The armed white guys got off, the peaceful red guys are getting arrested in droves.

xsanguine wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

You're the only one generalizing white people.

I am? I was taking your lead

Rocinante wrote:
And that is the most typical white response ever.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Are you disputing the truth of it?

Listen, simpleton. If there were white people exercising civil disobedience in the face of what they felt was an unjust situation.... You're damn right I think they'd be treated differently.

You want to narrowly define it as "derp don't break the law and you won't get in trouble" that's just you putting your white blinders on and being willfully ignorant. So basically fuck you if you're going to do that.

Rocinante wrote:You're the only one generalizing white people.

Turtleneck wrote:

DWags wrote:

Isn't this also for a for profit company and not a public entity

Eminent domain is not limited to public projects. Eminent domain can be exercised when the project is private development assumed to serve a public purpose. This comes from Kelo v. City of New London (2005) when the Supreme Court upheld eminent domain being used to seize property for a private condominium and hotel project in New London, CT.

DWags wrote:There have been 3,300 incidents of leaks in pipelines since 2010. The pipeline is going under the main source of drinking water for ten thousand people. It also is going to go either near by or on a burial ground.

I try to be objective in these things. I get eminent domain shit, and it is important. But I wonder how I'd react and what I'd do if it went under my drinking water source and was pumping that shit through my dads cemetery or near it. Regardless of my skin color I might revert to civil disobedience too.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Eminent domain is not limited to public projects. Eminent domain can be exercised when the project is private development assumed to serve a public purpose. This comes from Kelo v. City of New London (2005) when the Supreme Court upheld eminent domain being used to seize property for a private condominium and hotel project in New London, CT.

Kelo was a travesty of justice.   And was never built, just destroyed the neighborhood.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Kelo was a travesty of justice.   And was never built, just destroyed the neighborhood.

I did not know it was built! Wow. That really is terrible. Poor Ms. Kelo lost her house for nothing.

The administration first delayed the permit for the pipeline on environmental grounds, but has left the door open to future proposals for Keystone’s northern route. Construction on the southern route is already underway, sparking fierce opposition from some landowners and environmentalists.

The problem, protesters say, is that any route will pose hazards to the public. While pipeline operator TransCanada has declared that Keystone will be the safest pipeline ever built in North America, critics are skeptical.

“It's inevitable that as pipelines age, as they are exposed to the elements, eventually they are going to spill,” said Tony Iallonardo of the National Wildlife Federation. “They’re ticking time bombs."

Critics of the Keystone proposal point to the hundreds of pipeline accidents that occur every year. They charge that system wide, antiquated pipes, minimal oversight and inadequate precautions put the public and the environment at increasing risk. Pipeline operators point to billions of dollars spent on new technologies and a gradual improvement over the last two decades as proof of their commitment to safety.

Pipelines are generally regarded as a safe way to transport fuel, a far better alternative to tanker trucks or freight trains. The risks inherent in transporting fuel through pipelines are analogous to the risks inherent in traveling by airplane. Airplanes are safer than cars, which kill about 70 times as many people a year (highway accidents killed about 33,000 people in 2010, while aviation accidents killed 472). But when an airplane crashes, it is much more deadly than any single car accident, demands much more attention, and initiates large investigations to determine precisely what went wrong.

The same holds true for pipelines. Based on fatality statistics from 2005 through 2009, oil pipelines are roughly 70 times as safe as trucks, which killed four times as many people during those years, despite transporting only a tiny fraction of fuel shipments. But when a pipeline does fail, the consequences can be catastrophic (though typically less so than airplane accidents), with the very deadliest accidents garnering media attention and sometimes leading to a federal investigation.

Other measures focus on preventing leaks and ruptures in the first place. The industry already uses robotic devices called "smart pigs" to crawl through a pipeline, clearing debris and taking measurements to detect any problems. But not all pipelines can accommodate smart pigs, and operators don’t routinely run the devices through every line.

Just last month, a smart pig detected a “small anomaly” in the existing Keystone pipeline, prompting TransCanada to shut down the entire line. Environmentalists pointed out that this is not the first time TransCananda has called for a shut down, and won’t be the last.

LooseGoose wrote:Well a Google search tells me the "3300 leaks" statistic comes from here:

Map Displays Five Years of Oil Pipeline Spills

You can't see the underlying data. My guess is that the huge majority of those leaks are drips like your garage floor. So yes, a leak but far from a disaster. If someone has access to their data I'd love to see it.

Here are a couple of other views:

1st up from ThinkProgress which would generally make Bob look like a conservative:

Data: Oil Trains Spill More Often, But Pipelines Spill Bigger

They are for trains then no oil. Might make things safer but that's not happening for a long time.

And then ProPublica:

Pipelines Explained: How Safe are America’s 2.5 Million Miles of Pipelines

The administration first delayed the permit for the pipeline on environmental grounds, but has left the door open to future proposals for Keystone’s northern route. Construction on the southern route is already underway, sparking fierce opposition from some landowners and environmentalists.

The problem, protesters say, is that any route will pose hazards to the public. While pipeline operator TransCanada has declared that Keystone will be the safest pipeline ever built in North America, critics are skeptical.

“It's inevitable that as pipelines age, as they are exposed to the elements, eventually they are going to spill,” said Tony Iallonardo of the National Wildlife Federation. “They’re ticking time bombs."

Critics of the Keystone proposal point to the hundreds of pipeline accidents that occur every year. They charge that system wide, antiquated pipes, minimal oversight and inadequate precautions put the public and the environment at increasing risk. Pipeline operators point to billions of dollars spent on new technologies and a gradual improvement over the last two decades as proof of their commitment to safety.

Pipelines are generally regarded as a safe way to transport fuel, a far better alternative to tanker trucks or freight trains. The risks inherent in transporting fuel through pipelines are analogous to the risks inherent in traveling by airplane. Airplanes are safer than cars, which kill about 70 times as many people a year (highway accidents killed about 33,000 people in 2010, while aviation accidents killed 472). But when an airplane crashes, it is much more deadly than any single car accident, demands much more attention, and initiates large investigations to determine precisely what went wrong.

The same holds true for pipelines. Based on fatality statistics from 2005 through 2009, oil pipelines are roughly 70 times as safe as trucks, which killed four times as many people during those years, despite transporting only a tiny fraction of fuel shipments. But when a pipeline does fail, the consequences can be catastrophic (though typically less so than airplane accidents), with the very deadliest accidents garnering media attention and sometimes leading to a federal investigation.

Other measures focus on preventing leaks and ruptures in the first place. The industry already uses robotic devices called "smart pigs" to crawl through a pipeline, clearing debris and taking measurements to detect any problems. But not all pipelines can accommodate smart pigs, and operators don’t routinely run the devices through every line.

Just last month, a smart pig detected a “small anomaly” in the existing Keystone pipeline, prompting TransCanada to shut down the entire line. Environmentalists pointed out that this is not the first time TransCananda has called for a shut down, and won’t be the last.

And again in that last paragraph "environmentalists" seem upset that pipeline operators are using new technology to monitor and fix pipelines. I guess a problem fixed before it becomes a leak ruins their protest. Hypocrites.

DWags wrote:Can you honestly say you'd be happy with that under your water source? Dad's gravesite? You can guarantee me safety, that wouldn't please me at all. It's not there for a year, but decades. How much more would it cost to divert it?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:Can you honestly say you'd be happy with that under your water source? Dad's gravesite? You can guarantee me safety, that wouldn't please me at all. It's not there for a year, but decades. How much more would it cost to divert it?

Wags? There already are pipelines under us all over the US. Building new, safer pipelines to replace old ones makes sense.

Divert it to where? There's always going to be someone yelling NIMBY.

xsanguine wrote:It's okay to generalize whites cause it earns you points with your "team", which is what matters when you have a strong desire to be part of a group. Must be that cuckold gene.... hence, white people are pussies.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Wags? There already are pipelines under us all over the US. Building new, safer pipelines to replace old ones makes sense.

Divert it to where? There's always going to be someone yelling NIMBY.

I'm asking you goose. Would you like it at your dad's grave or under your water source?

Rocinante wrote:So again I will point out that my point is not that pipeline are right or wrong. I work in the energy industry. It's the huge difference in how the white power structure treats non white civil disobedience.

xsanguine wrote:The existing one seems to miss us by a few states

xsanguine wrote:I know. I'm just being a contrarian dick like usual.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:I know. I'm just being a contrarian dick like usual.

No you're being willfully ignorant. Oppression is deplorable no matter what color it comes in. We live in America, so on the largest, most deep seeded way, it's white. You know this. Theorizing here: I think your decision to deny or ignore or make light of it is rooted in a fear that if the white power structure didn't exist, you'd have trouble competing.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

I'm asking you goose. Would you like it at your dad's grave or under your water source?

Well my Dad doesn't have a grave, nor will I so that's not a good example for me. And as stated earlier there are already pipelines under the Great Lakes (the source of water for much of the State) and crisscrossing the state. There's a large pipeline just west of me so again depending on the spill that situation already exists.

The solution is to monitor the pipelines we have better and build new ones to replace the old ones.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Well my Dad doesn't have a grave, nor will I so that's not a good example for me. And as stated earlier there are already pipelines under the Great Lakes (the source of water for much of the State) and crisscrossing the state. There's a large pipeline just west of me so again depending on the spill that situation already exists.

The solution is to monitor the pipelines we have better and build new ones to replace the old ones.

I know. However it's just a yes or no.

xsanguine wrote:Just face it, roc. All you see is race. Instead of focusing on the root of the problem you fixate on aesthetics. You're never going to solve any of the problems if you scratch the surface and think you struck gold with the problem. Just like these guys said in another thread (or maybe this one), you can replace 100% of the people in government and the problem will re manifest itself over a short time. You can fight for eliminating white people from this power structure and all you're going to get is another oppressive system that just looks darker.

Rocinante wrote:

xsanguine wrote:Just face it, roc. All you see is race. Instead of focusing on the root of the problem you fixate on aesthetics. You're never going to solve any of the problems if you scratch the surface and think you struck gold with the problem. Just like these guys said in another thread (or maybe this one), you can replace 100% of the people in government and the problem will re manifest itself over a short time. You can fight for eliminating white people from this power structure and all you're going to get is another oppressive system that just looks darker.

And now we begin the long nightmarish descent into your libertarian wet dream...