Standing Rock Action Needed to Help

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by JRS1386

Jeep wants them to use violence so he can call them savages and say they are rioting

Not at all.

[justink]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

Its amazing that some can be so warped to not see how this is wrong and what these people are standing up for is right.

But hey, theyre minorities, so fuck em.

what is wrong about installing a pipeline?

what are they "standing up for" that is so right? they're destructive hooligans

please enlighten us.

[dreamingrace]

...it's only getting worse.

trump owns stock...

[M. Steng]

Originally Posted by dreamingrace

...it's only getting worse.

trump owns stock...

Didn't realize Trump was President already, interesting.

[MDPrompter]

Originally Posted by dreamingrace

...it's only getting worse.

trump owns stock...

Eh, pretty small investment

[rustysurf83]

$15k-$50k? Who cares?

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by M. Steng

Didn't realize Trump was President already, interesting.

I'm sure he'll divest all of his conflicts of interest once he is sworn in.

[justink]

Originally Posted by rustysurf83

$15k-$50k? Who cares?

i legit guarantee you doesn't even know.

[dreamingrace]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

People defending land against the man.

But sorry, I forgot white guy's cattle > native american's drinking water.

My mistake.

...eloquently put.

[justink]

what does "drinking water" have to do with any of this?

[TheLastPig]

Originally Posted by justink

what does "drinking water" have to do with any of this?

You are clueless.

[justink]

Originally Posted by TheLastPig

You are clueless.

no, i think you and anyone who believes that is.

[rustysurf83]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Tribe's water intake from the Missouri River? The Missouri River that is already crossed by 8 existing pipelines, including the Northern Border pipeline that parallels the Dakota Access Pipeline. Also, isn't the Tribe's main water intake scheduled to be moved to Mobridge? 50 miles south of the current intake and 70 miles south of the planned pipeline's crossing?

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by rustysurf83

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Tribe's water intake from the Missouri River? The Missouri River that is already crossed by 8 existing pipelines, including the Northern Border pipeline that parallels the Dakota Access Pipeline. Also, isn't the Tribe's main water intake scheduled to be moved to Mobridge? 50 miles south of the current intake and 70 miles south of the planned pipeline's crossing?

The protest is over sacred burial grounds.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YDdCkW9Aqm...imation1-2.gif

[scrock25]

Originally Posted by jcc522

The protest is over sacred burial grounds.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YDdCkW9Aqm...imation1-2.gif

Sometimes.... dead is better.

[rustysurf83]

Originally Posted by jcc522

The protest is over sacred burial grounds.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YDdCkW9Aqm...imation1-2.gif

Why wasn't there a protest over the Northern Border Line?

[jmkratt]

Originally Posted by rustysurf83

Why wasn't there a protest over the Northern Border Line?

That's a great question considering they run side right where people are protesting.

Clearly people are concerned with the water contamination since 1982 on the line, which hasn't occurred.

[zajDmB1]

Here's the best, most unbiased article I've seen regarding the whole thing:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobeccle.../#ccbd7e45ee96

[jmkratt]

Bob Eccles is far from unbiased.

[zajDmB1]

Also, just curious. So for all the hate those of us defending the protestors get on here, I will flip the script. Why are quite a few people in here so adamantly against them and pro this pipeline? I could understand apathy since we're all pretty far removed from the whole thing, but some of you are like really upset that these people are blocking a pipeline... Why?

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by jmkratt

Bob Eccles is far from unbiased.

Try reading the article. It's not very long and still doesn't cover everything. It's just not something definitively defending/attacking either side.

[BotheLaneFan]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Also, just curious. So for all the hate those of us defending the protestors get on here, I will flip the script. Why are quite a few people in here so adamantly against them and pro this pipeline? I could understand apathy since we're all pretty far removed from the whole thing, but some of you are like really upset that these people are blocking a pipeline... Why?

Money > Bitches.

[justink]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Also, just curious. So for all the hate those of us defending the protestors get on here, I will flip the script. Why are quite a few people in here so adamantly against them and pro this pipeline? I could understand apathy since we're all pretty far removed from the whole thing, but some of you are like really upset that these people are blocking a pipeline... Why?

personally? it's my job.

for you, it's how you get to your job. how you relax at home. how you live your life on a daily basis.

on a social scale, these are terrorists affecting YOUR quality of life.

[rustysurf83]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Also, just curious. So for all the hate those of us defending the protestors get on here, I will flip the script. Why are quite a few people in here so adamantly against them and pro this pipeline? I could understand apathy since we're all pretty far removed from the whole thing, but some of you are like really upset that these people are blocking a pipeline... Why?

The fact that you referenced that Forbes' article as unbiased is a nearly perfect example of why people get upset over this situation.

[jmkratt]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Try reading the article. It's not very long and still doesn't cover everything. It's just not something definitively defending/attacking either side.

I have read the article, in fact I have read several of his articles/papers. I would agree it looks at the issue from a larger picture and the dude is clearly smarter than I am. I would just disagree that he's unbiased given he's on faculty at Harvard's Center for the Environment.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by rustysurf83

The fact that you referenced that Forbes' article as unbiased is a nearly perfect example of why people get upset over this situation.

Please quote where there's some substantially biased opinion in that piece, besides the first half of the first sentence.

[dreamingrace]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

I'm sure he'll divest all of his conflicts of interest once he is sworn in.

I wouldn't bet on that....

[gonz085]

Originally Posted by dreamingrace

I wouldn't bet on that....

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by justink

personally? it's my job.

for you, it's how you get to your job. how you relax at home. how you live your life on a daily basis.

on a social scale, these are terrorists affecting YOUR quality of life.

1) Fair enough. Though, how will THIS specifically affect your job. You'll lose it if the thing isn't built?

2) The MTA has been upgrading/continues to upgrade to be fairly environmentally friendly, not to mention the fact it's mass transit, so my liberal bubble has a pretty small transportation footprint relative to how many people it moves around daily. Also, I walked to work for 5 years . So you'll have to figure out how much oil it took to create the electricity it took to power the coffee makers that fueled me at my local shop.

3) Haven't felt any difference in my quality of life since the protest started. So unless there's going to be an oil shortage if this thing isn't built or is built somewhere else, I'm sure we'll all be fine. Us Anglo Saxons have survived 400+ years without it so far.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by dreamingrace

I wouldn't bet on that....

It was a sarcastic comment...so I agree.

Originally Posted by gonz085

What are you rolling your eyes at? You seriously think this dude is just going to wipe his hands clean of everything? The guy literally puts his name on everything he touches, he won't be able to not think about it.