Over 10,000 Facebook Users Worldwide Falsely Check in at Standing Rock To Confuse Police (time.com) 203
More than 100,000 people from around the world have checked in on Facebook at the site of Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota, in an effort they hope will help protesters avoid detection by police. From a report on Vice:A call went out for Facebook users over the weekend to falsely check in at Standing Rock to confuse the police regarding protester identities and numbers. But it isn't clear whether the directive came from organizers on the ground at the Camp of the Sacred Stone, who call themselves Water Protectors because of the purported threat that the planned pipeline poses to Standing Rock's water supply, or whether it's a hoax. Protesters have been camped out at Standing Rock since April in response to the planned Energy Transfers Pipeline, but tensions reached a boiling point last week when protesters clashed with police and several vehicles were set on fire. Scenes of standoffs between riot police and protesters linked arm-in-arm were broadcast online via Facebook Live. Law enforcement used a sound cannon in an attempt to disperse protesters. Protest leaders in North Dakota say they were surprised by the Facebook check-in effort, but they appreciate it.
10K, 100K, does't matter (Score:5, Informative)
To no effect:
http://www.snopes.com/facebook... [snopes.com]
Re:10K, 100K, does't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
To some effect in fact. Even if the check-in is useless, this story brought more media attention, which can result in more protest, and more chances on the project being abandoned.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm unfaimilar with Facebook. What is "check in at Standing Rock" mean? They just list their location as being there or something? Couldn't we all just list our location as 10 feet behind Obama and see if the secret service freaks out?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unfaimilar with Facebook. What is "check in at Standing Rock" mean? They just list their location as being there or something?
You have it in a nutshell. Anyone who thinks that Facebook can't tell the difference between someone checking in through the web client or even checking in through the app by putting in a location instead of actually geolocating is a dumbshit.
Now, if you took one extra step and installed Lexa Fake GPS on an Android device (or VM) without real GPS, and used that to check in on Facebook, you might have something. Not much, but something.
Couldn't we all just list our location as 10 feet behind Obama and see if the secret service freaks out?
You could, and they wouldn't. Although they might come to your house anyw
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Android in it's development modes have an option for faking (overriding) the location returned by the GPS sub-system. So unless Facebook directly talks to the hardware (don't know - never used the app when I had a FB account), they shouldn't be able to know if that's happening. Of course
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that?
Re: 10K, 100K, does't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
they reported the truth to many times.
for RWNJs that's a sign of bias.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Law enforcement has used social media before, and also infiltrated peaceful left-wing groups before, It's very reasonable to speculate that law enforcement would use Facebook check-ins to see who they had to deal with. It's not happening in this case, but it could happen in others.
Re:Snopes picks strawmen to debunk when it suits t (Score:5, Informative)
Yes Hillary laughed, she was a nervous 27 year old lawyer fresh out of school that had just defended probably one of the worst people in humanity and because the state fucked up she got the guy a significantly reduced sentence. So she laughed about how the lie detector was worthless as a way to cope with the horrible thing that the state and justice system allowed. There is NOTHING unusual about this. Cops and all kinds of people that deal with the worst of all human acts tell awful jokes about it as a way to cope with the horrible shit they are dealing with. Because if you can't try to deal with it you end up insane.
Nothing she did during the trial was abnormal for trials of these kinds at the time. When you judge history by today's standards it makes you a fucking idiot. We used to treat rape suspects like whores in court, that doesn't make it Clinton's responsibility that the courts allowed and even expected that kind of behavior. It was wrong, no one disputes that and the laws have changed to disallow these kinds of defenses but if she'd failed to make motions that were routine at the time she could have been professionally punished for failing to do everything she could for the client she was forced to defend.
Stop judging history through today's lens.
Re: (Score:2)
Every rape trial up until the rape shield laws of the 90's was a trial of the victim. Every single one. Often the victim was put through horrible, awful and completely legal practices to try to paint the victim as a liar. This was standard practice 101 for defending someone indicted on rape and remained this way right up until the rape shield laws changed the rules. In an era without DNA evidence the trial often came down to he said/she said and the only effective defense was to convince the jury the victim
Re: (Score:2)
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
> She NEVER laughed about the rape.
See, I didn't say that. I said she "laughed when interviewed about it" and that raping kids isn't funny. Laughing about your client being guilty (which you seem to imply by saying it was the polygraph joke) doesn't help things any.
> though it would normally be unethical if this statement had been public b
Re: (Score:2)
No argument about old rape trials being horrible. Doesn't mean I'll excuse anyone else for putting rape victims through that. Lawful evil behavior is still evil.
That's quite a simplification. How about the fact that if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system? Our system is adversarial. Both sides are in a fight. Neither side of the American justice system is actually responsible for finding the truth. If one side holds their punches (doesn't do everything they can according to the legal standards at the time), it's a loss for justice. It's not an attorney's job to decide which tactics she
Re: (Score:2)
> if a defense lawyer does not do everything within their capability to defend the client, it perverts the justice system?
That would imply that the rape shield laws pervert the justice system. I have a lot of problems with how she supported this motion seeking a test, as well, given that the fact that she didn't name her sources, merely repeating anonymous claims with no one standing behind them. As another put it -
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton had to give her client the best defense possible. At that time, it meant doing whatever she could do to discredit the victim's testimony to the point where there was reasonable doubt, no matter what it said about the victim. Now, the best defense possible doesn't include quite so savage attacks on the victim, so if Clinton were doing it now she'd give her client the best defense possible within current rules. The current rules are not a perversion of justice; indeed, I think they lead to more ju
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR -- Everybody's biased, News at 11.
Seriously, anybody who believes ANY media source 100% without questioning -- even a "debunking" one -- is silly. Everyone has biases.
And while I truly don't care enough about this story to actually read it and see whether your complaints stand up -- not because I like or trust Hillary Clinton... FAR from it! -- I also don't really think everything is as insidious as you make it sound.
I doubt the folks at Snopes are "massaging" the facts deliberately, where ther
Re: (Score:2)
> Seriously, anybody who believes ANY media source 100% without questioning -- even a "debunking" one -- is silly. Everyone has biases.
Yes, this is very true. I always look for the article's sources and follow them down to any actual evidence.
When this isn't possible, I tend to simply ignore the things which were said which could not be corroborated.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I know that defence, it's the "my lying ears and eyes defence" and I usually ignore that defence because which is easier to believe, my ears and eyes or your lies and references leading to references which lead back to the original reference. That laugh is the laugh of a clinical narcissist who does not empathise with any one and hence an embarrassing outburst covered over with a lie of I did not mean it or I was joking and snopes looks like shite now.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't count according to Snopes
That doesn't count according to Snopes that provide on their site a detailed list of facts as well as a link to the videos? How does the site having an angle equate to being unable to trust the site if it cites its sources?
The fact that they didn't flat out claim it was false and actually mentioned many of the same things you did makes your case very weak indeed.
Read the sources, make up your own mind.
Re:Snopes picks strawmen to debunk when it suits t (Score:4, Insightful)
Snopes, please tell us, why is the rape of a 12-year-old funny at all?
It's not. But then, she wasn't laughing about the act itself, she was laughing (somewhat hollowly, by the sound of it) about a couple of specific aspects of the proceedings.
Should we just ignore that Hillary has a rather morbid sense of humor [youtube.com]?
You probably have to to preserve your sanity, if you're going to be a criminal defence lawyer.
It's true that she may be legally correct here. But how can you defend that kind of thing morally?
That's precisely why lawyers have a professional obligation to defend their clients.
Re: (Score:2)
I've listened to the tap
Re: (Score:2)
> WRONG.
You work for them? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Snopes relies on the media, as far as I can tell. They will try to contact individuals involved in what they're reporting on, if they can, but other than that they don't do their own ground-up investigations. I'd think that the media just didn't cover what you were at, and Snopes was either unable to find anyone involved from their sources or couldn't get a response.
This doesn't mean Snopes was lying, but they are dependent on their sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well looking that the sites that that search brings up, I've decided that Snopes is still pretty trustworthy. They are all just seem to be political hack sites that themselves seem overly biased.
I'd be interested in an actual source if you have one.
Re: (Score:2)
I am very skeptical of snopes' conclusions on this one.
They reached no conclusion: the page says "Unproven", not "False". If they want to know if a police force is using an unlikely resource, who else can they contact but that police force? It's improbable that there ARE any other reliable sources.
In unrelated news... (Score:4, Insightful)
I unrelated news, the Department of Homeland Security has added over 10,000 facebook users to the US No-Fly list, as suspected supporters of terrorism
Re:In unrelated news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So? That list has had attention drawn to it countless times. The length and irrelevance of it is a subject of jokes well outside the slashdot community. Nothing changed then why should it change now?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but the easiest way to get out of here is by air.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that is what they ought to do! Isn't it. I mean this facebook checkin business is about thwarting police investigation, its not really about protest is it?
People have a right to protest, I would say in fact the right to protest on public property is frequently and wrongly trodden on. Good examples are protests outside the G8, or when states try to pass laws keeping people of public sidewalks because they happen to be to near an abortion clinic, or when a political convetion is held and protesters ar
Re:In unrelated news... (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple of problems here:
- The Standing Rock tribe says the land is theirs. It was given to them in an 1851 treaty. Of course, the treaty was quickly violated as soon as the white folks wanted the land but at some point they should get their land back
- "Defacing property" is spray painting on the blades of bulldozers... not really any damage... more like freedom of speech
- "Interfering with a police investigation"... this is actually interfering with the police unlawful snooping on private individuals but they deny they are doing it so not really interfering with anything
(I agree that the "no fly" list is BS)
Re: In unrelated news... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Defacing property" is spray painting on the blades of bulldozers... not really any damage... more like freedom of speech
I'm not sure if you read the summary, but protestors lit a number of construction vehicles on fire, causing $2.5 million in damage.
Also, if you spray paint on something that isn't yours (like the blade of someone else's bulldozer), that's vandalism and a crime. It's only free speech if it's your bulldozer.
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm not sure if you read the summary, but protestors lit a number of construction vehicles on fire, causing $2.5 million in damage. "
I'm not sure that you've been paying attention, but it was learned that private contractors acting on behalf of the oil companies have been agent provocateurs. Wanna bet they're the ones causing the damage?
Re: In unrelated news... (Score:4, Interesting)
The construction vehicle fires are suspicious. They weren't anywhere near the encampment and there are no suspects. Could be false agents.
OTOH, the construction company private army has attacked peaceful protesters with dogs, batons, tear gas, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if you read the summary, but protestors lit a number of construction vehicles on fire, causing $2.5 million in damage.
IMO, once you start setting things on fire and breaking shit, you should be referred to as a "rioter", not a "protester". I'm not sure where the line is on that one, but a lot of recent "protests" have crossed it and no one seems to say anything about it.
Re:In unrelated news... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not "private property". It belongs to the tribe.
http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/... [kfyrtv.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong. There was a treaty that the US Gov't later dishonored. The matter is in federal court right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody's asking for Rapid City. They're just trying to maintain access to fresh water for their families.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because there's a treaty that says so. Just because the US Gov't tried to do a takesbacksies doesn't mean it's legal. As I said, the matter is in court now.
Remember, the tribe is a sovereign government. It's like when we gave the Panama Canal to Panama. If the US Gov't decided, "Oh, we changed our mind because we think we should own the Canal again", it would not mean the
Love it (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Would you prefer it if they took some non-existent electric train?
Re:Love it (Score:4, Funny)
Also, not all the protest is about climate change. The pointlessly violent manhandling of the initial protesters ensured this turned into a bigger deal.
I assume also there's something about it being native american land. Even if 100% of the native americans in question approved of it, is there a DUMBER place to route an oil pipeline through for PR purposes? I assume yosemite, yellowstone, and the grand canyon were too far out of the way, and running it through central park would have required too many permits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You and I both know that some activists HAVE probably "put their money where their mouth is" and surprisingly climate change isn't
Re: (Score:2)
Off topic, I'm pissed I have to concede the point to such a biased source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sail in on the Mayflower?
(too soon to be funny?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Love it (Score:2)
Or you could always do what we did before we had cars. And since this is mostly about supporting the natives, you could travel the way they did before Europeans came, since they completely killed off the native horse population a long time ago.
Is that means of transportation not viable enough for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then maybe you shouldn't be protesting the foundation upon which your house it built.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone protesting the pipeline drove their car to the protest. Classic.
And they managed to procure fuel, at $2/gallon without needing the pipeline.
Say, do you know why the DAPL is going through Native American land? Because the nice people of Bismark, North Dakota didn't want it near them due to concerns that it would contaminate their drinking water. This is what's known as "white privilege": "This pipeline will poison us. Let's put it where the Indians are instead!"
Look at all the posts... (Score:5, Informative)
from idiots clueless idiots calling the protestors hippies and ecowarriors.
That how poor the reporting on these protests are right now.
These arent tree huggers, these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them.
Re: (Score:2)
These arent tree huggers, these are Native Americans trying to protect land sacred to them.
That sounds an awful lot like a press quote. Any reporting more balanced than these are hippy nutjobs or horribly oppressed freedom fighters?
Re: (Score:2)
You could look up what the protesters are saying. Then you have two sides of an issue, which is more balanced than what you've got now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are they really?
I talked to someone who claims he lives out there and he claims most of the protestors are people who came in from out of town. The native American Indians up there are actually not too happy about all of the outsiders congesting up the area and protesting, according to him.
Additionally, he says more people should research the actual land situation, because the area in dispute for the pipeline is actually privately owned land (owned by farmers in the area), AND it already has a natural gas p
"Sacred" land... (Score:2)
I'm puzzled why the left is so willing to genuflect to Native Americans every time they claim something is "sacred" to them. They regularly pillory Christian religions when they make a claim to some custom or place being sacred -- what makes a stone age religious practice carry more weight?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm puzzled why the right is so willing to genuflect to Christians every time they claim something is "sacred" to them. They regularly pillory Native American religions when they make a claim to some custom or place being sacred. Seriously, people are protesting antidiscrimination laws as attacks on religious liberty, and a lot of Christians seem to be convinced they're the persecuted minority. I argued with one and wound up saying that the best way for them to have religious liberty is to favor it for
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody says they can't believe whatever the fuck they want.
They just don't get to make public policy based on their superstitions.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the ongoing abortion debate, which seems a fine example of Republicans doing exactly that?
Do you have the same response?
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans don't get to make public policy regarding abortions. Have you been paying attention?
Re: (Score:2)
Im not seeing the anti pipeline people getting to make public policy either.
The republicans make anti abortion policy, and make no denials they would like to see it stopped.
Have you been paying attention, or are your right wing blinkers blocking out reality again?
Re: (Score:2)
this was originally going to be routed closer to Bismark
[Citation needed]
Some of the images coming out make the photos of civil rights clashes in the 60's look tame.
And the images of burning vehicles, blocked highways, and burning tires make the people "peacefully protesting" look like Hippocrates.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's publicity, and I've been seeing a lot more stuff about how to donate to the cause. Checking in does little besides provide a bit of moral support, but providing money isn't slacktivism.
Re:Pipeline protests make no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! A pipeline is far less risky than the current transport system utilizing rail. While accidents do happen, events are not common.
After doing some reading from many sources including various documents on initial planning, there is more than meets the eye. There is lots of gray rather than the general big bad companies and government vs oppressed Native Americans.
- Pipeline planned to capitalize of Bakken oil boom
- Pipeline operator offer $56 million for pipeline to traverse Standing Rock territory
- Offer is turned down
- Pipeline operator purchases land and secures rights to route pipeline around Standing Rock territory
- Standing Rock does not attend public hearings regarding rerouted pipeline
- Pipeline construction starts
- Standing Rock nation raises objections to new pipeline route
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He said "between hundreds and thousands of years" not "hundreds of thousands of years."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pipeline protests make no sense (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia has a good article with lots of specific details:
The treaty produced a brief period of peace, but it was broken by the failure of the United States to prevent the mass emigration of miners and settlers into Colorado during the Pike's Peak Gold Rush. They took over Indian lands in order to mine them, "against the protests of the Indians,"[12] and founded towns, started farms, and improved roads. Before 1861 the Cheyenne and Arapahoe "had been driven from the mountain regions down upon the waters of the Arkansas."[12] Such emigrants competed with the tribal nations for game and water, straining limited resources and resulting in conflicts with the emigrants. The U.S. government did not enforce the treaty to keep out the emigrants.[12] In 1864 came the Sand Creek massacre on a camp of mostly Cheyennes by Colonel John M. Chivingtons army of one hundred days volunteers. The consequence was years of war between the Cheyennes and the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My reading is that the Sioux are a bit pissed off that the planners decided they were worried about Bismark's water supply being polluted but not theirs. I suspect that the burial sites thing is just being pushed as an additional reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand the hate towards pipelines, it seems like the pipeline will not affect the amount of oil consumed, but rather decrease the amount of energy and risk of transporting it via conventional methods..
The hate is very simple to explain: whenever a pipeline leaks (and they leak pretty often), it takes a long time for the operators to notice, and in the meanwhile, the spill gets quickly disastrous. By comparison, when an oil train derails, a lot less oil gets spilled. And there is no way in hell that the rail industry will let the conditions that led to the Megantic disaster ever materialize again; for one thing, that wreck simply killed dead the idea of one-man train crews...
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is perfect but rail is objectively safer.
https://www.fraserinstitute.or... [fraserinstitute.org]
You suggest that there are pipeline leakages. There must be but surely this becomes an oversight/maintenance problem.
The oil still has to move from A -> B. Trains/Trucks have far more risk than pipelines.
If you want to abstain from usage, fine. But until you do, you need your fix to get to you.
It would be the height of hypocrisy to type on your plastic keyboard on your electric computer in your heated home and pretend t
Re: (Score:2)
One more point on maintenance. Trucks at least, and likely trains, have to go through inspection several times a year. Wouldn't requiring that of pipelines be a more sensible solution than dismissing it out of hand?
Re: (Score:2)
And, given what's going on, the Native Americans should trust the pipeline company to carefully maintain the pipeline and respond quickly to leaks?
Re:Pipeline protests make no sense (Score:5, Interesting)
... decrease the amount of energy and risk of transporting it via conventional methods..
Only problem is that doesn't seem to be true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The risk to fresh water supplies is very real. The pipeline has already been rerouted once due to concerns of water supply contamination in the event of a spill for Bismark:
http://bismarcktribune.com/new... [bismarcktribune.com]
The current route would take it right past the water supply for the reservation. Contrary to information that's circulating, the tribe has been very active in it's opposition to the pipeline being near their water supply since it was proposed to reroute through their land. They most certainly didn't "wait around" just so they could protest. The the objection has nothing to do with "burial grounds" but access to clean drinking water. This is complete and total misinformation.
Pipelines aren't safer, just more profitable. Maybe they _could_ be made safer than truck and train tankers, but my guess is that then they wouldn't be any more profitable.
Re: (Score:2)
Only problem is that doesn't seem to be true
Re: (Score:2)
I was actually referring to this part of the wikipedia article (emphasis mine):
According to a report done by The Associated Press, North Dakota had nearly 300 oil pipeline spills in less than two years, all of which went unreported to the public. According to the report, from January 2012 to September 2013, those pipeline spills were only a part of approximately 750 “oil field incidents” involving over four thousand barrels of oil that were spilled without the public’s knowledge.
I don't know what the accident rate for trains and trucks hauling crude is, but If there were more than 150/year in one region of the country, it might have made the news, though I guess since most of the pipeline spills didn't make the news, maybe the trucks and trains that spilled crude didn't either :(
However, I think a major concern with pipelines is that a single leak can produce a much larger spill than an incident with a t
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.riverkeeper.org/cam... [riverkeeper.org]
I've done a little work on pipeline inspection gear, so I tend to think pipelines can be made safer easier - better inspections, mo
Re:Pipeline protests make no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Though drinking water is the primary concern the Tribe has also expressed concerns that the pipeline route crosses unidentified native burial and archeological sites that were not identified in the environmental documents but readily visible. Within 24 hours of filing with the court a list of over 120 of these sites the contractor building the pipeline had demolished every site listed in the document, even starting construction in areas where it was planned to begin for months.
This alone paints a very bad picture of the company and the state groups charged with protecting native remains and sites. The fact that every listed site was demolished within 24 hours should be grounds for significant damages and an immediate halt to all construction activity. See the power of the state of ND has been brought to bear on this pipeline, government and police power is being used to enforce construction because the state has an interest in seeing this pipeline built.
Given what I've heard about the environmental process and document that was prepared for this work I don't believe the state and commercial interest have acted in good faith. The tribe's concerns are valid and were ignored or not addressed. These are all violations of NEPA rules.
Re: (Score:3)
That site is hardly unbiased. It was created by "Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now" which is an organization created by the companies with everything to gain from the pipeline, specifically to spin PR.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point of obstructing the pipeline is to make it more difficult and expensive to burn the fossil fuel. This could be thought of as a carbon tax which we really need to compensate for the subsidies that fossil fuels enjoy to make them cheaper than renewables.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're projecting your own motivations onto the protesters. They're not protesting the pipeline in general, only where it's going. If the pipeline ran near Bismarck, as was originally planned, the Native Americans would have been fine with it. The reroute is because most people in North Dakota don't care about the Native Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Pipelines are generally safer than other ways of moving oil, but it's reasonable to be for pipelines in general and against a specific pipeline. They aren't perfectly safe, so you really don't want to put one where a sizable oil leak would be a disaster. At least not for anyone you care about.
In this case, a leak could endanger the water supply for lots of Native Americans, which is why they're calling the protesters "Water Protectors". It also apparently destroys burial grounds and sacred sites, whic
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should be asking why police are fighting to protect a pipeline from a giant corporation that doesn't pay taxes???
In a true capitalist society, the corporation should be able to afford their OWN POLICE.
Right now, *they* are the ones stealing from you.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a good a point. If you want protection you should hire your own yard bulls. That is how the rail road companies did it. The public should not be forced to foot the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining law and order is one of the government's duties regardless of who the victim is or would be — a big KKKorporation or a homeless woman.
And where did you get this strawman? On a post-Halloween sale?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your property. Were it your property, you'd be allowed to destroy it if you wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics. I paid for it — and will have to pay for it again, because of these asshole "protesters" looking for a cause.
Re: (Score:2)
A violent hater... Typical Hillary Clinton supporter...
Re: (Score:2)
Bwahaha, you orange buffoon fans always project your own faults on others.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, everything I've heard from the protesters is to stay peaceful. They would be against burning anyone alive. (Obviously they can't restrain a lunatic fringe or agents provocateur.)
You mean the taxpaying Sioux? (Score:2)
The pipeline is going across their land, moran, so as not to go north of Bismarck and endanger the watershed of the lilly white state capital.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean the taxpayers, maron. All of them. It was our cars, that got torched by these assholes.
Why do you hate White people?