Standing Rock vs Dakota pipeline
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
yes, but you still made the price go down by filling a few buy orders. and i'm sure you're not the only one. -
I am likely just using the proceeds of that sale to buy up more enbridge or enterprise. Might even buy a little bit of XOM or something, hell might just take the cash and buy Christmas gifts with it. Not like I am moving out of that sector of my portfolio just moving it to a safer spot for the time being.Leave a comment:
-
this is also part of the change we wanted to effect. :)Leave a comment:
-
No clue but I called my broker looking to sell some of my holdings in both energy transfer and sunoco who us buying e/t. Not all of it but enough to limit my exposure when the civil penalties, and shipping contracts are canceled due to no product moving by 1/17.Leave a comment:
-
Those events are completely unrelated issues, except in an historic discussion of the origins of land ownership. And it's not about a pipe, it's not about craftsmanship or welding or who we work for. A craftsman or -woman on a public works project is not there to "defend" it against anybody - they're employees, and should argue they don't have safe working conditions to finish the work. This is how contracts work.
It's at the basic level about the right to clean water (which happens to be in my State Constitution BTW, which is rare).
But this is really about control over other people's lives. Decisions are made way above their heads which affect their lives and their children's lives. The lives of people that the majority somehow have been taught (by whom?) to believe aren't as important as they are. When you look at it from a bit higher up, doesn't that look ridiculous? It's a clash between the values of different cultures who now live together.
All to save a few million bucks in distance on a multi-billion dollar project. They have value-engineered people's lives, just like cheaping out on safety equipment or training at 3 Mile Island nuclear plant, or cheaping out on storm walls in New Orleans.
"...Now flash back a few years to another Western standoff, the Nevada siege of Cliven Bundy, the deadbeat rancher who drew heavily armed white militia members to defend a man who stiffed the government while grazing his cattle on public land."
"Now consider what the Bundy brothers said they were fighting for when they took over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge by armed force earlier this year. They wanted the government to give up turf owned by every American and let a handful of white ranchers “come back and reclaim their land.” "
"This prompted collective whiplash from members of the Paiute Tribe, whose people have lived in the high desert of Oregon for centuries. “For them to say they want to give the land back to the rightful owners — well, I just had to laugh at that,” the tribal chairwoman, Charlotte Rodrique, said at the time."
"The Indian view is much more than P.C. revisionism, if you believe in the rule of law. A huge swath of the northern Plains was promised to bands of the Sioux in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, one of the few times when Native Americans forced the government to terms after defeating it in war."
"The tribes lost much of that treaty land to intruders, backed by the Army. “A more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never, in all possibility, be found in our history,” the Supreme Court concluded in 1980."
- The New York Times
Not a Facebook post, not a tweet, not rumors or word-of-mouth, not cable tv news.Leave a comment:
-
uhm, NO to that shit right away. it is a non-violent movement. "no weapons" was repeated multiple times in the veterans' op-order.
haven't heard back from buddy on the ground today. but i did hear that Drumpf just sold his stake in the owning petro company? anyone able to confirm/deny?Leave a comment:
-
I'm not actually trying to compare the two--it's commentary about what kind of circumstances sleeve will excuse as acceptable ways to protest.I think its silly to draw comparisons between tribes and bundy's. Bundy's occupied a federal building by force with firearms because they were not getting enough land handouts for their dying business lol. Tribes didnt protest enough initially to keep their land and ask for pipelines to be put elsewhere.
Leave a comment:
-
1 not their land, North of res boarder as recognized since 1889.
2 bundies were grazing cattle on federal land, not squatting a shanty town/refugee camp on it.....
Yes your right not comparable, but not in the way your trying to infer
And armed protesters would have wound up in a gun fight, when messing with pipelinersLast edited by mrsleeve; 12-06-2016, 06:57 PM.Leave a comment:
-
I think its silly to draw comparisons between tribes and bundy's. Bundy's occupied a federal building by force with firearms because they were not getting enough land handouts for their dying business lol. Tribes didnt protest enough initially to keep their land and ask for pipelines to be put elsewhere.Leave a comment:
-
Lol well played
its been that way for a long time I don't suspect it will change anytime soonLeave a comment:
-
-
my point was simply that armed protests seem to work nowadays. this would have been over weeks ago if they were armed.Leave a comment:
-
And these idiots have been occuping federal land sucking up millions of state dollars in law enforcement for what nearly 6 months numbering into the 1000s vs 40 days and a couple dozen..... humm who's not getting what hereLeave a comment:

Leave a comment: