221–230 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With all due respect, I disagree. I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/dmr/news/studies-underscore-oil-and-g...
Snort another line while you're at it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory, yes. But does that actually happen IRL? I've never heard of a lawyer getting disbarred for the quality of suits he or she is filing. Many years ago in Northern CA we had a lawyer that was basically going around filing suits against everyone she came in contact with as a way to pay the bills. She was eventually declared a "vexatious litigant" and had to get a judge's permission before she could sue anyone i…
how is that any different than a lawsuit. You can file whatever you want, it doesn't mean the judge is going to hear the case
She might lose a lawsuit in summary dismissal, but the defendant is going to be out thousands of dollars by the time that happens. Anyway, the goal was never to go to court in any of her filings. What she wanted was to bully people into paying a settlement, since that meant she didn't have to pay any court fees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not peremptory strikes, but you have unlimited removals for cause (and admittedly a steep appellate hill to climb if they’re unfairly denied)
You're gonna have a hell of a time construing a quality (energy sector or few steps removed employment) as "cause" when it's applicable to a large minority if not majority of the jury pool. The judge might allow it, but the odds are long and the next judge will certainly allow an appeal on those grounds so you probably don't even gain much except time.
I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…
This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation. This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP made an observation about "greedy corporations". You sarcastically wrote > Posted from your iphone while driving to the gas station to fill up? Where did you fly to for your last vacation? as if using any of those technologies means that you have no standing to criticize "greedy corporations". I've pointed out the (potential) disconnect between the technologies and the corporations, and you've now wandered off…
Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they're like 90% left-wing activists I'm not sure that's an accurate description. Are "Human Rights" inherently left-wing? Is environmental protection inherently left-wing? Is political corruption inherently right wing? This is of legal experts each with 30+ years of experience in the fields with which this trial is concerned (environmentalism, corruption, humans rights abuses).
Perhaps anti-oil activists would have been a better term. That seems more plainly true to me. They might or might not have had more valid cases in their respective pasts. But it doesn't seem right to me to term themselves "trial monitors" when they seem pretty plainly biased for one side of the trial. It would be more okay if they had some pro-oil attorneys on their board too, or called themselves "Greenpeace Defende…
We don't say that "human rights monitors" need to draft a few brutal dictators in order to provide a balanced take on genocide...
I'm not sure why "trial monitors" would suggest such a lack of bias either. Monitoring organisations are explicitly setup to ensure that a minority group under threat from a superior power are getting a fair shake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you feel that the jury in New York City (76% voted for Biden in 2020) that convicted Trump of falsifying business records similarly corrupt?
My comment was flagged. But, basic assumption should not be that Trump voters and Biden ones are symmetrical. One group finds candidate who defrauds more then any other politician before appealing and right kind manly. They see him sexually harassing women appealing. Moreover all fascists vote for Trump. Both sides have bad people in ... but Trump side is defined by them. There is no symetry here. This particular cho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s very true. The frozen plains of North Dakota aren’t worth much without oil. With oil, they provide good paying jobs to people who otherwise won’t have them. I lived in the next state south for many years. Oil is definitely popular with the people of North Dakota.
With all due respect, I disagree. I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.
My pet theory based on personal observation is that there's a strong inverse correlation between nature trying to destroy your shit and insufferable people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice try, but I'm not stupid enough to fall for your deflection. GP did not complain about "greedy corporations." He complained about "greedy corporations destroying our planet." They aren't destroying our planet. You, GP, and I are destroying our planet. But unlike you and GP, I am an adult and I don't try to blame other people for my actions.
Well, corporations are destroying our planet, whatever our individual consumption patterns are. I could be living in the woods and that would not change. I'm not denying we have a share of personal responsibility in profiting from this ecocidal system: i'm saying individuals have no choice and no power over this, and social change is produced on a bigger level.
> I could be living in the woods...
And so could the rest of us. If we did, there would be no CO2 emissions and, therefore, no global warming. But we don't choose to do this because we would rather live with modern convenience.