majorspark;1743852 wrote:Its relative to the point he was making (misplaced outrage). The outrage of mostly white people 1000's of miles outside of Africa. The girls remain captive today. Likely getting raped daily. Its a fucking lion. The president of Zimbabwe has lions killed and stuffed for his birthday.

Had you ever heard of Cecil the lion before this? I didn't. I highly doubt the women holding the I am Cecil sign did either. Neither did the media.

I made my point that people that want this dentist to be raped in an African prison or hunted like an animal are just as screwed up mentally as the trophy hunter. He should be punished and without trial already is along with his family.

I know Dr. Boogie has made well known his thoughts on Islam and once again brought up the "mooslims". Like Belly bringing up guns ad nauseam it gets your jimmies rustled. I get that. Minus the reference to Islam I thought it relevant in this case. Maybe its because I think our perspective is so off on what we get outraged about nowadays. A lot of it is probably media driven. Its almost like a mob mentally and things are not thought through. I guess that is what is rustling my jimmies right now.

FatHobbit;1743910 wrote:I've never understood why people respond to him.

Heretic;1743904 wrote:Lol, this thread is an amalgamation of OC Poli Talk at its finest.

1. A giant dumbfuck starting a thread to bitch about why people are bitching about something while showing a general sense of cluelessness about things.

2. The instant people start disagreeing, things immediately get diverted to abortion and shit because if you're on any side of a poli bitch-fest, you have to call others out on deflection tactics while doing the same shit every fucking chance you get.

3. Isadore. Fucking Isadore.

4. Any sane person starts thinking the abortion shit should have been brought up because if a lot of people on this thread had been aborted, it might have been possible to have an intelligent conversation without dumbfucks dumbfucking all the fucking time.

5. And then you realize the truth: Durkie was right all along back when Justin spent time here, mods modded, adsense adsensed and all that shit. "GFY" is the best comeback to anything anyone says at least 99.99999% of the time. It's honest and it's as intellectually based as whatever you're countering to that same percentage. So that's me apologizing on behalf of the site for that (or those) time(s) you got put in the basement or banned or whatever the fuck we did back when you were doing that. YOU WERE RIGHT.

superman;1743928 wrote:You forgot number 6.
6. Heretic comes in spewing his self righteous drivel about politards while bring one of the biggest left leaning politards on the sight.

Heretic;1743904 wrote:. 5. And then you realize the truth: Durkie was right all along back when Justin spent time here, mods modded, adsense adsensed and all that shit. "GFY" is the best comeback to anything anyone says at least 99.99999% of the time. It's honest and it's as intellectually based as whatever you're countering to that same percentage. So that's me apologizing on behalf of the site for that (or those) time(s) you got put in the basement or banned or whatever the fuck we did back when you were doing that. YOU WERE RIGHT.

Heretic;1743961 wrote:Refer back to #5 and GFY.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1743673 wrote:100% murder, there is a waiting list for adoption. How about not spreading your legs unprotected dumbfounded by the potential unneeded consequence. I just can't grasp how nonchalant people are concerning this issue. What if your mother decided to have yourself shredded to pieces in a bowl and sell your parts for research? I am truly concerned what the minds of this country have become.

Rotinaj;1743954 wrote:And this is the story of how tl;dr was born.

QuakerOats;1743986 wrote: This country gets sicker by the day.

isadore;1743950 wrote:Gosh a ruddies extradition? As the controversy boils over Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer's killing of a lion in Zimbabwe, some including Zimbabwe have called for Palmer's extradition to Zimbabwe to stand trial. Can the southern African nation bring the American big-game-hunting dentist back to stand trial in its justice system? The short answer: Under the mandatory terms of the extradition treaty between Zimbabwe and the United States, the United States must initiate extradition proceedings and give over a citizen to a foreign country for prosecution Unless the U.S. just doesn't feel like it. Extradition is the formal surrender of a person by a requested state to another requesting state for prosecution. Extradition to or from the United States is a creature of treaty, which means it is little more than a contract one that may be ultimately unenforceable, if push comes to diplomatic shove. The United States has had an extradition agreement with Zimbabwe since 2000.<o></o>A country typically begins the extradition process by submitting a request to the State Department; this may be accompanied by a simultaneous request for arrest of a fugitive at risk of flight. If the secretary of state decides to do so, he forwards the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office to commence the legal proceeding. From there, the case goes to federal court, and a judge makes a threshold determination: Is there probable cause that the offense charged is extraditable, and that it satisfies the requirement of "dual criminality"? It's similar to a preliminary hearing or "probable cause" hearing in American criminal law, which means that the burden is light, the rules of evidence are relaxed, and the odds are in favor of extradition. The test is whether there is evidence to justify having a trial, not whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction. What about the fact that the United States would be turning over a citizen to a country with an abysmal human rights record? Shouldn't the court be concerned that the defendant will receive a fair trial, a lawyer, and three hot meals a day? It isn't. The established "rule of noninquiry" prohibits the judge from examining Zimbabwe's criminal justice system or taking into account the possibility that the extradited person will be mistreated. This is important because it limits the judiciary's discretion in extraditing for the most part, if there's sufficient evidence to find probable cause, the judge has to certify the matter for extradition. What about a defense on the facts? The dentist's defense should center on the absence of "dual criminality" between the crime charged: that there is no comparable crime The United States-Zimbabwe extradition treaty of 2000, instead of listing specific extraditable crimes, requires only dual criminality of the extraditable offense. The principle of dual criminality means the extraditable offense must be a serious crime -- rather than a mere "peccadillo" -- punishable under the criminal laws of both the requesting country and the requested country. That means there are two ways to attack the dual criminality here: First, that the crime of hunting lions in the way charged has no parallel in the United States. The second attack is that the charged crime is not serious enough. They are both arguments that will likely fail. On one hand, a prosecutor might argue that our hunting laws are very similar in that they limit game hunting by geographic location, licenses, permits and even weapons. Every hunter in Michigan knows the difference between "bow season" and "black powder" season. On the defense side, the dentist would argue that we don't have lion hunting laws or permits here in the United States that are comparable to Zimbabwean law. As for the seriousness of the crime, that this crime is punishable for years means it is more than a parking more than a mere "peccadillo." Here ticket, and, the dentist probably loses. The principle of dual criminality does not demand that the laws of the countries be carbon copies of one another, or that they have have identical elements. Instead, dual criminality is satisfied when the two countries' laws are substantially analogous. Moreover, our courts must give the benefit of the doubt, and defer to the foreign court's decision that the offense is extraditable. So, the courts and even the Department of Justice, under extradition treaties, are little more than rubber-stamping functionaries -- under the treaty, it appears that once demanded, extradition is practically mandatory ... as a legal matter.After all, international law at its core is only as enforceable as the most powerful country wants it to be. Sure, the treaty may direct the requested country (here, the U.S.) to do something for the requesting country (Zimbabwe), but what recourse does Zimbabwe have if the U.S. refuses? The Latin term for this concept is "Ubi jus ibi remedium" "there is no right without a remedy." Zimbabwe really has no remedy against the U.S. if it refuses to extradite. In that way, international law is no more than playground law on a grand scale: If Zimbabwe has a problem with the U.S. breaching an agreement to extradite, and if Zimbabwe wants to "make something of it," then Zimbabwe can just meet the United States after the 3 p.m. bell behind the schoolyard ... and bring your aircraft carriers. Which means Zimbabwe would have no recourse other than sulking. That's why extradition is so often more a political issue than a legal issue. Politics is why countries enter into treaties in the first place, and war -- or the threat of war -- just extends politics to its extreme end. Zimbabwe cannot really "force" the U.S. to do anything, including abide by an extradition treaty. In domestic law, the victor is ideally the party in the superior legal (and hopefully moral) position. In international law, make no mistake about it, the victor is often simply the one ... with the most aircraft carriers. <o>http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/01/opinions/cevallos-can-dentist-be-extradited/index.html?eref=edition</o>

Spock;1744028 wrote:lol....our country doesnt follow its own laws. Do you really think we give a shit about theirs?

Spock;1744028 wrote:lol....our country doesnt follow its own laws. Do you really think we give a shit about theirs?

Spock;1744209 wrote: He did nothing wrong legally

QuakerOats;1744213 wrote:Why wasn't this thread moved to the political forum; the Planned Parenthood barbarism thread was?

What a bunch of bullshit.

QuakerOats;1744213 wrote:Why wasn't this thread moved to the political forum; the Planned Parenthood barbarism thread was?

What a bunch of bullshit.

MontyBrunswick;1744221 wrote:Except poaching.

Spock;1744242 wrote:Do you know what the definition of poaching is? JFC people are stupid. IT CANT BE POACHING IF HE HAD THE LEGAL PERMITS, LION WAS IN SEASON AND HE WASNT ON PARK LAND.

MontyBrunswick;1744245 wrote: Disgusting that you defend these disgraceful people