Chilloutman

I am baffled around constitutions. I mean some of them are hundreds years old, its quite clear that they need to be updated from time to time?

its free

I know, not that trustworthy for some folks but still:

Hey mods, can't you somehow limit number of 'quotes' or replies in one post, seems like some people are unable to control this basic function enough, by this rate we will have one post on one page Edit: Kudos to Bruce that he actually started to do it

OK dude, one more and you are off my ignore list xD

http://www.politico.eu/article/marine-le-pen-cancels-mufti-meeting-over-headscarf/

Do you know what new happen that riots started? Swedish police arrested somebody and people with masks started riot by throwing rocks towards police. It ended when police shot towards rioters. And later in same evening people started to riot again by breaking shop windows, burning cars and they battered some people. Police estimates that about 30-50 people were behind the riots. Police is investigating three claims of rioting, two claims of battering, several cases of theft and vandalism EDIT: More details what Swedish police said about riots in their press conference. Edit2: People seem to be angry about their life and said arrest seems to have worked as convenient excuse to release that anger in the violent and nonconstructive way that is typical for some people regardless of their origin. Hmm ok thanks for info

Do you know what new happen that riots started?

it was maybe already posted but that irony is UGHE in this one https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/21/riots-erupt-in-swedens-capital-just-days-after-trump-comments/?utm_term=.01074a070acc

From what I read, the bill aims to develop new and maintain already existing low-cost lodgings, not "subsidize vacations for the poor". Looks to me that you could benefit from that yourself, if you wanted to, but I could be wrong. A band-aid at best, as far as addressing wealth inequality is concerned. Frankly I'm more baffled at the outrage over free gender reassignment surgery what is so baffling about it? Well, the usual argument against any sort of inclusion of trans people in media is that they are such a teensy-tiny impossibly small minority you might as well not bother, right? And to qualify for gender reassignment surgery, not only do you need to be trans, but you actually need a qualified psychiatrist determine that not doing the surgery poses a severe risk to your mental health and HRT and assorted treatments no longer cut it, which makes any people who qualify a small minority of an even smaller minority. I have a hard time imagining that actual taxpayer money spent on this would ever rise above "this is practically chump change" levels. A rounding error. Well depends on how you look at it. There is also tiny minority of people who have... I don't know Zika for example, but its life threatening disease. I am not too educated in US health insurances but I think they are pretty strict on which diseases or even medications they cover

From what I read, the bill aims to develop new and maintain already existing low-cost lodgings, not "subsidize vacations for the poor". Looks to me that you could benefit from that yourself, if you wanted to, but I could be wrong. A band-aid at best, as far as addressing wealth inequality is concerned. Frankly I'm more baffled at the outrage over free gender reassignment surgery what is so baffling about it?

Not sure who Cheong is but: http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/07/africas-deadly-insurgencies http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-africa.html well, and i guess there are many local crimelords: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people also for Canda: http://rabble.ca/news/2012/04/new-film-tells-about-roma-or-gypsies-canada-wants-keep-out

yeah low level insurgencies can't be probably even counted there

here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Africa just last few years: 21st Century 2001–present War on Terrorism 1997–present Islamic Terrorism in Egypt 2002–present Islamic insurgency in the Maghreb 2002–present Operation Enduring Freedom - Horn of Africa 2006 Rise of the Islamic Courts Union 2006–2009 Ethiopian War in Somalia 2007–present Operation Enduring Freedom - Trans Sahara 2009–present Islamist civil war in Somalia 2009 2009 Nigerian sectarian violence 2001–2003 Central African Republic civil war 2002–2003 Ivorian Civil War 2003–present War in Darfur 2004 French–Ivorian clashes 2004–present Conflict in the Niger Delta 2004–2007 Central African Republic Bush War 2004–present Kivu conflict 2005–2010 Chadian Civil War 2005–2008 Mount Elgon insurgency 2007–2009 Second Tuareg Rebellion 2007–2008 Kenyan crisis 2008 Invasion of Anjouan 2008 Djiboutian–Eritrean border conflict 2009 Sudan airstrikes 2011 Second Ivorian Civil War 2011 Libyan Civil War 2012 Tuareg rebellion 2014 Second Libyan Civil War

From what I read, the bill aims to develop new and maintain already existing low-cost lodgings, not "subsidize vacations for the poor". Looks to me that you could benefit from that yourself, if you wanted to, but I could be wrong. A band-aid at best, as far as addressing wealth inequality is concerned. And the Oroville Dam seems to have failed because of cavitation-related damage which wasn't considered when it was designed ~50 years ago, not because of the international left's conspiracy to sap and impurify all of your precious bodily fluids. Wiki also says the 2005 request to reinforce the emergency spillway was turned down by Federal authorities, not commies in the Cali assembly.

Yeah pumping cash to already overgrowing yet starving population worked so far very well xD Also I already mention that to get to EU from these parts of Africa require large amount of cash. That is why you don't have them in a doorway, but it seems it doesn't bother you as far as they are far away Them not getting in Finland is different question than is it unconstitutional sent them back. There is no constitutional obligation to help people to come in Finland and seek asylum, but if they are here, we have constitutional obligation to make sure that we don't sent them to their death. It is not mater if something bothers me, but what is our constitution and obligations that it put over us. I give every year over 20k Euros for different aid organization that help poor people in Africa and other parts of the world, if that kind information is important to you. that first part is pretty hypocritical if you ask me, but who am I to judge that second, well if it makes you feel better, I don't earn that much in a year, but its hardly any worry for you - and no its not important for me

So in scenarios where I am either in position to sent 40k people to back in Africa where they are determined to face near certain death or somebody else is in sending them back, which in either cases would be against Finland's constitution, my stance is that I would uphold my country's constitution in best of my ability as I have vowed to do. To my answer it doesn't matter if best of my ability would be actually make decisions about subject or only just protest against decisions that other people are making, because not being against breaking our constitution regardless of fact is it me or somebody else that is breaking it would be against the vow that I have taken, so not to break said vow, it is my duty to be against such action. Did this broader answer help you understand my point or did it make it more difficult for you? Jesus man I get it, but you probably is still unable to read that your sentence

Yeah pumping cash to already overgrowing yet starving population worked so far very well xD Also I already mention that to get to EU from these parts of Africa require large amount of cash. That is why you don't have them in a doorway, but it seems it doesn't bother you as far as they are far away

so around 15 countries just in 2015 were in war out of what, 50? and its just one year, there is war every second year either

not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead. Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?) You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution. OK, we have abolished that years ago, still don't know how you are supposed to break it, so far it seems you were upholding it... "Well its your view. I for one would vouch for 40K people from Africa to go back with posibility to die than let anyone from my circle get raped. And I am not ashamed of it. Are you sure about your view on it?" It was answer to this I think you make a typo than: I have vowed to uphold my country's constitution and I have now plans to break that vow.

not sure if I follow It is unconstitutional in Finland to sent anybody back in situation where they most likely end up dead. Still don't follow, how are you going to break it? (BTW you are in military?) You know that Finland has universal male conscription, and everybody that does their constitutional service in our Defense Force vows to uphold Finland's constitution. OK, we have abolished that years ago, still don't know how you are supposed to break it, so far it seems you were upholding it...

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/ Difficult to say because there isn't any to sent back, so there is no analyse what it means for people that are sent back there. Because all the analyzes are done case by case there isn't general rules. Although war zones and countries like Somalia that don't have stable government are nearly in every case seen too dangerous. Although we return people to Iraq as only parts of the country are considered dangerous, even though it is in state of war. What are you talking about? There is tons of countries in Africa which are in war state. South Sudan for example is in war for years, now there is Famine crisis. Every second country in Africa is in constant turmoil... https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/world/famine-officially-declared-in-south-sudan/2017/02/20/e9700f60-f76a-11e6-aa1e-5f735ee31334_video.html https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2017/Feb-20/394372-south-sudan-suffering-man-made-famine.ashx

like its different anywhere else: http://www.politico.eu/article/theo-paris-riots-over-police-rape-hijack-french-campaign-racism-aulnay-sous-bois/

People will get refugee status in Finland only if they are most likely to die if they are sent back to their country of origin. Well people in Africa die on daily basis, are you going to move whole Africa to Finland? Or only the lucky one which have enough cash to actually reach Finland? People die daily basis, but most Africans aren't in danger to die daily basis, so they don't qualify for refugee status and will be sent back to their country of origin. Only Somalia is country in Africa where Finland don't sent people back currently. Oh yeah they do, that was my point. Are you sure you are going to send back central africans? http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/malnutrition/by-country/