|
botany posted:
The point of those protests was to highlight unjust laws by forcing their enforcement in a very public way (i.e. getting arrested) There has yet to be a coherent argument put forth as to why the legal process governing the pipeline was unjust. The takeaway from the civil rights movement was not "I can do whatever I want and the cops are violating my civil rights if they stop me" Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 28, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:01
|
|
do you have any idea how many protestors in the civil rights movement were forcibly arrested for trespassing?
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:The point of those protests was to highlight unjust laws by forcing their enforcement in a very public was (i.e. getting arrested) Was going to post this, but was beaten like a protester. =(
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
White people are treating the protest like Burning Man.quote:Protestor Alicia Smith wrote on Facebook: "On my way back from the camps. Need to get something off my chest that I witnessed and found very disturbing in my brief time there that I believe many others have started to speak up about as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Was going to post this, but was beaten like a protester. =( They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you. wateroverfire posted:Plenty, of course. And it wasn't unjust to arrest them for tresspassing. Why would you think it was? Just stop. Not only is this so incredibly ironic, its even more ironic that you don't grasp just what the trespassing charges where about, and are aptly using what is largely considered a national embarrassment as justification for arresting protesters. Are you seriously so daft that you would argue that Jim Crow wasn't wrong, but that the protesters were wrong for not standing up to unjust laws? Do you have any clue who pathetically short sighted that makes you sound? Their direct protesting and the resulting violence against their protest helped lead directly to the Civil Rights Act being passed. Again: Native American's have every right to protest this, considering how its been largely forced through the courts and considering our endlessly bad treatment of the Native Americans. And Jarmak is not a good resource on protester's rights. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
withak posted:http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/standing-rock-north-dakota-access-pipeline-burning-man-festival-a7443266.html I agree, faux-ethical hipsters who protest in the name of $arbitrary_cause are a pox upon humanity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
CommieGIR posted:They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you. ...within the law, sure. CommieGIR posted:Just stop. Not only is this so incredibly ironic, its even more ironic that you don't grasp just what the trespassing charges where about, and are aptly using what is largely considered a national embarrassment as justification for arresting protesters. Are you seriously so daft that you would argue that Jim Crow wasn't wrong, but that the protesters were wrong for not standing up to unjust laws? Do you have any clue who pathetically short sighted that makes you sound? Their direct protesting and the resulting violence against their protest helped lead directly to the Civil Rights Act being passed Dude, you're the one making analogies to the Civil Rights movement. Go ahead and tell me all about how stopping DAPL is just like ending Jim Crow. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:...within the law, sure.  You really don't get it do you. And no, you don't get to roll over on the Civil Rights analogy, since you already shot yourself in the foot by saying their arrests were justified during protests against unjust law, you goofball.The sheer amount of bullshit we've pulled on the Native Americans makes it perfectly reasonable that they should take the protest to further ends, considering there was never any reasonable way for them to fight it in the court and the courts have never been very fair to the Natives regardless. That's where the Civil Rights analogy came in: The laws that the protesters broke during the Civil Rights era were unjust. They were always unjust. There was never a point where breaking said law should have been considered wrong, and the disgusting reaction of the South to those protesters directly lead to the passage of the Civil Rights act. Seriously: Protesting gets you nowhere unless you shake things up and bend some laws, and considering the level of Law Enforcement responds to the DPL protests, its still not making the US look very good. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Why are we all treating a guy who just said there's an ethical obligation to murder protesters as though he has or will ever have anything worthwhile to say? For that matter, why are we treating the people who just glanced right over that and considered it a normal thing to say as if they've got anything worth listening to?quote:edit: If you're absolutely committed to sitting down in the path of a moving bulldozer, the operator is almost obligated to run you over or your gesture is for nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:...within the law, sure. edit to respond to your edit: quote:Again: Native American's have every right to protest this, considering how its been largely forced through the courts and considering our endlessly bad treatment of the Native Americans. I mean...not really, though? It's not on their land (no matter how much some would like to relitigate that issue), they were extensively consulted on the preservation of cultural sites through a process many other tribes found satisfactory, and even the water issue is moot considering the pipeline placement and the fact that the CoE is switching the intakes next year anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I mean...not really, though? It's not on their land (no matter how much some would like to relitigate that issue), they were extensively consulted on the preservation of cultural sites through a process many other tribes found satisfactory, and even the water issue is moot considering the pipeline placement and the fact that the CoE is switching the intakes next year anyway. No. They were not. Specifically, the DPL construction group hid/delayed discover of multiple sites. God, you love arguing in bad faith. Appealing to the legality of something does not inherently make it good or right. Its part of why Might Makes Right is bullshit, because it doesn't necessarily make something right, only makes something acceptable to the populous at large. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't know if this source is legit, but it would appear the ACoE has decided to evict the entire protest camp sometime this or next week: Uglycat posted:The Lakota were symbiotic with the Buffalo, and the white man /killed all the buffalo/, *DESTROYING* their way of life. If the buffalo had not been killed, they would have continued following them as a tribe. They had no need for gasoline with that lifestyle. coyo7e posted:You know who I sourced that quote from right? Or would you care to share your own credentials against a two-time vice presidential nominee and economist? "However, it is correct that the Corps long-standing practice (which we are not changing) has been to generally calculate impacts for purposes of satisfying the 1/2-acre threshold separately for each separate and distant crossing" That sure sounds like each time it crosses water or wetlands the half-acre (foot of water) impact is calculated. The Vice President of the Anime Club doesn't like this. Good for her, I guess? CommieGIR posted:They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No. They were not. Specifically, the DPL construction group hid/delayed discover of multiple sites. That would sure be a thing if it were true. If you're talking about the kerfluffle linked upthread, that was them forgetting to CC one of several regulators but 1) getting approval from the State Historic Office and 2) preserving the site. CommieGIR posted:The sheer amount of bullshit we've pulled on the Native Americans makes it perfectly reasonable that they should take the protest to further ends, considering there was never any reasonable way for them to fight it in the court and the courts have never been very fair to the Natives regardless. If you mean the Lakota didn't have standing to challenge the pipeline's construction because the courts rejected the argument that "No see we really control the entire Great Plains area because back in the day the buffalo roamed..." then that's not a failing of the law. =P That's the Lakota advancing an unwinnable argument. Similar with them demanding the CoE do a review of the entire project despite it literally not being within the juristiction of the CoE. CommieGIR posted:That's where the Civil Rights analogy came in: The laws that the protesters broke during the Civil Rights era were unjust. They were always unjust. There was never a point where breaking said law should have been considered wrong, and the disgusting reaction of the South to those protesters directly lead to the passage of the Civil Rights act. What is the analog to, for instance, segregated buses in the DAPL situation? CommieGIR posted:Seriously: Protesting gets you nowhere unless you shake things up and bend some laws, and considering the level of Law Enforcement responds to the DPL protests, its still not making the US look very good. Yeah. You get arrested for breaking the law and that draws attention to the thing you're protesting and hopefully sways opinion makers your way once you have their attention. It's still not wrong to arrest you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
I don't care what's legal, they're fighting for water. If the pipeline is so loving safe, run it by the white people's water supply in Bismarck like the original plan called for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's imagine some time in the next year the Lakota decided to start building a new school for the reservation. In this imaginary world, Dakota Access decides to get back at them for delaying the pipeline by paying people $200/day to squat on the land the school is to be built on and says they'll pay more squatters to squat anywhere they try to build the school for the next seven months. Would you support the squatters right to protest construction projects they don't like? Would it be any different if they were just Dakota Access employees who took some leave time? Or if instead of Dakota Access paying for it it was crowd funded?  Seriously, that's a pathetic comparison. Try again. That's not even barely worth addressing, comparing a multi-billion dollar for profit company's pet project to pump-and-dump as much oil on the market as they possibly can, to building a School for what is largely considered one of the poorest groups of people in the United States who have been time and again disenfranchised by the US Government.Also: The school doesn't generally explode/fail and pollute when it breaks. Fansy posted:I don't care what's legal, they're fighting for water. Gotta love NIMBYs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's imagine some time in the next year the Lakota decided to start building a new school for the reservation. In this imaginary world, Dakota Access decides to get back at them for delaying the pipeline by paying people $200/day to squat on the land the school is to be built on and says they'll pay more squatters to squat anywhere they try to build the school for the next seven months. Would you support the squatters right to protest construction projects they don't like? Would it be any different if they were just Dakota Access employees who took some leave time? Or if instead of Dakota Access paying for it it was crowd funded? This is it, the dumbest argument. "But what if white people did sit-ins in black restaurants, huh. What then!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Fansy posted:I don't care what's legal, they're fighting for water. CommieGIR posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Appealing to the legality of something does not inherently make it good or right. Its part of why Might Makes Right is bullshit, because it doesn't necessarily make something right, only makes something acceptable to the populous at large. And yet, being the scrappy underdog does not necessarily make your cause just. People can be sincere and passionate and still not have a case worth granting. IMO that is the case with the Lakota, who are wrong in their sincere belief they have rights to swaths of territory in the Great Plains beyond the borders of their reservation while law and custom for the last nearly 150 years disagrees with that notion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Let's imagine some time in the next year the Lakota decided to start building a new school for the reservation. In this imaginary world, Dakota Access decides to get back at them for delaying the pipeline by paying people $200/day to squat on the land the school is to be built on and says they'll pay more squatters to squat anywhere they try to build the school for the next seven months. Would you support the squatters right to protest construction projects they don't like? Would it be any different if they were just Dakota Access employees who took some leave time? Or if instead of Dakota Access paying for it it was crowd funded? This type of argument doesn't work because although posters here use universal-sounding language and pay lip service to universal principles to describe their ideas, they really aren't universal at all and are really just a bunch of ends-justify-the-means type of arguments to benefit their cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
CommieGIR posted:They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you. edit: silence_kit posted:This type of argument doesn't work because although posters here use universal-sounding language and pay lip service to universal principles to describe their ideas, they really aren't universal at all and are really just a bunch of ends-justify-the-means type of arguments to benefit their cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:You are focusing on the details over my obvious larger point: Protesting a construction project does not by definition make you a good guy. You are not allowed a heckler's veto over construction projects you don't like because that would be insane. I do not want to live in a society where e.g. Republicans can stop the construction of a mosque indefinitely by squatting on the land and shouting, "WE'RE PROTECTING 'MURICA FROM CREEPING SHARIAH!" That is an actual thing that could happen. Again, this is a really pathetic argument: Comparing ACTUAL experienced risks (spills in rivers) to risks that are non-real (Protecting American from Shariah) is such a pathetic comparison Try again. One is real, and has happened multiple times. The other is a conspiracy theory parroted by morons. twodot posted:A right to protest either exists for everyone or not. Maybe this protest is justified based on the particular context of this protest, but that wouldn't be based on any sort of rights analysis. Similarly in the civil rights movement, black people specifically didn't have a right to do sit ins at whites only restaurants, that was the whole purpose of the protest! If they had that right, there would be no reason to protest. I think the sit ins were certainly justified as a way both to protest and highlight the injustice of the situation, but the protesters plainly didn't possess a right to do it. They had every right to do it, as the ends (Civil Rights) justified their right to it, and the response against them specifically highlight why they needed those rights. Arguing that they had no right to do it ignores that they were specifically being denied rights given everyone else with no justification other than their skin color. In the DPL case, the Native's are being denied rights to object to a project being run by a company with a poor pipeline safety record over water that directly impacts their well being, and the Pipeline was redirected by people whose only argument against it also reflected the argument the Native's have. Ironically, somehow, the Native's have no grounds but Bismark was well within their rights to object. NIMBY-ism is very much as racist as Whites Only seating in a restaurant. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They had every right to do it, as the ends (Civil Rights) justified their right to it, and the response against them specifically highlight why they needed those rights. Arguing that they had no right to do it ignores that they were specifically being denied rights given everyone else. edit: quote:In the DPL case, the Native's are being denied rights to object to a project being run by a company with a poor pipeline safety record over water that directly impacts their well being, and the Pipeline was redirected by people whose only argument against it also reflected the argument the Native's have. Ironically, somehow, the Native's have no grounds but Bismark was well within their rights to object. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:Correct, they were being denied rights, and thus didn't have those rights, which is what they were upset about : not having those rights. You can argue they should have had those rights, but they clearly didn't. Having a right to an action doesn't mean you think the action is good, it means society has agreed that the government should be forced to allow you to perform that action. We had rights to throw Japanese Americans in Internment Camps. Didn't mean it was right that we did it, nor that those denial of rights was justified. twodot posted:The last I heard they lost their last legal action, so it seems that to the extent that they have a right to object, they've already exhausted those rights. And the courts ruled in favor of Jim Crow laws multiple times. Again, legal precedent does not make something just, it just makes it legal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We had rights to throw Japanese Americans in Internment Camps. Didn't mean it was right that we did it, nor that those denial of rights was justified. quote:And the courts ruled in favor of Jim Crow laws multiple times. Again, legal precedent does not make something just, it just makes it legal. edit: "Should have the right" might work, but then you need to get into how you are structuring the right such that these people have the right but white people protesting integration or whatever don't. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
It's interesting to ponder why exactly people insist that justice is irrelevant to this case, such that they can say that blockading the construction of a school is as equally justified as the water protectors are. Well, I mean, the guy who made that particular comparison is an openly racist shitbag, and many other people have no conception of right or wrong, just legal or illegal and customary or uncustomary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In the DPL case, the Native's are being denied rights to object to a project being run by a company with a poor pipeline safety record over water that directly impacts their well being, and the Pipeline was redirected by people whose only argument against it also reflected the argument the Native's have. Ironically, somehow, the Native's have no grounds but Bismark was well within their rights to object. Bismark didn't object. The Bismark route was one of three routes considered, of which the one chosen was the favorite for being shorter and having fewer water crossings, as well as potentially impacting far fewer people. You can read it in the CoE's actual environmental impact assessment if you want. The CoE is apparantly going to move the Reservation's water intakes next year in any case because the river isn't consistent enough to guaranteee their supply. When the reservation is supplied by underground aquafir instead of the river the pipeline issue will be largely moot, which maybe influenced their decision. But even granting it's a risk, isn't it a similar risk along every stretch of the pipeline and its various water crossings? If every local stakeholder group could straight up veto the whole project it would be impossible to build. Probably impossible to build any significant infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:You could go read the Army Corps of Engineer's environmental assessment for yourself. It wasn't 'originally' going past Bismarck, that's just one of two other major routes they examined (the third involved crossing Yellowstone river). The Lake Oahe crossing was always preferred over the Bismarck route for a variety of reasons including being 11 miles shorter and involving fewer water crossings. False. The route was originally set to cross the Missouri River just north of the 92% white city of Bismarck. http://www.psc.nd.gov/database/documents/14-0842/001-030.pdf The Army Corps of Engineers shot the plan down. Fansy fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Could we agree on a convention of making new posts instead of significant edits to prior posts? Big edits make things very difficult to follow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
twodot posted:To be clear, I'm totally fine with an ends justify the means analysis (that's just consequentialism made to sound scary), you just can't claim to be engaging with rights while doing it. Me too, if you are being honest and forthcoming about it. But they have created this entire vocabulary and ways that they talk about their causes which are designed to obfuscate that fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:But even granting it's a risk, isn't it a similar risk along every stretch of the pipeline and its various water crossings? If every local stakeholder group could straight up veto the whole project it would be impossible to build. Probably impossible to build any significant infrastructure. And how does that compare to you suggesting that white construction workers have every right to protest the building of a Native American school to stop Sharia Law? Because I still can't grasp what level of madness you'd think that comparison was valid. silence_kit posted:Me too, if you are being honest and forthcoming about it. But they have created this entire vocabulary and ways that they talk about their issues which are designed to obfuscate that fact. Oh for fucks sake. Two Dot knew I was using two different meanings of the word Right intentionally, and felt the need to lecture me on basic English which was frankly rather insulting. You don't get to pretend I was arguing in bad faith by saying "Oh look, you are using two different meanings of the word, you are obviously trying to obfuscate your point". That is beyond contempt to make that sort of claim. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And how does that compare to you suggesting that white construction workers have every right to protest the building of a Native American school to stop Sharia Law? Because I still can't grasp what level of madness you'd think that comparison was valid. edit: quote:Two Dot knew I was using two different meanings of the word Right intentionally, and felt the need to lecture me on basic English which was frankly rather insulting. You don't get to pretend I was arguing in bad faith by saying "Oh look, you are using two different meanings of the word, you are obviously trying to obfuscate your point".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And how does that compare to you suggesting that white construction workers have every right to protest the building of a Native American school to stop Sharia Law? Because I still can't grasp what level of madness you'd think that comparison was valid. I didn't suggest either of those things, so idk? But yeah if there's a general Right to protest when you're Real Mad about something then the right of people to do that thing you suggested does not depend on the merits of the thing you're mad about. Them's just the philosophical breaks. edit: spelling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I didn't suggest either of those things, so idk? You are right, I got mixed up due to you both having the same avatar  twodot posted:You are the one claiming a right to protest exists. If such a right exists, what distinguishes those protests? Consider that a right to free speech allows people to say racist things. Again: One was based off objections over actual occurrences and risks. The other is a conspiracy theory. C'mon now, if you get to claim I'm obfuscating my arguing points, at least pretend that you guys are arguing in good faith and not pulling poo poo out of a hat and calling it gold. twodot posted:That post you were using right as an adjective, all other times you were using it as a noun. Did it occur to you that was on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Arguing on the basis that legal definitions ought to be the primary ones, and all others be clearly marked, is nothing more or less than an attempt to spread law school-inflicted brain damage universally, up with which I will not put.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Again: One was based off objections over actual occurrences and risks. The other is a conspiracy theory. C'mon now, if you get to claim I'm obfuscating my arguing points, at least pretend that you guys are arguing in good faith and not pulling poo poo out of a hat and calling it gold. edit: HINT - there may exist people who disagree with risk calculations of the DAPL protesters. quote:Did it occur to you that was on purpose?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, I get that you believe that. I also believe that, how do you demonstrate that is true, such that you can justify denying them the right to protest? A right to free speech includes a right to spread conspiracy theories. Is the right to protest so flimsy and worthless that we can capriciously deny it to whoever we disagree with? Instances of Pipelines blowing up in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016 Instances of Sharia Law taking over US in 2016: None. twodot posted:Yes, it was clearly a rhetorical trick to get around legal objections to you using legal language, by trying to back off legal language without changing the literal letters you are typing. Legal is not the end all do all for being Just and Fair. By that logic, Lynching was just fair game because lynch mobs were largely considered a legal affair. Don't pretend something being legal somehow implies its also Just.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Instances of Pipelines blowing up in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016 quote:Legal is not the end all do all for being Just and Fair. By that logic, Lynching was just fair game because lynch mobs were largely considered a legal affair. Don't pretend something being legal somehow implies its also Just.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
From the perspective that protest is a means of influencing the actions of others in a democratic society, the question becomes one of whether the protesters are right or wrong, an environment where motherfuckers like Gobblewhatever and blowjob will be vociferously racist. So I guess we've figured out why this is a sticking point for twodot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah I never said otherwise, "a right to protest" is a legal concept, "a protest being right" is a just concept. If you want to talk about just and fair, use those words (or right in its adjective since, or layout how a hypothetical right to protest would actually work). Even in the moral realm... Pipelines are remarkably safe. The US has only had a handful of incidents with something like 2.3 million KM of pipe. Crude is going to get transported some kind of way and the other methods are less safe. So what is the DAPL protest but NIMBYism, if pipeline safety is the justification?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Even in the moral realm... I like that the moral realm has to play by the rules of gently caress the climate capitalism wateroverfire posted:the other methods are less safe you mean profitable
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Instances of Pipelines blowing up in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016  and address my point. You are arguing that people have an infinite right to stop other people from doing stuff they don't like as long as they are non-violent. If after Brown vs Board of Education men with guns hadn't enforced the right of black people to go to white schools, white people would have stopped black people from going to white schools by physically blockading the schools. Do you accept that your (insane) position also allows a heckler's veto over many good things such as the construction of mosques, new schools for the Lakota, whites and blacks going to the same schools, and women being allowed to get abortions? Or are you only allowed to protest if a committee of Native American elders certifies that your cause is Good and Just?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:57
|
|