2,000 veterans to serve as human shields for standing rock protesters

[hater]

:cry amazing stuff :cry

If I didnt have so much business these days Id go to standing rock immediately

http://www.mintpressnews.com/following-order-evacuate-veterans-vow-act-human-shields-standing-rock-protestors/222669/

[hater]

Standing Rock is making Cuba under Castro a walk in the park tbqh

[Nbadan]

Crickets

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264850

[RandomGuy]

:cry amazing stuff :cry

If I didnt have so much business these days Id go to standing rock immediately

http://www.mintpressnews.com/following-order-evacuate-veterans-vow-act-human-shields-standing-rock-protestors/222669/

I am halfway tempted to be one of those veterans as well. Too busy tho'.

[Clipper Nation]

Standing Rock is the biggest bunch of horseshit ever. As was already explained in the other thread, the pipeline does not cross their land, and there are already eight pipelines that cross the river. The company has legal permits to build there. The environmental impact statements are done already.

As for all the hysteria over the water supply, that only makes sense if you ignore the inconvenient fact that the Fort Yates water intake is actually being shut down and replaced soon. This has been in the works since 2002, when a severe drought left them unable to pump water at Fort Yates. Furthermore, Fort Yates doesn't even serve all of Standing Rock anymore.


If all goes according to plans currently in place, the Fort Yates intake which has been so frequently cited by those opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline will be shut down by the end of the year.

I spoke with Dave Rosencranz, the Dakotas Area manger for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, and he told me that currently the Standing Rock community is being served by two Missouri River water intakes but that the Fort Yates intake, which is nearest the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing, is slated to be shut down.

"There's been a lot of issues with that intake," Rosencranz told me, referring to the Fort Yates facility. "It's just time to replace it. It's basically at the end of its life."

I also spoke with Bureau of Reclamation engineer Tom Thompson who said that the Fort Yates intake and water treatment facility was built in the 1960's and would "cost more more than it's worth" to fix it. He told me the Mobridge intake and treatment plant are already operating and serving a part of the Standing Rock community, but will hopefully soon be serving all of it.

https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/standing-rock-water-intake-process-moved-away-dakota-access-pipelines/



Standing Rock has been given almost $30 million in federal grants since 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to modernize their water system: http://www.usbr.gov/arra/pdf/projects/GP-StandingRockRuralWaterSystem.pdf

Even if safety was a valid concern, the main alternative to pipelines (rail) is far less safe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/shipping-oil-through-pipelines-safer-than-by-rail-report-says/article25943221/

Additionally, pipelines are already subject to strict safety regulations from the DOT. It's ironic how the libs' usually-unflinching faith in government, especially when it comes to meddling in private enterprise, somehow doesn't apply here.

This whole "protest movement" is based on lies. The reality is, environmentalists are opposed to any major energy development. They'll even turn their nose up at renewable sources if it offends their delicate sensibilities. Just look at how hard liberals fought in Massachusetts to stop the construction of wind turbines in Nantucket because they didn't want to lose their precious view, for instance. The tree-huggers won't be happy until we regress back to a Stone Age standard of living.

[SnakeBoy]

I am halfway tempted to be one of those veterans as well. Too busy tho'.

Me too but then, like you, I decided fuck those people cause I got shit to do.

[RandomGuy]

Standing Rock is the biggest bunch of horseshit ever. As was already explained in the other thread, the pipeline does not cross their land, and there are already eight pipelines that cross the river. The company has legal permits to build there. The environmental impact statements are done already.

As for all the hysteria over the water supply, that only makes sense if you ignore the inconvenient fact that the Fort Yates water intake is actually being shut down and replaced soon. This has been in the works since 2002, when a severe drought left them unable to pump water at Fort Yates. Furthermore, Fort Yates doesn't even serve all of Standing Rock anymore.


If all goes according to plans currently in place, the Fort Yates intake which has been so frequently cited by those opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline will be shut down by the end of the year.

I spoke with Dave Rosencranz, the Dakotas Area manger for the Federal Bureau of Reclamation, and he told me that currently the Standing Rock community is being served by two Missouri River water intakes but that the Fort Yates intake, which is nearest the Dakota Access Pipeline crossing, is slated to be shut down.

"There's been a lot of issues with that intake," Rosencranz told me, referring to the Fort Yates facility. "It's just time to replace it. It's basically at the end of its life."

I also spoke with Bureau of Reclamation engineer Tom Thompson who said that the Fort Yates intake and water treatment facility was built in the 1960's and would "cost more more than it's worth" to fix it. He told me the Mobridge intake and treatment plant are already operating and serving a part of the Standing Rock community, but will hopefully soon be serving all of it.

https://www.sayanythingblog.com/entry/standing-rock-water-intake-process-moved-away-dakota-access-pipelines/



Standing Rock has been given almost $30 million in federal grants since 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in order to modernize their water system: http://www.usbr.gov/arra/pdf/projects/GP-StandingRockRuralWaterSystem.pdf

Even if safety was a valid concern, the main alternative to pipelines (rail) is far less safe: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/shipping-oil-through-pipelines-safer-than-by-rail-report-says/article25943221/

Additionally, pipelines are already subject to strict safety regulations from the DOT. It's ironic how the libs' usually-unflinching faith in government, especially when it comes to meddling in private enterprise, somehow doesn't apply here.

This whole "protest movement" is based on lies. The reality is, environmentalists are opposed to any major energy development. They'll even turn their nose up at renewable sources if it offends their delicate sensibilities. Just look at how hard liberals fought in Massachusetts to stop the construction of wind turbines in Nantucket because they didn't want to lose their precious view, for instance. The tree-huggers won't be happy until we regress back to a Stone Age standard of living.

So the new intake is moved downstream, and to you, that means the issue is moot.

Critical thinking/intellectual honesty time.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill move downstream with the flow of the water?

[Clipper Nation]

The issue is moot because the only intake center that the protesters are concerned about is old, broken-down and being phased out for reasons that have nothing to do with the pipeline. It's simply more dishonesty from useful idiots (probably Soros-funded) who are essentially protesting over nothing.

[RandomGuy]

libs' usually-unflinching faith in government,

Strawman argument one.

I personally distrust goverment, especially when it comes to the use of eminent domain, and things like unrestricted evesdropping.

I view government as necessary, and think we should watch it like a hawk, and I would challenge you to find a "lib" who says they have "unflinching faith" in government.

[RandomGuy]

Critical thinking/intellectual honesty time.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill move downstream with the flow of the water?



The issue is moot because the only intake center that the protesters are concerned about is old, broken-down and being phased out for reasons that have nothing to do with the pipeline. It's simply more dishonesty from useful idiots (probably Soros-funded) who are essentially protesting over nothing.

You did not answer my question.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill flow downstream?

Simple yes or no.

[Clipper Nation]

I personally distrust goverment
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

I see you have me in the grip of reason.

Do you think mockery and intellectual dishonesty are useful tools in convincing someone that your position is better supported by evidence and reason?

[Clipper Nation]

Critical thinking/intellectual honesty time.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill move downstream with the flow of the water?




You did not answer my question.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill flow downstream?

Simple yes or no.
You should ask the protestors that. They are only complaining about the possible impact on Fort Yates, not the Mobridge facility that will soon be providing all their water.

Yes, their water supply is moving downstream. But it's moving 75 miles away from where the pipeline is. To put things in perspective, when the Kalamazoo River pipeline burst in 2010 - the worst inland oil spill in American history - the oil was mostly contained within only a 25-mile stretch of the river (though the EPA still closed off an additional 10 miles just to be safe). The oil only ended up traveling 40 miles downstream - a far cry from 75 miles. And that was a historically bad inland oil spill - an outlier.

And that's why the protesters are misleading everyone about how the reservation's water system works. Because if they were being honest, people would realize that "muh drinking water" is just another bullshit excuse.

[hater]

Its not that simple ya idiot.

That pipe leaks and them is gonna be picking their teeth off the ground due to the contamination.

Standing rock stands for everything that is good and pure in this world. Protect it to the death fellas. Fuck them pipelayers to the inner depths of hell

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Thinking that 2016 Indians are good and pure. :lol

[hater]

:lmao

Thinking that 2016 Indians are good and pure. :lol

They were a win away from Fatball Championship this year tbh

Back to the subject, I believe standing rock will be the final
Battle for the future of humanity

I am planning to visit the site soon

[Winehole23]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161130/14580836162/border-patrol-stops-journalist-heading-to-dakota-pipeline-protests-searches-all-his-electronic-devices.shtml

[RandomGuy]

Critical thinking/intellectual honesty time.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill move downstream with the flow of the water?



The issue is moot because the only intake center that the protesters are concerned about is old, broken-down and being phased out for reasons that have nothing to do with the pipeline. It's simply more dishonesty from useful idiots (probably Soros-funded) who are essentially protesting over nothing.


You did not answer my question.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill flow downstream?

Simple yes or no.




Yes, their water supply is moving downstream.

Again, not what was asked.

So I will have to assume that after having two chances to answer this question honestly, you would prefer to be dishonest. Your choice.

Let's try a different question or two.

http://arcgis.sd.gov/server/denr/welllogs/default.aspx

I found 468 domestic wells completed in Corson County South Dakota between 01/01/1900 and 01/12/2016.

Didn't take long to figure out that there are hundreds, if not thousands of groundwells in the area. North Dakota might have something similar for Souix county, but I would think it reasonable that the density of wells would be comparable.

Would all those wells move with the intake?

One of the primary occupations of the area is hunting and fishing.

Would a large hydrocarbon spill affect the ability of a fisherman to eat fish caught in that river?

[boutons_deux]

US has screwed the Indians, broken treaties, ethnically cleansed/slaughtered them, for 100s of years. Give 'em a single break.

[RandomGuy]

... their water supply is moving downstream. But it's moving 75 miles away from where the pipeline is. To put things in perspective, when the Kalamazoo River pipeline burst in 2010 - the worst inland oil spill in American history - the oil was mostly contained within only a 25-mile stretch of the river (though the EPA still closed off an additional 10 miles just to be safe). The oil only ended up traveling 40 miles downstream - a far cry from 75 miles. And that was a historically bad inland oil spill - an outlier.

And that's why the protesters are misleading everyone about how the reservation's water system works. Because if they were being honest, people would realize that "muh drinking water" is just another bullshit excuse.

Because I value being intellectually honest, I will address the rest of your post here. In this, I will demonstrate that I am more honest about this than you are attempting to be.


The oil was contained to a 25-mile (40 km) stretch of the Kalamazoo River as several hundred workers took part in the cleanup.[5] Regional EPA Director Susan Hedman estimated that it would take weeks to remove the bulk of the oil from the river, several months to clear oil from the flood plains, and several more months to clean the oil out of the marsh where the spill originated. However, a year later, a 35-mile stretch of the river remained closed.[6] Originally estimated at $5 million,[7] by September 2011, cleanup costs passed $585 million and were expected to rise by 20 percent more.[6] The cleanup expense by summer 2012 had totalled $765 million.[4]

Aftermath[edit]
In June, 2012, authorities reopened most of the 35 miles of the river that had been closed to recreation after the spill. Part of the river at the Morrow Lake delta remained closed and other sections of the river remain restricted because of the ongoing cleanup of the tar sands oil product called diluted bitumen (dilbit) oil the pipeline had been transporting.[8]

The United States Department of Transportation summer 2012 "fined Enbridge $3.7 million dollars and as part of that fine they listed 22 probable violations that happened relating to the spill. And several of those [violations] are about what happened in the [Edmonton] control room".[4]

One of the reasons for the vast escalation in time and expense of cleanup was that the EPA had never handled a dilbit spill. In addition, it is reported that Enbridge never informed the EPA of the product distinction. Dilbit, like all crude oil, floats in water but, over time, will sink, complicating cleanup efforts, particularly if dredging is considered too ecologically damaging.[4] Other environmental factors will affect the rate at which this process takes place. This disaster was the largest on-land spill in American history to date.[9]

It was indeed an outlier, and yes, IF any future spill is contained within a similar zone, the water intake will likely not pick up any large amount of pollution.

The problem with this argument is that the past... is the past. Was it an outier because there weren't as many pipelines carrying oil?

Will it continue to be an outlier, if you add tens of thousands of miles of new oil pipelines?

A plane crash in 1920 could be argued to also be an "outlier" for the time.

If I caught a fish today that lived in that stretch of river, would you eat it?

Simple yes or no.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao

Thinking that 2016 Indians are good and pure. :lol

?? basis?

Relevance?

Flesh this one out.

[RandomGuy]

The reality is, environmentalists are opposed to any major energy development. They'll even turn their nose up at renewable sources if it offends their delicate sensibilities. Just look at how hard liberals fought in Massachusetts to stop the construction of wind turbines in Nantucket because they didn't want to lose their precious view, for instance. The tree-huggers won't be happy until we regress back to a Stone Age standard of living.


Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
(nizkor.org)


We have a vision of a world powered by clean energy, where dirty and dangerous fossil fuels are a thing of the past and everyone can enjoy cleaner air and water thanks to renewable energy resources. Today, the Sierra Club is going all-in on clean energy. We are bringing our passion to create a clean energy revolution where all people have access to sustainable energy, including local solar, energy storage, and sustainably sited large-sale renewable energy projects.
http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/solutions

If the Sierra Club can be accurately used to gauge what is generally supported by "environmentalists", then you have, essentially, lied about what "environmentalists" want.

Why would you lie about this? That seems not to be constructive.

[Clipper Nation]

Again, not what was asked.

So I will have to assume that after having two chances to answer this question honestly, you would prefer to be dishonest. Your choice.
I fully addressed your question, you just didn't want to hear the answer because it disagrees with your worldview.

The bottom line is, in the worst pipeline burst in American history, the oil only traveled about 40 miles downstream, according to NOAA figures:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120928015040/http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/greatlakes/enbridge/index.html

Meanwhile, Standing Rock's new water supply is 75 miles downstream from the pipeline. Considering that the oil would have to travel 35 more miles than it did in the single worst pipeline burst this country has ever seen in order to reach the Mobridge facility, and considering that pipelines are less accident-prone to begin with than other methods of transporting oil, how likely do you think it is that this pipeline will a.) burst and b.) poison their drinking water? I would say it's not very likely.

Your other questions are simply moving the goalposts. You know full well that you're wrong on this, so you want to declare victory and quickly change the subject. At this point, you're just Gish Galloping. And you have the nerve to call others "intellectually dishonest."

[Clipper Nation]

If the Sierra Club can be accurately used to gauge what is generally supported by "environmentalists", then you have, essentially, lied about what "environmentalists" want.

Why would you lie about this? That seems not to be constructive.
I haven't lied at all. In fact, I gave a specific example of environmentalists opposing an expansion of renewable energy for frivolous reasons.


The U.S. Court of Appeals decision today is a victory for the fishermen, pilots, boaters, Native Americans, environmentalists, homeowners, towns, and businesses, which have fought to protect Nantucket Sound against Cape Wind for 15 years.



http://www.saveoursound.org/press_releases/reader.php?id=53


Why should we take the eco-hippies seriously when their precious ocean views and property values are more important to them than even alternative energy, let alone traditional sources?

[Clipper Nation]

Environmentalists also have a history of throwing hissyfits every time anyone tries to expand solar power:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/19/ticker-boulevard-environmentalists-against-solar/#

http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2016/07/29/why-utilities-and-environmentalists-teaming-up-against-solar-industry/87677852/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/07/solar-energy-seems-to-make-environmentalists-mad/

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/green-groups-fight-to-stop-another-solar-power-plant/

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/solar-energy-debate-pits-environmentalists-against-themselves

Radical environmentalists really do seem to oppose any energy development, no matter the source. These self-loathing neurotics would rather drag everyone back to a primitive standard of living than compromise on anything.

[tlongII]

RG getting his intellectually dishonest game on! :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

I fully addressed your question, you just didn't want to hear the answer because it disagrees with your worldview.

The bottom line is, in the worst pipeline burst in American history, the oil only traveled about 40 miles downstream, according to NOAA figures:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120928015040/http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/greatlakes/enbridge/index.html

Meanwhile, Standing Rock's new water supply is 75 miles downstream from the pipeline. Considering that the oil would have to travel 35 more miles than it did in the single worst pipeline burst this country has ever seen in order to reach the Mobridge facility, and considering that pipelines are less accident-prone to begin with than other methods of transporting oil, how likely do you think it is that this pipeline will a.) burst and b.) poison their drinking water? I would say it's not very likely.

Your other questions are simply moving the goalposts. You know full well that you're wrong on this, so you want to declare victory and quickly change the subject. At this point, you're just Gish Galloping. And you have the nerve to call others "intellectually dishonest."

I actually generally agreed with your point. The intake is moved outside of what is likely to be in any affected area of a spill from the pipeline.

As for moving the goalposts, that is not accurate.

I am merely exploring what damage to water tables is possible from a large hydrocarbon spill, which is entirely relevant. You don't like it because the consideration of groundwater wells wasn't something that fits into your narrative.

That is called confirmation bias, by the way.

[RandomGuy]

Environmentalists also have a history of throwing hissyfits every time anyone tries to expand solar power:

http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2015/mar/19/ticker-boulevard-environmentalists-against-solar/#

http://www.desertsun.com/story/tech/science/energy/2016/07/29/why-utilities-and-environmentalists-teaming-up-against-solar-industry/87677852/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/07/solar-energy-seems-to-make-environmentalists-mad/

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/green-groups-fight-to-stop-another-solar-power-plant/

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/solar-energy-debate-pits-environmentalists-against-themselves

Radical environmentalists really do seem to oppose any energy development, no matter the source. These self-loathing neurotics would rather drag everyone back to a primitive standard of living than compromise on anything.

Again, I would agree to a point. There are a few radical environmentalists that oppose a lot of things for stupid reasons.

This however, doesn't make moderates wrong when it comes to pushing for more renewables in our energy mix.

We should be shifting to renewables to avoid the negative externalities of fossil fuel burning.

[RandomGuy]

RG getting his intellectually dishonest game on! :rolleyes

I guess. You will note that my question about eating a fish caught in that river went unanswered. Why do you think that is?

[tlongII]

I guess. You will note that my question about eating a fish caught in that river went unanswered. Why do you think that is?

Too oily?

[Clipper Nation]

I actually generally agreed with your point. The intake is moved outside of what is likely to be in any affected area of a spill from the pipeline.
Glad you agree that the protesters are lying about their drinking water. :tu

[Clipper Nation]

Again, I would agree to a point. There are a few radical environmentalists that oppose a lot of things for stupid reasons.

This however, doesn't make moderates wrong when it comes to pushing for more renewables in our energy mix.

We should be shifting to renewables to avoid the negative externalities of fossil fuel burning.
"Moderates" aren't the type of peoole going to Standing Rock and throwing a big hissyfit, let's be real now. Sane environmentalists would realize that we don't live in an oil-free utopia, and they'd support pipelines as a safer way of transporting the oil we need than any of the alternatives.

[hater]

Hakuna Matata and all that shit

Long live standing rock and its holy protectors.

[DMC]

Strawman argument one.

I personally distrust goverment, especially when it comes to the use of eminent domain, and things like unrestricted evesdropping.

I view government as necessary, and think we should watch it like a hawk, and I would challenge you to find a "lib" who says they have "unflinching faith" in government.

Yet yall seem to want them to run the healthcare system.

[boutons_deux]

Standing Rock Drone Footage Looks Bad, So Government Bans It (http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/standing-rock-drone-footage-looks-bad-so-government-bans-it/)


http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/12/02/standing-rock-drone-footage-looks-bad-so-government-bans-it/

[hater]

3500 holy US veterans have just arrived at standing rock :wow

Ready to leave it all on the line for the protection of the protestors :wow

Amazing stuff

This is historic. Long live standing rock and its holy protectors

[boutons_deux]

How Did Police From All Over the Country End Up at Standing Rock?

A Clinton-era directive used mainly for natural disaster relief has drawn in law enforcement from faraway states.


http://www.motherjones.com/files/imagecache/top-of-content-image/sr_police.jpeg

Police departments from 24 counties and 16 cities in 10 different states (including North Dakota) have poured into Standing Rock,

It's rare for police forces to cross state lines to handle problems in neighboring places, much less travel more than 1,500 miles to respond to protests, as the St. Charles Parish (Louisiana) Sheriff's Department has. :lol

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/standing-rock-police-militarized-emergency-management-assistance-compact-north-dakota

One girl lost an arm from a grenade shot by the goons.

[hater]

Hakuna Matata and all that shit

Long live standing rock and its holy protectors.

We won :cry

The celebration ceremony will be magnificent

[Clipper Nation]

Looks like these crybabies and shameless liars got their way. Now the reservation gets stuck with the LESS safe and LESS environmentally friendly option of transporting all that oil by train even longer.

[Th'Pusher]

Looks like these crybabies and shameless liars got their way. Now the reservation gets stuck with the LESS safe and LESS environmentally friendly option of transporting all that oil by train even longer.

Does Soros own the train routes? :cry

[Clipper Nation]

Does Soros own the train routes? :cry
Actually, Warren Buffett does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway

And that's the real reason why the left opposes pipelines - in order to prop up the railroad company that one of their biggest multibillionaire donors owns.

[Clipper Nation]

A tiny central North Dakota (http://www.cnbc.com/north-dakota/) town has been evacuated after the derailment of an oil train.

The incident displaced residents of Heimdal, sheriff's officials told local media. The accident involved a BNSF Railway train with 109 cars, five of which were burning. Six to seven cars derailed and the cause of the event is unknown, according to officials.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/06/north-dakota-town-evacuated-after-oil-train-derails.html

Nice job, liberals! This is what North Dakota residents will have to keep dealing with because of your crybaby bitch fit. Now all the protesters can go back to their cushy suburban lives and Warren Buffett can count his money while small-town North Dakotans live in fear of losing everything.

[Th'Pusher]

Actually, Warren Buffett does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway

And that's the real reason why the left opposes pipelines - in order to prop up the railroad company that one of their biggest multibillionaire donors owns.

Yeah. I teed that one up for you. I'm surprised you hadn't mentioned it yet.

[boutons_deux]

Signs Of A Creepy Government Conspiracy At Standing Rock

We met carload after carload of those volunteers, and the critical supplies they brought to camp, like firewood and things to wipe your butt with that isn't firewood. Talking to these people, we heard variations of the phrase "I wouldn't be here if it weren't for Facebook." Which is both awe-inspiring and cartoonishly surreal. And now, keeping in mind everything I've told you so far, here's where things get crazy. Like, "too far-fetched for a movie" crazy ...

Modern mobile communications were instrumental to the most formidable protest and revolutionary movements of this century so far, from Egypt's Tahrir uprisings to Greece's Movement of the Squares. Governments always have weapons -- the people only have each other, and occasionally Molotov cocktails. That's why the Egyptian government tried to fight the protests in 2011 by cutting off the entire nation's internet access (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html), and why Turkey's new sorta-dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan attempted to block Twitter access (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/turkey-censorship-real-life/) in his country.

So maybe it's not surprising that someone is trying to kick Standing Rock off the internet.

(And yes, we've got evidence to back us up. None of this is loopy conspiracy talk.)

We first encountered the idea through hearsay, via a man we met at the big camp, in a large tent filled with U.S. military veterans. He'd been a 25 Bravo in the Army -- an information technology (https://www.thebalance.com/25b-information-technology-specialist-3345979) specialist. He was the first to allege that the planes flying over were equipped with what he called "scramblers," which "fed white noise into the cell signals" to interfere with internet access at Standing Rock and "keep information from getting out."


"The moment you hit this camp from the highway, the signal goes to [nothing]." He added that, "People are reporting their cellphones are turning on, their [apps] are turning on, their battery is draining." In any other situation, we'd have been prepared to write this off as the world's lamest campfire story. It's the kind of story you'd expect to be followed up with "totally real" pictures of Bigfoot or something. But ...

We ran into similar strange rumors across camp for the next couple of days. People from every corner, whether they had been on site for days or for months, would talk about their cellphone signals cutting out just as drones circled above. Mobiles would switch themselves off and on again -- not in pocket but in hand. Camera apps were opened out of nowhere, and batteries would drain by enormous percentages, killing the phones in minutes, rather than the steady decline of any device pinging back and forth searching for a signal. There were even reports of people's Gmail accounts being hacked.

use special planes to steal data and block internet access at Standing Rock?

In a word, "yes." In eight words, "Oh fucking fuck, the government has internet-stealing Cessnas!"

We brought all this -- the cell-blocking and reports of weird phone activity -- up to Marc Rogers, a security expert and white-hat hacker who, among other things, advises the show Mr. Robot. He wasn't sure what was going on at Standing Rock, but noted a device called a "Stingray" might be the culprit.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2418-the-standing-rock-hacks-cracked-unravels-real-conspiracy.html

America is fucked and unfuckable. The militarized police state goons, working for BigCorp, will fuck everybody on command.

[Clipper Nation]

^ Boutards showing his support for Warren Buffett, the epitome of "BigCorp."

[spurraider21]

Actually, Warren Buffett does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway

And that's the real reason why the left opposes pipelines - in order to prop up the railroad company that one of their biggest multibillionaire donors owns.so what does that say about the energy-invested cock brothers actively funding the gop as they for some odd unrelated reasons are desperately trying to undermine and discredit scientific consensus?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Signs Of A Creepy Government Conspiracy At Standing Rock

We met carload after carload of those volunteers, and the critical supplies they brought to camp, like firewood and things to wipe your butt with that isn't firewood. Talking to these people, we heard variations of the phrase "I wouldn't be here if it weren't for Facebook." Which is both awe-inspiring and cartoonishly surreal. And now, keeping in mind everything I've told you so far, here's where things get crazy. Like, "too far-fetched for a movie" crazy ...

Modern mobile communications were instrumental to the most formidable protest and revolutionary movements of this century so far, from Egypt's Tahrir uprisings to Greece's Movement of the Squares. Governments always have weapons -- the people only have each other, and occasionally Molotov cocktails. That's why the Egyptian government tried to fight the protests in 2011 by cutting off the entire nation's internet access (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/29/technology/internet/29cutoff.html), and why Turkey's new sorta-dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan attempted to block Twitter access (http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/turkey-censorship-real-life/) in his country.

So maybe it's not surprising that someone is trying to kick Standing Rock off the internet.

(And yes, we've got evidence to back us up. None of this is loopy conspiracy talk.)

We first encountered the idea through hearsay, via a man we met at the big camp, in a large tent filled with U.S. military veterans. He'd been a 25 Bravo in the Army -- an information technology (https://www.thebalance.com/25b-information-technology-specialist-3345979) specialist. He was the first to allege that the planes flying over were equipped with what he called "scramblers," which "fed white noise into the cell signals" to interfere with internet access at Standing Rock and "keep information from getting out."


"The moment you hit this camp from the highway, the signal goes to [nothing]." He added that, "People are reporting their cellphones are turning on, their [apps] are turning on, their battery is draining." In any other situation, we'd have been prepared to write this off as the world's lamest campfire story. It's the kind of story you'd expect to be followed up with "totally real" pictures of Bigfoot or something. But ...

We ran into similar strange rumors across camp for the next couple of days. People from every corner, whether they had been on site for days or for months, would talk about their cellphone signals cutting out just as drones circled above. Mobiles would switch themselves off and on again -- not in pocket but in hand. Camera apps were opened out of nowhere, and batteries would drain by enormous percentages, killing the phones in minutes, rather than the steady decline of any device pinging back and forth searching for a signal. There were even reports of people's Gmail accounts being hacked.

use special planes to steal data and block internet access at Standing Rock?

In a word, "yes." In eight words, "Oh fucking fuck, the government has internet-stealing Cessnas!"

We brought all this -- the cell-blocking and reports of weird phone activity -- up to Marc Rogers, a security expert and white-hat hacker who, among other things, advises the show Mr. Robot. He wasn't sure what was going on at Standing Rock, but noted a device called a "Stingray" might be the culprit.

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2418-the-standing-rock-hacks-cracked-unravels-real-conspiracy.html

America is fucked and unfuckable. The militarized police state goons, working for BigCorp, will fuck everybody on command.




You weren't complaining when the government was doing similar at the Malhuer reserve.

[Nbadan]

Symbolic Victory for the lame-duck Obama administration....

http://2d0yaz2jiom3c6vy7e7e5svk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/repost-us-15431959-800x430.jpg

...but what took so long?

[boutons_deux]

^ Boutards showing his support for Warren Buffett, the epitome of "BigCorp."

YouLie

[Clipper Nation]

YouLie
Boutards and Buffett, shoulder to shoulder.

[boutons_deux]

Boutards and Buffett, shoulder to shoulder.

Clipper Nation, head up her ass to the shoulders

[Clipper Nation]

Clipper Nation, head up her ass to the shoulders
You and Warren Buffett, sittin' in a tree.

[RandomGuy]

Yet yall seem to want them to run the healthcare system.

Healthcare?

No.

I think the government could do far better at health insurance than an inefficient collection of for profit companies with baked in profits.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, Warren Buffett does:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BNSF_Railway

And that's the real reason why the left opposes pipelines - in order to prop up the railroad company that one of their biggest multibillionaire donors owns.

Strawman two. "the left opposes"

Strawman arguments are fancy lies.

The right lies so reflexively they don't even realize how much they do it. Sad.

[RandomGuy]

"Moderates" aren't the type of peoole going to Standing Rock and throwing a big hissyfit, let's be real now. Sane environmentalists would realize that we don't live in an oil-free utopia, and they'd support pipelines as a safer way of transporting the oil we need than any of the alternatives.

Given the effects of CO2 emissions on the climate, sane environmentalists would oppose any infrastructure that would encourage tar sand oil production. The world little needs more oil production/consumption.

Let the cost of oil transport simply stay high, and the markets will do the rest. The oil industry is big enough not to need the subsidies.

[RandomGuy]

so what does that say about the energy-invested cock brothers actively funding the gop as they for some odd unrelated reasons are desperately trying to undermine and discredit scientific consensus?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/61/81/ae/6181aef89c9150e68bf64f9375cc4fae.jpg

Shockingly enough trillion dollar industries can afford to bankroll a lot of propaganda. The ciggy companies fought just as hard.

[Clipper Nation]

Given the effects of CO2 emissions on the climate, sane environmentalists would oppose any infrastructure that would encourage tar sand oil production. The world little needs more oil production/consumption.

Let the cost of oil transport simply stay high, and the markets will do the rest. The oil industry is big enough not to need the subsidies.

Sane environmentalists would understand that we're not going to quit oil cold-turkey tomorrow. While we work to develop alternative energy that can replace oil someday, the pragmatic choice for the environment would be to support the safest possible means of transportation for all that oil, which would be pipelines.

[Clipper Nation]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/61/81/ae/6181aef89c9150e68bf64f9375cc4fae.jpg

Shockingly enough trillion dollar industries can afford to bankroll a lot of propaganda. The ciggy companies fought just as hard.

You do realize, of course, that left-wing billionaires have pumped tons of money into pro-climate-change research as well:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=53280DCB-9F2C-2E3A-7092-10CF6D8D08DF

And they're not doing it because they give a shit about the environment, BTW. It's all about protecting their financial investments in renewable energy:

http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Big-Donors-Big-Conflicts-Final1.pdf

Let's be real, the moment we allowed science to become politicized, it was a given that the donor class was going to start paying scientists to tell them what they wanted to hear. Both sides of the aisle are guilty; stop pretending your shit doesn't stink.

[boutons_deux]

Shockingly enough trillion dollar industries can afford to bankroll a lot of propaganda. The ciggy companies fought just as hard.

BigCarbon's tactics are the same: hire whore scientists to produce favorable "results", attack the legit science, create doubt and confusion everywhere, esp amonng the majority of people who are uneducated, unread, irrational, pay politicians to contribute to doubt and confusion, and pass enabling/protective legislation.

BigCig still doesn't care how many 10Ms of people have died from their poison, and BigCarbon doesn't care how mans 100Ms, if not Bs, will die from AGW climate change.

What BigCarbon's strategy has now that BigCig didn't have is support from Christian Taliban, lead by the nose and pocketbook by grifter pastors, who already deny rationality and science by believing, under threat of going to Hell For All Eternity, that the Bible is historically, cosmologically, scientifically accurate.

Christian Taliban can't accept, "cherry pick", climate science as true because they'd have to accept all of science, which would be mean disbelieving the Bible, and going to Hell.

[hater]

Our holy veterans who are not 2,000 but now 4,500 are now moving on to the next destination of this battle of good vs evil. They are currently traveling to Flint Michigan to fight the evildoers there. God have mercy on those corporations and their pupets

[Winehole23]

Eight different statehouses across the nation are considering bills criminalizing protests on property owned by the the oil and gas industry which critics say could squelch pipeline protesters and others calling attention to climate change-causing infrastructure.

The bills offer steep criminal penalties for trespass onto oil and gas industry-owned private property defined as “critical infrastructure” under state law. The legal definition of “critical infrastructure,” which incorporates essentially all assets serving as the bedrock of the current economic system, has greatly expanded in the post-September 11 era. With that expansion came increasingly harsh criminal enforcement mechanisms available to prosecutors in the name of protecting national security.https://therealnews.com/columns/bills-criminalizing-pipeline-protest-arise-in-statehouses-nationwide

[boutons_deux]

I guess the criminalization-of-dissent texts were written by ALEC, which is financed by BigOil

[hater]

Police state doing police state thangs tbqh

Remember they are also banning protests in public places and cities.

Police state doing police state thangs