Jarpie

Because most people are A] Utter assholes, B] Utter imbecilles and many of them are C] Both.

John McAfee 4 Prez!

Out of curiosity, where do you teach and what age? I imagine those who wants to study and get the good job are ambitious, but based on the people who's worked with the youths, at least in Finland, there's been gradually increasing amount of kind of the youths I've described, who don't have even basic life skills. I just can't get into my head why their parents didn't taught them and prepared their kids for adult-life, which I think is one of the most important things parents should pass on to their offspring. -- Part of the reason why I'd like people to get proper education and work for a living, as in provide for themselves and being self-reliant unless they are mentally or physically unable to do so (such as being mentally ill, or having physical disabilities etc) is that in my belief that the less people you have being reliant on the state to give them what they need is that then the social security etc can use the money to help those who are not able to work, such as, before mentioned, physically or mentally unable to work, or the retired elderly people. It's also better for the economy as people who gets salary for work will pay more taxes, and they give more than what they take from the social security, so as I said above, then the resources can be used for those who needs the aid, instead of those who choose to "opt out" and live on benefits instead of working for living. All resources are limited and IMO they should be prioritized and not wasted if it can be prevented. Parents should teach their kids to be self-reliant and teach them importance of getting good education and taking care of themselves because you can't always rely on other people, society or the state, and I think that partly due the welfare society where we've taught that the state will take care of the people, which has lulled their parents to think that they can then raise their kids inside the bubble, and I've seen many parents like this. What if something huge happens, for example something that they have to make drastic cuts to benefits, or prices would suddenly increase, so you'd have to work to get food or money for rent? then you suddenly need even basic vocational diploma to get work, because most businesses don't hire people without education. People imo should try to prepare for the worst case scenarios within a reason, because you never know what can happen. Couple other important things should be taught to the teens, preferably when they turn 12-14: A] world is really shitty, cruel and unfair place, B] you can't rely on anyone else to do things for you, and vast majority of the people don't care about your problems, C) most people are assholes, D) most people are idiots and E) No one owes you a damned thing... you want it you work for it. My parents always taught me to be helpful, friendly, polite and nice to the other people, for example always help people if you can, but within a reason and not to be naive as there's always someone to take advantage of you, and never to expect that everyone else would do the same for you, so prepare to take care of it yourself. I'm not saying that they should be taught to be cynical assholes or sociopaths but to teach them to be realistic about the world, and as I said before, to be as self-reliable as possible because you never know what future entails. I would've had more points to write but I thought to spare you from my rambling.

Welcome to the modern world, the extremes of the both (or all) sides of the issue will drown down any reasonable and rational discussion outside of the small forums, such as this, or private discussions, which in turn will feed just more of the same imbecilles spouting the retarded rhetoric (again from the all sides) against each other and prevent any civilized debate on the issue(s), and the media is happy to oblige because they can then turn it into the new sensationalistic clickbait articles, thus the cycle is born.

The Independent recently featured an article about an ultra-orthodox Jewish school, in London, teaching children that 'non-Jews are evil'. This is apparently common in that type of school. But knowing history it doesn't seem totally unreasonable when the Jews say it. I suppose we might have to check our history and see why Muslims might think the West had it in for them. If you go back in history to look if some nation/culture/religion/civilisation/etc has done something against some other people, you will find it as it has always happened, and it will always happen due the human nature. If you hold the grudge or hatred against the people who's ancestors did something many generations or centuries ago, the cycle will never end as it will just create more of the same for future generations who can't let go of the past. For example, I don't hold grudge or hatred against the modern russian people for soviet union trying to invade Finland and starting the winter war. I don't get why the muslims (or any other people for that matter) should get the same excuse to hate or teach their kids to hate the christians or jews for something what happened centuries ago, if you were referring to the crusades.

I think this Kippah thing is easily solved, put it on yourself and walk across the area of the city for a couple weeks where you have most of the muslim immigrants, if they don't harass you, then their fears are unfounded.

Wow, a lot of points! I highlighted two: 1] I didn't say that they were! 2] It certainly was due to many factors. Even if Greece didn't have a problem with tax avoidance, the economy would still have tanked. But the tax avoidance sure didn't help! 1] Ah, good that it got sorted out then, also I thought it'd be good to clarify what was behind my thinking so there wouldn't be misunderstandings :). 2] Yep, and I thought Finland has crazy infrastructure and lots of unnecessary spending but what I've seen about Greece...WOW.

Of course wealthy people can often find ways of lowering their real rate of tax. In small amounts, this isn't a problem. In large amounts, it is a problem, and you end up with a situation like Greece where the government can't fund itself in large part because of systemic tax avoidance. Rich people do actually need to contribute money to the government of the country, it really doesn't work if they don't. On your second paragraph, a 50% tax rate on the highest earners doesn't mean they pay half of their income in tax, it means they pay half of their income over a certain threshold in tax. In the UK, you only pay the highest rate, 45%, on the money you earn over £150,000. Yeah, of course the loopholes need to be closed and tax avoidance minimized, and everyone needs to contribute so that government doesn't run out of the money. I remember reading some arguments from the USA that when under some president they lowered the taxes for those who makes most money, the tax income actually raised because they felt that they weren't asked to pay more than what's fair so they didn't avoid paying the taxes, so I don't think it's necessarely that black and white that rich people avoids paying taxes because they are greedy assholes who don't want to contribute. Edit: So as with pretty much everything, maybe trying to find a balance on which everyone is happy about, sure some rich are probably assholes who would avoid paying taxes no matter what, but some would probably stop avoid paying taxes if they'd feel that they're not asked to pay more than what's fair. Although, I grant that it's impossible to say how much of either group there are. When it comes to Greece, their economic fall was due multitude of problems, such as people in public/civil service getting bonuses for showing up in time to work, for using computer at work and so on (taken from here http://www.thestar.com/business/2010/04/28/in_greece_you_get_a_bonus_for_showing_up_for_work.html), so I don't think their economic situation was just due the systematic tax avoidance but also crazy spending although probably a big part of it yeah, but maybe (I'm not saying it is necessarely so) people avoided paying taxes if they knew how much of their money the government is wasting.

I think progressive tax rate is good idea but it should be constructed so that the tax rate wouldn't be too high for those who make more money, as they can either just earn less (as they can afford to, when the lower income people can't) or then they'll find ways to avoid paying taxes if they think they're being demanded to pay too much than it's fair. I'm not economist so I can't say what those rates would be but my gut says that if I'd earning lot of money, I certainly would find ways to pay less taxes if the rate would be 45-50% or more as I don't think anyone should pay (over) half or close to it for taxes of what they earn.

Comparing IS to the Nazis is a little bit ridiculous. Horrifying as IS no doubt are, come back to me with those comparisons when they've put together an army that can march on Moscow, as opposed to one that has difficulty holding on to cities in Kurdistan. I doubt that anyone who actually lived through the 1930's would mistake the two situations. Not ridiculous at all, you'll note (or rather you didn't in your haste to dismiss the comparison) I referenced 1933 and whether with hindsight people would have dealt with the Nazis then, before they were capable of marching on Moscow. The inference being that IS are still in the early stages of their development and are defeatable at relatively low cost, for now. That aside... If you substitute racial for religious ideology you get Islamic fascism, a doctrine that is actually more extreme than its Nazi equivalent. You still have absolute obedience to the Dear Leader, exclusivity of the 'in group' (in this case Sunni Muslims of suitable piety rather than being of Aryan extraction) and the brutality towards 'out groups', in the case of IS that is Christians, Jews, Shia Muslims, basically anyone outwith their narrow doctrinaire religious world view. You could easily argue that the Nazis, although viewing themselves as the master race, were reasonably tolerant towards certain ethnic identities even though they were non Aryan, reserving their worst excesses for Slavs and Jews. Not so with IS. Their territorial ambitions actual outstrip those of the Nazis when you look at the map of the Caliphate they wish to create. The only reason IS aren't already murdering on the scale of the Nazis circa 1941-45 is a current lack of capability, but their intent to do so has been clearly expressed and is plainly visible in territory they have already taken over. Should they succeed in knocking over Saudi Arabia they will have access to the world's 5th largest stockpile of military equipment and an awful lot of oil. This is very high on IS' to-do-list. If you doubt that, their vision for the future and the extent of their ambition I'd suggest looking at the volumes of material that address the subject, or if you already have then perhaps taking them a little more seriously. Couldn't have put this any better, I agree completely. I can't believe how anyone can say that we could possibly have anykind of peaceful co-existance with the ISIS, or make peace with them. Also don't forget that if someday they manage to conquer Turkey, they're practically in our doorsteps, and then it'd be much more worse war. If the nazis would've been stopped in the first half of the 30s then tens of millions people would've been spared from their deaths. Western nations would have now chance to stop ISIS before they have chance to really grow, and save millions of people they'll undoubtedly kill. The war with them later will become much more costlier than what it'd be now.

Edit: Might be a bit off-topic but I saw some people talking why Labour lost, so I thought to throw in another perspective beside Milliband's character and charisma. I didn't follow british elections closely, but if your elections and the labour party were/are anything like in here, the reason why labour lost could be parallel to why our left party and social democrats got massacred in our elections. I believe that at least in here big reason why they lost was because the voters weren't buying what they were/are selling. Both left party and the social democrats in here were claiming to be "for the common people" or "working people", but those people do not believe anymore that left party and SDP represent or advocate the things their supposed voting base wants or cares about. Both parties' politicians comes off as people who are completely divorced from the reality of the "common people", who drink champagne in their multi-million euro houses, and then claim to understand how normal people lives and cares about, when in reality they have no idea at all. They also come off as people who think they know better what other people should think and knows better what's good for them. Similar thing might've happened in UK with the labour party.

Not sure were you serious or not, but I don't think I called for anything like that. I was suggesting that the present system allows people the freedom to opt out if they so wish, where other systems had no such freedoms. Whether they use that freedom wisely is another question entirely but whatever they do with their time, it can't really bring any less dignity to their lives than making minimum wage in a McJob. I know that Finland has a particular problem with youth unemployment (24%) compared with the UK's (14%), but it does look like the government made a decision based on cost when they raised retirement age to 65. Presumably they did this because paying benefits to young people is cheaper than paying pensions to old people. But ultimately if the government want young people to work they need to incentivise them not punish them, like they do for corporate tax-payers. I think it was more to do with certain amount of leaving the workforce vs how many people enters the workforce, than actually purely the monetary reason, but it's probably both. I agree that incentivising should always be the first option, and part of the problem is that some people who really wants to work can't get a job, and people who don't want to work at all turns down jobs. I know one of the problems is that companies are wary of hiring new people because getting rid of the poor workers is very hard, so they don't want to risk taking people in who are not good workers...there's been some calls for changing the employment laws for terminating the employment contract but the unions are against it, naturally, which I get why, but I think it should be considered to help to fight unemployment or at least studied if it'd actually make the difference. I think the 'soft and/or lazy' hints at social Darwinism, which suggested the need for authoritarian systems. My english vocabulary isn't as good as it should be so someone else might've chosen different words, but despite of what people might think based on my posts I actually despise authoritarianism - generally the more freedom for self-determination people have from their own state/government, the better, but it doesn't mean free from the consequences of your choices. Pardon me if I misunderstood you but I don't think it needs to be binary, that either you have complete freedom to do you what you want without consequences, or that expecting something in return from the citizens for the benefits they reap is/or needs to be authoritarian. Also what's wrong with calling people lazy or soft, if they are that? When I was working in helpdesk, on semiregular basis I got calls from the mothers of about 18-22 year old youths, usually guys, that their kids internet has stopped working, and when I finally got their kids on the phone, I was barely able to get coherrent sentences out of them because they were usually mumbling. Sometimes their mothers had even driven to call for their adult kids from another city. I don't understand why we shouldn't expect normal people to be able to have normal conversations, or to have to basic regular life skills, such as paying bills, which some young adults don't know how to do...or, I can't believe I'm actually saying this...doesn't know that you need to remove the meat from the plastic packet when putting them on the frying pan to cook.

Can you find me a link to that article? Could be interesting read.

Not sure were you serious or not, but I don't think I called for anything like that.

I think it's combination of many things, partly fault of the parents who don't teach their kids to be self-sufficient, to have an initiative or instill them with the work ethic, for the lack of the better word, and our society/socities doesn't encourage or push people enough to get "activated", unless they are so inclined. I think it does have at least partly to do with the welfare state, I used to be for the benefit-system we have now, but I've started to think that it at least needs some retooling because certain, and increasing amount of people would rather sit on benefits than get a proper, unglamorous, job. because they'd get just couple hundred more by working than sitting on their asses. But my point was that they don't have -any- ambitions, they'd rather just sit at their homes than to do something meaningful with their lives. There was news item in finnish newspaper that we have 58 000 youths outside of any work or education, to give context for that number, our population is 5,4 million, so a bit over 1% of our total population, not just youths, is outside of the education or work. I did some googling, and apparently one unemployed person costs finland 18 000 - 20 000 euros, so those 58 000 youths costs finland 1 044 000 000 euros per year, if the figures are right, that's not a small sum of money, if we'd get half of those people working, not only we'd save 500 million euros, but they'd also bring in much needed taxes. Education is free in finland, across all the levels, and students even get the student benefits, so I have hard time accepting that it should be considered normal that they don't want to even study a good paying profession. I could understand it at least a bit if we'd have tuition fees and the youths couldn't afford to pay them, but I find not studying even for free incomprehensible.

I was wondering is anyone else in here thinking that european welfare society/socities might be gradually making european peole soft and/or lazy? At least parts of it. In Finland I've seen quite a many young people who don't have any initiative, common sense and are utterly clueless how to function in society. Thank god not all young people are like that, but way too many. We have tens of thousands youths without anykind of job or even proper profession/education, and they just sit at their homes and collect benefits, because they've been taught that the state (and/or parents) will take care of them no matter what, I wonder if this is happening elsewhere in the europe, or is it just in Finland?

I've always found it cringeworthy when celebrities suddenly starts grandstanding on any popular issue when either they think that they can get good PR out of it, or that just because they're celebrities they have something meaningful to say.

Not my intention, but we can agree to disagree, as civilized, reasonable and rational people should be able to. I might come off strongly sometimes as I'm not always good at expressing myself with english nuances.

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it. But I don't see the relevance of that question. If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones? I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either. I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media. I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up. Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe. I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants. About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis: The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw. Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps. Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones. I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre. Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it. Eh? I must be forgetting those streams of Ukrainian and Nepalese asylum seekers, I strangely can't seem to recall them at all . . . You mean these two million refugees, of which 800 000 have left Ukraine? http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/22/ukraine-crisis-has-created-more-than-2-million-refugees-un-reports/ edit: also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/ukraines-refugees-find-solace-in-poland-europes-most-homogenous-society Your own links show that more than 650,000 of those refugees went straight over the border to Russia, and that the rest have settled in Poland and Belarus. There is no wave of Ukrainian refugees in western Europe - which is what your argument needs - and the line about Nepal is just risible nonsense. It's more than 8,500 km from Kathmandu to Berlin. Maybe they started walking six months ago though? So just the people who can travel to europe deserves our help, and our attention? Gotcha. The point I was trying to make is that many of those people couldn't care rats ass about the Ukrainians or the Nepalese (who I took as an example because the earthquake was the latest big disaster I remember), but now that it's fashionable to care about these specific migrants they suddenly want to show how huge humanitarians they are. The title of the post you are responding to is 'Refugee crisis'. We are specifically discussing the crisis in predominantly Syrian refugees attempting to enter western Europe this summer. All of this about Ukraine and Nepal is just blowing smoke. You have no idea - literally - whether anyone you're talking to 'gives a rats ass' about Ukraine or Nepal, so I don't see what basis you have to make that assumption. It also has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. People are showing compassion to these particular migrants because they're the migrants we're talking about. As I wrote in another post, I didn't mean people in this topic, I meant the people I've seen in finnish media (such as journalists, politicians etc) and the other people in other forums or social media I follow.

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it. But I don't see the relevance of that question. If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones? I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either. I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media. I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up. Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe. I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants. About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis: The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw. Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps. Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones. I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre. Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it. What a load of utter, utter shite. You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply. Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now. You as a leverage? That's rich, I mentioned you in one sentence and rest was about other people I've seen and about the media. If you'd welcome all refugees, that's good, if you're not one of those hypocrties then I'm glad, but it doesn't mean that other people wouldn't be hypocrites. I find people hypocrties who couldn't care less about the plight of the, for example, Ukrainians or the Nepalese to start drives to collect aid packets for them, or pressure the governments to send much more aid to Nepal than what they did, but now that they see couple sensationalistic stories about refugees, they suddenly want to show how "good people" they are. If they'd really care about the plight of the Syrian refugees, they would try to find the ways to help all those sick, children, women and the elderly who can't get to the europe from the refugee camps around the syria, instead of just welcoming and aiding all those people who were healthy or strong enough to travel and rich enough to pay for the human smugglers, which isn't cheap btw, or are those just worth of our aid and hospitality who can make it to the europe on their own, or is it just about getting people in who will potentially be value to us as the new cheap labor? Gee, that sounds like they actually don't care about helping those who would need it most, but just taking the people who can profit the european states. Are you really going to claim that vast majority of the media from the both sides (left and right) doesn't try to push their own agendas and influence the public opinion with their sensationalistic articles and news items, or are you really going to claim that they have reported the Ukrainian crisis and the middle-east/refugee crisis both the same way? My wording on my previous post about the media and Ukraine wasn't probably worded well enough as I'm not a native english speaker, but I do certainly see big difference in reporting, at least in here, and I doubt british media is any better. I actually (mostly) liked YLE's reporting on Ukrainian crisis as it was mostly not sensationalistic, and they reported what was going on without resolting in very annoying "human interest" stories to get views or push agendas. Or is the agenda pushing alright from the media you like because you agree with them on politics and their agenda? While I'm criticising your posts, another couple of points: a] Why does someone who wants to accept some immigrants need to favour accepting all immigrants, if they don't want to be a hypocrit? b] How do you know whether or not people care or otherwise about other geopolitical issues, and where do you get off starting from a position that everyone you're debating with is a hypocrit? c] You're going to need to make your peace with the fact that the arrival in western Europe of tens of thousands of refugees is news, in the first place, and consists of human interest stories, in the second place. Of course journalists are going to interview them, ask them their opinions and so forth. You can call that 'pushing an agenda' if you like. But all news is bias. When they decide whether to cover an event or not - that's bias. When they decide which journalist to send to cover it - that's bias. When they decide what angle to take with the material they've gathered - that's bias. When they decide whether to run it on page 1 or on page 36 - that's bias. There's no such thing as objective reporting. I'll be brief as it's late and I'm going to sleep soon. a] I probably didn't explain myself well enough, at least the people in here (Finland, in the media and in the social media, didn't mean this forum specifically) who are against taking in the migrants coming to europe now gets attacked that they are being racist and prejudiced, by the same people who didn't care enough about other people who were refugees to write stories or demand that they'd be brought into europe and/or finland. You don't find this funny at all? b] I didn't say that everyone I've debated are hypocrite, and I didn't mean people in this forum, I meant the people I've seen in the internet (such as people in social media, journos who writes news/articles, internet forums etc). c] You can try to be as objective and impartial as possible, even if you can't be objective/impartial completely. What I was trying to say is that the journalists and the media has gone worse from what it used to be, for example, in Finland the news medias were much better being unsensationalistic and impartial/objective before, such as 15 years ago. They didn't put angles, or clear biases on the news reports about, for example, the refugees back then, which they clearly do now. So why shouldn't they try to be impartial or unsensationalistic now, when they achieved that 15 years ago? Either the media has turned much more politicised or that the journalists are nowdays much worse than they were 15 years as they can't do their job as well as the previous ones. Talk about the media would probably be more suited into own topic though. Like I quoted Samuel Fuller, film director, professional reporter and WW2 veteran: "Just report the news, no editorialising.".

'Some of these people are bastards so **** the lot of them.' A line of thinking that has a logical conclusion of launching all the nukes as some people of every people are words removed. Exactly the problem I've talked about, there are people coming over claiming to be Syrian refugees, when they're in actuality, are not, and they take the places of those real refugees. Derp: quoted wrong post.

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it. But I don't see the relevance of that question. If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones? I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either. I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media. I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up. Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe. I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants. About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis: The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw. Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps. Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones. I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre. Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it. Eh? I must be forgetting those streams of Ukrainian and Nepalese asylum seekers, I strangely can't seem to recall them at all . . . You mean these two million refugees, of which 800 000 have left Ukraine? http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/22/ukraine-crisis-has-created-more-than-2-million-refugees-un-reports/ edit: also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/ukraines-refugees-find-solace-in-poland-europes-most-homogenous-society Your own links show that more than 650,000 of those refugees went straight over the border to Russia, and that the rest have settled in Poland and Belarus. There is no wave of Ukrainian refugees in western Europe - which is what your argument needs - and the line about Nepal is just risible nonsense. It's more than 8,500 km from Kathmandu to Berlin. Maybe they started walking six months ago though? So just the people who can travel to europe deserves our help, and our attention? Gotcha. The point I was trying to make is that many of those people couldn't care rats ass about the Ukrainians or the Nepalese (who I took as an example because the earthquake was the latest big disaster I remember), but now that it's fashionable to care about these specific migrants they suddenly want to show how huge humanitarians they are.

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it. But I don't see the relevance of that question. If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones? I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either. I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media. I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up. Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe. I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants. About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis: The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw. Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps. Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones. I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre. Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it. What a load of utter, utter shite. You've wandered way off the original conversation and appear to be trying to construct some strange argument against the media with me as some sort of leverage, based on me not announcing my calls for refugee acceptance at every disaster/warzone that there has ever been. It's so convoluted I don't even know where to start in reply. Fwiw, my mother is an immigrant, so my stance on immigration has been pretty consistent for my whole life. If you want to trawl through my posting history then go right ahead, I'll leave you to it for now. You as a leverage? That's rich, I mentioned you in one sentence and rest was about other people I've seen and about the media. If you'd welcome all refugees, that's good, if you're not one of those hypocrties then I'm glad, but it doesn't mean that other people wouldn't be hypocrites. I find people hypocrties who couldn't care less about the plight of the, for example, Ukrainians or the Nepalese to start drives to collect aid packets for them, or pressure the governments to send much more aid to Nepal than what they did, but now that they see couple sensationalistic stories about refugees, they suddenly want to show how "good people" they are. If they'd really care about the plight of the Syrian refugees, they would try to find the ways to help all those sick, children, women and the elderly who can't get to the europe from the refugee camps around the syria, instead of just welcoming and aiding all those people who were healthy or strong enough to travel and rich enough to pay for the human smugglers, which isn't cheap btw, or are those just worth of our aid and hospitality who can make it to the europe on their own, or is it just about getting people in who will potentially be value to us as the new cheap labor? Gee, that sounds like they actually don't care about helping those who would need it most, but just taking the people who can profit the european states. Are you really going to claim that vast majority of the media from the both sides (left and right) doesn't try to push their own agendas and influence the public opinion with their sensationalistic articles and news items, or are you really going to claim that they have reported the Ukrainian crisis and the middle-east/refugee crisis both the same way? My wording on my previous post about the media and Ukraine wasn't probably worded well enough as I'm not a native english speaker, but I do certainly see big difference in reporting, at least in here, and I doubt british media is any better. I actually (mostly) liked YLE's reporting on Ukrainian crisis as it was mostly not sensationalistic, and they reported what was going on without resolting in very annoying "human interest" stories to get views or push agendas. Or is the agenda pushing alright from the media you like because you agree with them on politics and their agenda?

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it. But I don't see the relevance of that question. If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones? I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either. I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media. I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up. Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe. I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants. About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis: The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw. Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps. Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones. I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre. Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it. Eh? I must be forgetting those streams of Ukrainian and Nepalese asylum seekers, I strangely can't seem to recall them at all . . . You mean these two million refugees, of which 800 000 have left Ukraine? http://www.euronews.com/2015/04/22/ukraine-crisis-has-created-more-than-2-million-refugees-un-reports/ edit: also http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/13/ukraines-refugees-find-solace-in-poland-europes-most-homogenous-society

I have no idea. I don't think I discussed the situation much on here. You certainly wouldn't see me opposing it. But I don't see the relevance of that question. If I'm not opposed to Syrian refugees, why would I be opposed to Ukrainian ones? I don't see what you're getting at. I have a feeling you don't either. I've seen so many people spouting how europe needs to bring in all those poor middle-easterns in here and how they need to be helped, and how we need to show solidarity yada yada, just to show that they're supposedly "so progressive" and/or "so good people", but the same people were so **** quiet when there was that earthquake in nepal six months ago, and it didn't get nearly the same attention in the media. I find those people to be utter hypocrites, if they'd really be such a good people they would've raised the same storm that european states need to bring in refugees from Nepal and pressured the european states to give much more humanitarian aid to the Nepal to bring them back up. Same goes for the Ukraine in 2014 when the rebels started to fight in Ukraine and Russians invaded Crimea, sure it got media attention and it was followed by the news but I didn't see anyone saying how we need to bring in the Ukranian refugees from Crimea or Ukraine to the europe. I was poking to see if you are one of those hypocrties, as so many others are, when the next big crisis starts somewhere in the world, I trust you to call out EU to bring the refugees in, as you are calling in to welcome the current migrants. About the current refugee/migrant situation and the Ukranian crisis: The news stories were much more carefully worded and the same leftist and "progressive" journalists/media who are now crying about the poor down-trodden syrian (or "syrian", depending who you believe) refugees (or "refugees", depending on who you believe), and anyone who questions them is a **** right-wing neo-nazi racist, made it so **** sure that there's not a single one of those "human interest" stories or photographs of the children in the battlefields to garner sympathy for the Ukranians, also I didn't see any stories how the ukranians' familes were broken, or how their lives are ruined due the warzones where the rebels and russians started to fight, at least not in the single one of the finnish news sites nor in the international european media I saw. Neither I saw any interviews from the Ukranian refugee camps, or footage shown how utter shit are the conditions in the said camps. Just so that you don't think I like conservative and/or right-wing media any better, I don't. They are equally manipulative and hypocritical as the leftie/"progressive" ones. I just want even a single impartial and neutral news media who will just report the **** news without **** editorializing and trying to affect the public opinion toward the causes/people/politics they themselves hold or agree with, the finnish equivalent for BBC, Yle, used to be like that but now they've gone more and more toward the left from the impartial/centre. Disclaimer: I used "crying about the poor down-trodden" just to show how differently the media depicts the Syrian and Ukranian conflicts, and Nepal disaster, I think all of those three things are pretty much equally horrible events, and the people who would need our aid, should get it.