“They’re Gonna Pay for It:” Could a Texas Billionaire Force Greenpeace USA into Bankruptcy?

According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Warren said in a 2017 interview, “Everybody is afraid of these environmental groups and the fear that it may look wrong if you fight back with these people.”⁷

“They’re Gonna Pay for It:” Could a Texas Billionaire Force Greenpeace USA into Bankruptcy?

Finally, someone is fighting back. Another harbinger, things may be turning around and some sanity just may be restored. This is a big opportunity to put radical activism in check. Trump should invite Texas billionaire Kelcy Warren to his next rally's.

President Trump signed an executive order reviving the projectafter being stalled for months under President Obama.

Energy Transfer is suing several Greenpeace International entities for $300 million in damages, including claims relating to protests surrounding the pipeline’s construction.

Hooray for billionaires who are fighting back against those who might prevent them from becoming trillionaires.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

I just pictured you as Gretta Thundburg saying "How Dare YOU!"

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

“They’re Gonna Pay for It:” Could a Texas Billionaire Force Greenpeace USA into Bankruptcy?
page: 1

Maybe. But the same donors will just start and support anther nonprofit environmental activist group that'll do the same thing.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: BingoMcGoof

I just pictured you as Gretta Thundburg saying "How Dare YOU!"

Poor Angry Beaver only gets news coverage now when she gets arrested.

Anybody who thinks corruption in government isn't a serious and dangerous problem hasn't been paying attention. Sad thing is, the majority of people with the money and power to stop the corruption are liberal, and corruption is their bread and butter.

All it takes to make them scream foul is a rich conservative threatening to expose their tactics. It makes me laugh when liberals have a giant meltdown over conservatives using their MO.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
Hooray for billionaires who are fighting back against those who might prevent them from becoming trillionaires.

If someone makes a lot of money legally then why should someone prevent them from making more?
Rich people are job creators and by and far the tax base that funds our government. Even the far left politicians only pretend to hate the rich, it's really just envy.
Haters are gonna hate Bingo.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
Hooray for billionaires who are fighting back against those who might prevent them from becoming trillionaires.

If someone makes a lot of money legally then why should someone prevent them from making more?
Rich people are job creators and by and far the tax base that funds our government. Even the far left politicians only pretend to hate the rich, it's really just envy.
Haters are gonna hate Bingo.

Answering your question can be accomplished in a number of ways. One is sure, only the best and brightest become rich and while at the same time creating work for the rest of us to do and get paid so we can live our lives. That is one standard answer.

Another standard answer is that history is replete with rich people who have not been content with just being rich and continue to do whatever it takes to keep on getting richer and owning everything within their sight. All to often that ''whatever it takes'' bears no resemblance to caution with anyone who gets in their way.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: fringeofthefringe

“They’re Gonna Pay for It:” Could a Texas Billionaire Force Greenpeace USA into Bankruptcy?
page: 1

Maybe. But the same donors will just start and support anther nonprofit environmental activist group that'll do the same thing.

No.
You are free to have your own opinions.
You are free to PEACEFULLY demonstrate.

You are NOT free to engage in "direct action"/sabotage/terrorism, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE HAVING A HISSY FIT OF NOT GETTING WHAT YOU WANT.

Once the legal liability precedent is set, NO "nonprofit" will be able to engage for long, if at all, in Greenpeace terrorist/sabotage operations, because of the legal liability.

No one elected Greenpeace.
No one elected Just Stop Oil, nor any other eco-death-cult group.

Furthermore, even in Germany, green parties rarely exceed 5% of the vote.

THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT YOU !

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
Hooray for billionaires who are fighting back against those who might prevent them from becoming trillionaires.

If someone makes a lot of money legally then why should someone prevent them from making more?
Rich people are job creators and by and far the tax base that funds our government. Even the far left politicians only pretend to hate the rich, it's really just envy.
Haters are gonna hate Bingo.

Answering your question can be accomplished in a number of ways. One is sure, only the best and brightest become rich and while at the same time creating work for the rest of us to do and get paid so we can live our lives. That is one standard answer.

Another standard answer is that history is replete with rich people who have not been content with just being rich and continue to do whatever it takes to keep on getting richer and owning everything within their sight. All to often that ''whatever it takes'' bears no resemblance to caution with anyone who gets in their way.

I was really focused on these activists being held responsible for what I would call eco terrorism but just a quick search on Kelcy Warren and his dad had worked in the oil industry sent his kid-Kelcy-to UT and he excelled in engineering and became a very successful entrepreneur after working his way up through the oil/energy industry.

Pipeline king Kelcy Warren gives UT Arlington its biggest donation ever

12 million dollar gift to his alma mater

Warren had previously donated $4 million to UTA in 10 gifts over 25 years. That included establishing a graduate student fellowship to honor his former professor and mentor, Syed Qasim.

So hey, let's go and destroy his companies equipment and ruin the good work he is creating for Americans. Sure, because he's rich but I don't think he should be any richer. Really? That is so unamerican, c'mon man.

Also.

“I’m going to be a little boastful here,” says Kelcy Warren. “Nobody has built more pipelines in the last 15 years than Energy Transfer. Many of these pipelines are game changers for the nation, and we’re very proud of them.”

I don't think we should be hateful of smart, hard working successful people who are driven to dominate an industry. Maybe Tom Brady won too many super bowls or hey Michael Jordan why did you have to repeat a 3 peat? I always felt in America we respect and appreciate exceptionalism not hate it.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
Hooray for billionaires who are fighting back against those who might prevent them from becoming trillionaires.

Those darn Billionaires should be punished for their decisions in life and they should be made to give us part of their money .

It's so unfair.

I'm entitled to what I FEEL LIKE I DESERVE !

a reply to: Tolkien

No.

Yes.
These things are like the heads on a Hydra, they keep growing back. But billinaires love to throw money into bottomless money pits.

.....
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT YOU !

Got it, but I'm not Green Peace or a supprter of Green Peace. Got it?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Clearly you fall more on one side of those two answers while I fall on the other. "I''m not against appreciating people of exceptional ability but knowing that a lot of the time it's not that they are all that exceptional but rather just fortunate to be in the right place at the right time with enough money to capitalize on tat moment. I"m not saying this fellow isn't a decent sort, just that painting him with the exceptional brush is difficult for me. And that donation to his Alma Mater was just 2% of his net worth. And even then we have no idea of what quid pro quo might have been involved.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Tolkien

No.

Yes.
These things are like the heads on a Hydra, they keep growing back. But billinaires love to throw money into bottomless money pits.

.....
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT YOU !

Got it, but I'm not Green Peace or a supprter of Green Peace. Got it?

Yet you defend them....not very good at lying...

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Tolkien

No.

Yes.
These things are like the heads on a Hydra, they keep growing back. But billinaires love to throw money into bottomless money pits.

.....
THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT YOU !

Got it, but I'm not Green Peace or a supporter of Green Peace. Got it?

Yet you defend them....not very good at lying...

Nope. That's just your projection.

a reply to: Tolkien

Oh come on. You can take advocate positions for the hell of it. Like take a counter position just see where everything lands.

To me, Greenpeace is a boat of people getting golf balls hit at them by Bruce Willis in the terrible asteroid movie. Sorry, something the diameter of Texas is in Hydrostatic equilibrium. Bad science!

But that lead in diffuses what I'm about to argue.

Energy Transfer, which is led by a close ally of Mr. Trump, Kelcy Warren, alleged that Greenpeace and other activists incited the protests, spread misinformation and vandalized the project, leading to delays that cost the company millions of dollars.

If they are responsible for the activist vandalism (like the two women with torches) Trump is responsible for Jan 6th. That's just the logic of "collective liability"

You can get any development you want stopped for an environmental survey for an endangered pigmy animal no one ever heard of. And those delays cost developers. Challenges and activism works, which is why people do this.

300 million could be crowd funded 75 dollars at a time like the 140 million Harris pulled in the first week. Now Greenpeace supporters generally live in vans when not on boats, so you may need Hollywood and hippies that grew up to crowd fund this one. They'd likely get increased support "just because."

Things that could happen if the full amount was awarded to big oil.

But let's see what their side of the story is:

my chosen source

ET’s SLAPP against Greenpeace entities is an attempt to rewrite the history of the Indigenous-led protests at Standing Rock against ET’s Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). In 2016, along with more than 500 other organisations, Greenpeace International signed an open letter to banks financing DAPL expressing concerns about the construction of DAPL. As a result, ET has been suing Greenpeace International for what it claims are false and defamatory statements in the United States in consecutive court cases. From the outset, this has been an attempt by ET to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, make them go bankrupt, and ultimately silence dissent.

Greenpeace seems to think they weren't spreading false information and making defamatory statements. They just support the indiginous protests. They also think big oil is bullying them with a second frivolous lawsuit, having failed to prove violation of RICO laws.

"Mostly not wanted." This isn't Jim Crowe, right?

Green Party ≠ Greenpeace ≠ Environmentalism ≠ opposition to this project. 5% is a gross underestimation of reality.

www.pewresearch.org...

42% supported The Keystone/Dakota Pipelines and 48% opposed it according to Pew Reasearch.

So when you say "the VAST majority" doesnt want Greenpeace (or their supporters) here what you're saying is "almost everyone" is the 42% that agrees with you, and the rest are the unwanted. That doesn't seem very wholesome, or workable outside fascism, but okay.

I can assume from polls regarding its construction that at least 40% of Americans supported any legal shenanigans to hault the pipeline. Like a "defamatory" letter even.

And I feel there's 300 million in small donations out there if oil succeeds.

But see how easy that is?

I dared to give the wacky hippies with their boats a voice to defend themselves.

Normally in this situation, the opposed is conditioned to overgeneralize and see it in simplistic black and white. It's a good landing spot for cultivated anger. Like an impulse to put any position that doesn't parrot your own into a disparaging light and attack it, even if the person only did it to play devil's advocate.

originally posted by: BingoMcGoof
Hooray for billionaires who are fighting back against those who might prevent them from becoming trillionaires.

LOL!

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Tolkien

Oh come on. You can take advocate positions for the hell of it. Like take a counter position just see where everything lands.

To me, Greenpeace is a boat of people getting golf balls hit at them by Bruce Willis in the terrible asteroid movie. Sorry, something the diameter of Texas is in Hydrostatic equilibrium. Bad science!

But that lead in diffuses what I'm about to argue.

Energy Transfer, which is led by a close ally of Mr. Trump, Kelcy Warren, alleged that Greenpeace and other activists incited the protests, spread misinformation and vandalized the project, leading to delays that cost the company millions of dollars.

If they are responsible for the activist vandalism (like the two women with torches) Trump is responsible for Jan 6th. That's just the logic of "collective liability"

You can get any development you want stopped for an environmental survey for an endangered pigmy animal no one ever heard of. And those delays cost developers. Challenges and activism works, which is why people do this.

300 million could be crowd funded 75 dollars at a time like the 140 million Harris pulled in the first week. Now Greenpeace supporters generally live in vans when not on boats, so you may need Hollywood and hippies that grew up to crowd fund this one. They'd likely get increased support "just because."

Things that could happen if the full amount was awarded to big oil.

But let's see what their side of the story is:

my chosen source

ET’s SLAPP against Greenpeace entities is an attempt to rewrite the history of the Indigenous-led protests at Standing Rock against ET’s Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). In 2016, along with more than 500 other organisations, Greenpeace International signed an open letter to banks financing DAPL expressing concerns about the construction of DAPL. As a result, ET has been suing Greenpeace International for what it claims are false and defamatory statements in the United States in consecutive court cases. From the outset, this has been an attempt by ET to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, make them go bankrupt, and ultimately silence dissent.

Greenpeace seems to think they weren't spreading false information and making defamatory statements. They just support the indiginous protests. They also think big oil is bullying them with a second frivolous lawsuit, having failed to prove violation of RICO laws.

"Mostly not wanted." This isn't Jim Crowe, right?

Green Party ≠ Greenpeace ≠ Environmentalism ≠ opposition to this project. 5% is a gross underestimation of reality.

www.pewresearch.org...

42% supported The Keystone/Dakota Pipelines and 48% opposed it according to Pew Reasearch.

So when you say "the VAST majority" doesnt want Greenpeace (or their supporters) here what you're saying is "almost everyone" is the 42% that agrees with you, and the rest are the unwanted. That doesn't seem very wholesome, or workable outside fascism, but okay.

I can assume from polls regarding its construction that at least 40% of Americans supported any legal shenanigans to hault the pipeline. Like a "defamatory" letter even.

And I feel there's 300 million in small donations out there if oil succeeds.

But see how easy that is?

I dared to give the wacky hippies with their boats a voice to defend themselves.

Normally in this situation, the opposed is conditioned to overgeneralize and see it in simplistic black and white. It's a good landing spot for cultivated anger. Like an impulse to put any position that doesn't parrot your own into a disparaging light and attack it, even if the person only did it to play devil's advocate.

If you hate petroleum so much, please throw away your toothbrush and get a wooden one with boar bristles mkay….
Some other things made with petroleum … toothpaste, shampoo, nylon rope, football helmets, trash bags, antihistamines, ball point pens, aspirin annd even computer parts and many more common items.

innovativewealth.com...

Maybe think twice about your radical ideals.

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Tolkien

Oh come on. You can take advocate positions for the hell of it. Like take a counter position just see where everything lands.

To me, Greenpeace is a boat of people getting golf balls hit at them by Bruce Willis in the terrible asteroid movie. Sorry, something the diameter of Texas is in Hydrostatic equilibrium. Bad science!

But that lead in diffuses what I'm about to argue.

Energy Transfer, which is led by a close ally of Mr. Trump, Kelcy Warren, alleged that Greenpeace and other activists incited the protests, spread misinformation and vandalized the project, leading to delays that cost the company millions of dollars.

If they are responsible for the activist vandalism (like the two women with torches) Trump is responsible for Jan 6th. That's just the logic of "collective liability"

You can get any development you want stopped for an environmental survey for an endangered pigmy animal no one ever heard of. And those delays cost developers. Challenges and activism works, which is why people do this.

300 million could be crowd funded 75 dollars at a time like the 140 million Harris pulled in the first week. Now Greenpeace supporters generally live in vans when not on boats, so you may need Hollywood and hippies that grew up to crowd fund this one. They'd likely get increased support "just because."

Things that could happen if the full amount was awarded to big oil.

But let's see what their side of the story is:

my chosen source

ET’s SLAPP against Greenpeace entities is an attempt to rewrite the history of the Indigenous-led protests at Standing Rock against ET’s Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). In 2016, along with more than 500 other organisations, Greenpeace International signed an open letter to banks financing DAPL expressing concerns about the construction of DAPL. As a result, ET has been suing Greenpeace International for what it claims are false and defamatory statements in the United States in consecutive court cases. From the outset, this has been an attempt by ET to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, make them go bankrupt, and ultimately silence dissent.

Greenpeace seems to think they weren't spreading false information and making defamatory statements. They just support the indiginous protests. They also think big oil is bullying them with a second frivolous lawsuit, having failed to prove violation of RICO laws.

"Mostly not wanted." This isn't Jim Crowe, right?

Green Party ≠ Greenpeace ≠ Environmentalism ≠ opposition to this project. 5% is a gross underestimation of reality.

www.pewresearch.org...

42% supported The Keystone/Dakota Pipelines and 48% opposed it according to Pew Reasearch.

So when you say "the VAST majority" doesnt want Greenpeace (or their supporters) here what you're saying is "almost everyone" is the 42% that agrees with you, and the rest are the unwanted. That doesn't seem very wholesome, or workable outside fascism, but okay.

I can assume from polls regarding its construction that at least 40% of Americans supported any legal shenanigans to hault the pipeline. Like a "defamatory" letter even.

And I feel there's 300 million in small donations out there if oil succeeds.

But see how easy that is?

I dared to give the wacky hippies with their boats a voice to defend themselves.

Normally in this situation, the opposed is conditioned to overgeneralize and see it in simplistic black and white. It's a good landing spot for cultivated anger. Like an impulse to put any position that doesn't parrot your own into a disparaging light and attack it, even if the person only did it to play devil's advocate.

If you hate petroleum so much, please throw away your toothbrush and get a wooden one with vise bristles mkay….
Some other things made with petroleum … toothpaste, shampoo, nylon rope, football helmets, trash bags, antihistamines, ball point pens, aspirin and many more common items.

innovativewealth.com...

Maybe think twice about your radical ideals.

Normally in this situation, the opposed is conditioned to overgeneralize and see it in simplistic black and white. It's a good landing spot for cultivated anger. Like an impulse to put any position that doesn't parrot your own into a disparaging light and attack it, even if the person only did it to play devil's advocate.

I don't hate oil. Maybe dislike some oil tycoons.

If that billionaire oil jackass wants to shut-up Greenpeace he needs to realize something about his case. It sets an inconvenient precedence for liability.

Greenpeace advocated for protests. Absolutely wanted to stop it. Even supported indiginous protests and urged them to peacefully fight. The protestors decided to destroy private property or take an acetylene torch to the valves. The participants in the protests made it criminal. The protestors clashing with security and causing disruption cannot be deemed the fault of Greenpeace, can it?

Do you think all cases where the organizers of a protest or rally should be held liable for all subsequent actions of the people they gathered together and organized?

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

The "Global Elite", the "Powers That Be", the "Globalist Cabal", etc. Are not a bunch of middle class working schlubs slaving their bums off day after day for a better tomorrow.

News flash, they're a bunch of BILLIONAIRES!, most of them multi-billionaires.

Did they make their money legally?

Of course, because they wrote the laws!

The old "Golden Rule": Them what's got the Gold, makes the Rules.


So if you are into defending billionaires making more money at the expense of the rest of humanity, now and in the future, even if they do it "legally",


Then you are supporting the power and control of the very "Elites" you claim to oppose.

The "Global Elite", the "Powers That Be", the "Globalist Cabal", etc. Are not a bunch of middle class working schlubs slaving their bums off day after day for a better tomorrow.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

He was born in Gladewater, Texas, and grew up in White Oak, Texas, with his father as a Sun Pipeline employee and his mother as a grocery shop employee.

Thanks to his mother’s emphasis on the importance of education, Kelcy Warren graduated from White Oak High School with enough grades to get him to the University of Texas at Arlington. The desire to change his family’s situation made him consult the best career to pursue from his high school counselor, where he got the idea to take an engineering course.

Only in America

I started this OP thinking how finally these eco-terrorists messed with the wrong dude. Well not only was I right but in the process I have learned of a great American, a story of hard work and achievement. Too bad you don't see it but this is another example of the American dream. Kelcy wasn't born into money he worked hard took risks and created an empire....he has given back to his community and, as you can see in the short video in the link, appreciates the men & women in his company and in the communities he works in. You have failed to see Kelcy Warren is a great American story.