Just in: Construction of Dakota Access Pipeline Will Stop - Polidicks

[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/U5VLIa.png[/IMG] The secretary of the Army Core of Engineers recently told the Standing Rock Sioux chairman that the current pipeline route will be denied. The pipeline will be rerouted after an environmental impact study. [B]It will[/B] [B]no longer run under the Missouri River.[/B] [URL="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/construction-of-dakota-access-pipeline-will-stop-824491587812"]Video of MSNBC's recent coverage[/URL]

One victory against the corporate oligarchy but the war isn't over yet.

Hopefully this will set the precedent that peaceful but active protesting can actually achieve something

[QUOTE=da space core;51475560]Hopefully this will set the precedent that peaceful but active protesting can actually achieve something[/QUOTE] Agreed. Peaceful protest is among the most powerful tools we have today, and I wish more people realised than than subscribing to actively violent and divisive politics.

[QUOTE=da space core;51475560]Hopefully this will set the precedent that [B]peaceful[/B] but active protesting can actually achieve something[/QUOTE] People are about to pounce on you with the exceptions, even though overall it was fairly peaceful. But hey, as gandhi and mlk showed, it's a really good style of protest, to be a "warrior of peace" and to essentially refuse to go away.

How stupid of them. If you looked at the base facts, they were never near grounds that were owned by the Indian tribe. The entire thing is environmentalists and people obsessed with identity politics automatically assuming that the Indians were automatically right because they were a minority.

Hey! A good thing! Is it 2017 already?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475586]How stupid of them. If you looked at the base facts, they were never near grounds that were owned by the Indian tribe. The entire thing is environmentalists and people obsessed with identity politics automatically assuming that the Indians were automatically right because they were a minority.[/QUOTE] yeah! and if all their water supply got filled with crude, they should just suck it up! be a man for chrissakes!

Certainly wasn't expecting that

[QUOTE=Mining Bill;51475600]yeah! and if all their water supply got filled with crude, they should just suck it up! be a man for chrissakes![/QUOTE] that is a legitimate concern but as long as we're talking about water contamination, why care about somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475625]that is a legitimate concern but as long as we're talking about water contamination, why care about somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.[/QUOTE] Because a pipeline already rerouted once over safety and contamination concerns was directed in a way where those concerns would be shoved onto Native Americans. One existing instance of undrinkable water doesn't lessen that issue somewhere else.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475625]that is a legitimate concern but as long as we're talking about water contamination, why care about somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.[/QUOTE] Why can we not care about both? The situation is horrible in Flint and elsewhere. It would be best if we did not repeat it in Dakota or else-where.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475625]that is a legitimate concern but as long as we're talking about water contamination, why care about somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.[/QUOTE] so it's wrong and stupid for a local population to protest danger to their water supply, simply because someone [I]else[/I] already has a poisoned water supply?

Wow, this is fantastic. The potential environmental impact in the case of a leak would have been devastating to everyone downstream of the Missouri. Glad to see something came of this.

[QUOTE]Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.[/QUOTE] I know someone who worked in water processing. Ac cording to him, it is the fault of the voters. What happens is the politicians come in all hot and bothered to change things for the better. The problem? These changes require money, meaning more taxes to get them enacted. The voters of course say no to higher water bills and what not. So the politicians get cynical, end up trying to move the money around for pet projects and do as little as possible until retirement. Then pass the problem off to a bunch of new idealistic leaders. While this cycle repeats it self, the water processing infrastructure decays and worsens. Flint's water issues might be self inflicted.

I'm surprised this happened, the last I heard they were pushing forward anyway and had the president-elect's support. What changed?

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51475647]I know someone who worked in water processing. Ac cording to him, it is the fault of the voters. What happens is the politicians come in all hot and bothered to change things for the better. The problem? These changes require money, meaning more taxes to get them enacted. The voters of course say no to higher water bills and what not. So the politicians get cynical, end up trying to move the money around for pet projects and do as little as possible until retirement. Then pass the problem off to a bunch of new idealistic leaders. While this cycle repeats it self, the water processing infrastructure decays and worsens. Flint's water issues might be self inflicted.[/QUOTE] [B]lead pipes for drinking water[/B] are not voters' faults wtf

[QUOTE=Svinnik;51475625]that is a legitimate concern but as long as we're talking about water contamination, why care about somewhere in the middle of nowhere? Flint's water is still poisoned, as are tons of inner city plumbing systems.[/QUOTE] So because Flint is already fucked up and beyond all hope of saving we should go ahead and do something that could potentially fuck up the water supply in another state in the foreseeable future? Jesus christ dude, that's like saying "Well I already shot myself in one foot, may as well shoot myself in the other foot."

Fuck yeah, just tell me again how protesting doesn't work and is so obnoxious.

[media]https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/805524721399951360[/media] He was out there with them too. Where was Hillary? Trump?

Update: [quote= A statement from Standing Rock Sioux Chairman David Archambault II] I am thankful there were some leaders in the federal government that realized something was not right even though it's legal. (...) For the first time in history...they heard our voices. This is something that will go down in history and is a blessing for all indigenous people.[/quote] ----- [QUOTE=Guriosity;51475647] (...) the politicians get cynical, end up trying to move the money around for pet projects and do as little as possible until retirement. [/QUOTE] I like how you say it's the voters fault even though you explain why it's not.

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51475713]I like how you say it's the voters fault even though you explain why it's not.[/QUOTE] Infrastructure requires money to build and maintain. That means more taxes and increase in the water bill. Voters say no to such increases. Why is that difficult to understand?

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51475719]Infrastructure requires money to build and maintain. That means more taxes and increase in the water bill. Voters say no to such increases. Why is that difficult to understand?[/QUOTE] Voters saying no to a tax increase absolutely does not justify government willfully ignoring a serious problem. The neat thing about government is it can use money from other programs to fix critical and life-threatening issues.

Really good news!

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51475719]Infrastructure requires money to build and maintain. That means more taxes and increase in the water bill. Voters say no to such increases. Why is that difficult to understand?[/QUOTE] So you think water should be the first thing they should drop if they don't get enough money?

This seems very odd, to have a change of heart all of a sudden. There was already an environmental impact study done months ago. Hell, it was used as evidence against Standing Rocks in the Standing Rocks v Army Corps case. I'm also curious to see how the new route looks.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;51475795]This seems very odd, to have a change of heart all of a sudden. There was already an environmental impact study done months ago. Hell, it was used as evidence against Standing Rocks in the Standing Rocks v Army Corps case. I'm also curious to see how the new route looks.[/QUOTE] Obviously it was just costing too much money to deal with the protesters. As far as I'm aware the protesters had absolutely no legal basis for their protest so I'm surprised they got their way, but oh well. People can be dumb.

[QUOTE=geel9;51475830]Obviously it was just costing too much money to deal with the protesters. As far as I'm aware the protesters had absolutely no legal basis for their protest so I'm surprised they got their way, but oh well. People can be dumb.[/QUOTE] This is my thinking as well. Too much time and money spent. Not to mention this is so (wrongly) politically charged. I wonder if Standing Rocks protestors will concern themselves when the new route decides to go under a different river? Somehow I doubt it.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51475709][media]https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/805524721399951360[/media] He was out there with them too. Where was Hillary? Trump?[/QUOTE] They had presidential campaigns to run :)

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;51475709][media]https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/805524721399951360[/media] He was out there with them too. Where was Hillary? Trump?[/QUOTE] How dare you, They were both out there manning the water cannons in the cold.