|
Post by slaytan on Nov 25, 2016 6:45:00 GMT -5
Post about it. I have read zero about it, and want to find out.
Here's what I smugly believe without any knowledge: the pipeline probably does not encroach on any Indian burial mounds, and whatever "sacred" land it crosses wasn't "sacred" before the day before the protest. I believe that the oil companies probably went out of their way to respect both Indian lands and environmental concerns
discuss. Let's see if I guessed right
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 10:26:27 GMT -5
They are saying that the river it crosses is sacred.
I think this is just more of Soros being a stupid dick.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Nov 25, 2016 12:55:39 GMT -5
Any body of water that beavers fuck in, can never be "sacred"
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Nov 25, 2016 15:18:52 GMT -5
Any body of water that beavers fuck in, can never be "sacred" They shit on it too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2016 15:46:13 GMT -5
Beaver: "What a joke of a river you are. You have a weak current and lack depth. You're almost a body of stagnant, putrid mud. Fuck you, you stupid faggot river." (Or maybe they shit IN the river instead?)
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 25, 2016 15:56:58 GMT -5
They have a few issues.
1. The company building the pipeline bribed the Army Corp of Engineers for environmental exemptions. Now because of that, where they are building, if anything happens, the tribe loses its source of water. 2. The company is violating the treaty of Fort Laramie. 3. The construction affects or destroys almost 400 something sites currently protected by the NHPA, something like 2 dozen of them are at this area of the rivers where they are protesting.
And all of this for a pipeline that isn't actually needed.
|
|
|
Post by maillesdad on Nov 25, 2016 23:49:33 GMT -5
They have a few issues. 1. The company building the pipeline bribed the Army Corp of Engineers for environmental exemptions. Now because of that, where they are building, if anything happens, the tribe loses its source of water. 2. The company is violating the treaty of Fort Laramie. 3. The construction affects or destroys almost 400 something sites currently protected by the NHPA, something like 2 dozen of them are at this area of the rivers where they are protesting. And all of this for a pipeline that isn't actually needed. Dammit Jackel, you made me read the Treaty of Ft. Laramie. Do you have sources for any of these? What article of the treaty is being violated? Some make an argument that the treaty requires the tribe to accept the pipeline based upon the 11th article of the Treaty - 'They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte River and westward to the Pacific Ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon-roads, mail-stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States'For Garth, a quick primer, minus the progressive hyperbole, at standingrockfactchecker.org/fact-checking-srst-claims-9-7-16/ supports your smug knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 26, 2016 0:03:19 GMT -5
They have a few issues. 1. The company building the pipeline bribed the Army Corp of Engineers for environmental exemptions. Now because of that, where they are building, if anything happens, the tribe loses its source of water. 2. The company is violating the treaty of Fort Laramie. 3. The construction affects or destroys almost 400 something sites currently protected by the NHPA, something like 2 dozen of them are at this area of the rivers where they are protesting. And all of this for a pipeline that isn't actually needed. Dammit Jackel, you made me read the Treaty of Ft. Laramie. Do you have sources for any of these? What article of the treaty is being violated? Some make an argument that the treaty requires the tribe to accept the pipeline based upon the 11th article of the Treaty - 'They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte River and westward to the Pacific Ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon-roads, mail-stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States'For Garth, a quick primer, minus the progressive hyperbole, at standingrockfactchecker.org/fact-checking-srst-claims-9-7-16/ supports your smug knowledge. I think you read the wrong one, there are two treaties, one from the 1850s one from the 1860s, the first one is the one they are violating. The land they are cutting through is land covered by that treaty digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0594.htm Basically it still their land, and while the US can forcibly allow some development, it is rather limited what they can.
|
|
|
Post by maillesdad on Nov 26, 2016 0:56:17 GMT -5
Dammit Jackel, you made me read the Treaty of Ft. Laramie. Do you have sources for any of these? What article of the treaty is being violated? Some make an argument that the treaty requires the tribe to accept the pipeline based upon the 11th article of the Treaty - 'They withdraw all pretence of opposition to the construction of the railroad now being built along the Platte River and westward to the Pacific Ocean, and they will not in future object to the construction of railroads, wagon-roads, mail-stations, or other works of utility or necessity, which may be ordered or permitted by the laws of the United States'For Garth, a quick primer, minus the progressive hyperbole, at standingrockfactchecker.org/fact-checking-srst-claims-9-7-16/ supports your smug knowledge. I think you read the wrong one, there are two treaties, one from the 1850s one from the 1860s, the first one is the one they are violating. The land they are cutting through is land covered by that treaty digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0594.htm Basically it still their land, and while the US can forcibly allow some development, it is rather limited what they can. Now you've made me read two treaties. At least the second one was short. There is nothing in the 1851 treaty that would contradict Article 11 of the later treaty. Do you have sources for either of your other two claims because they seem equally specious?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Nov 26, 2016 1:29:32 GMT -5
I think you read the wrong one, there are two treaties, one from the 1850s one from the 1860s, the first one is the one they are violating. The land they are cutting through is land covered by that treaty digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0594.htm Basically it still their land, and while the US can forcibly allow some development, it is rather limited what they can. Now you've made me read two treaties. At least the second one was short. There is nothing in the 1851 treaty that would contradict Article 11 of the later treaty. Do you have sources for either of your other two claims because they seem equally specious? Well they brought it up in court, but the court literally didn't acknowledge the treaty. I think a new hearing is set. This is all pointless though as there is no need for the pipeline in the first place, so why risk an entire community's water access?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Nov 26, 2016 13:23:23 GMT -5
They are saying that the river it crosses is sacred. I think this is just more of Soros being a stupid dick. Eight pipelines currently cross that same river, and the alternative is getting the oil out by railroad, which is exponentially more costly, environmentally impact, and dangerous in terms of spill risk. This whole thing is virtue signaling from bored natives who have been drinking themselves to death for 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by TitoOrtizIsAPunk on Nov 26, 2016 13:32:56 GMT -5
Do you have sources for either of your other two claims because they seem equally specious? This made me chuckle... Are you new here?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 13:23:41 GMT -5
Do you have sources for either of your other two claims because they seem equally specious? This made me chuckle... Are you new here? I was gonna let the new guy know, dont bother...jackel can go all day.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 3, 2016 21:57:19 GMT -5
3,500 vets are now joining the protests to form a front line between the protesters and the various security forces and police.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 4, 2016 18:02:38 GMT -5
Well they temporarily halted everything, the Army has ordered a full EIS (as they should have done in the first place) and it is expected to result in them being denied to lay the pipe in the area.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 4, 2016 19:14:11 GMT -5
OJ found innocent v. 2.0
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 4, 2016 20:07:15 GMT -5
If they went by the standard protocol for this pipeline, it never would have been built through the area in question. The only reason it was adjusted to go through there was to cut costs and they bribed people to get permission to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 4, 2016 20:18:33 GMT -5
I'm happy to see so many of my liberal friend now militant believers in opposing imminent domain and supporting sovereignty and private property rights. I also know a PR spectacle when I see one.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 4, 2016 20:27:50 GMT -5
I'm happy to see so many of my liberal friend now militant believers in opposing imminent domain and supporting sovereignty and private property rights. I also know a PR spectacle when I see one. Had nothing to do with eminent domain, if that is what they are screaming about they are idiots and trying to bandwagon onto a protest. Not only can eminent domain not be used for Indian held land, but it wasn't used in this case anyways. The issue was they literally paid to have an exemption that nobody else could get in order to A. Not only build something that isn't needed but also B. Has a high risk of causing irreversible environmental damage to the region so far as to remove the ability for the tribe to care for itself. If ETP followed the rules/protocol that all businesses are supposed to follow, this NEVER would have been an issue. However with various payoffs (I believe the Clinton Foundation was involved actually in this, no shock there), they were able to be placed above the law and go through with this in the first place. It took over 3000 military vets getting involved that the Army FINALLY says sorry, we'll go by the book.
|
|