So, did all the protesting work?

If this has been posted, I apologize.  

Army Corp denies pipeline in North Dakota

Doesn't sound like this is over.. but I'll take it.

I figure we haven't heard the last of it - rich, white powerful corporations will return to rightfully collect what isn't theirs.

I'm against picketing but i don't know how to show it.

DWags wrote:If this has been posted, I apologize.  

Army Corp denies pipeline in North Dakota

Yes!! It worked.....a VICTORY!


Until January 20th when with one stroke of a pen it's back on.

Pretty impressive protest. Mostly lead by women, it was peaceful, and had a simple on point message. It brought to discussion the land, the history of the tribes, broken treaties in the past and the dangers of an oil line near water resources.

Yes, the government will probably come back and try to build again but I'd say they've done a great job so far. What say you, Dwags?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:If this has been posted, I apologize.  

Army Corp denies pipeline in North Dakota

Yes!! It worked.....a VICTORY!


Until January 20th when with one stroke of a pen it's back on.

That is too bad if true.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Yes!! It worked.....a VICTORY!


Until January 20th when with one stroke of a pen it's back on.

That is too bad if true.

No, that's a win for America.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Yes!! It worked.....a VICTORY!


Until January 20th when with one stroke of a pen it's back on.

That is too bad if true.

OTPT? It's a lock. I'd bet $1,000 on it.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

That is too bad if true.

OTPT? It's a lock. I'd bet $1,000 on it.

this.

when is the last time you saw rich white folks not get what they want?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

OTPT? It's a lock. I'd bet $1,000 on it.

this.

when is the last time you saw rich white folks not get what they want?

When Obama was elected twice??

The_Dude wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:this.

when is the last time you saw rich white folks not get what they want?

When Obama was elected twice??

exactly.

which evolved into voter ID laws, the closing of minority voting precincts, the moving of voting precincts off of some college campuses and the evolution of people like you - racist, bigoted, misogynists upset at the thought that a black man could actually become president in the United States of AmeriKKKa.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

That is too bad if true.

No, that's a win for America.

I disagree LWS, I really like getting outside and enjoying the wilderness. I also enjoy clean water to drink or to fish in. A win for America may not be a win for me.

Why do you support the pipeline? (Or why is it a win for America?)

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

No, that's a win for America.

I disagree LWS, I really like getting outside and enjoying the wilderness. I also enjoy clean water to drink or to fish in. A win for America may not be a win for me.

Why do you support the pipeline? (Or why is it a win for America?)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say because Breitbart told him so.

OTPT, I don't know a lot about this subject, why is this pipeline so much more troubling than the thousands of miles of existing pipe?
My understanding is the problem is only a very small stretch of this pipeline and the vast majority of it was/is completed without major incident/opposition, and the route in question was the companies second choice, mandated by the Army Corps, did I miss something?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

No, that's a win for America.

I disagree LWS, I really like getting outside and enjoying the wilderness. I also enjoy clean water to drink or to fish in. A win for America may not be a win for me.

Why do you support the pipeline? (Or why is it a win for America?)

It will lower our energy costs. Plus there is PLENTY of outdoors. Suggesting a pipeline will prevent you from going outdoors, or fishing, or having clean water is idiotic.

I.B. Fine wrote:OTPT, I don't know a lot about this subject, why is this pipeline so much more troubling than the thousands of miles of existing pipe?
My understanding is the problem is only a very small stretch of this pipeline and the vast majority of it was/is completed without major incident/opposition, and the route in question was the companies second choice, mandated by the Army Corps, did I miss something?

I.B. Fine wrote:OTPT, I don't know a lot about this subject, why is this pipeline so much more troubling than the thousands of miles of existing pipe?
My understanding is the problem is only a very small stretch of this pipeline and the vast majority of it was/is completed without major incident/opposition, and the route in question was the companies second choice, mandated by the Army Corps, did I miss something?

I'll be honest as well, I haven't followed it too much either. The swill/swill bin is the pretty much my news source, I don't watch news on tv, don't read newspapers unless it's about the Pistons. Some links to other sites that are posted here. Anyways ---

Why it would be more troubling than the other pipes already established? Probably because it goes through natives' land that is already so limited, it would have to be built through an important water source for their tribes, and I'm always going to be an advocate of less commercialization or development and more wilderness. I love the outdoors. Like my man Bernie says, should we even still be relying on oil? It's 2016.....

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

I disagree LWS, I really like getting outside and enjoying the wilderness. I also enjoy clean water to drink or to fish in. A win for America may not be a win for me.

Why do you support the pipeline? (Or why is it a win for America?)

It will lower our energy costs. Plus there is PLENTY of outdoors. Suggesting a pipeline will prevent you from going outdoors, or fishing, or having clean water is idiotic.

What happens when the pipeline bursts? PLENTY of outdoors? That is rich. What's that stat? X or turtleneck shared it here once. It is really hard to get that far from civilization.

OTPT wrote:Like my man Bernie says, should we even still be relying on oil? It's 2016.....

Had to gas up a car late last night.  It was raining.  A little windy.  Some chill in the air.  

Was kinda thinking the same thing...can we figure out a way to run these things on something other than gas/oil?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

It will lower our energy costs. Plus there is PLENTY of outdoors. Suggesting a pipeline will prevent you from going outdoors, or fishing, or having clean water is idiotic.

What happens when the pipeline bursts? PLENTY of outdoors? That is rich. What's that stat? X or turtleneck shared it here once. It is really hard to get that far from civilization.

Which is more likely to burst?  A brand new heavily monitored pipeline or one of the 50 year old pipelines that it might put out of business?   Also with no pipelines the oil moves by rail and rail spillages are much more likely than pipeline spills.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

What happens when the pipeline bursts? PLENTY of outdoors? That is rich. What's that stat? X or turtleneck shared it here once. It is really hard to get that far from civilization.

Which is more likely to burst?  A brand new heavily monitored pipeline or one of the 50 year old pipelines that it might put out of business?   Also with no pipelines the oil moves by rail and rail spillages are much more likely than pipeline spills.

X + Y = Z (saying fuck oil it's time to invest in some real sustainable energy while not pissing off more disadvantaged populations of this country)

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Which is more likely to burst?  A brand new heavily monitored pipeline or one of the 50 year old pipelines that it might put out of business?   Also with no pipelines the oil moves by rail and rail spillages are much more likely than pipeline spills.

X + Y = Z (saying fuck oil it's time to invest in some real sustainable energy while not pissing off more disadvantaged populations of this country)

Do you have any idea how deeply oil is ingrained in your lifestyle?
Almost anything you deal with daily is affected by the oil industry and the cost of oil in some way.
The day is coming, but it's not nearly as close as you'd like.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

X + Y = Z (saying fuck oil it's time to invest in some real sustainable energy while not pissing off more disadvantaged populations of this country)

Do you have any idea how deeply oil is ingrained in your lifestyle?
Almost anything you deal with daily is affected by the oil industry and the cost of oil in some way.
The day is coming, but it's not nearly as close as you'd like.

Which is fine - it's obviously going to be a process..but creating a new pipeline? How do you expect me to get on board with that?

I have no problem with a pipeline, I do respect the indigenous peoples request to not build it through sacred land.

steveschneider wrote:I have no problem with a pipeline, I do respect the indigenous peoples request to not build it through sacred land.

I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Even rivers or lakes are negotiable. But come on. WTF is wrong with us?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

It will lower our energy costs. Plus there is PLENTY of outdoors. Suggesting a pipeline will prevent you from going outdoors, or fishing, or having clean water is idiotic.

What happens when the pipeline bursts? PLENTY of outdoors? That is rich. What's that stat? X or turtleneck shared it here once. It is really hard to get that far from civilization.

This is why trying to reasonably disagree with you is fruitless. LOL Believe what you want.

steveschneider wrote:I have no problem with a pipeline, I do respect the indigenous peoples request to not build it through sacred land.

It's not on their land though

The_Dude wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I have no problem with a pipeline, I do respect the indigenous peoples request to not build it through sacred land.

It's not on their land though

They claim it is all their land. I say let's give them back both coasts and call it good.

The_Dude wrote:

steveschneider wrote:I have no problem with a pipeline, I do respect the indigenous peoples request to not build it through sacred land.

It's not on their land though

Did I say it was? It's sacred land to them just build around it.

Everyone had an emotional reaction when Trump saved those 800 Carrier jobs the other week. Well here's an opportunity for Trump to give working class some more billable hours on the project. Just build around the area. It's that simple and then we can all spin that those pipeline workers are going to have an amazing Christmas because they have work.

More crony capitalism!

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

What happens when the pipeline bursts? PLENTY of outdoors? That is rich. What's that stat? X or turtleneck shared it here once. It is really hard to get that far from civilization.

This is why trying to reasonably disagree with you is fruitless. LOL Believe what you want.

Good response, lws, this is why you are so easy to have a discussion with........................................................................................................

Like wut? You didn't really have a response to my post so you fell back on the classic "it's not worth it". Okay.

steveschneider wrote:

The_Dude wrote:

It's not on their land though

Did I say it was? It's sacred land to them just build around it.

Everyone had an emotional reaction when Trump saved those 800 Carrier jobs the other week. Well here's an opportunity for Trump to give working class some more billable hours on the project. Just build around the area. It's that simple and then we can all spin that those pipeline workers are going to have an amazing Christmas because they have work.

More crony capitalism!

Is it that simple?

Seems anything but simple to me.

The_Dude wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Did I say it was? It's sacred land to them just build around it.

Everyone had an emotional reaction when Trump saved those 800 Carrier jobs the other week. Well here's an opportunity for Trump to give working class some more billable hours on the project. Just build around the area. It's that simple and then we can all spin that those pipeline workers are going to have an amazing Christmas because they have work.

More crony capitalism!

Is it that simple?

Seems anything but simple to me.

It's very simple.

"The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing," Darcy said in a statement.

-- Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army's assistant secretary for civil works

I could predict everyone of your opinions before opening this thread.

Herbie Green wrote:I could predict everyone of your opinions before opening this thread.

My opinion is that your post is full of crap.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

This is why trying to reasonably disagree with you is fruitless.  LOL Believe what you want.

Good response, lws, this is why you are so easy to have a discussion with........................................................................................................

Like wut? You didn't really have a response to my post so you fell back on the classic "it's not worth it". Okay.

Lack of intelligence and rational discourse leads to a lack of information, which can make communicating very difficult.

Some people don't know how to explain their anger because they don't understand themselves enough to verbalize it, others just don't have a broad enough vocabulary so they hit caps lock.

Current usage is a more important topic than simply wanting to use more because jobs and energy and those three trees I saw on the side of the road.