Keystone Pipeline and the Lakota Nation
#1
Here is another problem for the Keystone pipeline. Do most of you know that Transcanada has an alternate route for their proposed pipeline through Eastern Canada? Why should the US allow that dirty oil to cross our country?

Anyone want to play the pros and cons game of the proposed project?

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline An ‘Act Of War'
The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart

Posted: 11/16/2014 9:17 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 3:58 pm EST


The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives' vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen's Voice reported on Saturday.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”

Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe's land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen's Voice.

[Image: o-KEYSTONE-ROUTE-570.jpg?6]
keystone route

The proposed 1,660-mile pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Scott echoed the concerns many environmentalists have raised about the pipeline, namely that it would be detrimental to the environment and further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,” said Scott. “We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future."

The Rosebud tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation have adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project in February, according to the Grand Island Independent.

The pipeline has become a political football in recent weeks. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, is in a tight runoff election, challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her Senate seat. Landrieu is the co-author of a parallel Senate bill that is set for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Several Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday that President Obama would veto a bill authorizing the pipeline. White House officials have also indicated that the president is leaning toward a veto. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision on whether to approve falls to the State Department. The State Department has delayed a decision on the project until after a court in Nebraska decides on the legality of the proposed route through the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...68584.html
Reply
#2
(11-18-2014, 09:44 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Here is another problem for the Keystone pipeline. Do most of you know that Transcanada has an alternate route for their proposed pipeline through Eastern Canada? Why should the US allow that dirty oil to cross our country?

Anyone want to play the pros and cons game of the proposed project?

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline An ‘Act Of War'
The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart

Posted: 11/16/2014 9:17 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 3:58 pm EST


The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives' vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen's Voice reported on Saturday.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”

Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe's land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen's Voice.

[Image: o-KEYSTONE-ROUTE-570.jpg?6]
keystone route

The proposed 1,660-mile pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Scott echoed the concerns many environmentalists have raised about the pipeline, namely that it would be detrimental to the environment and further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,” said Scott. “We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future."

The Rosebud tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation have adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project in February, according to the Grand Island Independent.

The pipeline has become a political football in recent weeks. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, is in a tight runoff election, challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her Senate seat. Landrieu is the co-author of a parallel Senate bill that is set for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Several Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday that President Obama would veto a bill authorizing the pipeline. White House officials have also indicated that the president is leaning toward a veto. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision on whether to approve falls to the State Department. The State Department has delayed a decision on the project until after a court in Nebraska decides on the legality of the proposed route through the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...68584.html

Dirty oil ehLaughingLaughing Anyway I drink a LOT of Keystone and if they want to build a pipeline then that will surely reduce the price of a six pac.Laughing








"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


You can say that anywhere in the world where natives have yet to evolve.
Reply
#3
(11-18-2014, 01:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 09:44 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Here is another problem for the Keystone pipeline. Do most of you know that Transcanada has an alternate route for their proposed pipeline through Eastern Canada? Why should the US allow that dirty oil to cross our country?

Anyone want to play the pros and cons game of the proposed project?

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline An ‘Act Of War'
The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart

Posted: 11/16/2014 9:17 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 3:58 pm EST


The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives' vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen's Voice reported on Saturday.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”

Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe's land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen's Voice.

The proposed 1,660-mile pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Scott echoed the concerns many environmentalists have raised about the pipeline, namely that it would be detrimental to the environment and further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,” said Scott. “We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future."

The Rosebud tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation have adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project in February, according to the Grand Island Independent.

The pipeline has become a political football in recent weeks. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, is in a tight runoff election, challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her Senate seat. Landrieu is the co-author of a parallel Senate bill that is set for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Several Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday that President Obama would veto a bill authorizing the pipeline. White House officials have also indicated that the president is leaning toward a veto. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision on whether to approve falls to the State Department. The State Department has delayed a decision on the project until after a court in Nebraska decides on the legality of the proposed route through the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...68584.html

Dirty oil ehLaughingLaughing Anyway I drink a LOT of Keystone and if they want to build a pipeline then that will surely reduce the price of a six pac.Laughing








"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


You can say that anywhere in the world where natives have yet to evolve.

You drink Keystone Light huh?

I thought you were an environmentalist.

Looks like The Canadians have unevolved natives opposed to the project as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17...74570.html
Reply
#4
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/11/17...inted.html

Quote:BILLINGS, Mont. — Random testing of shallow groundwater in the Northern Plains oil patch found no early evidence of contamination from an energy boom that's already seen more than 8,500 wells drilled, federal scientists said Monday.
Reply
#5
(11-18-2014, 02:46 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 09:44 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Here is another problem for the Keystone pipeline. Do most of you know that Transcanada has an alternate route for their proposed pipeline through Eastern Canada? Why should the US allow that dirty oil to cross our country?

Anyone want to play the pros and cons game of the proposed project?

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline An ‘Act Of War'
The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart

Posted: 11/16/2014 9:17 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 3:58 pm EST


The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives' vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen's Voice reported on Saturday.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”

Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe's land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen's Voice.

The proposed 1,660-mile pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Scott echoed the concerns many environmentalists have raised about the pipeline, namely that it would be detrimental to the environment and further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,” said Scott. “We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future."

The Rosebud tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation have adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project in February, according to the Grand Island Independent.

The pipeline has become a political football in recent weeks. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, is in a tight runoff election, challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her Senate seat. Landrieu is the co-author of a parallel Senate bill that is set for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Several Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday that President Obama would veto a bill authorizing the pipeline. White House officials have also indicated that the president is leaning toward a veto. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision on whether to approve falls to the State Department. The State Department has delayed a decision on the project until after a court in Nebraska decides on the legality of the proposed route through the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...68584.html

Dirty oil ehLaughingLaughing Anyway I drink a LOT of Keystone and if they want to build a pipeline then that will surely reduce the price of a six pac.Laughing








"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


You can say that anywhere in the world where natives have yet to evolve.

You drink Keystone Light huh? No, never trid it.

I thought you were an environmentalist. I thought you could tell when I was joking

Looks like The Canadians have unevolved natives opposed to the project as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17...74570.html

Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.
Reply
#6
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing
Reply
#7
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing
Reply
#8
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 02:46 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 09:44 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Here is another problem for the Keystone pipeline. Do most of you know that Transcanada has an alternate route for their proposed pipeline through Eastern Canada? Why should the US allow that dirty oil to cross our country?

Anyone want to play the pros and cons game of the proposed project?

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline An ‘Act Of War'
The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart

Posted: 11/16/2014 9:17 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 3:58 pm EST


The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives' vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen's Voice reported on Saturday.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”

Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe's land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen's Voice.

The proposed 1,660-mile pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Scott echoed the concerns many environmentalists have raised about the pipeline, namely that it would be detrimental to the environment and further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,” said Scott. “We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future."

The Rosebud tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation have adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project in February, according to the Grand Island Independent.

The pipeline has become a political football in recent weeks. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, is in a tight runoff election, challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her Senate seat. Landrieu is the co-author of a parallel Senate bill that is set for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Several Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday that President Obama would veto a bill authorizing the pipeline. White House officials have also indicated that the president is leaning toward a veto. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision on whether to approve falls to the State Department. The State Department has delayed a decision on the project until after a court in Nebraska decides on the legality of the proposed route through the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...68584.html

Dirty oil ehLaughingLaughing Anyway I drink a LOT of Keystone and if they want to build a pipeline then that will surely reduce the price of a six pac.Laughing








"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


You can say that anywhere in the world where natives have yet to evolve.

You drink Keystone Light huh? No, never trid it.

I thought you were an environmentalist. I thought you could tell when I was joking

Looks like The Canadians have unevolved natives opposed to the project as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17...74570.html

Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

TVguy, I knew you were joking and my comment " I thought you were an environmentalist" was also a joke. And yeah, the death warrant comment is exaggeration, but if the tribe is a sovereign nation then there are certainly going to be problems if they don't want the pipeline going through their land.

My whole problem with the pipeline is that it is not needed, at least by our country. Transcanada will sell their oil on the open market so facilitating construction of the pipeline through the US is of little benefit to Americans. It would be a gift to a foreign company with the only benefit being the temporary jobs of building the pipeline. Canada should send its filthy oil across its own country to Vancouver or an Eastern Canadian port city.
Reply
#9
(11-18-2014, 05:01 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 02:46 PM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 01:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 09:44 AM)cletus1 Wrote: Here is another problem for the Keystone pipeline. Do most of you know that Transcanada has an alternate route for their proposed pipeline through Eastern Canada? Why should the US allow that dirty oil to cross our country?

Anyone want to play the pros and cons game of the proposed project?

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote On Keystone XL Pipeline An ‘Act Of War'
The Huffington Post | By Andrew Hart

Posted: 11/16/2014 9:17 pm EST Updated: 11/17/2014 3:58 pm EST


The president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) tribe has called the House of Representatives' vote to force approval of the Keystone XL pipeline an “act of war,” the Summit County Citizen's Voice reported on Saturday.

"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” President Cyril Scott said in a statement. “We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL.”

Scott said he and other tribal elders have not been appropriately consulted on the pipeline, which would run through the tribe's land. He also contended the House vote violates the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties, which gave the Black Hills to the Sioux Nation, according to the Summit County Citizen's Voice.

The proposed 1,660-mile pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to refineries in Texas. Scott echoed the concerns many environmentalists have raised about the pipeline, namely that it would be detrimental to the environment and further U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,” said Scott. “We feel it is imperative that we provide safe and responsible alternative energy resources not only to tribal members but to non-tribal members as well. We need to stop focusing and investing in risky fossil fuel projects like TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. We need to start remembering that the earth is our mother and stop polluting her and start taking steps to preserve the land, water, and our grandchildren’s future."

The Rosebud tribe and other members of the Great Sioux Nation have adopted tribal resolutions opposing the Keystone XL project in February, according to the Grand Island Independent.

The pipeline has become a political football in recent weeks. Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the lead sponsor of the House bill, is in a tight runoff election, challenging incumbent Mary Landrieu (D-La.) for her Senate seat. Landrieu is the co-author of a parallel Senate bill that is set for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 18.

Several Democratic lawmakers said on Sunday that President Obama would veto a bill authorizing the pipeline. White House officials have also indicated that the president is leaning toward a veto. Because the pipeline would cross an international border, the decision on whether to approve falls to the State Department. The State Department has delayed a decision on the project until after a court in Nebraska decides on the legality of the proposed route through the state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/16...68584.html

Dirty oil ehLaughingLaughing Anyway I drink a LOT of Keystone and if they want to build a pipeline then that will surely reduce the price of a six pac.Laughing








"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


You can say that anywhere in the world where natives have yet to evolve.

You drink Keystone Light huh? No, never trid it.

I thought you were an environmentalist. I thought you could tell when I was joking

Looks like The Canadians have unevolved natives opposed to the project as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17...74570.html

Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

TVguy, I knew you were joking and my comment " I thought you were an environmentalist" was also a joke. And yeah, the death warrant comment is exaggeration, but if the tribe is a sovereign nation then there are certainly going to be problems if they don't want the pipeline going through their land.

My whole problem with the pipeline is that it is not needed, at least by our country. Transcanada will sell their oil on the open market so facilitating construction of the pipeline through the US is of little benefit to Americans. It would be a gift to a foreign company with the only benefit being the temporary jobs of building the pipeline. Canada should send its filthy oil across its own country to Vancouver or an Eastern Canadian port city.

I think I read that the sticky wicket here is refineries. They are harder to get permits for than nuclear power plants. And they have hundreds of them on the Gulf Coast.
But Keystone will happen. Just too much money on the line and money talks.

They have oil in Mexico. I think a better idea would be to just require every Mexican sneaking into our country to be required to bring a gallon of crude. We'd have millions of barrels in no time.
Reply
#10
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.
Reply
#11
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing

Holy crap. I actually agree with Wonky. I have and seen it first hand. Stewards my ass.
Reply
#12
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.
Ya they left poor Mary hanging out to dry. One more state will go be getting a republican senator and Keystone will be brought up again in January when they take over the senate and they won't need 60 votes this time, but will get at least 63 votes and pass the bill. Obama will then be forced to make a decision for all to see. At least the Dems went on record to say that they are against jobs and lower oil prices. Wasn't a total waste of time.
Reply
#13
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.
Reply
#14
(11-19-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.


You did not divert the topic. But if I get into it, I will.
Reply
#15
The big 0 will still veto it, thank god.
Reply
#16
(11-19-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 03:40 PM)tvguy Wrote: Anyway I'm not so ready to abandon our use of oil until we have reasonable alternatives.
If the Natives don't want the pipeline on their land then IMO they have the right to say NO.

But I often wonder who pays all of these and other natives to live? I think in MANY cases they live off of our government


"The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren.


So says the president of South Dakota’s Rosebud Sioux. I say that's a load of horseshit.

Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.

Way too complex a topic for this thread. But here's a good article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch...-bottom-1/
Reply
#17
(11-19-2014, 09:34 AM)bbqboy Wrote: The big 0 will still veto it, thank god.

And America will get to see who really is the party of NO. Yesterday's vote the environmentalists beat the unions. That will hurt the Dems in the pocketbook. I will get some popcorn and enjoy the infighting.

If Obama vetoes he will be firmly on record against jobs for American union workers and lower oil prices for Americans. He will not be able to hide. That will put pressure or Dems in the house and senate to choose between their jobs in 2016 or go along with they guy who would rather Americans take it up the kazoo at the pumps.

Oh, and if the Dems in the senate vote as they did yesterday in January there will be more than enough votes to override a veto. It will come down to the House where the republicans hold their largest majority since 1924.
Reply
#18
(11-19-2014, 09:43 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:34 AM)bbqboy Wrote: The big 0 will still veto it, thank god.

And America will get to see who really is the party of NO. Yesterday's vote the environmentalists beat the unions. That will hurt the Dems in the pocketbook. I will get some popcorn and enjoy the infighting.

If Obama vetoes he will be firmly on record against jobs for American union workers and lower oil prices for Americans. He will not be able to hide. That will put pressure or Dems in the house and senate to choose between their jobs in 2016 or go along with they guy who would rather Americans take it up the kazoo at the pumps.

Oh, and if the Dems in the senate vote as they did yesterday in January there will be more than enough votes to override a veto. It will come down to the House where the republicans hold their largest majority since 1924.

From WIKI:
as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate may override a Presidential veto of legislation.

I don't think the congress will muster enough votes to meet the ? requirement.

But, "in the end" I think this thing will be built. There is simply far too much money involved to stop it.
Reply
#19
(11-19-2014, 09:35 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:13 PM)HolyMaryMotherOfGod Wrote: Crazy Horse shit. Laughing

"The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.

Way too complex a topic for this thread. But here's a good article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch...-bottom-1/

That is an interesting article Tia. I had not considered that individual Native Americans don't own the land on reservations for the most part. And like the article states, it provides one reason for the trailers many choose to live in on reservations.

Anyway, I am interested to see how the government will force the tribes to except the pipeline. Maybe we will see some modern day cowboys and Indians at war.
Reply
#20
(11-19-2014, 11:01 AM)cletus1 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:35 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-19-2014, 08:15 AM)Tiamat Wrote:
(11-18-2014, 04:30 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: "The Lakota people have always been stewards of this land,”


Yeah, pop into any one of the many reservations on Lakota land and have a look at that "stewardship". Laughing


Wow. Do you really think that is a fair comment? This line of thought will completely divert the topic.

But at any rate, The senate did not vote this through.

Perhaps it wasn't fair Tai. But since you didn't express anything explaining why you thought it unfair, I can't be sure. And I don't think it diverted the topic because I responded to a comment already made.

I've long felt there is a disconnect between the often claimed "stewardship of the land" from Native Americans and the reality of the behavior I've read about. I even wonder about building casinos on "Indian land" and how that translates to "stewardship".

And the fact that the it didn't pass congress is only a temporary ruling. Most pundits who follow this think it's a slam dunk to pass after the new congress is seated.

Way too complex a topic for this thread. But here's a good article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoppisch...-bottom-1/

That is an interesting article Tia. I had not considered that individual Native Americans don't own the land on reservations for the most part. And like the article states, it provides one reason for the trailers many choose to live in on reservations.

Anyway, I am interested to see how the government will force the tribes to except the pipeline. Maybe we will see some modern day cowboys and Indians at war.

I doubt it will be complicated. The tribes will take the money, the cowboys are now welders and will take what money they can get, local counties will take the tax money, the tar sands oil will flow in the pipe to the gulf coast to be absorbed into the world oil market and for a short time we will continue to burn carbon based fuel, whatever the cost to air quality.

At some point a new technology will burst upon the scene and the oil companies will be first in line to buy shares, shifting equity faster than a rabbits breed. The question remains, will it be in time.

Because:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/12013...-committee
In handing Republicans control of the Senate on Tuesday, Americans effectively voted for the party's hostile plans against President Barack Obama’s environmental legacy. Their votes also put the Senate's environment and climate policy into the hands of the worst science-denier in national politics: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who is almost certainly the next chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Inhofe claimed in 2003 that global warming might help humanity. “It's also important to question whether global warming is even a problem for human existence. Thus far no one has seriously demonstrated any scientific proof that increased global temperatures would lead to the catastrophes predicted by alarmists. In fact, it appears that just the opposite is true: that increases in global temperatures may have a beneficial effect on how we live our lives.”

In that same speech, he argued that an international body of climate change scientists “resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor.”

Leadership we can all be thankful for. Sad
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)