trump to come in and save their precious pipeline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is a complete and utter lie, a lie you've repeated for the nth time, because you are completely unwilling and unable to make an arguement for what is actually unjust. "1968 treaty" is a weird mistake to make twice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Emphasis on strict borders is often a way to implement environmental racism. Who cares if the mercury is seeping into the groundwater, I'm dumping on my own land, you commie!!!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I never said that, stop putting words in my mouth and please stop beating your wife. Do you support the government using eminent domain to confiscate all of the land that ever belonged to the Lakota from the mostly private owners and transferring control to the Lakota? Why would that be necessary? Turn it over to Lakotah governments and let them decide what to do with it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:By the same token, you can't argue that using eminent domain to seize land for an infrastructure project is bad because it displaces the rightful owners, while simultaneously arguing that expropriating the property rights of everyone in former Indian territory to return it to the Sioux would be a good thing. What? Why would people automatically get eminent domained in such an event? Is it because the Lakotah are racist against whites? Or is it because you don't understand how such things have worked in the past?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:...Because that's what you're proposing? There is no daylight between "We are confiscating your land and giving it to the Lakota" and "We are turning over control of your land to the Lakota". No it's not. There's nothing to imply that unless you believe American Indians are more or less evil. I'm starting to get the feeling you live close to a rez, your opinions are very Gallup white guy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:An ownership right is by definition the right to exclude. If the tribal government is never going to interfere in the current owners' right to occupy their property or pass it on by intestate succession or sell their land to any party as they saw fit, how exactly would the tribes be exercising their newfound property right? Would they be extracting rents or taxes from the owners, at whatever rates they chose? If your assertion that nothing would change for the owners is correct, then the tribe by definition cannot extract any benefit from the change in sovereignty from state to reservation. If this is the case, why is this so important to do? So the US government has to use eminent domain every so often to keep its right to property? What a weird notion. Anyways, I don't see why extracting taxes is some sort of gotcha.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Same goes for you, fuckboy. It's hard to have a discussion when one side refuses to take any position besides "white man bad". What exactly do you want to be done with the western half of South Dakota and the people who live and own property there? Will the people of Rapid City now live under Standing Rock Sioux tribal law where the maximum punishment for rape and murder is one year in jail and/or a $5,000 fine? Thanks for contributing more racism to the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2016 03:44
|
|