HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » He said "make me do ...

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:16 AM

 

He said "make me do it" so they showed up to make him, but were arrested.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/keystone-xl-white-house-protest-104153.html

Hundreds arrested at White House Keystone protest



More than 300 anti-Keystone XL protesters were arrested Sunday afternoon outside the White House in the latest push by environmentalists to convince the Obama administration to reject the Canadian oil pipeline.




I never did get that "make me do it" line. We elected him so he would do the things he said he would when he campaigned.

142 replies, 14887 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 142 replies Author Time Post
Reply He said "make me do it" so they showed up to make him, but were arrested. (Original post)
Scuba Mar 2014 OP
aquart Mar 2014 #1
LiberalEsto Mar 2014 #9
freedom fighter jh Mar 2014 #67
newfie11 Mar 2014 #2
Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2014 #10
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #26
kelliekat44 Mar 2014 #52
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #62
newfie11 Mar 2014 #93
BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #105
russspeakeasy Mar 2014 #129
elzenmahn Mar 2014 #132
Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #72
newfie11 Mar 2014 #92
Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2014 #98
2banon Mar 2014 #120
Curmudgeoness Mar 2014 #122
WhaTHellsgoingonhere Mar 2014 #128
MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #3
Plucketeer Mar 2014 #82
Phlem Mar 2014 #112
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #4
Scuba Mar 2014 #5
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #6
Scuba Mar 2014 #11
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #27
Scuba Mar 2014 #30
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #34
BBR Esq Mar 2014 #55
sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #57
KittyWampus Mar 2014 #113
cui bono Mar 2014 #121
hobbit709 Mar 2014 #61
Scuba Mar 2014 #74
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #7
Adrahil Mar 2014 #8
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #14
Adrahil Mar 2014 #19
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #25
Adrahil Mar 2014 #29
obxhead Mar 2014 #54
Adrahil Mar 2014 #56
Chathamization Mar 2014 #32
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #78
Chathamization Mar 2014 #90
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #100
Chathamization Mar 2014 #109
Scuba Mar 2014 #15
Adrahil Mar 2014 #20
Scuba Mar 2014 #21
Adrahil Mar 2014 #24
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #28
Adrahil Mar 2014 #33
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #63
Scuba Mar 2014 #35
Scootaloo Mar 2014 #65
Arkansas Granny Mar 2014 #18
seveneyes Mar 2014 #44
RC Mar 2014 #46
Adrahil Mar 2014 #59
RC Mar 2014 #79
proverbialwisdom Mar 2014 #58
Adrahil Mar 2014 #60
freedom fighter jh Mar 2014 #71
treestar Mar 2014 #77
newfie11 Mar 2014 #13
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #37
dreamnightwind Mar 2014 #50
n2doc Mar 2014 #12
Scuba Mar 2014 #17
madfloridian Mar 2014 #16
blackspade Mar 2014 #22
Scootaloo Mar 2014 #68
blackspade Mar 2014 #84
newfie11 Mar 2014 #95
woo me with science Mar 2014 #115
woo me with science Mar 2014 #116
LineLineLineLineNew Reply .
Ghost Dog Mar 2014 #135
KoKo Mar 2014 #138
KoKo Mar 2014 #139
LineLineLineNew Reply !
Ghost Dog Mar 2014 #136
jwirr Mar 2014 #23
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #31
jwirr Mar 2014 #36
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #38
Scuba Mar 2014 #40
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #43
Scuba Mar 2014 #45
Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2014 #51
Scuba Mar 2014 #53
Post removed Mar 2014 #87
Scuba Mar 2014 #88
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #64
treestar Mar 2014 #75
treestar Mar 2014 #80
truth2power Mar 2014 #39
Marr Mar 2014 #70
840high Mar 2014 #123
Whisp Mar 2014 #41
Scuba Mar 2014 #42
msanthrope Mar 2014 #49
factsarenotfair Mar 2014 #47
Divernan Mar 2014 #69
treestar Mar 2014 #81
factsarenotfair Mar 2014 #85
treestar Mar 2014 #102
WinkyDink Mar 2014 #83
Divernan Mar 2014 #48
JEB Mar 2014 #66
librechik Mar 2014 #73
grasswire Mar 2014 #89
treestar Mar 2014 #76
factsarenotfair Mar 2014 #86
treestar Mar 2014 #101
factsarenotfair Mar 2014 #103
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #91
jsr Mar 2014 #96
FiveGoodMen Mar 2014 #94
NCTraveler Mar 2014 #97
Scuba Mar 2014 #99
JoePhilly Mar 2014 #104
polichick Mar 2014 #106
polichick Mar 2014 #107
Zorra Mar 2014 #108
KittyWampus Mar 2014 #114
Zorra Mar 2014 #118
bvar22 Mar 2014 #110
great white snark Mar 2014 #111
woo me with science Mar 2014 #117
JDPriestly Mar 2014 #119
DeSwiss Mar 2014 #124
TransitJohn Mar 2014 #125
bluegreen Mar 2014 #126
WorseBeforeBetter Mar 2014 #130
blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #127
daybranch Mar 2014 #131
Skittles Mar 2014 #133
MindMover Mar 2014 #134
Scuba Mar 2014 #137
MindMover Mar 2014 #140
woo me with science Mar 2014 #141
woo me with science Mar 2014 #142

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:28 AM

1. 300 won't make anyone do anything.

Add three zeroes and a conversation might begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:58 AM

9. I thought there were 40,000 protestors

 

Just a fraction of them got arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquart (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:08 AM

67. You can add a couple of zeros.

40,000 showed up. 300 chose to stay put at the White House fence when the police told them to move or get arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:29 AM

2. Arrested for protesting

Give me a break! So now free speech, right to assemble is met with arrests?
Wow we've hit the gutter!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:00 AM

10. Nope.

There have always been proper restrictions on speech and assembly, beyond the ubiquitous "fire in a theater" example. You can assemble in many places, but some are very sensitive due to security issues and threats on the President's family. There are other aspects to, like disobeying a lawful order to disperse, etc. People with more experience protesting and with the law can weigh in with more knowledgeable replies than mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:31 AM

26. They weren't arrested for protesting.

Read the article. It describes how they actually protested for quite a while.

The article also indicates that they had to encourage the protesters to take action that would get them arrested.

They could have protested as long as they wanted and not been arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:26 AM

52. Ask those of us who protested to sit at a lunch counter and were arrested for it. It's what we

 

wanted. We knew when we crossed the line that would get us arrested...otherwise we could have protested all day and all night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:03 AM

62. But this wasn't that, was it.

The OP is claiming these folks were arrested just for protesting, as a way to smear the President. And that is not what happened.

My issue is with the OP, not the protesters.

There are plenty of protests where no one gets arrested. And, there are protests where people get arrested when they should not have been.

A goal of this protest was to get arrested ... for the OP to complain, as if the President decided to silence these folks, is false.

I'd expect that kind of thing from the right wing. Not so much from the left. Well, actually its kind of common around here these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #62)


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:17 PM

105. I believe kelliekat was agreeing with you, JoePhilly. eom

Edited to add:

And yes. The OP is a known member of the ODS crowd on this board, so you're correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:36 PM

129. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 01:56 AM

132. Really?????

"They could have protested as long as they wanted and not been arrested."

Horsepucky.

...there are always limits to how long a protest is "allowed."

We're at the stage now where arrests are necessary in order to drive the point home. Civil disobedience has a long tradition in this country (and other countries more democratic than us).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:19 AM

72. That's been going on for awhile.

Remember Occupy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fantastic Anarchist (Reply #72)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:23 PM

92. I know that seems to be what happens today

Were the sitting protesters that were sprayed in California arrested. I'm asking because I don't remember. It seem more protesters are arrested today than back in the 60's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #92)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:50 PM

98. I wasn't alive back in the 60s ...

... but it does seem that if you are on the Left, and you protest, then you're getting arrested.

If you are a teabagger, you can show up to a presidential rally with guns and be left alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 06:39 PM

120. there's nothing new in that. U.S. arrests peaceful demonstrators since the beginning

 

of our "freedom loving-democratic" existence. fast forward to this past decade alone, scores of arrests (not to mention police brutality) during the Vietnam war and the Iraq war, not to mention Occupy and scores of other peaceful demonstrations.

Don't know the numbers, but it's a significant amount of arrests in each event alone.

Not new, but it should be non-existent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 07:41 PM

122. It wasn't really for protesting,

it was for handcuffing themselves to the fence in front of the White House. And for security, the fence is off-limits.

But they knew that they were going to be arrested. They knew that this was a line to cross. Sometimes, you have to do things to get more attention to an issue.....and I would like for there to be twice as many do the same thing next week, then twice that the week after, until it gets the attention that it deserves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:29 PM

128. what Bernardo is trying to say is...

 

The likelihood of getting arrested at the White House depends on whether your demonstration comes from the left or right, regardless of which party occupies the White House.

If you're from the left and peacefully demonstrating, be prepared to get pepper sprayed and arrested.

If you're from the right and picking up barriers that were put in place to impede your demonstration from reaching the White House gate, well, meh...

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Vets-Plan-Rally-at-World-War-II-Memorial-227574101.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:32 AM

3. Doubtless, Obama was busy searching for his comfortable shoes

 

so he could join a picket, and didn't notice the cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:34 AM

82. Thanks for reviving that promise Manny

 

It's one that's really ground on me all these years. I don't know what it's like to be president, but I strongly suspect you could have shoes custom-made if you wanted - union-made shoes at that. Of course, if his promise was only hollow words.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:00 PM

112. +1000000

yep.

-p

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:34 AM

4. The article says their goal was to get arrested.

Did you read it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:35 AM

5. Yes. Do you have a point?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:41 AM

6. That by arresting them, Obama helped

Them far more than he hurt them.

And, that your OP is rather weak outrage material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:03 AM

11. If he wanted to help them, and us, he could nix the pipeline. That's why we elected him.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:34 AM

27. They were able to protest and march as long as they wanted.

No one stopped them from protesting.

Again, read the article.

The organizers had to encourage them to take actions that would get them arrested.

So you, by claiming that they were arrested for simply protesting, basically misled those too lazy to actually read the article.

Now, the knee-jerk folks think that President Obama ordered the police to arrest people for simply protesting.

Which did not happen.

And the perpetually disgruntled will eat it up, even though its false.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:37 AM

30. Nor did he order the police to not arrest these peaceful protesters.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:40 AM

34. Sure, because that was the most important thing for him to be doing yesterday.

Micro managing the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:37 AM

55. He should have ordered the police

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)

not to arrest the protesters who wanted to be arrested?

I marched with OWS and everyone knew that police overreaction is what made that rather small protest explode into a global phenomenon.

From the article you linked to:
Organizers held civil disobedience training on Saturday to ensure that the demonstration went peacefully.

-snip-

A tide of energy undulated through the crowd as speaker after speaker got up to encourage them to risk arrest.

-snip-

The crowd rushed from the grass and toward the White House gates, where U.S. Park Police horses and police buses and vans waited at the ready. The crowd pushed toward the sidewalk as protestors took plastic zip ties and secured themselves to the White House fence.


I agree with the need to protest this but you're blaming President Obama for something he couldn't control if he wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:42 AM

57. Has anyone who opposes this eisastrous pipeline been invited to participate in discussions

over it? Maybe they have, I don't know?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:02 PM

113. But that isn't what your OP is about. Very dishonest.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 06:57 PM

121. The real issue is that Obama isn't saying no the the KXL pipeline.

He did say "make me do it" and yet he goes ahead with something as attrocious as this pipeline, even though he campaigned on being an environmentalist.

And he tells the left to stfu through his chief of staff. He doesn't invite anyone from the left to any table yet has secret meetings with big corporations.

That's the point I get from the OP. So will he listen to the protesters? Time will tell but I wouldn't put any money on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:59 AM

61. his point is he never fails to apologize for the establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hobbit709 (Reply #61)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:25 AM

74. Snort. So true.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:41 AM

7. Their goal is to stop Keystone XL

which is a fight they shouldn't have to fight, considering our guy is in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:52 AM

8. except I'm not at all convinced it's the right fight.

 

Will the tar sands NOT be excavated if the pipeline isn't built? And if the oil is going to be extracted in any case, how will it be transported, and is that a better option?

I mean, the tar sands are being excavated right now, in the absence of the pipeline, right? And transported by rail, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:07 AM

14. It is one battle in the only fight that ultimately matters

which is, can we change how we live on this planet quickly enough to avoid catastrophic environmental feedback tipping points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:12 AM

19. Well, I certainly agree with your goal

 

We need to be getting OFF fossil fuels as soon as possible. I don't know that not building this pipeline will have any influence on that. In fact, I fairly certain it won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:22 AM

25. So you think it's a good idea?

Yeah, what could be possibly go wrong...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:37 AM

29. No, I don't.

 

But I'd rather see 40,000 people demonstrating in FAVOR of clean energy R&D, that will actually make a difference, instead of against a pipeline, which won't. We have a limited amount of political capital to spend here. We need to choose how to spend it WISELY. And this is wasted effort, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #29)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:36 AM

54. We don't have limited political capital when it comes to protesting.

 

Both could be protested along with 100's of other issues.

It was not a wasted effort. The XL pipeline will be devastating to the environment. When the pip breaks, and it will, it will create a serious disaster. Cleaning up tar sands oil is far more complicated than our standard spills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to obxhead (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:41 AM

56. yeah, ya do, if you expect to make a difference policy-wise.

 

That's just reality.

But I am sympathetic to your goals, so good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #14)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:38 AM

32. But it might have been an error to focus mainly on Keystone XL over the past few years

Since we're screwed even if it doesn't get built, and the oil is likely to get used either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chathamization (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:31 AM

78. I am not aware of any Keystone XL focus

that does not also advocate for changing our energy and climate use/abuse. In fact it is a vehicle for expressing the urgency of this matter, as well as being something that directly contributes to the problem.

If it was the actual focus of the movement, I would agree with you. The actual focus of the movement is something like 350.org, and though I don't know them well enough to speak for them, IIRC it's Bill McKibbens' effort to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 ppm (which we have now passed, now they want to reduce it from the 400 or so it is currently at to 350). Keystone XL, in addition to being a substantive issue on its own merit, is one part of their strategy, not their end-game at all.

You can argue that it shouldn't be a piece of that strategy, as can anyone sitting at a keyboard, or that it's too late to fight this issue, personally I don't buy into either of those arguments. Maybe I'm mis-characterizing your position, if so sorry, I just don't feel like this is an issue we can give an inch on, the stakes are too large and there is no urgency from our political leaders that rises to the urgency of the climate situation. We need to raise awareness and get loud and stubborn about it. Our descendents will thank us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:13 PM

90. Whether it should be part of a strategy and whether it should be the main focus are two different

things. True, protesters aren't saying "stop the Keystone XL and burn down everything else." But it doesn't change the fact that most of the prominent climate protests in the US over the past several years have been focused on the Keystone XL, as has a lot of the national environmental focus. We don't have the luxury at this point to spend years with the main focus being whether or not a single pipeline should be expanded. But maybe a lot of it is that there just doesn't seem to be much in the way of a national environmental movement. I can't say I've been particularly impressed by 350.org.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chathamization (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:39 PM

100. I don't know...

I just used 350.org as an arbitrary example, since they clearly were established with a long-term goal and since they are a major player on this issue.

As bad as things are, there doesn't seem to be much of any kind of national movement, unless your cause isn't going directly against the interests of big money. So there can be movements for social identity politics, there is some resistance from the religious right but for the most part they don't set the news agenda as much as the large corporations do.

But movements to rein in the runaway financial sector, to head off the worst effects of the coming climate change, to distribute income more equally in this country, to feed the poor instead of the military, etc., to find an economic populist Democratic Presidential candidate for 2016, mysteriously get little or no traction.

Why? People are lazy, misguided, movement leaders are ineffective? There's bound to be some truth to that. It's pretty easy to sit here and point the finger at them.

I think it's more a sad commentary on how thoroughly manipulated the national discourse is. Money is not speech, but it does allow the media ownership and management to establish the frame of discussion, and largely determines the issues people are focused on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #100)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 04:21 PM

109. A lot of the effective groups also seem to be local

There are a number of good groups at the local level, but there doesn't seem to be a great amount of coordination. If someone was to ask me what group to join if they wanted to get involved in activism, I'd probably give them a list of a number of groups (such as DFA, OFA, WFP, maybe even the DSA) that may be active where they are, or they may not be. Then I'd probably tell them to look around Meetup or Facebook for local activists groups which may or may not exist.

To tie it back to Keystone XL - it's good that there's a national environmental effort that's getting attention and can organize large protests. But I'd like to see effort put into a "carbon tax now!" movement, or to press Obama to use more of his executive powers to cut emissions (the effort to press him wage the minimum wage for federal contract workers was pretty successful).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:08 AM

15. This toxic material doesn't have to be transported across the heart of the US by pipe or rail.

 

Your post suggests that you believe pipeline opponents are OK with rail shipments. Fail.

The oil is heading for China, the jobs are in Canada, the profits go to stockholders around the world. Why should the US take on this risk?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:14 AM

20. How much you wanna bet it happens?

 

I'll bet 1000 pretend bucks on it, or a beverage of your choice on me, should the opportunity arise.

That oil is coming one way or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #20)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:15 AM

21. So we should all just shut the fuck up?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:21 AM

24. Nope, we should spend capital (political and actual) on efforts that will actually make a difference

 

More money into Solar. More money into a smart grids designed to take advantage of variable generation power sources (solar, wind). Investment in battery technologies.

THOSE things will make a practical shift away from fossil fuels possible and even desirable. Too many environmentalists think in the short term. This is a long term, strategic problem. As my daugher would say, it requires smarticle particles!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:36 AM

28. Making a very strong public stand can also make a difference

This pipeline is a great place to draw a line in the tar-sands. It would be an excellent signal that we are changing business-as-usual and are serious about fundamentally changing our energy policies to avert climate catastrophe. Humanity is at the crossroads, and we must choose. The pipeline is the wrong choice, seems pretty obvious.

Making changes to accelerate our move away from fossil fuel would be made easier, not more difficult, by rejecting this pipeline. It sets the cultural context, it says we are serious about this and it has to change, a change which has to happen yesterday! It isn't some stash of political coins that gets exhausted by any effort to bring change. It's a social/political context which gets modified towards sane environmental policy by stopping or doing all we can to stop this pipeline. It's literally an investment in our future, not some wasted expense of effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:39 AM

33. Go for it if that's what floats your boat.

 

I think it's wasted effort that actually HURTS our cause in the long wrong. I will be HAPPY to admit I was wrong should it come to pass. And if it does, and I was wrong, PLEASE link to this thread so I can eat some crow. I'd be delighted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:05 AM

63. That's funny, that's what I thought of your posting against resisting Keystone XL

Last edited Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

that it is wasted effort that will actually hurt our cause in the long run (in case I'm not being clear, I mean your posts in this thread, not the resistance to Keystone XL).

You being right (hypothetically) about the pipeline will be built is somehow you being right about not opposing it? That's some pretzel logic right there. I think you're wrong whether it gets built or not.

I make no prediction about the pipeline's future, I only know that advocating against it, and in so doing, advocating against society's domination by the fossil fuel plutocrats, and advocating for carbon-neutral (or as close to neutral as possible) alternatives, is the correct side of this issue.

There is value in standing against this, through protests, through message board activity, through leading by example changing our own energy profiles, through finding and promoting political candidates who will take this issue on with the urgency that is required, there is value to all of these things that cannot be measured by the outcome of a single metric (whether the pipeline gets built, whether a particular candidate gets elected), it's a much more complex world than that, as I'm sure you know. Sometimes you win the war even while you appear to lose the battles, through your fight you are changing the ground on which the future battles will be fought (sorry I dislike the battle metaphor, easy to fall into when discussing politics, or any interaction between conflicting forces). And sometimes, because you tried, you win.

In our case it is clearly not a political system that has any inclination to self-correct, so leaving the issue to the elites is out of the question. They have demonstrated that they have other priorities, probably because they think their wealth will enable their children to survive well even in a rapidly deteriorating biosphere, and let's face it, many of them are short-term thinking hedonist/narcissist types. If they have any solution up their sleeves, it is likely an intent to kill off most of us (or let poor living conditions, disease and attrition do the culling for them) once automation advances sufficiently to perpetuate an industrial and information society (they will want their gadgets and their comfort) with only a small human workforce. That's very tin-foil, but I actually think it's being discussed somewhere by people that matter, along with alternative strategies like geo-engineering hail-marys. What I don't think such people discuss is making the radical societal and lifestyle changes that will have to happen to sustain humanity at anywhere close to our current population level.

So, I don't think they will care until we make them care. I really don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:40 AM

35. +1,000

 

To quote my sister ...

... if we destroy the environment, any and all other good we do is moot. That's the #1 issue today: We have the technology to destroy life on earth but not the brains to manage our greed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:06 AM

65. So we should just shut the fuck up.

 

You realize that with the pipeline in place there's vastly LESS incentive to explore alternative energy, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:11 AM

18. Much of the reading I've done indicates that much of the oil

will be exported after it is transported across 2000 miles of the US. So we would see some jobs created during the construction of the pipeline, but we would also be subjected to the environmental damage should a break occur and get little benefit from the oil itself. BTW, the pipeline will cross over the Ogallalah acquifer. An oil spill could be devastating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:01 AM

44. The better, right fight would be an all out goal of cleaner energy

 

Wasting capital and resource badgering the current means of keeping the lights on and commerce is not real productive. Fighting to get some of the better alternatives should get most of the effort. Positive wins, negative is destructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:15 AM

46. It is the pipeline across our country that is the problem.

 

It is being built over some major aquifers, that supply millions of people with their drinking water.
Tar sands is exactly that. Canada is strip mining road tar, diluting it with corrosive, highly noxious chemicals and sending it through a pipeline, already known to leak. What could go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:55 AM

59. You know that tar sands oil is being transported right now, right?

 

And that rail transport not only uses fuel, but is more likely to result in a spill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:31 AM

79. I know that. But the pipeline will increase the amount of tar extract being transported.

 

Thereby increasing the mining operations and by extension more profit and taxes in Canada and less in this country. To say nothing about the increased pollution and destruction in the area around where the tar sands are being mined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:46 AM

58. Read here.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/final_environmental_review_for.html

NRDC: Danielle Droitsch’s Blog

Final environmental review for Keystone XL tar sands pipeline acknowledges significant climate impact and sets stage for rejection
Posted January 31, 2014


The State Department has released its final environmental review acknowledging for the first time Keystone XL could accelerate climate change, adding the equivalent of 5.7 million new cars to the road. There is already compelling evidence that approval of Keystone XL would expand the tar sands industry and cause unacceptable climate impacts. This is a significant change to previous State Department analyses which have failed to acknowledge the role of the pipeline to facilitate tar sands expansion. When considering these climate impacts with the overwhelming evidence that the pipeline would create few jobs, bring tar sands to the Gulf for refining and export, and put communities and fresh water at risk, there is no other choice than to reject the pipeline. This dirty energy project fails the national interest test. In his recent State of the Union address this week, President Obama noted the enormous opportunity the country has to develop clean energy. Serving our national interest means embracing clean and renewable energy, reducing oil demand, and facilitating cleaner transportation. This means rejecting Keystone XL.

The pipeline will have a significant climate impact

In this final environmental review, the State Department concedes the pipeline will enable the expansion of tar sands production in a scenario assuming lower oil prices and little or no growth in pipelines. In this scenario, the State Department has now conceded that the possible climate impact of the pipeline could be upwards of 27.4 MMTCO2e annually which is equivalent to the tailpipe emissions from 5.7 million passenger vehicles. While the State Department downplays the likelihood of this scenario, they clearly acknowledge the project could pose a significant climate impact. The International Energy Agency (IEA), futures markets, and the World Bank are all projecting lower global oil prices over the coming years. According to the environmental review, “[t]he total direct and indirect emissions associated with the proposed Project would contribute to cumulative global GHG emissions.”

Already, there is plenty of recent evidence from the investors, the Canadian government, and the tar sands industry acknowledging that the pipeline is critical to expansion. The International Energy Agency has confirmed the close connection between large pipelines including Keystone XL, and the tar sands industry’s expansion plans. Investment banks like the Royal Bank of Canada and Goldman Sachs have acknowledged the role of Keystone XL in driving tar sands expansion. In fact, we know that rail is not a feasible alternative to replace the capacity of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. In short, Goldman Sachs finds that without Keystone XL, lower tar sands prices and higher transport costs will result in the cancelation or deferment of tar sands expansion projects. We know that rail won’t be a replacement for moving tar sands oil.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #58)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:56 AM

60. Thanks. I'll look into it. NT

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:18 AM

71. The idea is to stop tarsands mining, refining, and use.

Transporting the tarsands by any means will be an environmental disaster. But the pipeline will make it possible to mine more of it, faster.

So stopping the pipeline will keep tarsands production from speeding up.

Once that battle is won, we can fight against transporting tarsands by rail, or perhaps against tarsands mining. As climate change becomes more obvious and harder to deny, stopping its causes becomes more politically viable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:29 AM

77. Don't expect answers to those questions

They muddy it up. You'll just be called a corporate shill, third way, etc. It is one of those DU issues in which you are to think as you are told and ask no questions! Like the TPP, which is bad, bad, bad, don't ask any questions of whoever tells you it is bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:07 AM

13. +infinity! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:45 AM

37. Their goal yesterday was to get arrested to draw attention to the issue.

The OP, is falsely claiming that the President had the folks arrested for simply trying to hold his feet to the fire.

The only reason anyone on DU is discussing this today is because they got arrested. Which was their goal.

Attacking the President for unfairly arresting them is ridiculous.

Having said that, OPs that attack the President, even if false, do very well around here.

Which is probably why the OP framed it the way he did. Knee-jerk outrage is still outrage. So what if no one reads the article about what actually happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #37)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:23 AM

50. How do you suggest we make him do it?

I will not accept the argument that their goal was to get arrested, their goal is to stop the pipeline. I'm entirely certain of that, they would happily have left with the pipeline stopped even if they had not been arrested.

I have no quarrel with the President for their arrest, I have quarrel with him for considering (and quite possibly allowing) the construction of this pipeline, a far more serious issue than their arrest.

The knee-jerk outrage is in your imagination, since you are talking about outrage about these people's arrest. The outrage is that we are getting pretty deep into this climate change scenario, and we're taking baby steps, with no urgency from the top, fiddling if you will, while not only Rome but the rest of the planet also burns. And it appears quite possible that this pipeline will be allowed by our President to be built.

I'm aware that he makes some steps in the right direction on this issue, but I've watched the last two U.N Climate Change conferences covered on Democracy Now, hours of it, and it was very clear that this administration is part of the problem rather than part of the solution re climate change. I get no joy in saying that, in fact it makes me very sad, also though it motivates me to not accept neo-liberal corporate leaders who view the world as a race to the top or land as resources for extraction for corporate profits rather than as an interconnected web of life that we have taken to the brink of its ability to self-correct in anything less than a scale of hundreds of thousands of years. We're literally driving a mass extinction event, pedal to the metal, race to the top. That's the real outrage this OP, and the protesters, are speaking to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:06 AM

12. It's the 40 Thousand that were ignored that gets me

I guess one has to get arrested to get noticed these days. Unless you are a TP'er. Then half a dozen gets blanket coverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #12)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:10 AM

17. Yep, 40,000 protesters in DC got no mention on the Urinal/Sentinel website today. They did ....

 

... find space for five articles about the Academy Awards, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:10 AM

16. Scuba, wow! Now they are defending the XL pipeline. Yes, 40,000 was the estimate.

This is utterly amazing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:18 AM

22. There is no logical defense of keystone XL.

It's completion will accelerate the tar sands mining causing further destruction of the environment.
All of the 'pro' arguments presuppose the the 'positives' outweight the negatives, and they do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blackspade (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:10 AM

68. I've seen all sorts of amazing things on DU lately

 

The Iraq War Resolution was not just legal, but completely defensible!
Sarah Palin was right!
Keystone XL is a godsend!
We need to go to war with Russia!
Cut all medical aid to Africa, they're just black people!
There's no such thing as white privilege!
Feminazis need to go make me a damn sandwich!
Yay, neonazi political parties are the best!

What the fuck is going on around here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:50 AM

84. Indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:46 PM

95. Don't know but this is not the DU I'm used to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:16 PM

115. It's been going on for some time.



"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

-Upton Sinclair



States that build surveillance machines also build propaganda machines:

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024560097

The government figured out sockpuppet managment but not "persona management."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023358242

The Gentleman's Guide To Forum Spies (spooks, feds, etc.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4159454

Seventeen techniques for truth suppression.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4249741

Just do some Googling on astroturfing - big organizations have some sophisticated tools.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1208351

The goal of the propaganda is not to convince anyone of anything...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359801


The influx of corporate propaganda-spouting personas is steady and unnatural:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3189367

DU has a history and an identity that is well-known to those of us who have been here since near its beginning. The flavor of its membership was generally steady during the early years. What is happening to it now is, quite frankly, not natural. It is particularly not natural on a liberal board, given the political climate and the general distrust across the country of our government.

The number of corporatism-celebrating personas, and the ratio of them to traditional Democrats on DU, is constantly, gradually, and unnaturally increasing. The number of expected recs for a post blatantly supporting antidemocratic, anti-Constitutional, corporate (often Bush II) policies used to be in the single digits. It is gradually increasing in a way too steady to be accidental, to the point that such posts now routinely garner 50+ recs. The influx of low-count posters coming in spouting the corporate line is constant and unrealistic.

And this marked change in the quality of the participation on the board is not unique to DU. This is happening all over the internet, on all the major political boards. The corporate forces that have taken control of our government have very deep pockets. Also keep in mind that the primary goal of any state turning to authoritarianism is to manage public opinion and public response so as to reduce the likelihood of pushback and revolt. Millions of us are being pushed into poverty, and our Constitutional protections are being stripped. Of course great attention and money will be poured into managing public opinion and creating the illusion that the people support what is being done to them.



The influx will continue
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4216987

There's an important broader story here about the growing propaganda state.

As the corporate plutocracy has taken over our government and dismantled the free press of a democratic society, they have been creating a pervasive and relentless propaganda machine to replace it. From the purchased mainstream media to the incessant political astroturfing of the internet, the propaganda machine in this country has never been more manipulative, dishonest, non-transparent, relentless, and determinedly pervasive, systematically infiltrating even discussion boards like DU.

What is being done to this country is well beyond creepy and disturbing at this point. We have been overtaken by corporatists intent on corporate fascism, and we have *already* been stripped of major foundations of our free society, including our right to privacy, our right to free speech, our right to protest, and the free press that was our most important alarm for and protection against government abuse and tyranny.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #115)


Response to woo me with science (Reply #115)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 03:49 AM

135. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #115)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:54 AM

138. Recommend!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #115)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 08:55 AM

139. Recommend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #68)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 03:51 AM

136. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:18 AM

23. The first president to say that was FDR - I am curious to know how he treated protesters and if they

were arrested - what action did the people take to "make him do it"?

We have had protests that filled the streets of DC - such as the ones against the Iraq war - and we still could not stop that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:38 AM

31. These folks were not arrested for protesting.

Read the article.

The had been allowed to protest and march all day.

The organizers had encouraged the protesters to take action so they'd get arrested. It was their goal.

If they did not get arrested, no press ... no press ... no one comes on DU claiming that they were arrested for simply protesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:43 AM

36. Okay - that no arrest no press has been in action for decades if not more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:48 AM

38. Which makes the OP's screaching about the President dishonest.

If these were TEA Party folks complaining that Obama had them arrested for just protesting, it would be just as dishonest.

The OP might as well complete the circle and claim that they may have been taken to FEMA camps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:54 AM

40. "Screeching". For next time someone says something you don't like.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #40)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:01 AM

43. Its not that I don't like what you said, its that what you said is false.

If these folks had actually been arrested for simply protesting, you'd be fine.

If you simply said "300 Keystone protesters arrested at the White House", you'd be fine.

Instead, you dishonestly, and I think intentionally, claim that the President tried to silence people who were simply trying to hold a peaceful protest.

And that's not what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:08 AM

45. Which part is false? That he said "make me do it"? That they were arrested?

 

That he failed to intervene when they showed up to make him do it and allowed them to be arrested (read: silenced)?

Help me out here.

When he says "make me do it" and then allows those that show up to protest to be arrested, that's shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:24 AM

51. Since you need hand holding to understand these concepts...

Protesters purposely break law to get arrested. President has ZERO obligation to stop them from being arrested.

You break the law? You get arrested. You are being disingenuous at best.

But hey, keep fucking that chicken!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:27 AM

53. "President has ZERO obligation to stop them from being arrested" after he said "make me do it"?

 

And will he stop the pipeline now that they showed up, and were arrested, to make him do it? Why doesn't he just do it? Why do we have to "make him"?

You seem to be missing the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #53)


Response to Post removed (Reply #87)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:07 PM

88. Yes, please continue.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:05 AM

64. LOL!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:26 AM

75. Thank you.

Lying does nothing to advance a cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:32 AM

80. FDR and Truman both said slogan like things

that people still hang onto 60 years later, and which made no sense at the time.

FDR should have said support me on this. So that anyone opposing it in Congress would feel like FDR had so much support for whatever it was, they didn't feel good continuing to oppose.

Truman should have generally kept his mouth shut. His slogans were really stupid. If people vote for the real republican over a conservative Dem in some districts, he's admitting they prefer republicans. The Buck does not stop with him - he could veto or sign but it was not he alone who could decide. Yet people keep quoting his stupid slogans as if they mean something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:50 AM

39. I never did understand that phrase. This may not be the best analogy, but

if you hire someone to work in your business and then every time you assign him a task which is part of his job description he says, "Make me do it", he wouldn't be working for you for long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:16 AM

70. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truth2power (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 08:23 PM

123. +2

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:55 AM

41. It appears you didn't even READ your own link. It is NOT what you claim.

 

F.A.I.L.
and not even a nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:57 AM

42. I read the link. Did you read the thread?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:22 AM

49. Yes, and in the thread, you are taken to task for misrepresenting the gravamen of the arrests.

 

This is of special interest to me, as one of the persons who had her arrests in D.C. expunged under Boos v. Barry.

Zip-tying yourself to the White House fence will get you arrested, every time.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:17 AM

47. Do you suppose that's what he said to his big donors as well? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:15 AM

69. HAH!They say subsidize/deregulate/bail us out;O says how much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:32 AM

81. His small donors were more numerous and from them he collected more money

FAIL and a bad faith one, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #81)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:50 AM

85. I was a small donor myself but not in the "face time" category.

I worked on enough campaigns to know there's a huge difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #85)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:50 PM

102. The elected politician cannot just do the bidding of the large donors.

Even among them they would not have the same interests. And We the People are not that stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #47)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:37 AM

83. Yes. And they replied, "We already did."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:18 AM

48. "Hey! Obama! We don't want no pipeline drama!' was the protest cry.

The crowd rushed from the grass and toward the White House gates, where U.S. Park Police horses and police buses and vans waited at the ready. The crowd pushed toward the sidewalk as protestors took plastic zip ties and secured themselves to the White House fence. Still others stood next to them, holding banners and singing call and response chants.

“Hey, Obama, we don’t want no pipeline drama,” the activists yelled.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:07 AM

66. There would be no protests and no arrests

 

if the Pres. would scrap the pipeline. The protesters cannot afford to finance an election campaign so they must remain respectfully in the allotted "free speech zone".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:20 AM

73. yeah, and shame on him. That's how it works.

We have to keep on shaming him, and take the penalties. That's how civil disobedience is supposed to go.

But we never give up. And eventually they must.

Horribly frustrating. But the alternatives don't exist yet, short of violent rebellion.

get some geniuses on that right away, k?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to librechik (Reply #73)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:10 PM

89. that was the core of the Civi Rights movement

Ghandian and King-ian. Shame and shame again. Shame with every arrest. Make the world see the shame. A Democratic president being shamed over an anti-environmental issue. It's a new world.

And shame on those who defend the pipeline here on Democratic Underground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:27 AM

76. The make me do it line is dumb

but then so is the idea of expecting the President to do anything outside his power. When they are campaigning they say these things. But they cannot have more power than the office gives. Taking them literally as if they are running for King/Queen is pretty naive. There are people who think the President runs everything like a benevolent dictator, but they are profoundly ignorant people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:56 AM

86. Do you think he has the power to expose the truth?

I am not trying to be snarky--I wonder about that a lot. Is there some way a President could expose and disable the right-wing propaganda machine, for example?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #86)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:46 PM

101. As long as there is a First Amendment

there is no way to "disable the right wing propaganda machine." We can win by persuasion but not try to gain the type of power it would take to just silence opponents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #101)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 01:50 PM

103. Sorry--I didn't mean to silence but to expose the misinformation, which is all they have.

And that would mean disabling it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:15 PM

91. Obviously, they were trying to steal his "comfortable walking shoes".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #91)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:47 PM

96. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:41 PM

94. "Make me do it" was a taunt mixed with a bit of entrapment

Anyone who thinks you can make the president do anything hasn't thought about it long enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:48 PM

97. Many problems with the line "make me do it"

 

How many people are trying to make him do multiple things with respect to the same issue?

What leads one person to make a decision can be completely different from what makes another person make a decision. What is more important to you when weighing your options before making a decision? Moral or ethical reasons, life event, money?

It is one of the most nonsensical things anyone could say on the campaign trail. It is as empty as a statement could be. It was also loved by many cheering people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #97)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 12:52 PM

99. In my feeble mind, it's one of the worst things a President could say.

 

And if you don't think my mind is feeble, you haven't read the entire thread!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:02 PM

104. Here's an honest OP on the arrest of the protesters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #104)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:19 PM

106. What's dishonest about Scuba's OP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:23 PM

107. "Make me do it" was always ridiculous. Voters need to demand that elected officials serve them...

Perhaps he meant that we should DEMAND that he do it - if so, it isn't so ridiculous.

Still, electing him should be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 02:29 PM

108. In one day, the US arrested almost half as many protesters as Venezuela has in over three

weeks of protests.

Maduro is teh horrble commie leftist dictator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #108)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:06 PM

114. more like Maduro is an incompetent, bungling commie leftist dictator.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #114)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:41 PM

118. But apparently, far more unwilling to jail his own people for protesting than Obama is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 04:36 PM

110. It wasn't a challenge or a suggestion that he would listen.

"Make me do it!" was a taunt,
like when it is used by a little kid.


Boy, we sure fell for THAT one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 04:59 PM

111. Did he also make you post dishonest OP's?

ODS sure has a way of turning self inflicted wounds into victimization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:21 PM

117. To the Greatest Page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 05:51 PM

119. Soes President Obama understand that a lot of thoes protestors are Democrats who could be out

organizing to get Democrats elected to Congress this fall if they weren't so busy organizing to get him to stop the Keystone Pipeline once and for all.

Hey! The protestors are environmentalists. Democrats for the most part. Why the repression of your own voters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:02 PM

124. ''I never did get that "make me do it" line.''

 

- That's the problem, very few did ''get it.''

However, the only logical conclusion to be drawn here is that he wouldn't have to be ''made to do anything'' unless he was lying about it all to start with. Eh?

K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 09:04 PM

125. Chess Move™ eom

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 10:39 PM

126. People seem really upset that they have to work for and fight for things rather

than just cast one vote and be done with it. I think it's fantastic that we're building a strong, vocal green movement that is willing to fight, protest, (and get arrested) for what we believe in. People need to stop acting shocked and stop whining about getting arrested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluegreen (Reply #126)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:46 PM

130. Nearly 1,000 arrested at Moral Monday protests.

No whining.

Imagine that.

Perhaps you cast one vote and are done with it, but the rest of us aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Mon Mar 3, 2014, 11:11 PM

127. Who's "we," and how do we know?!?!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 01:25 AM

131. Exactly

I get a bit irritated as his proxy Organizing for America continually calls all of us who had to choose the least of two evils as if we are so charmed by his speech making tnatwe want to support anything he does. When you look close at what he does, it is most about avoiding taking money away from corporations. If we look at what he does rather than what he says, he is a great relief valve against the progressive and populist anger building in the country. Sometimes I question whether he is not a better friend to the Koch brothers than to the people of the country. Is he really working for us, and if so why does he avoid the issues , corporatists care most about? If he really wanted to protect the environment, why did he allow rthe police to arrest the protestors?
I have heard there is only one party when it comes to matters of defense and that is the war party. Is it also true that when it comes to the matter of the economy, everyone at the highest level of our government are trying their best to Conserve the economic inequality?
Neither party will propose tax changes for the benefit of the people. To change anything now threatens the payoffs they get (we call them campaign contributions) from Wall Street, Big Oil, Big Banks, Big Corporations, The Fossil Fuel Industry, and the Real Estate industry. The politicians weave and bob as they try to produce the least change possible. Is that what is meant when you call yourself a centrist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #131)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 02:37 AM

133. be careful

plenty of DUers will get a case of the vapors over your questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daybranch (Reply #131)


Response to daybranch (Reply #131)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 05:25 AM

137. Suggest you ignore the trolling remark. Your post is heartfelt and accurate. Thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #137)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 12:20 PM

140. and I suggest you get your facts straight before posting inflammatory crap ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/03/us-usa-keystone-protest-idUSBREA210RI20140303

you say nice catch and then continue to allow posters to ignore facts and post numbers that are totally BS ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 12:39 PM

141. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Tue Mar 4, 2014, 06:15 PM

142. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread