Page 1 of 5

Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 7:47 pm
by CID1990
Klam and/or Cliteris

How about one of you 'splain this to me since I must be dumb

http://live.att.net/news/read/article/t ... _protes-ap

How do these people squatting on Federal land differ from a bunch of inbred Mormon ranchers (except for the fact that they aren't inbred Mormon ranchers)?

Shouldn't these assholes be arrested? Felchy? Anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:03 pm
by mrklean
CID1990 wrote:Klam and/or Cliteris

How about one of you 'splain this to me since I must be dumb

http://live.att.net/news/read/article/t ... _protes-ap

How do these people squatting on Federal land differ from a bunch of inbred Mormon ranchers (except for the fact that they aren't inbred Mormon ranchers)?

Shouldn't these assholes be arrested? Felchy? Anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It's their land :coffee:

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:31 am
by Chizzang
If the inbred Mormon ranchers camped out "next to" the buildings and NOT inside them...
They'd still be there today

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:05 am
by kalm
If they're breaking the law I don't have a problem with evicting them.

These are two different govt agencies at work. Perhaps their policies regarding land use and LE differ? IIRC, the inbred mormons were there longer and made threats to LE.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:06 am
by kalm
Chizzang wrote:If the inbred Mormon ranchers camped out "next to" the buildings and NOT inside them...
They'd still be there today
I think you camp just about anywhere on BLM land.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:09 am
by Grizalltheway
kalm wrote:
Chizzang wrote:If the inbred Mormon ranchers camped out "next to" the buildings and NOT inside them...
They'd still be there today
I think you camp just about anywhere on BLM land.
Yep. National forest as well.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:18 pm
by JohnStOnge
I'm fine with being patient. But in the long run these protesters need to lose.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 6:27 pm
by CID1990
Chizzang wrote:If the inbred Mormon ranchers camped out "next to" the buildings and NOT inside them...
They'd still be there today
LAWL

That's a Clinton definition of "is" answer


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:07 pm
by GrizFanStuckInUtah
Can't they just send them some blankets? You know, to keep warm and stuff?
Spoiler: show
Bad humor I know but you have to know some history to get it. :kisswink:

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:06 pm
by Pwns
Remember when #whiteprivilege was blowing up on twitter during that whole episode? Fun times.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:01 pm
by Chizzang
CID1990 wrote:
Chizzang wrote:If the inbred Mormon ranchers camped out "next to" the buildings and NOT inside them...
They'd still be there today
LAWL

That's a Clinton definition of "is" answer
You don't see the difference between going inside a building and locking the doors
and camping in a field across the street..?

and I assure you without question
Had the inbreds camped in a field in central Oregon they'd still be there today
With misspelled signs and bad teeth - and - nobody would care

and don;t confuse me with somebody who cares about the pipeline protesters
Because I couldn't give 2 sh!ts

:coffee:

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:49 am
by Gil Dobie
mrklean wrote:
CID1990 wrote:Klam and/or Cliteris

How about one of you 'splain this to me since I must be dumb

http://live.att.net/news/read/article/t ... _protes-ap

How do these people squatting on Federal land differ from a bunch of inbred Mormon ranchers (except for the fact that they aren't inbred Mormon ranchers)?

Shouldn't these assholes be arrested? Felchy? Anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
It's their land :coffee:
The pipeline isn't going thru the reservation, it's going north of the reservation. A majority of the protesters are from anywhere but the reservation. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good protest.

Image

Eviction's Begin from land owned by pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:55 am
by Gil Dobie
Link

The police operation came the day after the Morton County Sheriff's Department asked protesters to leave the land, which is in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline under construction.

Re: Eviction's Begin from land owned by pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:03 am
by kalm
Gil Dobie wrote:Link

The police operation came the day after the Morton County Sheriff's Department asked protesters to leave the land, which is in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline under construction.
Perhaps the Sheriff should ask Dakota Access to halt construction within 2 miles of the river until the final permitting has been approved. The Feds already did but the company declined.

Re: Eviction's Begin from land owned by pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:10 am
by Gil Dobie
kalm wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote:Link

The police operation came the day after the Morton County Sheriff's Department asked protesters to leave the land, which is in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline under construction.
Perhaps the Sheriff should ask Dakota Access to halt construction within 2 miles of the river until the final permitting has been approved. The Feds already did but the company declined.
I understand everything was in place until Obama intervened. There are currently 8 pipelines crossing the Missouri River in North Dakota.

Re: Eviction's Begin from land owned by pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:20 am
by kalm
Gil Dobie wrote:
kalm wrote:
Perhaps the Sheriff should ask Dakota Access to halt construction within 2 miles of the river until the final permitting has been approved. The Feds already did but the company declined.
I understand everything was in place until Obama intervened. There are currently 8 pipelines crossing the Missouri River in North Dakota.
Gotcha. But they should still probably halt construction until the ACE has approved the final permit, right?

Re: Eviction's Begin from land owned by pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:26 am
by Gil Dobie
kalm wrote:
Gil Dobie wrote:
I understand everything was in place until Obama intervened. There are currently 8 pipelines crossing the Missouri River in North Dakota.
Gotcha. But they should still probably halt construction until the ACE has approved the final permit, right?
Sure, they should not continue where they are not permitted to build, but where are you seeing they are not permitted.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:33 am
by Gil Dobie
Word on the street is the Tribe was offered $10,000,000 to allow the pipeline to run thru the reservation, the tribe demanded $50,000,000 and the rest is history.

Re: Eviction's Begin from land owned by pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:39 am
by kalm
Gil Dobie wrote:
kalm wrote:
Gotcha. But they should still probably halt construction until the ACE has approved the final permit, right?
Sure, they should not continue where they are not permitted to build, but where are you seeing they are not permitted.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-new ... line-site/

You were correct about the Obama Administration stepping in. The Corps of Engineers is now reviewing the permitting for right or wrong.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:40 am
by 93henfan
I blame NDSU. And Bush.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:42 am
by ASUG8
Gil Dobie wrote:Word on the street is the Tribe was offered $10,000,000 to allow the pipeline to run thru the reservation, the tribe demanded $50,000,000 and the rest is history.
Greedy bastards. What did white people ever do to them?







:?

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:42 am
by Gil Dobie
93henfan wrote:I blame NDSU. And Bush.
Well Obama's buddy, Warren Buffet owns stock in the Railroad that currently hauls the oil around the country, but it's not his fault.

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:43 am
by kalm
93henfan wrote:I blame NDSU. And Bush.
I blame Bill Fette...and Custer.
Spoiler: show
Sorry Gil... :mrgreen:

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:46 am
by Gil Dobie
As George Thorogood would say, Who do you love? Native American's or Unions

Obama Link Unions push Obama to approve Dakota Access pipeline 'without delay'


Clinton Link Hillary Clinton Caught Between Key Allies on Dakota Pipeline

Re: Feds won't evict Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:51 am
by SDHornet
I chalk this issue up as one of those "who gives a fuck" issues. Besides, it'll be 50 below in a few weeks, good luck to those protesters waiting that out.

Oh and lol at the blankets joke. :clap: