I am not enthusiastic about the US tax payer bailing out out these people. Their financial problems appear to be self inflicted, i.e. no insurance, lax regulation and inspection, and supported by the state i.e. no regulations requiring adequate insurance, adequate storage of chemicals, etc.

Although it is unlikely, suppose the town is rebuilt and another disaster befalls them? Is the US tax payer supposed to bail them out again? Unless the situation changes with respect to insurance requirements and regulations, the answer is yes.

Where is that independent Texas spirit? That spirit that provokes some (many?) of them to proclaim that they should secede from the United States?

Texas is a red state. Where is that good conservative notion of accountability? Why isn't the corporation that caused this disaster being held accountable? Why haven't the managers that approved the storage of such volatile chemicals in such a hazardous way been held accountable?

After being ticketed by one of those cameras for not coming to a "complete stop" before turning right, I no longer turn right on red when one of those cameras are present.

Unconstitutional and a violation of the 4th Amendment

Really? It hasn't stopped them in NYC. Or maybe it has to do with who is being stopped and frisked?

I think he came forward because he knows exactly the lengths the government will go to find him and wanted to cut that off.

Agreed! I think he understood that he would eventually be found out. Also, by coming forward outside of the US and talking so openly about rendition, he has practically eliminated that as an option for bringing him back to the USA.

and is willing to suffer the results of his actions.

Really? By running off to Hong Kong?

The US should push for extradition and lock his butt up on arrival back in the US. There are other ways that he could have pursued this i.e. send (anonymously) a copy of some of the revealing docs to several sympathetic members of congress and ask that they call for a re-discussion of the laws.

this continued oppression adds more and more people to the displeased side of things.

It also adds more and more people to the "pleased" side of things.

Time to implement "stop and frisk" to help prevent these types of crimes.

And most of them were to scared to not sign it.

As was the POTUS. I suspect that the vast majority of people, given the responsibility of protecting the American people and the response by the intelligence community that this was the best way to achieve said protection, would have done just what the POTUS and most lawmakers did: sign it.

Why should we "like" it when the liberal fed forces their ideas on us?

In other words: it sucks to be in the minority. Well, some people live their entire lives that way; as did their parents, and their parents, etc.

would victims need insurance too under your proposal?

High insurance premiums would go a long way to correcting this type of problem because it would force gun owners to think more about the number and type of guns they have as well as how they are secured. It's would be similar to the concerns facing homeowners considering rebuilding along the Jersey shore. Nothing is stopping them from rebuilding. However, their insurance premiums would be about $30,000/year unless they rebuild an elevated structure. Similar with guns, if they had a gun safe or trigger lock, etc., they would pay a lot for a homeowners policy. However, if they had all of those things and took a gun safety course every year, etc., their insurance would be substantially less.

Insurance could do this now (they did it for pit bulls) without congressional involvement. Congress is paralyzed and nothing is likely to happen if we are waiting on them.

Given the current state of our politics, I suspect that the only solution to these kind of problems is likely to rest with insurance companies. After they pay out enough to satisfy law suits, they will radically increase the costs of insurance policies for those homes with a gun or drop the insurance altogether; pretty much what they do for homes with aggressive dogs (i.e. pit bulls, etc.).

If they were willing, insurance companies could apply a "market based approach" to help solve this type of problem.

I make a $ 100 if the tax rate is 20%, I pay $20.
If you make a $1 you pay 20 cents.

If you paid 100 times what the $1 wage earner paid for a loaf of bread or a carton of milk, that wouldn't be a bad deal. I've heard that some European countries base their traffic fines on income.

Though what if the smoker also, say, worked around chemicals or on a road-building crew all his life? How would we know the causative factor?

If it is possible to isolate the cause and if that cause was self inflicted, patients with self inflicted illnesses wouldn't take priority over those whose illness was not self inflicted.

Do you really want some agency looking into every action of your life to determine if you deserve your life to be saved?

Why shouldn't people be held accountable for their actions? Let me reverse the question: how would you feel if you're waiting for a transplant and you've tried to do everything right and someone is given priority over you and that person is suffering from "self inflicted" injuries?

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

Another principle should be included i.e. people that abuse their bodies and cause their medical condition should not get priority over those that did not. For example, a smoker in need of a lung transplant because of their smoking would not take priority over a non smoker in need of a lung transplant;

Similarly, an alcoholic in need of a liver transplant because of their drinking sould not get priority over a non alcoholic in need of a liver transplant.

Just as they did with floods, insurance companies will eventually stop writing insurance policies that cover tornado damage. Or, they will raise the premiums to a level that accurately reflects the risks.

Progressives don't own the ideas she's expressing, nor are those ideas uniquely progressive.

Of course not but her questioning of the guests regarding the veractity of studies they cite should be extended to more guests and to more studies. She blew up on this one because she obvisously has personal knowledge and experience. But since she can't have personal knowledge and experience regarding all issues, she should adopt more of a scientific approach rather than an ideological approach when covering issues for which she has no personal knowledge or experience.

My father, who has had no medical training whatsoever, used to help him in surgeries

Sounds a bit like what that abortion doctor in Philly was doing.

You can't expect a U.S. based multi-national company operating a business in Britain to make $100 profit, pay $24 to the British government, bring $76 home to the U.S. and be taxed another 35%, $26.6, thereby reducing their profits from $100 to $49.4 which means they have an effect tax rate of 50.6% on profits made in Britain.

Why not? Will the British come to the aid of those American companies when the s..t hits the fan in other parts of the world? Did these "American" companies get tax breaks to start their operations in Britain? If the multi-national companies don't want to pay taxes in the US, let them risk share holder money exclusively to start up operations in foreign lands. Again: Socialized risk and privatized profits.

As long as those profits were from sales overseas it's nobody's business.

Normally, I would agree. However, many of these American companies were given tax breaks to help start up their overseas operations with the expectation that when those overseas operations became profitable, the corporations would repatriate the money.

But like so many things our politicians do, they intentionally write loop holes into the law so that their big contributors don't have to comply with the spirit of the law.

I'd like to see Ireland's military protect Apple's foreign assets when the s..t hits the fan. The same goes for other "so called" American companies that refuse to repatriate their profits earned outside of the US even though they received US tax breaks to offshore their manufacturing operations.

I'd like to see Ireland's military protect Apple's foreign assets when the s..t hits the fan in other parts of the world. The same goes for other "so called" American companies that refuse to repatriate their profits earned outside of the US EVEN THOUGH they received US tax deductions at the time they decided to offshore their manufacturing operations.

I as an American do not want my government SPYING on journalists, let alone harassing or indicting them for doing their jobs.

This is the type of pablum that everyone can agree with and does nothing to further the debate. Context is everything. If the context is that it is government policy to spy on journalists without just cause, then that is wrong. However, if there is just cause, i.e. clandestine meetings with a government employee that is leaking classified information and the government has followed proper protocol in obtaining the necessary warrants, spying on the journalist(s) involved with the leak is acceptable.

I don't have a problem with people being held accountable for doing something wrong i.e. leaking of classified information. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

If you've sworn to not leak classified information, then don't don't leak classified information. Or, be willing to accept your fate when you get caught. If what you've leaked is important enough, Americans will flock to your side and support you. However, if what you've leaked is simply meant to embarrass or boost your own ego, then accept your fate or just STFU!

No Excuses, Obama Tells Young Black Men

That was not the topic for a group of Morehouse men. It could have been a topic for a gang of prisoners but not an audience steeped in the tradition of the Black experience in the USA and knowing that being just as good is not good enough.

It seems as if BO uses speeches to overwhelmingly black audiences as his Sister Souljah moment; Whites eat it up and blacks boil but (generally) keep quiet.