Standing Rock Protestors - Sprayed with water in 26 Degrees

I know they are calling themselves protectors. In my mind it is interchangeable.

Did you to listen to the podcast? I suspect you may feel differently if you do. Perhaps not.

I have been going through stuff to find some speakers that will work on my computer. The present set quit on me.

Well that's annoying. I've got a bunch of little ones I could give you if we were closer. We had a bunch of them for dance practice - cleared a shop out when they were having a $2 sale on $20 - 40 speaker sets.

Of course I listen to myself Sturgis. I call ideological nonsense when I see it. Whether it comes from you, or from Giujohn, it is all the same to me.

I don't see any reason that liberals shouldn't be taken to task for failing to conform to basic facts.

You can make your case based on your opinions. But you can't make up facts.

I am pretty sure I have a set exactly like these wrapped up and stored.

I have to grudgingly agree with max...I mean about sturgis' ideological nonsense...I however have never said anything nonsensical or illogical GODAMN it!😇

Most persons, myself included, have been spelling protester "protestor."
FYI

Oh Please, your credibility suffers when you post such easily proved falsehoods.

A rock to the head is no 'peaceful protest', nor is burned vehicles and construction equipment.

It's obvious you are a toady to the oil interests.

I think Leadfoot is getting the best of this discussion.

Facts matter. And the objective facts are clearly not on Edgar's side. Edgar's ad hominem attack doesn't help his case at all.

Another toady.

For the viewers at home, let's be clear about what Edgar is doing here.

1) Edgar made the factually incorrect claim that none of the protesters are being violent.

2) Leadfoot correctly pointed out that the protesters are, in fact, being violent. They are throwing rocks and setting things on fire; both clearly acts of violence.

3) Edgar could have either admitted he made a mistake or providing more evidence to made his case. Either of these choices would have been responsible and rational. He chose not to do either.

Instead he resorted to ad hominem attacks.

Now back to our regular programming.

I am sympathetic to the Standing Rock Protesters on several points. However, the problem is that they aren't being very rational. I don't really even understand what they want?

Are the looking to have the pipeline moved? Are they looking to shut down the project altogether? Are they looking to end fossil fuel use now? Have they considered the environmental consequences of any of these.

A good protest has a clear message and a clear, reasonable desired end state. And an effective protest movement has a way to negotiate with the other side once there is an opportunity to sit at the table.

As far as I can see, the Standing Rock protests don't have either of these. The images of people throwing rocks at police and burning tires doesn't help.

This seems like more an act of rage than a well-thought out movement with a clear strategy and the ability to sit at the table.

For any of us who drive a car, or heat their house.... this blind rage against oil companies doesn't make too much sense.

I am going to reply to the toadies one time and then they are going to be put on ignore, because it is obvious they just want to denigrate the protectors.

The issue of rocks. It has not been established by the toadies that rock throwing is an ongoing thing or if it happened two months ago. It has not been established by they that more than a few people threw rocks at all. They want to blame all the protectors for a few people that damaged equipment, instead of allowing that the ones doing this should be prosecuted. They want to hold responsible a thousand peaceful gatherers for the criminal acts visited on them by authorities as well as a few transgressions by a minority. It's a classic case of no matter what happens, the gatherers are responsible for it all, according to them. Breaking laws enacted to persecute or deprive a people is a matter to be considered here.

interesting to see this - it's the flip of people's reaction to ceili's excellent post/thread

people are fine lumping others together - as long as they're part of that 'other' group. if they perceive themselves to be in the described group, they object to the grouping/stereotyping

Edgar, you didn't answer the main question.

What is the end goal of these protests? And what is the rational plan to reach that goal? If the result is an agreement to change the path of the pipeline, would that satisfy the protractors/protesters?

This seems like a case of opinions about facts being shaped by ideology.

If there was clear proof that a significant number of protesters were throwing rocks and setting fires to things, would this change your opinion at all?

To me, the facts matter.

I have not been reading her thread. Eventually I will visit it.