Drowsy Emperor

already debunked I don't know about this particular case but there have been some arrests of ISIS terrorists infiltrating as immigrants.

Political authority stems from law. Serbia is a signatory to the Refugee Convention of 1951, which protects refugees from penalties derived from their illegal entry into other countries. So, no, there is no authority that allows border guards to shoot people seeking refugee status. They cannot be forcibly returned either. Not to mention it would be a pretty ****ty thing to do. Everything else you wrote after authority isn't relevant to the issue of refugees, really. There is no one to enforce international laws, especially against states that are powerful enough to habitually break them *cough* US *cough*. They are taken on the basis of free will, with the promise of "pacta sund servanda". This is a matter of national security that will have repercussions for years or decades to come. If states don't step up and deal with it, it will come back to bite them in the ass.

As far as I know its no theory - most of the migrants are coming from Turkey, which they have no real reason to leave. They are being spurred internally, but to be honest, it probably didn't take much as the land of multi-culti ignorance, aka Sweden and Germany did announce they would accept everyone.

If by "being let in" you mean not being shot on sight, then yeah, I suppose they are. What do you want, to torch 'em at the border a la World War Z? Sink their inflatable boats? Like shooting fish in a barrel, right? Whatever, everything that's worth saying has already been said to death. I just hope I'm never in a situation where I need to request refugee status on another country. Issue commands to the border guards to warn first, then fire into the air, then fire at them if they keep coming (if they're stupid enough to do it). A few will eventually do something stupid and get shot and then word will spread around and that will be the end of that. Case closed, problem solved. Why the **** is this so hard to grasp? The state exists to exert its authority, not to stand idly by as foreigners come demanding welfare checks, then their own mosque, political party, dress code, legal system and whatever else they fancy (lolollolo).

Yeah, because we had so much luck before with keeping Muslims out of our borders. Anything other then what we did would be giving them political ammunition to crucify us and I doubt that Hungary would even peep a word in our defense. So what. Its just words, its not like they can make us obey. Block the borders with army and police and make them take the longer way round or turn back. Now the government has received money from the EU for "camps". Why do you think they're giving us money? Because they're going to kick them out of Hungary/Austria and back to us. And then winter is going to come and the migrants are going to run out of travelling money and be blocked out of getting in the EU and what do you think will happen then? Hmm? Stay in Serbia where unemployment is 30%+, and do what, sell kebabs? No we're going to have rioting and violence and bull**** of all sorts and it could have all been prevented.

And all of them 20-30 years of age. Deserters and economic migrants. Not refugees. That entire line of thinking is nonsense. The war has been going on for half a decade now and the refugees are coming out of the woodwork now? Lol. Besides, I've watched real refugees stream into my country and unfortunately, I can now also see these people coming as well, as they've occupied Belgrade city center railway station/bus station. They're nothing alike. The media is full of ****. These people are well clothed, have the latest electronic gadgets and don't look in the least bit distressed on the whole. Most of them have been living decently in Turkey after getting out of Syria and have now decided that Swedish and German welfare is a better deal. Many of them are from Afghanistan and Pakistan where nothing of note has been happening to spur "refugees". The media are preemptively cushioning the anger of the public by creating a situation where these "refugees" are an issue of morality (look how sad they are, you have to help them) instead of economics and cultural incompatibility. They're fabricating the entire atmosphere surrounding the issue. All negativity is suppressed, videos of migrants rioting and being violent are limited to local and at most national coverage while overwhelming the global coverage with fake positive news "great welcome in city xyz for migrants" etc. etc.

Seems the service is not to his liking. "Refugee" in Hungary https://youtu.be/7GEaaxtTQ_4

So caring, so wonderfully moderate, with everyone's best interests at heart. Nothing worse than an intellectual trying to ingratiate himself with everyone. *sigh* Why does Europe produce so many of its own gravediggers?

The citizenry of the european countries is livid over this, but you'll never see that on TV. It is as I said on the other thread, its like the USSR pre-collapse: the official ideology is at utter odds with the opinion of the majority.

Hungary has basically fortified its border with Serbia, to no avail. There's just too many of them coming. A lot of them come in really crappy boats too, and the navies and coast patrols are over capacity just rescuing people from wreckages. And even then a lot of them just drown. It really is a ****ed up situation. Come on man, surely you realize they're being let in from the top. If a bunch of them were shot the way they would be on the borders of Saudi Arabia - they'd never even attempt to get in (why aren't they going there at all, hmm). They know they'll get in so they push until it happens. Numbers are completely irrelevant here, the lack of consequences is. Have you seen the immigrant rioting in Budapest and Greece? Do you think that sort of thing would fly in Europe of just a few decades ago?

I don't even need to say anything on this topic as everyone is well aware of my stance on Islamic immigration to Europe. That was my stance before this happened, now I've no words left for the suicidal, self loathing lunacy of European elites. Generations of men died in droves, fighting endless wars and battles, to keep Europe safe from Islam, including the Balkan states (of which Hungary seems to be the only one with any sense). Now, it seems, Europe doesn't have enough cultural identity left to recognize the old adage that history repeats itself first as a tragedy and then as farce. What's happening now is definitely farcical. Thus, Europe probably deserves no better than what's coming to it in a few generations when the newcomers multiply tenfold, filled with malice and hatred toward everything European.

Its interesting how powerful the pro-gay lobby is, considering how it seems they circumvented the entire opposition and pulled it off from the top. Judges of the supreme court no less. I wouldn't give the whole fad too much time though. The standard of living in the EU is on a steady decline, and the immigration-colonisation that's going on right now will stretch not only the public good will, but bring ruin to the welfare state Europeans enjoy. The disconnect between the European elites and the regular citizens has never been greater. You can even see it in the "refugee" coverage (refugees to Sweden's welfare indeed) where the media and elites are dogmatically pushing the sob angle (a significant number of them not even being from war affected countries, actually sporting iphones and not looking in the least bit distressed) while the public is frothing with rage over the en masse importation of uneducated, often violent (look at the rioting in Budapest, Germany) and fanatically Islamic hordes. The EU is essentially at the point where the USSR was before it imploded - the dissonance between what we're being told and what is real is reaching fever pitch. While the economy is good, people tolerate that sort of thing, but once the economy starts tanking it doesn't take much for the **** to hit the fan.

No, politically, its much better to force them to tear you down instead of stepping aside. The outcome is the same, but the former will gain you more exposure, support from like minded individuals etc. Either way she would be a hero to those who share her view. And you are right, the outcome will be the same. The licenses will be issued and she will still be gone. That means the big show and going to jail was unnecessary and IMO hurts her more than helps. I posted before that I think what she did, refusing to follow the law, was not a moral stand it was a selfish one. I don't imagine this is a person who dreams of holding higher offices and it's not for me to say if her Christian beliefs are genuine. But even if they are the Christian thing to do is to follow the law of step aside. Not to break it. In the end the only soul we are responsible for is our own. If you think gay couples who marry are sinning then that is between them and God. It has nothing to do with you. Jesus said "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's" . Paul wrote "Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The biggest problem with the Christian faith I have found is that so many who claim to follow it know so little about it. What the Christian thing to do is changes with the times. The first Christians blatantly separated themselves from the laws and customs of the Roman empire tearing it down from within until the Romans rolled over. Once the faith became that of the upper classes then "Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and unto God those things that are God's" became the new law. Never forget that the text of the New Testament was shaped over time, by the church, which is an institution of power interested in its own self-preservation and it would not, once established, like its followers to rock the boat. This doesn't invalidate the Christian teachings, but things have to be understood in their proper context and context is a fluctuating thing. Anyway, you could argue that a Christian shouldn't care about the laws of man as it will be God who will decide who was wrong and who was right when the time comes. On the other hand you could also argue that a Christian is obligated to try to shape his life and society in a way that would bring it closer to God, obligated to resist, to the point of martyrdom, what he/she views as wrong, as the first Christians did. Both perspectives are right in their own way. How this relates to what we're discussing depends on what's going on in her head, and if she truly believes what she says - and we can't know that. There is probably a degree of ego and selfishness in any martyrdom, in the way it forces the other side to react, but that does not necessarily invalidate it.

No, politically, its much better to force them to tear you down instead of stepping aside. The outcome is the same, but the former will gain you more exposure, support from like minded individuals etc.

Her private life has no bearing on the issue of gay marriage, which has much greater societal implications than a mere relationship between two individuals. And yes, for her to speak against the issue, knowing that the liberal media and individuals like you will do their best to drag up every mistake she made in her life to use it against her does take courage. Its so so easy to sit behind the comfortable moral relativism of atheism and talk **** about people.

Brave of her to take a stand, when all the conservative christian right (in the EU and US) does is watch and grumble as their countries are trampled over by the terror of political correctness and minorities that have outright usurped the political system to advance their agenda. In this particular case, I believe the dissenting opinion of the supreme court judge summed up the matter best. It has been "resolved" without true consent, in truth forced on people, so that not only is it a hollow victory - it will likely not stand the test of time. PS: we have indeed gone to the ****ter when Volourn is the voice of reason in a political thread. (:

I know the original source of this article and what they're omitting from it is that Russian intelligence received information that Yanukovich was to be ambushed and killed. They knew where and how, which is why they decided to save him. I guess that part didn't look as good for the muppets in Kiev so it.. slipped.. from this article. So let me get your logic straight, lets say you are correct and Yanukovich was going to get killed ( which I dispute ) Russia then decided to illegally annex Crimea and support eastern Ukraine militarily to break away from Ukraine? Is Ukraine part of Russia, the last time I checked it was a sovereign country and there is absolutely no legal precedent that justifies how Russia and has been interfering in the government of Ukraine So I don't get your point about "Yanukovich about to killed " is relevant to the current crisis? No.

I know the original source of this article and what they're omitting from it is that Russian intelligence received information that Yanukovich was to be ambushed and killed. They knew where and how, which is why they decided to save him. I guess that part didn't look as good for the muppets in Kiev so it.. slipped.. from this article.

Its the beginning of a human life and part of a continuous process. To take it apart and arbitrarily decide that one part of the process does not constitute life as a justification to take it away, is an atrocious misuse of science at best, monstrous at worst. In this case, arguably the justification is worse than the act itself, as it strays so far from basic human nature and elementary notions of right and wrong.

It obviously is a form of murder, to rob the child of the potential to live a fulfilling life. In extreme circumstances it can be justifiable, as a form of mercy, but in this day and age its more often a question of selfishness and unwillingness to compromise on somebody's part. Back in roman times, that "pinnacle of civilization" babies born in whore houses were murdered and thrown away. The Romans really didn't believe in anything, fear God (or gods) or have anything resembling concrete ethics and morality. I find the parallels between those times and ours striking. The methods have may changed, but, as they say, the song remains the same.

I said that I think banning abortion is socialistic which is not the same as saying it's socialist specifically, but rather that it seems like the kind of thing socialists would be inclined to do. Uhm. Why? I mean... Since socialism is traditionally tied to atheism, why would they ban abortion? Abortion is usually banned on religious grounds. Does not compute. -Sigh- Let me guess, you're going to bring up the nazi's again, aren't you? Go ahead and check out South America to see how "atheist" the socialist are there. Though I wouldn't trust non-religious socialists to be a vanguard of reproductive rights considering the American Communist Party (not a highly religious bunch) has stated before that taking collective control over women's reproduction was a long-term goal. I can't say what Marxists parties are like abroad, but the one's here in the US are real douches. But why does it strike me as socialistic specifically? Because I tend to view socialism as a system of collective control over society; some keep it purely economical, but many if not most don't and demand collective control over well... everything. I do consider it suggesting that personal property belongs to everyone if everyone has a say over what a woman does with her own body. The fact that in South America socialism goes hand in hand with religion is really quite remarkable, and would probably make Marx scratch his head in confusion. Still, should there be a hypothetical South American socialist regime that bans abortion, then I would wager that would be more easily explained by their religious, rather than their socialist roots. For the record, I am not saying I don't think socialist regimes would never ban abortion, I am just saying that I don't think it's very specifically inherent to socialism. There is nothing surprising about it. Socialism with its collectivist striving for equality is far closer to Christianity in overall beliefs than capitalism.

Its simple: first, that's the entire opposition, trying to squeeze out some media attention for itself. Many of them have nothing to do with Nemtsov, some were even antagonistic toward him, or he to them. Now they have the opportunity for some of his fictitious martyrdom to rub off on them. Second, population of Moscow: 11,000,000 people. In a city of 11 million people, a few thousand (videos decline to show the full extent of the crow) represent nothing. The article you posted says "several thousand", tens of thousands is your own hyperbole.

Well you are right about one thing, the Russian people don't really care. Otherwise he'd probably have had more supporters than could fit into a bus, when he was alive.

He was not prominent, he was a political nobody. There were 0 reasons to assassinate him, particularly in the current situation. And killing him in front of the Kremlin no less would be a facepalm worthy moment for russian security services. There is no more or less reason to trust his confession than his reversal of said confession. But you trust him because? It fits your political inclinations? If you're going to troll at least put in some effort.

Its the media whipping up a frenzy. If he's gone for ten minutes he can't just be taking a piss, he has to be terminally ill and taking care of an internal coup, Stalin style. They do the same thing whenever Kim Jong Un decides to shut himself in the basement to watch a marathon of Lethal Weapon.