"The most powerful rocket engines are made by the Russians..." -- the Russian RD-180 is a powerful and advanced engine, the best in it's current class of kerosene burners, BUT this has nothing to do with the ISS. No one is using an RD-180 powered rocket for either manned or unmanned access to the ISS. The only current launch vehicle using the RD-180 is the US Atlas V (according to my quick Internet research) which is not going to the ISS. And the all-American Delta IV can launch as much or more payload than the Atlas V, though it costs somewhat more, so it appears that the RD-180 is in use only because it is cheaper than the alternatives for now. The US is currently considering moving Atlas V payloads to the Delta IV due to RD-180 supply disruptions (http://aviationweek.com/space/ula-explores-shifting-atlas-v-launches-delta-iv).
I can't refute your argument about the merits of the Soyuz vehicle for the ISS,though, it is essential for the foreseeable future.
But Russian rocket engines are a convenience, not a necessity. And speaking of large Russian boosters, their equivalent to the Atlas and Delta, the Proton, has not done so well lately, with two failures in the last year, most recently just this month (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/16/world/europe/russia-rocket-accident/).

Here's the deal on 'scientific consensus' -- it's not always right, but it is the best guess at the time, supported by the majority of the evidence by smart people who know the subject. Anything else is more likely, not certainly, but more likely, to be wrong. You place your bets, you take your chances. If I need treatment for my cancer or degenerative disease, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If I'm designing a bridge or airplane that will carry passengers, I'm going with the scientific consensus. If I'm making a long term investment (in land in Florida as a random example), I'm going the scientific consensus. If I'm writing my own crackpot blog or political screed or investment scam newsletter, then maybe I don't go with the scientific consensus ...

"The US only developed its space programme so quickly because it wanted better ICBMs". The other way around. The first space launch boosters, both US and Soviet, were almost all military ballistic missiles first. First US satellite was launched aboard an uprated and modified Redstone IRBM with upper stages stuck on. First US manned mission was launched aboard a Redstone IRBM. First US manned orbital mission was launched aboard an Atlas ICBM. First US two-man missions (Gemini) were launched aboard a Titan II ICBM. These were all OPERATIONAL military ballistic missiles by the time NASA got around to using them. The Saturn launch vehicles which NASA eventually developed and used for Apollo started with Saturn I as a military project, but when the military developed smaller H-bombs as warheads for their ICBMs they gave up gave up the Saturn family to NASA as no one could think of a military use for that much payload. The military did eventually want bigger launchers for their satellites but the Air Force developed their own heavy lift boosters, starting with the Titan III and then Titan IV which were cheaper than the Saturns. NASA never did much launcher development directly utilized by the military until the Space Shuttle came along as a joint project and the military abandoned that as soon as it became apparent how unsuited for the mission it was.

How many of those farmers are struggling "family farms" and how many are big agribusinesses or rich "gentleman farmers" reinvesting their millions? And while I'm at it, what about those ethanol mandates which are forcing the rest of us to buy their alcohol instead of food, and the subsidized water they all get out west? There was perhaps a time in the early 20th century where "rural electrification" and "universal phone service" may have made sense -- not any more. Sorry, the "noble farmer, man of the land" is a fiction of the 18th century. Now it's just another business. Farm land has had a nice run up in value lately so somebody wants it.

Given the enormous tax breaks given to "agricultural property" in Texas, I doubt there is any subsidizing at all going from rural to urban in this state. This is from 2005 (http://www.chron.com/news/article/Legislature-to-rethink-farmland-tax-breaks-1563193.php), but I don't think it has changed much since, "In suburban Austin, a 1,757-acre ranch owned by Michael Dell has what Travis County appraisers call a "well-managed deer herd" that reduces the ranch's market value of $74.8 million to an agriculture value of $290,000. "

Example, please. The examples I've seen in the press about "horrible" math presentations in CC have actually been presentations that actually try to teach non-trivial mathematical concepts like place value or the number line. The complaints I see seem to be that CC isn't teaching the 'easiest' way to get an answer to a numeric problem. i.e. CC uses a number line to solve an addition problem instead of the rote paper and pencil algorithm. As a degree holder in both mathematics and engineering I've formally studied math for its own sake and as a tool. Perhaps as a tool the only goal is the easiest way to get an answer, but real mathematics is not always about the easiest way to get an answer, but the most insightful. I'm open to arguments that we should teach the kids rote algorithms first and the most straightforward problem solving, since a lot of them only need the tool but that is applied arithmetic, not math.

The funny thing is -- is that Austin is reviled as the "Peoples Republic of Austin" by the "real Texans" and their representatives in the rest of the state. Austin was split into four US House districts by the state legislature to ensure that the metro area couldn't elect a representative to the US House that actually, you know, "represented" the opinions of the populace there. Austin and the rest of Texas have had a mutual aversion to each other for decades as Austin became more progressive in politics and culture. It remains a mystery to me how the city has prospered in that environment. And it is flat-out dishonest for the governor and the rest of the state representatives to both proclaim "Texas values" and claim Austin as a "Texas success story", which they do. How can this be sustainable?

I would say your skeptic friend is very astute (I am not a climate change skeptic). His point #6 is the salient one and probably immutable. So just as the climatologists can say with high probability that the climate will change as we pump CO2 into the air, the political scientists can say with high probability that the world governments (or anyone else) aren't going to do anything to slow it down significantly. Both may be inconvenient truths but inconvenience doesn't reduce the probability of being accurate descriptions of the future. So the smartest course at this time is to prepare for the climate to change and deal with those effects as they arrive. It's too bad that the profiteers from the current status can't be made to pay the costs to be incurred for this, but life isn't fair.

I've got my TI-36 Solar sitting on my desk here right now. I use it almost daily. The top cover of the vinyl case ripped off just last year.
I have my late 70's vintage TI SR-50 working at home. I had to replace the original Ni-Cad batteries but it still works fine with that 10 digit red LED display. It isn't as rugged as the TI-36, though, the slide switches for On-Off and Deg-Rad are feeling soft.

"No state will ever give up land willingly" Two counterexamples: The USA found itself in possession of several previously Japanese territories after WWII, most notably Okinawa; it was returned to Japan in 1972, 27 years after the war ended.
The USA found itself in possession of Cuba and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War; both were granted independence sometime afterward (Philippine independence took a long time and was interrupted by Japanese occupation of WWII).

I'm aware of JUICE and wish them well. I wish I had thought of Rosetta and would have given ESA credit for that one in my original post. I was also aware of Cassini-Huygens but finessed that by saying only NASA had "launched" outer planet missions. So let me apologize for not giving the Europeans full credit for what they have done/are planning, caveated with a big, "It's about time!". Europe has had an economy larger than that of the US for a while now, and always bigger than Russia's -- why have they been such slackers in space exploration? Obviously, the cold war competition between the USA and the Soviets gave space exploration its initial kick, but I'm still disappointed that Europe and Japan didn't come along stronger over the last 30 years. And since the late 90's there hasn't been any cold war space race, but the US planetary program has been as strong as ever. Any Europeans or Japanese want to weigh in? Is it that without the national pride/competition thing the US and Russians had, space just isn't considered worth the Euros and Yen?

"Why don't the US ask Russia which one they're going to, and beg for a lift"
One reason might be that the Russians have never (that is - not ever, not even once, not even attempted) launched a mission to the outer planets, neither have the Europeans; only the USA has shown the capability, several times over, starting in 1972 with Pioneer 10 and most recently Juno to Jupiter in 2011.
The US has plenty of unmanned launch capability and does it all the time with Atlas's and Delta's and Falcons. The US has a temporary lapse in human capable launch vehicles and spacecraft which is unfortunate, but that is being remedied on multiple fronts and to extrapolate that to, "the US should ask Russia for help to the outer planets" shows a complete ignorance of the history and state of outer planet exploration.

You are right and I mentioned the neutrinos, but up until a few years ago when the neutrino physicists accepted neutrino oscillations, the neutrinos detected from the sun did not at all agree with theory, that situation lasted for at least a couple of decades. And nuclear fusion in the sun was well accepted before any of the neutrino results came in. Maybe not the greatest example on my part.

We don't have any direct evidence of nuclear fusion in the sun's core either (maybe the neutrino detectors count for that lately), but we pretty much 'know' it is happening. Lack of 'direct evidence' != 'lack of evidence good enough to say with almost certainty'. 'Scientists know' can be shorthand for 'the established scientific consensus allows us have a very high degree of confidence'.

Well, Surveyor 1 in 1966 was the FIRST attempt by the USA to put a soft lander on the moon or any other extraterrestrial body. It landed successfully on June 2, 1966, sent back 11,237 photos, and sent back engineering data through Jan 7, 1967, for over seven months. Same result for the USA's first attempt to soft land on Mars, Viking 1, it worked as designed and functioned on the surface for over six years. Not disputing your issue about risks need to be taken, but if you do it right you can be successful the first time and the US's actual record of success in space missions is pretty good. And this is more to refute the OPs assertion about how the US is falling behind China in space.