7 9

AOC takes on the CEO of the blatantly corrupt Wells Fargo over funding the pipeline and caging children.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: The CEO of Wells Fargo said they chose to finance the unstable Dakota Access Pipeline over Standing Rock Sioux objections, because the bank determined it was “worth the risk.”

To whom?

#DAPL has leaked at least 5x. And we, the public, are left to pay for cleanup+destroyed land.


"So, hypothetically, if there was a leak from the Dakota Access Pipeline, why shouldn't #WellsFargo pay for the cleanup of it, since it paid for the construction of the pipeline itself?"

Another example of big corporations putting the interest of their shareholders over the interest of the country, the American people, and the environment. This is why we need more regulations when it comes to environmental concerns, not less!

Republicans: Privatize the profits, socialize the risks.

By jerry997
Actions Follow Post Like

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


But, but, but...socialism is badddd!
Until it benefits them, of course.

KKGator Level 9 Mar 13, 2019

I like her more and more. She gives me hope.


This video will likely offend the regressive left, but IMO is worthy of objective consideration:

PBuck0145 Level 7 Mar 12, 2019

Who is this regressive left? If you start with that intro, it's unlikely to go down well, right? And strongly suggests that the 'objective consideration' you propose evades you.

@OwlInASack So you obviously are offended. Too bad you won't watch it.

@PBuck0145 Too bad you start off by deliberatrely offending your audience.

Is that my old buddy Ron Reagan shown as the logo for this video? I'm betting he'd think AOC was "hot". smile009.gif

@OwlInASack The introduction to the video is a "trigger warning". I am pleased that you are opposed to trigger warnings.

@PBuck0145 no - just not keen on rude folks. Specially folks who go out of their way to be rude...

Maybe you’re different?

@bigpawbullets Ronnie was too addled with Alzheimer's in his whole second term to separate his arse from his elbow, let alone recognize an attractive female.

I love it when you morons stick your tiny little heads up. It's like Whack-A- Mole. You get blocked. It is called thinning out the herd. If l want to listen to stupid I will move Alabama.

@Lennie glad I didn’t bother then.

Many responses from objective free-thinkers.

Of course they did it to promote their own agenda. Of course the people voted for her. Of course most politicians are coached. She is new to politics. What person takes a job they never did and isn't coached? Especially in politics when you have a campaign team and advisors around you? I think this guy is reaching here that they just want "power". The thing is, what is their agenda? The issue I have had with AOC so far is that her GND was left up to the corporate Dems to fill out. Justice Democrats aren't going to take over the Democratic Party anyway. The Democratic Party power structure isn't penetrable. What's wrong with actual progressives and liberals trying to take over the Democratic Party and getting the corporate Democrats out? This guy acts like Cenk, Justice Democrats, or AOC are on a mission to destroy the country, or that they are Stalinists. This guy is describing progressive/liberal seeming people as the devil. This guy in the video is dishonest to the core with his ominous tone and leading. Who is this guy? What's his real name? Are you (OP) a conservative Democrat or a Republican? "Mr. Reagan" seems to be a Trump supporter from the comments I see him make on his YouTube page. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I don't know if he's conservative or a sensationalist or both.

I've watched some of AOC's work in Congress and read a fair amount of her stuff. It's easy to see why she has the Renumbnuts starting to panic. She's knowledgeable, well-prepared, smart, and focused on what really matters. And she has the asshole-in-chief making up scary stories about taking away your cheeseburgers, electricity, and air travel. Isn't it amazing that a new Representative from a district in Queens has the Republican establishment cranking up their well-oiled propaganda machine with hit pieces like this?

@PBuck0145 Who is this person, and what is his expertise. Are these just his opinions, or are they backed by some source of information?

This video is so perfect!
The responses are so typical.
The nanny state lovers are criminally uninformed.

Notice her policies are never brought up in her defense. Just personal attacks and, "I like her!"


"glad I didn’t bother then."

Typical and quite obvious.

@BryanLV I’m confused? Is my reaction or the video obvious and typical?

@BryanLV, @PBuck0145 if all of your posts are designed to piss people off, why bother? Is it some kind of badge of honour for you? Obviously you’re not interested in a normal discussion. So what do you want? Really?

@OwlInASack I never argue with those who post YouTube videos. I can't have a conversation with a video. I can, possibly, with a real person. I wish people would simply state their point of view rather than post a video made by someone else. It never leads to any useful conversations....

@OwlInASack, @KenChang

I had to watch the video because there was information in it I was unaware of.

My intent is not to piss people off. If it was, I would just make fun of you guys and call you names. Much like many of you. I present information, and respond to both information and misinformation.

Original post was of no interest to me. But this video was gold. You responded with fake outrage, pretending to be offended. But then admitted you didnt even watch it.

So what are you here for?

@BryanLV Hmmmm. Are you responding to me? I do not recall ever expressing outrage, fake or real. I was simply expressing my preferred way of having a conversation. I did not engage you. I was simply sharing the futility of engaging with posters who put up YouTube videos of someone else as some sort of argument or authority. It gets tiresome.

Why are you asking me why am I here? What should I be here for? Obviously you have higher level of wisdom than I. Why don't you tell me?


And here is another video, that may put some context around the conspiracy spin of the Ronald Reagan stamped YouTube video. We can spin this every which way. But fundamentally democratic politics must capture more than an individual politician's ambition, or that of their corporate sponsors. Our political process has already been captured by the corporate interests, and AOC's platform, and she does have a clear one, counters that trend.


Only about watching and posting videos.

And how are you going to complain about people posting videos, and then post a video?

Are you even paying attention to what you write? You literally contradicted yourself within a span of an hour.

@BryanLV I was simply demonstrating the importance of sourcing. The problem with the YouTube videos is that they are mostly advocacy. I should have been clear. Posting these respective videos do not become a meaningful conversation.


Why post a video if you did not watch the original video? The video you posted comes from aoc's handlers; which was a primary complaint of the original video.

Its like you and other aoc followers are intentionally ignoring information, but expect everyone else to consume information you approve of.

Its obvious youre just regurgitating talking points. Its clear her campaign does not buck any trends. Youre just turning a blind eye.

A YouTube video isn't "proof" of anything but the poster's bias. Doesn't matter who's
posting it. Next.

@BryanLV I did watch the videos. Both of them. Just to make a point. That both videos show different spins on the reality. The AOC's video (straight from Justice Democrats) is what the first video is using as a "proof" of its argument, but the presenter takes it out of context. Hence, it is important to source your factual basis.

Take it as whatever you want. Obviously, you aren't even trying to understand my point of view. Hence this isn't a conversation. This is simply tiresome.


My intent is not to piss people off. If it was, I would just make fun of you guys and call you names

Maybe you just didn’t notice what you were typing

The nanny state lovers are criminally uninformed

It’s the lack of self awareness that’s so worrying about the right wing


But this video was gold. You responded with fake outrage

The reaction was neither fake nor outrage. You are seeing what you condition yourself to see. I just don’t want to interact with folks who set out to offend. Why bother?

pretending to be offended

Can you see that there’s a chance your judgement is mistaken here? There was no pretence. Do you care that you are badly wrong here?

But then admitted you didnt even watch it

I didn’t ‘admit’ I didn’t watch it. I stated it clearly. There was no point. It was posted by a right winger who deliberately set out to offend. So no point.

So what are you here for?

Serious question - but definitely not to engage with hard right wingers who set out to offend.

What are you here for?

@KenChang nice set of posts: nuanced and points well made.

I note that the attacks against you weren’t backed up by any kind of rational argument. Funny that.


"Too bad you start off by deliberatrely offending your audience."

Your words. Not mine.

"I just don’t want to interact with folks who set out to offend. Why bother?"

You presume he was setting out to offend, while not even consuming the information.

"Do you care that you are badly wrong here?"

Again, I used your words, but I am wrong? Im starting to think youre not just uninformed, but dishonest.

"I didn’t ‘admit’ I didn’t watch it. I stated it clearly. "

You admitted by stating. Youre simply playing semantics. Just another dishonest tactic.

Ive already stated why I am here. I am also not a right winger. I don't like either wing on this duck. If youre in love with one wing, such as you are, you can be rendered incapable of viewing things outside of these paradigms. Clearly where you are now.


I don't think the second video showed an opposite perspective, as much as it set out bulletin points for aoc followers and gave insight into their ideology.

The first video brought up a lot of information that was not in the video you posted. It did not show the information and conclusions to have been taken out of context at all.

Yes, I am tired of this too. Im sure Owen will post and edit 50 more times, though.


You presume he was setting out to offend

He said as much. And it it wasn’t intentional then again the lack of self awareness - as explicitly pointed out - is more than worrying.

while not even consuming the information

As explained - repeatedly now - no point in interacting with folks who are l merely abusive. This isn’t a difficult concept.

"Do you care that you are badly wrong here?"

Again, I used your words, but I am wrong?

I quoted you. This is just a straight lie. Where did I say I was pretending to be offended? Do you have any awareness at all of what you are writing?

Im starting to think youre not just uninformed, but dishonest

Try an awful lot harder. You have been rude - deliberately - to strangers - and backed another who’s done the same. If you still can’t see that’s true after it’s been quoted back to you we have no means of communicating, no language in common.

Ive already stated why I am here

Have you? I couldn’t see it. I also find I kind of don’t care: you’re abusive and doubling down on it, so - meh.

I am also not a right winger

I apologise. I couldn’t distinguish you from one.

If youre in love with one wing, such as you are, you can be rendered incapable of viewing things outside of these paradigms

Unless one of those paradigms is to view everything clearly. Or to try to. Refusing to engage with people who start with abuse is a principled position. I stick to it. This is also not a difficult concept.

Clearly where you are now

I don’t think you should flatter yourself about clarity given the mess you posted here.

@PBuck0145 as I said at the beginning, if you kick off by deliberately being rude and offensive - and if it wasn’t deliberate you’ve got more going on - then there’s no point in engaging.

If you want to then tell people they shouldn’t get so easily offended - well fine - feel free: but it’s not going to persuade many to interact with you on your subject. And it fatally undermines arguments about objectivity.


Republicans: Privatize the profits, socialize the risks.

It's amazing how socialist these republicans are when it comes down to it.


Anyone have an idea about what the environmental impact of moving this oil by train or truck would be? Do the companies usually pay for clean up when these other modes of transport are used? That would be good to know when looking at all of this.

I think that the transport companies would have to pay for a spill, certainly.

@OwlInASack I would think so too, but I wouldn’t go so far to say I’m certain.

@indirect76 It seems weird that the companies who own the pipeline don't get lumbered with full clean up costs and reparations.

After all the US Government went after BP for all of that and some for their oil spill down in the Gulf of Mexico. And I'm not arguing. It would just be great to see some even handed ness when it came to US polluting companies. So far no compensation for Bhopal. That was what - 40 years ago? Exxon Valdize? Effectively squat.

It doesn't feel even handed at all. And basic clean up and compensation should be the start.

@OwlInASack Union Carbide was responsible for the disaster in Bhopal.
Do they even exist anymore?
They got purchased after Bhopal.
Now, they're a subsidiary of Dow Chemical.

@KKGator right. But the victims were never compensated, the US government refused to help force reparations, and the locals still give birth to ‘funny’ children.

It’s the double standard that irks. And the grotesque life changing disabilities and death.

@OwlInASack Agreed. Corporations are usually always given A LOT of latitude in cases like these. If it's brown people, or the environment, that are adversely effected, the companies usually skate.
It's disgusting.

@KKGator yeah. It’s appalling. I’m frequently accused of being a mindless leftie with no clue about the commercial world and its realities. To some extent that might be true but I’m a businessman and have to make a profit and pay my staff. And I can still recognise that principles matter


This is why regulations are important. This has been the modus operandi of all industry since the beginning, NEVER held accountable for the damage their greed does. Even situations like the CA gold rush which completely destroyed the salmon runs on the Sacramento River and the mercury which is still a problem to this day.


Privatize the profits, socialize the risks should be their motto! Lousy fuckers!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text 'q:309192'.
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer.
  • is a non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others!