If that were your concern, you'd be more worried than you are about the utter failure of your favored strategy. There's no indication whatsoever that this bloodbath is easing tension in Palestine. There will be thousands more dead children, "Muslim" and "Jew" alike.
I do not think that word means what you think it means. (Or medians what you think it medians...)
Most people in the world have children and don’t have life insurance, so I fail to see what your point is.
We are talking in the US, not "in the world". In the US, life insurance is cheap for youngish, healthy people and can ensure your dependents are provided for.
No, the Justice Department cannot increase the sentence for somebody already convicted and sentenced.
Agreed. But that didn’t seem to be the specific issue being discussed. Looking back I see that perhaps what was being addressed were issues of the judiciary. I was thinking more about who gets investigated and tried. That can be in the purview of the justice department. So I may have misread the comment.
Exactly.
The idea that reproduction is an economic decision is clearly rebutted by the real world. Expecting people to behave in a particular manner when they clearly don't is rather silly.
Judges pass sentences, not the Justice Department as a whole. And I know I'm no expert, but Supreme Court doesn't even try cases that involve sentencing anyone, do they? Don't they pretty much make determinations of constitutionality more or less?
OMG, I'm horrifically embarrassed. You are correct.
You know, most people don't have sufficient life insurance to provide the same standard of living to their survivors for the remainder of their lives. Most people only have term life through their employer, and most only care whatever multiple of their income their employer offers for free.
The point clearly is that that stupid woman didn't have the sense to take out a ginormous life insurance policy on her husband before she spread her legs... Because apparently it's her responsibility alone to ensure the financial security of herself and her family and dad has no role in that.
I had a very similar thought the other day, although it was based around risk rather than misfortune. Both the left and the right feel compassion toward misfortune, and both want to reduce risk. But they have very different and fairly antithetical approaches to that problem. The left wants to shift risk from the population experiencing the risk onto those who are not experiencing the risk. The right wants individuals to have a say in how much risk they're willing to take on, and thinks individuals should be able to decline to take on someone else's excess risk to some degree.
And that position ignores the sad reality that the children suffer and they had no say in the matter whatsoever I am at a loss that there people who can just pontificate that they shouldn't be forced to help keep those children alive.
But don't expect society to bail you out when you dig yourself into a hole.
This has no bearing on what I was saying. You recognize that Hamas is evil, but somehow seem to think that that somehow negates the reality that this is a Hamas victory.The problem here is that you do not realize that Hamas does not care about the welfare of the people.And this means Hamas' adventure "proved successful." ???
Like a stopped clock which is right twice a day, Derec may be right about one thing. The bitterness and hatred against the Israeli war criminals which these massacres have provoked may provoke NEW jihadists plotting revenge in numbers greater than the jihadists Israel has killed.
Hunh???? Who said it did?
Evil, evil, evil, evil, evil. Has anybody at IIDB denied that Hamas is EVIL??
But -- hold on to your britches! -- Two wrongs don't make a right!!
Totally irrelevant.
Once again, totally irrelevant. Whatever aspirations they might have don't enter into the picture. In practice they do what Hamas wants them to do.
Yeah, I don't like it. But note the reality: The settlers are entirely in the West Bank, not Gaza. The war is in Gaza, not the West Bank.
But somehow a bunch of irrelevant things support your point??
I wouldn't expect it as a lifetime thing. You only need life insurance when you have dependents.
There's no cost unless that risk actually becomes misfortune. Thus I think we are actually saying the same thing.
Where do you get that notion?
