• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protest against Dakota Pipeline

TheGoverness said:
Nope. English is all I really know. I know like a very, very miniscule amount of Japansese.

When it comes to other languages, GF's tried to teach me Spanish before, but it's just too difficult for me. Neither did I learn how to really speak Spanish from my foreign language class in HS.
Click to expand...

As with any language, exquisite pronunciation is the key.
 
So proud of these indigenous people and their principled stance.
 
American said:


What say ye?
Click to expand...


I don't really understand the legal justification for a private US corporation entering into the sovereign land of Native Americans/Indians. I really, genuinely don't know how that's legal. Because if there is a legal case to be made for some kind of eminent domain, then that legal argument should be made illegal with a law. For those that don't know, the pipeline they are putting into the Dakota Pipeline (this is, as I understand it, an offshoot of the failed Keystone XL Pipeline, but don't quote me on this) is the same as another Dakota pipeline that had over 200 major and minor spills in the last two years --and this Dakota Pipeline is being build directly over their only water source. It's also my understanding that it also extends into their sovereign territory. It's also noteworthy that the Dakota Pipeline was originally going to go through a town north of this Native American/Indian sovereign lands --but that city fought and refused to allow the oil company access to their city precisely because they didn't want to have to deal with water contamination and the costs of keeping their water clean. The Native Americans/Indians in this territory are largely impoverished, therefore they won't even be able to pay more for clean water. It's like the ultimate case of capitalism ignoring externalities, and shifting their manufacturing/shipping costs onto unconsenting external groups.

It's pretty wildly unacceptable that the US is still abusing the lands of Native Americans/Indians --and that doesn't even get into the fact that we need to be investing in nuclear, solar, wind, and other alternative energies, not more oil.

So this all seems morally bankrupt and very stupid to me.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I don't really understand the legal justification for a private US corporation entering into the sovereign land of Native Americans/Indians. I really, genuinely don't know how that's legal. Because if there is a legal case to be made for some kind of eminent domain, then that legal argument should be made illegal with a law. For those that don't know, the pipeline they are putting into the Dakota Pipeline (this is, as I understand it, an offshoot of the failed Keystone XL Pipeline, but don't quote me on this) is the same as another Dakota pipeline that had over 200 major and minor spills in the last two years --and this Dakota Pipeline is being build directly over their only water source. It's also my understanding that it also extends into their sovereign territory. It's also noteworthy that the Dakota Pipeline was originally going to go through a town north of this Native American/Indian sovereign lands --but that city fought and refused to allow the oil company access to their city precisely because they didn't want to have to deal with water contamination and the costs of keeping their water clean. The Native Americans/Indians in this territory are largely impoverished, therefore they won't even be able to pay more for clean water. It's like the ultimate case of capitalism ignoring externalities, and shifting their manufacturing/shipping costs onto unconsenting external groups.

It's pretty wildly unacceptable that the US is still abusing the lands of Native Americans/Indians --and that doesn't even get into the fact that we need to be investing in nuclear, solar, wind, and other alternative energies, not more oil.

So this all seems morally bankrupt and very stupid to me.
Click to expand...

The problem with this video is that it only gives one side of the story. I'm thinking there are a lot of facts that this video doesn't present.

Now, me? I don't care about this issue to investigate, but if any of y'all do care I suggest you get all sides of the story before settling on a position. Any other course of action is just being intellectually dishonest.
 
Mycroft said:
The problem with this video is that it only gives one side of the story. I'm thinking there are a lot of facts that this video doesn't present.

Now, me? I don't care about this issue to investigate, but if any of y'all do care I suggest you get all sides of the story before settling on a position. Any other course of action is just being intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the video, I wrote that post from my recollection of what I've read about this.


EMNofSeattle said:
Oil is not safest in the ground, because we need it to run everything in modern society, and you understood that, don't BS me.
Click to expand...

The only one BSing right now is you. Yes, we need oil --no, most of the oil for the Dakota Pipeline is not slated for domestic, American use but instead is slated for foreign markets. No, we do not need all of the oil out of the ground. Yes, global warming and other pollution from oil is real. The money going into the Keystone XL/Dakota Pipelines and all of this effort should have been placed into the development and construction of alternative energy sources.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I didn't watch the video, I wrote that post from my recollection of what I've read about this.




The only one BSing right now is you. Yes, we need oil --no, most of the oil for the Dakota Pipeline is not slated for domestic, American use but instead is slated for foreign markets. No, we do not need all of the oil out of the ground. Yes, global warming and other pollution from oil is real. The money going into the Keystone XL/Dakota Pipelines and all of this effort should have been placed into the development and construction of alternative energy sources.
Click to expand...

The amount of money in the Dakota line is nothing compared to what it would cost to make any "alternative energy" anything near practical.

as far as export, everyone needs oil. who cares if its exported? more $$$ for north american economy is ok with me.
 
American said:
B b b but what about the Native Americans?
Click to expand...

Deliver to them some blankets infested with fleas, and let God sort 'em out. It's the American way, ain't it?
 
Rail cars carrying oil will likely burn themselves out in a derailment. If not, at least the spill can be immediately canvassed and cleaned. These pipes that are a couple of feet off of the ground leak for years without it coming to anyones attention, until it's in the water. The Oghalala(sp) underground reservoir that they are trying to protect in the Dakotas is the same one that we use for water in central Texas.
 
IIRC, the pipeline doesn't even go on their land. It passes 1 mile from their property so I fail to see what their problem is.
 
SMTA said:
You just can't help being an offensive little prick, can you?
Click to expand...

I notice you said zero to Thoreau; it's called hypocrisy. You do know that my sarcasm was pointed at him? Nah, not you.
 
Fishking said:
IIRC, the pipeline doesn't even go on their land. It passes 1 mile from their property so I fail to see what their problem is.
Click to expand...

Probably most white guys have no appreciation of what's left of their culture, myself included.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Probably most white guys have no appreciation of what's left of their culture, myself included.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I mean, I appreciate the culture, to some degree, but that's not even really part of the equation here. I don't think the pipeline is even on their land, it just goes by it.
 
American said:
I notice you said zero to Thoreau; it's called hypocrisy. You do know that my sarcasm was pointed at him? Nah, not you.
Click to expand...

All of your comments in this thread have been inappropriate.

Don't try and cover up now with a lie - be man enough to own your words.
 
SMTA said:
All of your comments in this thread have been inappropriate.

Don't try and cover up now with a lie - be man enough to own your words.
Click to expand...

Feeling the competition. You have yet to post anything appropriate other than your snide little snooty ****. Find someone else's leg to nibble on.
 
American said:
Feeling the competition. You have yet to post anything appropriate other than your snide little snooty ****. Find someone else's leg to nibble on.
Click to expand...

You can slither around all you want - it still does not excuse your words here.

You should be ashamed and embarrassed.

And you have yet to have the spine to actually render an opinion here.

Your lack of engagement in any thread is always constant.
 
one has to wonder why they can't build the pipeline around the camp
 
Fishking said:
I don't know. I mean, I appreciate the culture, to some degree, but that's not even really part of the equation here. I don't think the pipeline is even on their land, it just goes by it.
Click to expand...

I guess it all goes back to exactly what is "their land". I suspect their land is what the government in Washington said was their land, and that was most likely not an accurate representation in their view.

IOW, I suspect the land in question was very much their land until the government said otherwise. They already had their sacred burial sites and other things, but the government said otherwise. I'm just guessing on that.
 
Masterhawk said:
one has to wonder why they can't build the pipeline around the camp
Click to expand...

Well, from what I gather from that one-sided video, the Indians set up that camp at the site of the pipeline. Nobody built the pipeline through their camp.

So...it would stand to reason that if they decided to build the pipeline around that camp, the Indians would just move their camp.
 
jamesrage said:
I have no problem with the pipeline as long as eminent domain was not used to take the land for the pipeline.
Click to expand...

Eminent domain is really the only way these projects work.
 
blarg said:
if they dont want it on ther land then more power to them
Click to expand...

I heard on the radio this pipeline was re-routed away from a wealthier community. I'm sure the potential for a lawsuit had nothing to do with it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom