Jump to content

Tolya Ugajin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Tolya Ugajin

  1. 4 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

    No. Failed entry.

    Nazis rally for Trump (eventually ) .. not against.

    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, called that first I think by Toni Morrison) and his legislation and completely ignored by Obama.

    But, then, Nazis and Klansmen aren't very bright, so you might be correct.


    • Like 2
  2. 31 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

    Right! Just like Canada, which never had a revolution, is . . .

    Oh. Wait.

    It's completely valid to seek out the historic causes of racism in the US. Some of those are unquestionably embedded in the particular negotiations that occurred between north and south American colonies in the Revolution, and some of that in turn was imprinted into the US Constitution.

    However, the British certainly do not get exoneration. The profits they made from the slave trade in the 18th century helped finance the Industrial Revolution and their empire.

    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 not exactly close buddies with the Britain yet, so why bother with the expense and trouble of ruling the frozen tundra?  The decision to give you full autonomy looks very different if the US is still a (strong economic and military) part of the British Empire at that point.  After all, if you started rattling for independence, the Crown could have sent Sherman up there to burn York again 😛

    The point is, fantasizing about how things would be different had a major event turned out differently 250 years ago is a fun parlor game, but to seriously think you'd be better off is foolish, because history is a complicated wed of cause and effect.  You could very well have never been born (actually that is probable, because your great great great great great grandparents very well may never have met) or, heck, you could be speaking Spanish as an oppressed subject of King Carlos XII or whatever. 

  3. 15 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

    America was formed long before the American Revolution, and this American isn't proud of it at all. I think it's pretty damn disgusting, but go ahead and speak not only for all white people, but all Americans as well - even though you aren't one. If you're referring to the American Revolution, though, this American also thinks we'd probably be a lot better off if we'd lost the war. 


    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 possible that, with the American South still in British possession, Britain would have been less progressive to ban slavery, as they would have had a much bigger economic interest in its continuation.

    Besides, you're perfectly free to move to England if you really think you'd be better off as a British citizen than an American, which you would be had we lost the war.

  4. 13 hours ago, TDD123 said:

    As if you did not type this smoking a fat one .. :D



    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.

    • Haha 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    I know there are lone crazies out there.  But, some of the police methods certainly did need changing as well as racial profiling which works under an "assumption" according to a skin tone.  

    I don't smoke it currently, Toyla.  

    But, this is not correct?....that's it's only illegal on "Federal lands"?  Marijuana laws for California:


    • You must be 21 or older to have, purchase or use recreational cannabis. This includes smoking, vaping and eating cannabis-infused products.
    • You may possess 28.5 grams of cannabis plant material (about an ounce) and 8 grams of concentrated cannabis.
    • It is illegal to give or sell retail cannabis to minors.
    • It is illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis.
    • It is illegal to consume, smoke, eat or vape cannabis in public. It is illegal to open a package containing cannabis or any cannabis products in public. This includes but is not limited to parks and sidewalks, business and residential areas.
    • It is also illegal to consume cannabis in other locations where smoking is illegal, including bars, restaurants, buildings open to the public, places of employment and areas within 15 feet of doors and ventilation openings. 
    • Even though it is legal under California law, you cannot consume or possess cannabis on federal lands such as national parks, even if the park is in California. Among the areas that are federal lands in the San Francisco Bay Area are the Presidio, Alcatraz Island, the Marin Headlands and Ocean Beach. 
    • You can consume cannabis on private property, but property owners and landlords may ban the use and possession of cannabis on their properties.
    • It is illegal to take your cannabis across state lines, even if you are traveling to another state where cannabis is legal.
    • Only state licensed establishments may sell retail cannabis products.

    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 libertarians that would vote with the Dems on this, and, since the President who signs bills into law normally gets the credit, Trump could sign and right away take a mighty bong hit on national TV.  If anyone could use a good hit it's him.  At any rate, last year a bill passed some House committee to do just that, but I think it's stalled.  Once it finally does get made legal, I'm heading up to the mountains for a couple weeks with a kilo of the best stuff I can find.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  6. 40 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

    I do so humbly apologize, Sir, for having my attention diverted in multiple ways while You were demanding my attention, Master. I most respectfully apologize, Sir, for neglecting to devote myself entirely to You and Your most desirous patriarchal requirements for correcting my exceedingly improper behavior. I shall set myself upon a course of correction that involves proper self-flagellation. Would Sir prefer I use the chain, or the barbed wire?

    I'll try to do better. Please don't beat me again, Master. 

    Translation: I'm working my real job, my internet keeps going up and down, there is an excruciatingly loud lawn mower right outside where I'm sitting, and also, **** **, *** ************* *******. 

    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.

    • Thanks 1
  7. 19 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

    I couldn't find the post by Toyla where he said "Cops generally only use force when interacting with criminals, particular violent criminals."

    At the time the marijuana laws were changed in California and other states, the articles I read said approximately 48% of those incarcerated currently are due to marijuana related charges.  

    I didn't think those people were "criminals".  Yes, it was against the law then but it isn't now and that needed to change.  

    My sister and nephew smoked pot at times, so what.  This did not give an out of uniform police officer the right to beat my nephew and sister nearly to death by jumping my nephew when he is taking out the trash.  The man lost in the lawsuit and had to pay $100,000 dollars to my sister and got off for the rest.  My sister didn't speak, eat, drink, move for almost seven years and was hospitalized for seven years partly because of the beating she took as a small 5ft woman from this *uckedUpperson.   It's not his job to go around beating citizens to a pulp because they smoked marijuana.  

    Toyla, the police have some kind of power craziness.  It cannot be denied.  

    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 great majority with the sins of the *uckedUp minority.

    Remember, pot is still illegal under federal law in every state.  I was actually shocked (and relieved) Jeff Sessions didn't order every US attorney and the FBI to shut down every pot dispensary in the country.  Sessions could really use some mother nature.



    • Like 1
  8. 46 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

    Yes, but the data you provided was very vague and does not add up and I'm not insulting you either. If he proposed that many cuts to social programs....are you saying nothing got cut? What I was asking you for was more data as to what programs that money went to. Where was the increase? The data you provided could easily have gone to administration and other vague costs such as "overhead" and not to actual people that need it.

    My assertion was simple: the US spends much less than it should on social programs than it should and it shows.


    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 budget requests (in those I've looked at, for NASA and DOE, they include actual spending from prior years) to get more in depth.  It is VERY tedious.  In addition, with social programs you really need to be careful how you characterize it beyond gross dollar amounts and trends.  So, Medicare and Social Security have gone through the roof in recent years - but that doesn't mean anything, since it's purely a factor of demographics and the spending (and funding) is locked in.  Education spending (at least federally) gyrates up and down, and really most of the education spending is state and local anyway, so it's not all that material anyway.  Income based programs can be cut intentionally (as Clinton did and Trump says he wants to) but most of the variation in spending is due to economic issues (ie. federal unemployment funding goes up when unemployment does, SNAP spending goes down as more low-wage workers get employed and incomes rise).  For the latter, what you may look at the data and see that as "spending cuts" while I would look at it and see "improving economy".  Finally, it needs to be remembered that agencies do NOT have the luxury or ability to put money away for a rainy day; they are legally obligated to spend the money allocated to them, and sometimes this is purely wasted.  I friend's wife worked for the VA back after the recession, and they got 3 lobby upgrades in 5 years, because, well, what are you going to spend the extra money on, taking care of veterans?

    I haven't found anything you've said insulting - you're making your points and engaging in reasoned discussion, that's refreshing.

    • Like 1
  9. 8 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

    Wow. Really? Really, Tolya?! Disagree with me if you want, but that was really hitting below the belt. 


    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 beyond your emotional response and repetition of what Maddow told you.  Then, you claim I'm "hitting below the belt", but you calling me "naive" (actually, reading between the lines of how you wrote it, it was a shot at my integrity), is just fine, and if I post something without a link to back it up, I'm "just repeating Faux News".  It's bullscat.  If you want to live a fact free life, that's your problem, I'm done debating this topic with someone who clearly isn't interested in anything more than hearing their own thoughts reflected back at them.

    • Like 2
  10. 5 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

    *car tires screeching sound*

    I....provided a graphic of what I was talking about. So what we're dealing with is conflicting data. If he's increasing spending to these programs, why are his budget proposals for decreasing spending to housing, labor, transportation and health and human services?

    Here's another one:


    another one.png

    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 buy a new house every year going forward.  Also, some of the spending above is driven not by actual spending bills, but by income and similar factors (as I mentioned, some spending is income related, and in Trump's dreamland where everything is going to get better because he said so, the prediction would be incomes rising would mean less people on food stamps, for instance).  Finally, budgets are not the only way money is spent.  Trump is also pushing for a huge infrastructure spending bill, for instance, so transportation spending above would skyrocket.  The OMB data I supplied is reality, as in actual spending (outlays), not fantasy or propaganda (ie. budgets).

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  11. 1 minute ago, Beth Macbain said:

    You think they report it? C'mon... you aren't that naive. How many reports say the suspect tripped? 

    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.

    • Like 1
  12. 27 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

    I don't have time right now as I'm supposed to be working.  but your stats of cops using their guns don't help much when the force is a knee on a windpipe.

    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.

    • Like 1
  13. 15 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

    Force isn't limited to lethal force. How many times have they used their tasers, or batons, or rubber bullets, or pepper balls, or their fists?

    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 adult custody arrests, police used physical force(handcuffing excluded) in less than 20 per-cent of 7,512 arrests studied (chapter 4).  Even in those instances, police primarily used weaponless tactics, such as grabbing or holding"


    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
  14. 2 minutes ago, Janet Voxel said:

    When you break it down like that sure. Looks great on paper, but those numbers don't tell the whole story. When it says "Total, Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services Programs" what does that mean? As an abstract, LOOKS GREAT! What is that money going towards though?

    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 (hopefully) so, we need to control for that.  Fortunately, data is available on average spending per pupil over the last 40 years.  See the second link, column 4, which shows that from 1980 to 2006, spending per pupil, using inflation-adjust dollars, went up 86%.  Unfortunately this source, which seems impeccable, doesn't have (as far as I can find) a more recent version of this table.  So, I provide (third link) as well a different source which more or less reflects the same trend during that period but also includes more recent years, showing that trend continuing to it's last data point, 2017.  The data appears to be current, not "real" (ie. inflation adjusted) dollars.  Total inflation during this period was 318%.  Adjusting for inflation, the $2,272 per pupil in average in 1980 becomes $7,238, which gives an 80% increase in spending per pupil adjusted for inflation over that time.

    So, we're spending an awful lot more money on education, but we don't seem to be getting much for it.  Now, we can debate why that is, what we should do about it, and so forth, but it's pretty hard to argue that funding is the problem, because throwing money at it so far doesn't seem to be working.  Think of it this way: your local politicians raised your taxes by 80% last year, but they gave you no improvements in services in return.  Now they want more.  Still going to vote for them?

    Politicians and the media love telling you that more money needs to be spent.  It's an easy answer and lets them avoid accountability.





  15. 2 minutes ago, kali Wylder said:

    Wait a minute.  This is just not true!

    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 percentage of their time.

    The implicit claim in what I was responding to is that the number of people cops shoot should be proportionate to the percentage of each group in the population.  That's exceedingly facile, unless you think cops are just firing at civilians and preferentially targeting blacks.


  16. 1 hour ago, Janet Voxel said:

    Absolutely, if anything....the amount of funding towards police has been increasing while the crime rate has been decreasing, along with the amount of funding going towards social programs. Another blown opportunity for discussion.

    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


    Total, non-Medicare, Health Programs:




    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 grown rapidly in the last 3 years, until Covid)

    Inflation during this period:  6.2%

    Spending is decreasing is a myth.


  17. 5 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

    To be fair I was using my phone at the time. The 20 figure it was being contrasted with weren't all blacks, they weren't even victims of the protestors one died from tear gas inhalation fired by the police. I admit I missed that they had said Black people, but their 20 figure wasn't about black people anyway. hence my confusion.

    And yes I did just google it. State or not I have generally found Al Jazeera to be a pretty good news source,  its role is similar to the BBC, not to be taken in isolation, but they have good journalistic credentials. And in this case they are reporting a separate source, if you have a criticism it would be better directed at the primary rather than seondary one.

    All those admissions aside, I still think the link more than sufficient to show just how bizarre the claim it was countering was.

    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.

    • Like 8
  18. 2 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

    The source comes from "Mapping police violence." 


    I didn't look at it in more detail because the claim being refuted hadn't, so it wasn't necessary and not easy on a phone to develop points with more subtlety 

    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 you saw something that satisfied you, and first misquoted it, and then linked to it without reading.  Or, perhaps you'd misheard the 7,000 figure elsewhere, and then when called on for a source, you googled and didn't read.

    By the way, Al Jazeera is a state-funded news service.  As such, it largely reports what and how the Qatari government wants.  It's not quite as bad as using Pravda, but you should really stick to sources that cannot be questioned due to implicit bias on such a basis.  For instance, Qatar frequently gets criticized (including by the US) of its treatment of foreign workers and religious minorities, and one of the ways such regimes fight back is by pointing out and often mischaracterizing similar problems in other countries, especially those critical of them.


    • Like 3
  19. 19 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:
    Police Deaths % of Deaths % of Population
    White (399) 40% 60.4%
    Black (209) 20.9% 13.4%
    Latinx (148) 14.9% 18.3%




    These are numbers from 2018. Explain the disparity. 

    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 Hispanics, who account for less than 5% of the murderers but die at the hands of law enforcement by 3 times that rate.

    And, since we're talking about racial disparities, more than twice as many Whites are murdered by Blacks than vice versa:


    Oh, and on the related subject of hate crimes: 

    Of the 6,266 known offenders in 2018 (most current year DOJ stats are available https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics😞

    • 53.6% were White
    • 24.0% were Black or African American
    • 12.9% race unknown


    • Like 3
  • Create New...