Keystone Pipeline leaks out 210,000 gallons

That seems to be pretty thorough. Nothing there says that they were stopped. Maybe the claim was supposed to be that Canada decided no new pipelines. Maybe they think they have enough.

She likes a smack on the ass after meetings.

Then she doesn't.

Who thinks she can tell the truth about pipelines?
 
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/286182-canadian-court-blocks-contentious-oil-pipeline

Canada's Federal Court of Appeal blocked a controversial oil pipeline Thursday after years of protest by environmentalists.

The court ruled that Canada's federal government did not properly consult with First Nations on or near the route of the Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, The Globe and Mail reported.

The project was controversial across the continent. It would carry oil sands petroleum from Alberta to the Pacific coast, providing a means for export, the same purpose as the Keystone XL project that President Obama rejected last year.

Northern Gateway was frequently compared to Keystone by environmentalists seeking to sow opposition, and both projects were being planned at the same time.

https://www.transcanada.com/en/anno...-east-pipeline-and-eastern-mainline-projects/

CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - Oct. 5, 2017) - News Release - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today it will no longer be proceeding with its proposed Energy East Pipeline and Eastern Mainline projects.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/donald-trump-keystone-pipeline-2/


The Keystone XL pipeline, on the other hand, isn’t such an open-and-shut kind of case. First off, it hasn’t been built yet—that is, at least the portion that is supposed to run through the U.S. The reason the Keystone requires approval from the federal government is that it crosses an international border, through Canada. Unlike the DAPL, the Keystone is about as un-American as it gets. It is being built by a Canadian company to help mostly Canadian and European oil companies move Canadian crude from Western Canada down to Texas.

The Canadians already have pipelines that cross the border, but they all head to the Midwest. The Keystone, instead, runs south, to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Canadians claim that the pipeline intends to provide oil to U.S. refineries. That sounds reasonable, as the Gulf Coast is home to most of the nation’s biggest refineries, many of which can process heavy Canadian crude. But the pipeline also connects the Canadians to the Port of Houston, giving them the ability to export their crude out of the U.S. to other countries, namely, China.

This is the real key issue with the Keystone pipeline. Western Canadian crude currently has no way of being exported out of North America, and can only head to a handful of U.S. refineries in the Midwest. This causes it to trade at a discount to world oil prices, giving those refiners fatter margins and U.S. consumers a bit of relief at the pump.

If the Canadians are given the ability to export their oil to other countries, it could negatively impact U.S. energy security, U.S. gasoline prices, and Midwest refining margins.

So why is President Trump giving Keystone away for nothing? He says it will create jobs. But the handful of jobs it will create—it doesn’t take many people to build or run a pipeline—pales in comparison to what Canada stands to gain. Trump also made some silly statement yesterday about wanting to have the physical pipe for the Keystone built in America, but, again, that’s a one-off gimmick that wouldn’t come close to balancing out the deal.
 
http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/donald...ne-pipeline-2/

"So why is President Trump giving Keystone away for nothing?"
Maybe treason. Maybe he cut a deal with China, the recipient of the Canadian oil, in exchange for... what? Beijing Tromp Tower?
 
Those of us with a brain knew this would happen.

I hope not either.
The company had to spend so much time after all the brainless hate terrorist , you call the protesters that maintenance couldn't be done so you can thank the activist and please comment about how evil and harmful the Alaskan pipeline is .
 
Hope the Ogallala Aquifer was not impacted. This was pretty much the whole reason that the stupid thing was not supposed to be built in the first place.
Anyone happy this happened will feel sad later when its proved that some terrorist caused the just to make an ecotard point!

Your feelings and comments are just an echo of the noise that was said and printed about the Alaskan pipeline by eco experts that have proven wrong over and over!
 
Last edited:
I hate to break this to you, but many First Nations, Native Americans, and indios are also assholes. Like my Miwok next door neighbors and their vicious dogs. The family running the tribal casino downhill they work at are exemplary, providing great support for our community and for the pipeline protestors. But many more, like my Cherokee stepfather, are working folk with redneck tendencies. Reservation crime rates tend towards the horrific.

All that aside, reservations and rancherias are sovereign entities, and much off-reservation land is considered sacred. Leaderships of many indigenous nations are rightly concerned with preserving surrounding environments and heritages. The old Indian Wars continue at a lower pitch. The ending is undetermined.

Seems as good a place to start as any.

The Indians of the Americas, especially North America are Animists. As such EVERYTHING is imbued with the essence of the Great Spirit. They can make a claim for 'sacred' virtually anywhere on the face of the earth. It's just that some places are "more sacred" than others. Where they dump their trash for example. The Mesa country of the American Southwest is littered with trash piles going back well over a thousand years. Flying over them in a light aircraft you can spot them all over the place. But they claim that those areas are 'sacred.'

There are a few tribal elders that still cleave to the old ways and they are sincere in their beliefs. But they aren't the agitators, it's the young that are doing that and their goals are very different, they're financial. Either in the form of payoff's, land acquisition, or other considerations.

I will readily admit that the Indians got a raw deal. But that's what happens when you don't have an immigration policy or enforce the policies you do have. There's a lesson in there for anyone that wants to pay attention.

And while we're on the subject, it seems as if most people want to blame the English colonists for the plight of the Indian, especially concerning the spread of various diseases for which the Indians had no immunity. That is far from the facts of the matter. It was primarily the Spanish and secondarily the French that were to blame. The Spanish brought Small Pox and various influenza's over with them and those diseases spread like wildfire throughout the continent. Most of the tribes had been decimated long before the English arrived.

And don't disabuse yourself of the notion that the Indian lived in idyllic harmony with nature, or each other. They were in a constant state of war with one neighboring tribe or another and just as often with different bands within their own tribe. They all practiced thievery, it was a right of passage for the young men of the tribe. (And quite frankly, given the level of their societies, a valuable survival skill.) Various tribes practiced slavery and/or cannibalism. The Central and South American Indian cultures practiced wholesale human sacrifice. The point here is that you can't pick and choose which parts of their "cultural heritage" you're going to allow them to practice. As Johnny Carson so aptly put it, "If you buy the premise you have to buy the whole schtick."
 
I claim some small familiarity with indigenes of the northern Americas, having grown up and spent adult years with folks of many indigenous backgrounds between Alaska, Newfoundland, the Southwest, and Honduras. Early native populations were as diverse and contentious as Europe or south-central Asia. Cultural generalizations are false. Adjacent peoples often had vastly different belief systems -- no universal Great Spirit. See The Birth of the Gods for some clarity. And modern indigenes often adopt a faith of the conquerors.

Pre-contact California hosted about twice as many distinct nations (~120) as are counties now. Those Californios spoke languages from Nunavut, Great Lakes, New England, Texas, and central Mexico -- everywhere in North America but Florida. They had the usual wars. They didn't live in wilderness. They sculpted the landscape, giving our grasslands and oak woodlands their parklike form because better foraging and hunting. And, like all of us, they regularly danced with the fuckup fairy.

Yes, Spanish and French spread disease and misery before Brits got involved. But notice that most Catholic countries in the Americas still have large (if subjugated) indigenous populations, while in Protestant lands (US and Canada) they're mostly exterminated. So yes, I do blame Anglos for genocide.

And yes, it's all about land, sacred and profane. Evict previous occupants and take their real estate. US Constitution, Art.VI: "The Constitution... and all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." But the US started breaking treaties with Indian nations almost as soon as the ink was dry. Yup, this rogue nation has always treated its supreme law as a mere scrap of paper, as Dubya rightly called it.

Proceed to Jackson's SCOTUS-defying genocidal Trail of Tears, and removal of many tribes to the shittiest small parcels possible. Gotta evict the occupants if you want the real estate. Throw in extermination of bison to starve Great Plains tribes; kidnapping children to Indian Schools to be deculturated; and rampant BIA corruption; and we've got Crimes Against Humanity.

Genocide is more than "a raw deal."
 
I will readily admit that the Indians got a raw deal. But that's what happens when you don't have an immigration policy or enforce the policies you do have. There's a lesson in there for anyone that wants to pay attention.
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those??)?

Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.
 
Last edited:
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??

Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.

It's the way of the world. If we fail to defend our culture stronger people will come here and take it away from us as well.
 
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??

Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.

Yeah, he's an 85 yr old drunkard. He's basically clown shoes around here.
 
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??

Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.

Remember those "Manifest Destiny" t-shirts the Gap sold a few years back because hipsterism and seemingly cool-sounding rhetoric and corporate marketing and ignorance and corporate marketing seemingly cool-sounding rhetoric to ignorant hipsters?

manifestdestinyshirt-179x300.jpg


o-GAP-MANIFEST-DESTINY-570.jpg


Well, turns out that some people looking at the world for what it really is weren't perzactly as stupid as originally perceived...and the resulting backlash concerning what "manifest destiny" means, did and its generational legacy made itself known over social media...needless to say, the Gap pulled them shits down to be mulched lickety-split.

gap-ad-reimagined-manifest-destiny.jpg


manifest-destiny-controvery1.jpg


gap_shirt_response1_1_.jpg


A5Wo_QpCAAEf1Vz.png


"to those who might have interpreted it in that manner..."

giphy.gif


This is how the colonizer mindset rewrites and reshapes history to their fitting. Then that rewriting and reshaping is taught to you as gospel, to be button-pushed on repeat teaching every generation.

So, the "they got a raw deal" guy that you quoted? He managed to snatch five XXLs of them shitty shirts off the shelves before they went poof...and he sleeps in them religiously as ad-hoc pajamas five nights out of the week! :D
 
That's how it goes around here. Lay down all sorts of smack about native Americans and paint it as a failed culture, and nobody bats an eye. Tell the truth about the people of the Confederacy, and get your ass handed to you.
 
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??
That's how it goes around here. Lay down all sorts of smack about native Americans and paint it as a failed culture, and nobody bats an eye. Tell the truth about the people of the Confederacy, and get your ass handed to you.
Just a note: Nothing like an integrated Native American nation nor culture ever existed. The Americas were (and in places still are) a vast quilt of tiny patches of peoples. Some built significant civilizations. Many suffered protein shortages because megafauna extinction -- but that's another issue. None were resistant to European diseases.

So: no immigration policies because no nation. (Don't get me started on the dismantling of the Iroquois Confederation and the Six Civilized Tribes.) Genocide, because it's an easy follow-up after disease megadeaths. Subcultures that managed to survive in some form after the European onslaughts. And continuing oppression. Welcome to the world.

In USA, slavery did not end with the War of Southern Treason. I've seen contemporary reports of Native Americans enslaved in Southern California from the 1860s into the 1890s. And not only Old Rebels did the enslaving. Enough ex-Northern assholes availed themselves of free labor too.

Welcome, Welcome, Emigrante

I am proud, I am proud, I am proud of my forefathers
And I sing about their patience
For the work they did was lowly and they dirtied up their clothes
And they spoke a foreign language and they labored with their hands
And they came from far away to a land they did not know
The same way you do, my friends.

So welcome, welcome, emigrante, to my country, welcome home.
Welcome, welcome, emigrante, to the country that I love.

--Buffy Sainte-Marie, Cree
 

...This sort of cruelty is a problem in any narrative about American Indians, because Americans like to think of their native aboriginals as in some ways heroic or noble. Indians were, in fact, heroic and noble in many ways, especially in defense of their families. Yet in the moral universe of the West— in spite of our own rich tradition of torture, which includes officially sanctioned torments in Counter-Reformation Europe and sovereign regimes such as that of Peter the Great in Russia— a person who tortures or rapes another person or who steals another person's child and then sells him cannot possibly be seen that way...

...Such behavior was common to all Indians in the Americas. The more civilized agrarian tribes of the east, in fact, were far more adept at devising lengthy and agonizing tortures than the Comanches or other plains tribes. The difference lay in the Plains Indians' treatment of female captives and victims. Rape or abuse, including maiming, of females had existed when eastern tribes had sold captives as slaves in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. But that practice had long ago been abandoned. Some tribes, including the Iroquois federation, had never treated women captives that way. Women could be killed, and scalped. But not gang-raped. What happened to the Parker captives could only have happened west of the Mississippi. If the Comanches were better known for cruelty and violence, that was because, as one of history's great warring peoples, they were in a position to inflict far more pain than they ever received...

...But the Indians did not fight that way— not by choice, anyway. They did not advance in regimental ranks across open fields. They never took a direct charge, scattering and disappearing whenever one was made. They never attacked an armed fort. They relished surprise, insisted on tactical advantage. They would attack whole villages and burn them, raping, torturing, and killing their inhabitants, leaving young women with their entrails carved out, men burned alive; they skewered infants and took young boys and girls as captives... Torture of survivors was the norm, as it was all across the plains...


-S. C. Gwynne
Empire of The Summer Moon: Quanah Parker and the Rise and Fall of the Comanches, the Most Powerful Indian Tribe in American History
New York, N.Y. 2010.


 
I claim some small familiarity with indigenes of the northern Americas, having grown up and spent adult years with folks of many indigenous backgrounds between Alaska, Newfoundland, the Southwest, and Honduras. Early native populations were as diverse and contentious as Europe or south-central Asia. Cultural generalizations are false. Adjacent peoples often had vastly different belief systems -- no universal Great Spirit. See The Birth of the Gods for some clarity. And modern indigenes often adopt a faith of the conquerors.

Pre-contact California hosted about twice as many distinct nations (~120) as are counties now. Those Californios spoke languages from Nunavut, Great Lakes, New England, Texas, and central Mexico -- everywhere in North America but Florida. They had the usual wars. They didn't live in wilderness. They sculpted the landscape, giving our grasslands and oak woodlands their parklike form because better foraging and hunting. And, like all of us, they regularly danced with the fuckup fairy.

Yes, Spanish and French spread disease and misery before Brits got involved. But notice that most Catholic countries in the Americas still have large (if subjugated) indigenous populations, while in Protestant lands (US and Canada) they're mostly exterminated. So yes, I do blame Anglos for genocide.

And yes, it's all about land, sacred and profane. Evict previous occupants and take their real estate. US Constitution, Art.VI: "The Constitution... and all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." But the US started breaking treaties with Indian nations almost as soon as the ink was dry. Yup, this rogue nation has always treated its supreme law as a mere scrap of paper, as Dubya rightly called it.

Proceed to Jackson's SCOTUS-defying genocidal Trail of Tears, and removal of many tribes to the shittiest small parcels possible. Gotta evict the occupants if you want the real estate. Throw in extermination of bison to starve Great Plains tribes; kidnapping children to Indian Schools to be deculturated; and rampant BIA corruption; and we've got Crimes Against Humanity.

Genocide is more than "a raw deal."

There are two sides to every story. Jackson's decision was based on a simple concept, 'nations cannot exist within nations.' As you pointed out the various Indian nations were, at one time, sovereign nations in their own right. The problem was that the English, Spanish, and to a lesser extent the French, were treating with those nations and using them as proxies to cause disruption, and in some cases out and out war, with the newly formed United States. This situation was intolerable so Jackson removed them to an area outside of the then US State boundaries. Yes, many individuals profited from that, but that was not Jackson's motivation, merely a consequence.

The various tribes were just as guilty of treaty breaking as the US government. And to be honest, the very act of restricting those tribes, most particularly the Hunter-Gatherer tribes, was a guarantee that the Indians would break the treaty. They were migratory in nature and had to follow the food sources on a seasonal basis. The notion that they were going to immediately settle down and become agrarian cultures was folly.

I recommend that you read "Storms Brewed in Other Men's Worlds" by Elizabeth John. It is a scholarly chronicle of the French and Spanish interactions with the Indians of the Southwest. Most of the book covers a period that predates the English colonization and the formation of the United States. While the details differ the pattern of interactions are essentially the same. Especially regarding treaties and the breaking thereof.

The entire saga of European-Indian interactions, spanning hundreds of years, is not a pretty picture. But there is more than enough blame to be spread around. And just as with the entire span of recorded human history when a more advanced culture (be that technologically or numerically) collides with a less advanced culture the lesser culture loses. The story of the American Indians is not unique in that respect.

The clock cannot be turned back...........ever. Once you attempt to do that where do you stop? Turn it back far enough and we'll all be quarrying stone for the current Pharaoh's burial chamber. History is knowledge that we can learn from and apply the lessons going forward, but it can't be undone.
 
I love the smell of cherry-picking in the morning; it only highlights the inability to back a contention based upon belief and nothing more.
 
I love the smell of cherry-picking in the morning; it only highlights the inability to back a contention based upon belief and nothing more.

Tell us again how AIDS doesn't exist and is purely the result of "the bath house lifestyle", AJ.
 
There are two sides to every story. Jackson's decision was based on a simple concept, 'nations cannot exist within nations.' As you pointed out the various Indian nations were, at one time, sovereign nations in their own right. The problem was that the English, Spanish, and to a lesser extent the French, were treating with those nations and using them as proxies to cause disruption, and in some cases out and out war, with the newly formed United States. This situation was intolerable so Jackson removed them to an area outside of the then US State boundaries. Yes, many individuals profited from that, but that was not Jackson's motivation, merely a consequence.
Jump forward a couple centuries. Mr Tromp could decide that the presence of certain groups within USA is intolerable, and order expulsion outside the national boundaries, or merely removal to small, wasted parcels.

Oh no, that's like Nixonian Concentration Camps paranoia! :eek: Except that Civilized Tribes removal and Japanese-American internments are precedents. Watch how USA, past and present, treats Native Americans. Any of us in an unpopular group could be next.
 
Jump forward a couple centuries. Mr Tromp could decide that the presence of certain groups within USA is intolerable, and order expulsion outside the national boundaries, or merely removal to small, wasted parcels.

Oh no, that's like Nixonian Concentration Camps paranoia! :eek: Except that Civilized Tribes removal and Japanese-American internments are precedents. Watch how USA, past and present, treats Native Americans. Any of us in an unpopular group could be next.

Yes he could. :D

Illegal aliens and radical Muslims for example. I could think of a few more but he'd never get away with more than I've listed. As for what I've listed? "Goodbye and good riddance."
 
Perhaps you would like to quote where I made such "claims"? You're just making crap up again. I'll wait.

In the mean time, Canada can and should find another way to get their oil across our country rather than more pipelines. I don't see anyone suggesting that all pipelines are abandoned. I do not think they should be enlarged.

On a scale of 1-to-Que, the Native Murican n00b's ascription skillz are a solid 8.

#AscriptionAgain
#EveryoneOldIsNewAgain
 
Back
Top