I dunno I mean I guess she's available after breaking up with that older man but she seems crazy to me...or some kind of daddy issues.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Dakota Access Pipeline https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=103618 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Brick [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Dakota Access Pipeline |
What is the deal with this thing? Is this a big deal or is this just another Facebook slacktivism thing? Seems like this is what the Berniebros on my timeline have latched onto. Should us normal people care? |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Per https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/52wshk/what_is_going_on_with_the_dakota_pipeline/ (two months old btw) Top post summary: It's been a months long protest against a multi billion dollar oil pipeline project called the Dakota Access Pipeline, backed by the oil company Energy Transfer Partners. The site of the protest is the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux and it's the largest gathering of Native Americans within the last 100 years. Four tribes have come together to protest against the project. On September 9th, a federal judge denied the tribes' legal request to temporarily stop the pipeline. Despite this, the DOJ has stepped in saying the the Corps of Engineers will at least temporarily halt authorization for construction while it reviews previous decisions to construct the pipeline around Lake Oahe. Tensions have been growing and National Guard troops have been activated in North Dakota. Private security firms have been hired by the oil company to be on scene at the protest and many protesters (including children) have been bitten by dogs, pepper sprayed and violence continues to escalate. The Sioux are claiming that bulldozers have already desecrated sacred burial grounds. They are worried that the pipeline will negatively impact water quality, damage the environment and destroy cultural heritage sites. Supporters of the pipeline claim it will create thousands of jobs and combat poverty on the reservation and in surrounding areas. In regards to Obama, he visited Standing Rock in June of 2014 and promised to do more for the tribe and other Native American communities. Opponents of the pipeline see the intervention of the Dept of Justice as effort to live up to his pledge. His administration also announced they would not be granting a permit for a key portion of the project near Sioux land until further and extensive review. Edit: It is also being debated whether the pipeline is actually running through Sioux lands or around it. Edit 2: It is being said that the sites that the Sioux are claiming as sacred were recently discovered. Papers were filed with the courts claiming this and petitioning for protection one day before the sites were razed. It has been claimed that the court somehow misplaced these documents (some even feel it was intentional) and the sites were bulldozed vindictively. Edit 3: It is also being claimed that the Sioux had ample time to give their input to officials regarding the construction of the pipeline but declined to do so or simply did not show up for meetings. Edit 4: The Native Americans are referring to themselves as protectors and not as protesters. Edit 5: According to this petition, "the Dakota Access pipeline is set to be constructed near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota, crossing under the Missouri River which is the only source of water to the reservation. The pipeline is planned to transport approximately 470,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The potential of oil leaks would contaminate the only source of water for the reservation." ------------- One can make of this what they will ... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/25/donald-trump-stock-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-comp/ By Matthew Daly - Associated Press - Friday, November 25, 2016 WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump holds stock in the company building the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline, and pipeline opponents warn that Trump’s investments could affect any decision he makes on the $3.8 billion project as president. Trump’s 2016 federal disclosure forms show he owned between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners. That’s down from between $500,000 and $1 million a year earlier. Trump also owns between $100,000 and $250,000 in Phillips 66, which has a one-quarter share of Dakota Access. While Trump’s stake in the pipeline company is modest compared with his other assets, ethics experts say it’s among dozens of potential conflicts that could be resolved by placing his investments in a blind trust, a step Trump has resisted. The Obama administration said this month it wants more study and tribal input before deciding whether to allow the partially built pipeline to cross under a Missouri River reservoir in North Dakota. The 1,200-mile pipeline would carry oil across four states to a shipping point in Illinois. The project has been held up while the Army Corps of Engineers consults with the Standing Rock Sioux, who believe the project could harm the tribe’s drinking water and Native American cultural sites. The delay, which comes as protests unfold daily along the proposed route, raises the likelihood that a final decision will be made by Trump, a pipeline supporter who has vowed to “unleash” unfettered production of oil and gas. He takes office in January. “Trump’s investments in the pipeline business threaten to undercut faith in this process — which was already frayed — by interjecting his own financial well-being into a much bigger decision,” said Sharon Buccino, director of the land and wildlife program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. “This should be about the interests of the many, rather than giving the appearance of looking at the interests of a few — including Trump,” Buccino said. Trump, a billionaire who has never held public office, holds ownership stakes in more than 500 companies worldwide. He has said he plans to transfer control of his company to three of his adult children, but ethics experts have said conflicts could engulf the new administration if Trump does not liquidate his business holdings. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., senior Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, called Trump’s investment in the pipeline company “disturbing” and said it fits a pattern evident in Trump’s transition team. “You have climate (change) deniers, industry lobbyists and energy conglomerates involved in that process,” Grijalva said. “The pipeline companies are gleeful. This is pay-to-play at its rawest.” Besides Trump, at least two possible candidates for energy secretary also could benefit from the pipeline. Oil billionaire Harold Hamm could ship oil from his company, Continental Resources, through the pipeline, while former Texas Gov. Rick Perry serves on the board of directors of Energy Transfer Partners. Concern about Trump’s possible conflicts comes as protests over the pipeline have intensified in recent weeks, with total arrests since August rising to 528. A clash this past week near the main protest camp in North Dakota left a police officer and several protesters injured. North Dakota Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple, along with GOP Sen. John Hoeven and Rep. Kevin Cramer, called on President Barack Obama to authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the pipeline crossing, the last large segment of the nearly completed pipeline. Kelcy Warren, CEO of Dallas-based Energy Transfer, told The Associated Press that he expects Trump to make it easier for his company and others to complete infrastructure projects. “Do I think it’s going to get easier? Of course,” said Warren, who donated $3,000 to Trump’s campaign, plus $100,000 to a committee supporting Trump’s candidacy and $66,800 to the Republican National Committee. “If you’re in the infrastructure business,” he said, “you need consistency. That’s where this process has gotten off track.” The Army Corps of Engineers granted Warren’s company the permits needed for the crossing in July, but the agency decided in September that further analysis was warranted, given the tribe’s concerns. On Nov. 14, the corps called for even more study. The company has asked a federal judge to declare it has the right to lay pipe under Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir in southern North Dakota. The judge isn’t likely to issue a decision until January at the earliest. |
|
| Author: | spmack [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
I dunno I mean I guess she's available after breaking up with that older man but she seems crazy to me...or some kind of daddy issues.
|
|
| Author: | redskingreg [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
|
|
| Author: | Management [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
spmack wrote: I dunno I mean I guess she's available after breaking up with that older man but she seems crazy to me...or some kind of daddy issues. Management respectfully requests that Mr. Spmack indulge his John Creasy fantasy off the board. Sincerely, Management |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No |
|
| Author: | redskingreg [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
sjboyd0137 wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No Must be nice to be a white male! This pipeline literally affects women's bodies! |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
redskingreg wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No Must be nice to be a white male! This pipeline literally affects women's bodies! Are they slathering themselves in this oil? Or do you only care because you, the beta, was told by your lady that you are supposed to care? |
|
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Is this a big deal or is this just another Facebook slacktivism thing? Federal government: "We're gonna run this oil pipeline through your land, that okay with you guys?" Standing Rock Sioux: "No, that might contaminate our water supply." Federal government: "Oh, well, we're gonna do it anyway." Standing Rock Sioux: "We have a treaty that grants us sovereignty over our reservation." Federal government: "Okay, we're still gonna do it anyway." While there's been slacktivism for sure (checking in to "fool" the NSA), there have been real sacrifices. The cops blew a woman's arm off with a grenade. I didn't even think cops could throw grenades. |
|
| Author: | redskingreg [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
sjboyd0137 wrote: redskingreg wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No Must be nice to be a white male! This pipeline literally affects women's bodies! Are they slathering themselves in this oil? Or do you only care because you, the beta, was told by your lady that you are supposed to care? Was trying to take an SJW angle, you white having-all-the-advantages-in-the-world male! |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
redskingreg wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: redskingreg wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No Must be nice to be a white male! This pipeline literally affects women's bodies! Are they slathering themselves in this oil? Or do you only care because you, the beta, was told by your lady that you are supposed to care? Was trying to take an SJW angle, you white having-all-the-advantages-in-the-world male!  Oh, I get it...you think because you're a fan of the OffensiveSkins, you must take up the cause? Fucking millennials. |
|
| Author: | redskingreg [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Within the last two weeks, I've had an Indian and Mexican tell me "Go Redskins" when they see my hat. #MoreThanOkay |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
redskingreg wrote: Within the last two weeks, I've had an Indian and Mexican tell me "Go Redskins" when they see my hat. #MoreThanOkay When the alternative is the Dallas Cowboys, I think everyone except front runners would rather see the Redskins win. |
|
| Author: | TurdFerguson [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Upon hearing my SJW sister-in-law was wanting to join the protesters I knew where to side. I did google it last night and read the plan calls for it to be built in tandem with an existing natural gas pipe line from the early 80's. Running them on existing easements typically prevents this crap, but apparently not well enough this time. |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Curious Hair wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Is this a big deal or is this just another Facebook slacktivism thing? Federal government: "We're gonna run this oil pipeline through your land, that okay with you guys?" Standing Rock Sioux: "No, that might contaminate our water supply." Federal government: "Oh, well, we're gonna do it anyway." Standing Rock Sioux: "We have a treaty that grants us sovereignty over our reservation." Federal government: "Okay, we're still gonna do it anyway." I thought the plans called for the pipeline to be built on US soil, though, and not sovereign Sioux land? |
|
| Author: | Tall Midget [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
sjboyd0137 wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No Why not? |
|
| Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Tall Midget wrote: sjboyd0137 wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: Should us normal people care? No Why not? I was being a dick. I honestly have no feeling on it besides basic indifference. |
|
| Author: | Hatchetman [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
I'm just a little curious if we are now putting back into effect every treaty the US govt. made with tribes that were later reneged on. If so, I think we may all be homeless. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
A guy at the corner of Milwaukee and Devon holds up a sign every Saturday protesting the pipeline. It seems like an ineffective form of protest but I give him a "right on brother" honk just to show appreciation for the effort. |
|
| Author: | Bagels [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Hatchetman wrote: I'm just a little curious if we are now putting back into effect every treaty the US govt. made with tribes that were later reneged on. If so, I think we may all be homeless. We had a deal. Are you reneging out of the deal? Are you reneging? That's a renege |
|
| Author: | Don Tiny [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 4:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Bagels wrote: Hatchetman wrote: I'm just a little curious if we are now putting back into effect every treaty the US govt. made with tribes that were later reneged on. If so, I think we may all be homeless. We had a deal. Are you reneging out of the deal? Are you reneging? That's a renege Racist x3. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Why don't they just move? |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Why don't they just move? Yup. Give 'em Rockford and call it a day. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: What is the deal with this thing? Is this a big deal or is this just another Facebook slacktivism thing? Seems like this is what the Berniebros on my timeline have latched onto. Should us normal people care? Bernie's free education would have taught you not to use "us" as a subjective noun. |
|
| Author: | Jbi11s [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
As the only member of the board who works and lives in ND for 10 months of the year I have gathered some insight on this situation. First off, the protest is about 3 and a half hours south east of me. For reference, all the extractable oil in ND right now is located in the far west of the state. The Dakota access pipeline is basically a way to transport oil from one point of the country to the other. There is no frackable oil in the area of the protest. So, here's what I've heard. There was an offer made to the reservation this pipeline was originally supposed to be located on. The Res countered, and the contractors of this pipeline scoffed. They decided to reroute the pipeline off Res land, but this still led it under a river/water source for the Res. So, if you look at it from the anti protest the Indians are pissed because they missed out on a big pay day, and the pipeline isn't even running under any surveyed Res land. So, to me, anyone jumping on board who resides outside of the Res seems so ridiculously pretentious it hurts my soul. If you look at it from the protest angle big oil could potentially seriously contaminate the drinking water of an entire Reservation. The chances of this are so minimal tho. Honestly, I work in this industry, but I'm not naive to the environmental hazards it brings to the environment. I'm indifferent if the pipeline is completed or not. |
|
| Author: | Frank Coztansa [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
redskingreg wrote: Within the last two weeks, I've had an Indian and Mexican tell me "Go Redskins" when they see my hat. #MoreThanOkay Was it a real, live 100% Mexican American? |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Jbi11s wrote: If you look at it from the protest angle big oil could potentially seriously contaminate the drinking water of an entire Reservation. The chances of this are so minimal tho. I can't imagine this to be very comforting for the ones living there. "I might kill you and everyone you love, but the chances are minimal, believe me." |
|
| Author: | Jbi11s [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
FavreFan wrote: Jbi11s wrote: If you look at it from the protest angle big oil could potentially seriously contaminate the drinking water of an entire Reservation. The chances of this are so minimal tho. I can't imagine this to be very comforting for the ones living there. "I might kill you and everyone you love, but the chances are minimal, believe me." It really is 99.9% safe, honestly FF. Like I said tho, whichever way this goes I'm good with it. Whoever wins, we all lose. Look at it like this. If these Natives would have been granted the 8 figure proposal they countered with, do you think they would be out here protesting? |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
Jbi11s wrote: FavreFan wrote: Jbi11s wrote: If you look at it from the protest angle big oil could potentially seriously contaminate the drinking water of an entire Reservation. The chances of this are so minimal tho. I can't imagine this to be very comforting for the ones living there. "I might kill you and everyone you love, but the chances are minimal, believe me." It really is 99.9% safe, honestly FF. Like I said tho, whichever way this goes I'm good with it. Whoever wins, we all lose. Look at it like this. If these Natives would have been granted the 8 figure proposal they countered with, do you think they would be out here protesting? Maybe, maybe not. I'm guessing they had their reasons for turning the offer down. But I'm never gonna side with people who are 1.) potentially poisoning an entire living area's water supply, 2.) getting hired goons to assault elderly women and children who are protesting. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Dakota Access Pipeline |
FavreFan wrote: Jbi11s wrote: If you look at it from the protest angle big oil could potentially seriously contaminate the drinking water of an entire Reservation. The chances of this are so minimal tho. I can't imagine this to be very comforting for the ones living there. "I might kill you and everyone you love, but the chances are minimal, believe me." Do you think the Feds should nix it? |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|