Jump to content

Tolya Ugajin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tolya Ugajin

  1. Sure seems like an odd move for Nazis to support the President who actually moved our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, the only sitting President to visit the Western Wall, who basically told told the Palestinians to f off, and in general is super pro-Israel. It's like the KKK supporting a guy who has gone out of his way to pardon Blacks (Obama didn't pardon Jack Johnson, but that racist Trump did), lifted Blacks economically to higher employment and wages than ever before, and, you know, signed prison reform, which helps fix a lot of the injustice created by our "first Back President" (Clinton,
  2. Nah, I'm more a sine and cosine guy. Tangents always confused me 😛
  3. Well, FYI - British bacon sucks. It's almost as bad as peameal bacon.
  4. You had a failed rebellion in 1837-1838, may want to brush up on your history. There was even a failed push at the time to join Canada to the US. Following that rebellion, the Brits set up "responsible local government" or some such term, in other words, limited autonomy, which fobbed off your traitorous minority (errrr independence minded minority) at the time. You were not a self-governing dominion until the 1860's. By that point, you had very little net economic impact for the Crown, the US was (especially coming off the Civil War) one of the strongest military powers in the world, and
  5. Beth, if not for the success of the American Revolution, it's quite likely most of the Americas (plural) would still be colonial possessions of European powers, as many of the subsequent revolutions were patterned after ours and/or took inspiration from ours, and the Monroe Doctrine (which made it US policy to oppose colonialism in the New World) would never have come into play, and without the success of the revolution in the US there may have been no successful revolution in France (which led to their invasion of Spain, which greatly enabled the revolutions in South America). Heck, it's pos
  6. I just noticed your tag is "Meme Queen". I think we should have a "Meme Wars" thread!
  7. LOL Actually, other than a few hits while with my future inlaws in Canada, I haven't smoked it in around 25 years. I run our company's drug testing programs, after all, and I abhor hypocrisy But, meh, it's legal in Canada (Canadians in general are saner than Americans), and I still get one free round of rehab if I get busted on a test.
  8. It's illegal under federal law everywhere from sea to shining sea, same as heroin and cocaine, etc. although Congress did pass a law in like 2015 to prohibit the feds from interfering in "medical marijuana" laws. When states were making it "legal" for recreational use I was actually confused why Obama didn't sue them under the supremacy clause, the way he did with other states enacting immigration-oriented laws. Personally, I've been advocating that the GOP push for full federal legalization for years as a way to co-opt the normally more left-inclined youth vote. Surely there are enough lib
  9. lol that's actually funny I'm sorry, I went off the deep end out of frustration. If my reaction were a stereo, you deserved a 2, and I gave you a 9. One of these days I'll learn to push the "X" in the upper right and move on to something useful while I cool down. Not a fan of chain or barbed wire - too much blood. Nettles are much better.
  10. Surely some police, and I've seen it first hand. But most police are just trying to do good for their communities. The trouble is, if you give 100,000 people guns and badges, a certain small percentage of them are going to become swaggering, arrogant, tin-plated dictators with delusions of godhood, and some become cops just so they can do that. Some. Similarly, if you take 100,000 protestors, a certain small percentage of them will loot and riot and possibly commit arson and murder, and some will "join" the protests specifically to do that. In neither case is it appropriate to label the g
  11. Your assertion was actually (if I remember) that spending was cut, not that it wasn't as much as it should be, which is a far more interesting discussion. Spending has gone up, as I've shown. But, you are correct, that is NOT the same thing as tax dollars reaching people it could really benefit. Spending is often hard to pin down - right wing lunatics like me normally assume that's by design, so that there is less accountability for where the money really ends up. If you're interested in details (it's more work than I'm interested in doing on this) you can pull up individual department
  12. No, Beth, it's hitting you over the head with your myopic and intellectually lazy responses. You're not even bothering to consider facts and data, you don't even read it. "Well, it's not what I believe, so I'm sure it's based on lies" may as well have been your response. This is so very typical of how every time I masochistically choose to debate anything with the liberal crowd on here plays out. You won't look at data, you (this is a group statement, not just to you) post things as "proof" when you haven't even read your own sources and that's if you bother to offer anything substantive b
  13. Insulting with everyone who disagrees with me is inaccurate. When I put data after data in front of someone and they refuse to even consider it to the point of rejecting it without even reading it, they are willfully choosing ignorance.
  14. A President's budget is almost never what actually happens. For one thing, presidents generally babble about how they're going to cut waste and such, and their budgets reflect such pipe dreams (Clinton was the only one in my lifetime who actually did make it happen, so kudos for Bill). The Congress, regardless of who runs it, is institutionally incapable of reducing spending. After the 2008 crash, for instance, we spent more than a trillion dollars on "stimulus", and we never stopped spending at those higher levels thereafter. It was like our house burned down in 2008, so we decided we'd b
  15. OK, you have officially joined the ranks of unwilling to believe anything that doesn't support your view, and too lazy to bother even reading something that might contradict you. Those statistics are based on surveys of the people arrested, not what the cops reported. You'd know that if you bothered to read it. Enjoy your ignorance.
  16. And that's so common, sure. This is typical internet thinking - I saw it happen so it must happen all the time. I've replies elsewhere with more data. You, Beth, etc. are just grasping at straws to cling to your narrative.
  17. Someone made an unsubstantiated statement, I countered it with fact. You asked the question, go research it. But, if you or anyone else thinks using force is the rule when dealing with civilians, not the exception, then you're brainwashed and out of your damned minds. But, since I couldn't help myself, I did the work for you. Less than 20% of ARRESTS involve ANY force at all. Maybe you should stop believing everything you think you hear on TV and Farcebook. "NIJ-sponsored research at the local level found that, in the context of the subset of police-public contacts involving adul
  18. You're free to research it further. The information comes from the first link below, table 3.2. It's interesting that first you bemoan how spending is being cut, as if the dollars are the important thing, not who is spending it and how, and now you're questioning HOW it's being spent, which, in fact is far more important. For instance, I believe you originally included education spending is down. Since education spending a combination of federal, state, and local spending, we can't check that assertion by just looking at federal spending. Plus, spending goes up with more kids (hopeful
  19. Really, have any data to back that up? Seems pretty counter-intuitive. I mean, cops interact with people for traffic tickets, responding to calls, first aid, talking to witnesses, etc. and I'm reasonably certain they don't normally draw their guns or tase people in those situations, which is the vast majority of police work. And I CAN back that up: "In fact, only about a quarter (27%) of all officers say they have ever fired their service weapon while on the job" So, if 73% go their career without firing a weapon, kinda seems to indicate they're not using force a very large perce
  20. Since Obama's last fiscal budget (2017's), federal spending on social programs is up (2020) as follows: Total, Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services Programs 35.8% Total, non-Medicare, Health Programs: 20.2% Medicare: 17.1% Income Security Programs (includes SNAP, housing assistance, etc,) 5.1% (note, many of these programs are driven by employment and wages, both of which have grow
  21. lol no harm no foul, I just saw that 7,000 number as was like "whoa! where is that coming from?" One thing I think we can all agree on, too damned many people get killed by cops, and nobody should be killed the way George Floyd was, regardless of his skin color, his blood chemistry at the time, or his history or recent actions, or whatever half-assed "but what about...?" people have offered up.
  22. What you said: "The number of police killings of blacks in the USA over the last 5 years is in excess of 7000 people. " What your source ACTUALLY said: "Between 2013 and 2019, police in the United States killed 7,666 people, according to data compiled by Mapping Police Violence" That was the FIRST LINE of your source, and you managed to not only get the time period incorrect (you said 5, the source used 7) and but also managed to claim the number was of Blacks, when it was ALL people. I mean, that's laughable. Admit it, you didn't look at it at ALL, you simply Googled, thought
  23. That disparity has been explained multiple times by multiple studies. Blacks account 47.1% of the murderers in the US (for 43.5% of the homicide victims and, all mostly the result of Black on Black crime), and 60% of the robberies. Cops generally only use force when interacting with criminals, particularly violent criminals. If a group accounts for almost 50% of the violent crime, it would make sense that they would be 50% of the people killed by cops. Blacks actually consist of a far lower percentage than one would expect on that basis. The group being disproportionately killed is Hi
  • Create New...