Hello Keystone pipeline

Belk said:

So who cares if they are actually wanting to allow it across their land? It is good for them even if they don't want it? Is this your claim?

Click to expand...

Who cares if a freeway has got to go across your land? Betcha money it's going there whether you like it or not. That's my claim.

Great news for China and Canada!

rturner76 said:

Do you understand what a contract is? Do you understand what a sovereign nation it? Do you understand what a treaty is? The government of the United States signed a contract with the legal first inhabitants of that. It was called a Peace Treaty. This Treaty created a sovereign nation that is not a part of the Unites States but resides within the United States. That land is their own country. A sovereign nation with a right to exist unmolested by the corporations of America. Donald J Trump is committing a criminal act by breaking the treaties that have been established since the1800's. This criminal act is another link in the white supremacist chain that is fastened to this country's government which will always seek to marginalize people of color and especially the indigenous people that are the original inhabitants of this land. This country owes them more land, not pollution and destruction of the land of their ancestors

Click to expand...

According to Article VI of the United States Constitution: "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" The US government repeatedly violated the treaties it signed with the Indian Nations. The Indians were either forcibly removed or murdered for their land in a country claiming to be founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all. However, neither freedom, liberty, justice or US citizenship was granted to Native Americans until 148 years after this country was founded, not until the American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. But religious freedom was not granted to Native Americans until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Less than 40 years ago.

roamer_1 said:

Great! some other dude on the internet has spoken!

Click to expand...

Great. Now that you've gotten the "I know you are, but what am I" portion of your post out of your system, how about you explain why we should take your opinion on climate science seriously?

roamer_1 said:

No, it isn't a fact.

Click to expand...

You're very confused - "isn't happening now" and "hasn't happened yet" do not mean it will not happen at some point. The fact is fossil fuels take a long time to form and that we are using them at a rate which will deplete them.

roamer_1 said:

Peak oil was supposed to happen in the eighties, man (just like global cooling, which by the nineties was global warming, which then became climate change... all of which are measured in tiny fractions of degrees.).

Click to expand...

Oh wow. You're even more confused than it first appeared.

1. The myth of global warming was propigated by the popular press in the 1970s.
2. There was no consensus about cooling and in fact the majority of the papers published during the 1970s predicted warming as a near term trend.
3. Global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably since the 1970s.
Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change | Precipitation Education
>> To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" <<

roamer_1 said:

First rule of cons: If they're moving the goal posts it's always further down the garden path.

Chicken Little Redux

Click to expand...

Says the guy who posted a paragraph with not one, but three false assertions.

USincognito said:

You're very confused - "isn't happening now" and "hasn't happened yet" do not mean it will not happen at some point. The fact is fossil fuels take a long time to form and that we are using them at a rate which will deplete them.

Click to expand...

Again, not a fact, and incidental anyway as all reserves are not even discovered yet. We don't even know how much we have, though it is sure to be a whole lot more.

Oh wow. You're even more confused than it first appeared.

1. The myth of global warming was propigated by the popular press in the 1970s.
2. There was no consensus about cooling and in fact the majority of the papers published during the 1970s predicted warming as a near term trend.
3. Global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably since the 1970s.
Whats in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change | Precipitation Education
>> To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?" <<

Click to expand...

Baloney. I was there. They taught global cooling to me in science class. After hearing 'we're all gonna die' for forty years, vacillating in every direction, one becomes inured.

Mountain_Girl406 said:

Great news for China and Canada!

Click to expand...

And great news for the wealthy fat cats from big oil or the wealthy fat cats who are in the pocket of big oil, like Trump.

roamer_1 said:

Who cares if a freeway has got to go across your land? Betcha money it's going there whether you like it or not. That's my claim.

Click to expand...

Apparently you are incapable of actually answering simple questions. Good day sir.

roamer_1 said:

'climate change is nonsense.



riiight, the ol peak oil argument... More baloney.

Like I said, best go live in a mud hut, otherwise the hypocrisy is palpable.

Click to expand...

Gee you bought into two nonsense what a surprise, you do know were going to run out of oil and the rate were using oil is going up, it's only delusional to keep wasting oil for thigns it's not needed, you know we use oil for things other then burning for fuel, where are those other products going to come from?

And yes climate change is real, but you already showed you bought into the normal lies then reality so not suprirsed.

roamer_1 said:

Again, not a fact, and incidental anyway as all reserves are not even discovered yet. We don't even know how much we have, though it is sure to be a whole lot more.

Click to expand...

You're still confused. Again, peak oil is a fact even if we are not currently in peak oil. There is a limited amount in the earth and only a percentage of it can be recovered at an economically viable price. At current usage, we could have a couple of centuries left, but it's a fact that there is a finite amount.

roamer_1 said:

Baloney. I was there. They taught global cooling to me in science class.

Click to expand...

Forgive me but Mrs. Jansing telling you about something she read in Newsweek (assuming your anecdote actually happened at all) is not the same as the actual facts of the matter. I know you would rather have alternative facts, but it is a real fact that more scientists were concerned about warming even during the 1970s.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
>> An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. <<

roamer_1 said:

After hearing 'we're all gonna die' for forty years, vacillating in every direction, one becomes inured.
{snip asinine editorial cartoon}

Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend getting your scientific knowledge from editorial cartoons. Especially one that claims that Vice President Gore was a scientist.

roamer_1 said:

Beats me, don't care.

Click to expand...

then why bring it up?
tulc(seems pointless otherwise)

roamer_1 said:

oh baloney. It is going to be cheaper to ship crude from Canada instead of half way around the world.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it will still be cheaper to import from Canada than the Middle East if Canada decides to raise prices.

So what? Infrastructure jobs are always 'temporary'... other than maintenance crews and depots, and supporting towns, and refineries... And those jobs are nothing to sneeze at.

Click to expand...

Either are truck drivers. We're going to be firing a whole bunch of them.

Well, make your mind up. Are the truckers going to lose their jobs or not?

Click to expand...

Well, we could have the pipeline and lay of drivers, or not have one and employ drivers.

and not by a longshot, btw. rail might - MIGHT- keep up with that pipe, but trucks sure wont. If rail could keep up, why wouldn't they just ship by existing rail? Why pipe halfway across the continent just to stop smack-dab in the middle of nowhere?

Click to expand...

Because it's cheaper due to the fact they need employ fewer people.

Really?

Click to expand...

Really. Why are Canadians preferable to Arabs?

voices that carry said:

And great news for the wealthy fat cats from big oil or the wealthy fat cats who are in the pocket of big oil, like Trump.

Click to expand...

You might not have noticed, but fat cats getting rich is what gives people jobs. It's gonna have to be them spending their money that pulls this country out of the ditch, and puts money in the little guy's pockets.

roamer_1 said:

You might not have noticed, but fat cats getting rich is what gives people jobs. It's gonna have to be them spending their money that pulls this country out of the ditch, and puts money in the little guy's pockets.

Click to expand...

Ask Kansas how that worked out for them. Spoiler alert, they're ranked 50th in economic growth after their governor said they were going to show off their conservative economic experiment. Well....it failed miserably. They had to gut infrastructure and education trying to make up for the massive deficit.

The massively rich don't spend their tax savings or higher profits on new jobs. They save it or hand out bigger bonuses and dividends to shareholders. Do you know who spends money? The middle and lower class.

I really wonder how long republican voters are going to fall for this trickle down lie.

roamer_1 said:

If they have to cross indian land, they will pay royalties to the tribe. That is a good thing for the indians.

Click to expand...

Except some Indian don't want it. It could contaminate their air, land and water. I don't believe they are happy about this at all. That's why I said they would be screwed all over again.

You're complaining about people complaining about other peoples land being taken/destroyed because you think if the same thing happened to you no one would complain? doesn't that mean you've just tried to make this situation about you? How you're upset because people didn't come to help you in your hour of fictional need?
tulc(suspects he's going to need more coffee soon)

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Except some Indian don't want it. It could contaminate their air, land and water. I don't believe they are happy about this at all. That's why I said they would be screwed all over again.

Click to expand...

What's interesting (and not surprising) is that when the largely white folks of Bismarck ND didn't want it near them, a new route was found without any complaint from the company or from conservatives supporting the pipeline - that new route being the current one through Native land. But now that the Natives similarly reject it going through their land, oh, the world is ending that they'd DARE protest it.

roamer_1 said:

No it's not. It is a federal reserve, still subject to federal laws, and some state laws.

Click to expand...

What is the land reserved for? The Standing Rock Sioux Nation. It was reserved for their use as their nations tribal government was overthrown by the American government and their land was seized.

They were given the right to own their property in the treaty as individuals and as a collective. In the treaty it states this land is:

set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them; and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employes of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory as may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians, and henceforth they will and do hereby relinquish all claims or right in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid, and except as hereinafter provided.

Then the treaty goes through more stipulations and details about individual property rights, basically the process for deed registration, other items that were promised, etc, then it goes into the stipulations that the Sioux agree too and here is where they are taking their liberties with the language:


the said Indians, further expressly agree:
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. But should such roads or other works be constructed on the lands of their reservation, the Government will pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may be assessed by three disinterested commissioners to be appointed by the President for that purpose, one of said commissioners to be a chief or head-man of the tribe

Here's the thing though. If you start taking liberties with the word "utility" you could say it's "anything useful" by dictionary standards. No I think utility here should be used as is it "useful" to the people in that area. All the other examples, rail, roads, mail stations,are serving the local community where it is built. If we start applying it to "useful," in the broad sense, we may just as well throw out the treaty. A wind farm is "useful" so is a leather tannery, or a tire factory. But would you want it on your reservation next to where your kids play?

I think a work of utility is a flimsy leg to stand on when trying to get around this treaty and build an oil pipeline.

GondwanaLand said:

What's interesting (and not surprising) is that when the largely white folks of Bismarck ND didn't want it near them, a new route was found without any complaint from the company or from conservatives supporting the pipeline - that new route being the current one through Native land. But now that the Natives similarly reject it going through their land, oh, the world is ending that they'd DARE protest it.

Click to expand...

For the record, you can see how much of the population of Bismarck are white people by clicking here.

Excerpt from the article: Pipeline route plan first called for crossing north of Bismarck

An early proposal for the Dakota Access Pipeline called for the project to cross the Missouri River north of Bismarck, but one reason that route was rejected was its potential threat to Bismarck’s water supply, documents show.

Now a growing number of protesters are objecting to the oil pipeline’s Missouri River crossing a half-mile north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, which they argue could threaten the water supply for the tribe and other communities downstream.

Early in the planning process, Dakota Access considered but eliminated an alternative that would have crossed the Missouri River about 10 miles north of Bismarck instead of the route currently under construction.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers evaluated the Bismarck route and concluded it was not a viable option for many reasons. One reason mentioned in the agency’s environmental assessment is the proximity to wellhead source water protection areas that are avoided to protect municipal water supply wells.

Here are these articles you can read too about how the Standing Rock Sioux opposed the pipeline being built on their land.

Audio: Tribe objected to pipeline nearly 2 years before lawsuit

Audio shows Standing Rock Sioux tribe objected to pipeline two years ago

Belk said:

Apparently you are incapable of actually answering simple questions. Good day sir.

Click to expand...

Apparently, you are incapable of understanding the analogy which was my reply. Good day indeed.