If you think someone other than W. was calling the shots while he was President (which is different than saying he was the brains behind everything), then you do not understand how politics work.

Perhaps you did not notice, but he was the front man as well. It is believable that someone rises from nowhere to great power. It is believable that the son of a powerful family stays in the background and controls someone who has risen from nowhere to a position of great power. It is even believable that someone from nowhere might become attached to the son of a powerful family early on and exert control over him as he rises to a position of prominence. What is not believable is that a person from nowhere might take control over the son of a powerful family, just as that son completes his acquisition of a position of power, especially not when that son spent time before that being groomed/grooming himself for that position (being the popular governor of one of the most populous states counts as being groomed to be President).

In what way would that change the fact that if someone was controlling George W. Bush, they would have had to be controlling him all along? It's not as if the son of a former President/Director of the CIA, grandson of a Senator, and great grandson of a railroad baron would have NEEDED Dick Cheney to get to the White House. If you are inclined to believe in conspiracy theories it makes more sense to think that Dick Cheney served as a "House retainer" to George W. Bush than that George W. Bush was controlled by, and subservient to, Dick Cheney.

You miss the point. There is no way that Dick Cheney was pulling George W. Bush's strings. While it is possible that George W. Bush chose to uniformly follow Dick Cheney's advice, it was still merely advice that Dick Cheney had no ability to force him to follow. The real problem with considering Dick Cheney as the power behind George W. Bush is that Dick Cheney was nowhere to be found around W. while he was governor of Texas.

Oh yeah, that makes sense. The son of a former President, former CIA Director, grandson of a U.S. Senator, and great-grandson of one of the 19th centuries rail barons was merely a sock puppet serving the interests of the son of a minor bureaucrat with the Department of Agriculture. You know, people should look at the nature of history before they start building conspiracy theories.

I did not suggest that the father cut the payment on his own accord. I suggested that the court order the payments suspended pending identification of an account belonging to the mother (based on being able to serve court papers to the mother at the address listed on the account). Of course, before doing that, the court should have ordered the bank which handled the account the payments were being made to give the address on the account to the person attempting to serve the papers.

Let me see if I got this straight. It is the Republicans fault that the Democrats used their majorities in both Houses of Congress to pass a bad law, which the American people overwhelmingly opposed (to the point where Massachusetts elected a Republican Senator in an attempt to stop the law from passing), because the Republicans would not vote for that bad law.

You mean you blame the Republicans for not trying to help someone who, when they suggested changes to the very first major bill he pushed through Congress, responded by saying, "I won" and walking away?
In other words, they should have helped him pass a law which would not contain any of their ideas, because he told them that he had won and did not need to listen to them. Oh yeah, a law which contained provisions he explicitly campaigned against.

He did not say he had the silver plan. If you go to the link you provided and follow it to "Out of Pocket Costs" you discover the following: "The maximum out-of-pocket costs for any Marketplace plan for 2014 are $6,350 for an individual plan and $12,700 for a family plan." He clearly states that his plan is for he and his wife, which makes it a family plan. Elsewhere, he says that he could get a lower deductible, but the premiums would go up even more.

It is not really extra effort. He stops paying until he is informed of her current address, at which point he serves her the papers. If he never receives her address, he never makes another payment and no further court action occurs. Of course, with the ruling I suggested in hand, he might also have a basis for requesting a court order to freeze the account in question, since the address on the account is not that of the registered account holder. Even if he cannot obtain a court order, he can possibly make the bank uncomfortable enough about the account that they report it to the appropriate government agency for investigation as a "suspicious account" under various anti-money laundering laws.

Actually, that is not true. The piece that has been misconstrued as protecting journalism** is only part of the First Amendment and is does not protect the "press" as we use the term today (to refer to the news media). When the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,..." it very intentionally links the right to say what you want to the right to publish what you want. The "freedom of the press" is not a right for journalists, but a right for every citizen to publish, if they have the means, whatever they wish (with the edge cases of slander and libel, although even there the original understanding was that the person slandered or libeled could not prevent you from publishing, they could merely receive punitive recompense if they could prove that it was slander or libel). **the misconstrued part is that it is ABOUT journalism, not that it protects it. It does protect journalism, but only as a side-effect of protecting everyone's right to publish.

Unfortunately, having health insurance is not the same as actually having access to health care (or being able to afford it when one does have access).

So, let's make them even bigger and more powerful so that they are even less responsive to the will of the people? That seems to be the approach the current Administration is taking, "The government is too large and powerful for the President to hold it accountable (or for the President to be held accountable) for its misdeeds, therefore we should make it larger and more powerful."

The gentleman in question was going to court to end the court order requiring him to pay child support payments for his now 21 year old son. It seems to me that a better solution would have been for the judge to issue an order to the provide the address for the account where the child support payments were being deposited. Followed up by an order suspending the payments if the ex-wife was not at that address until such a time as an actual address was found (the logic being that if the address the account was registered at was not at that address, then there was reason to believe that the account was actually being used by someone else). Confirmation of the correct account being found would come in the form of the court papers being served. Further the court could have ruled that the suspended child support payments would only be due if the court found in the ex-wife's favor on the petition which the man had made.

I wouldn't know about "hits" as I rarely hear or see them (if a radio station plays "hits", I don't listen to it). I listen to the music I like and watch the movies I like, I have not liked a hit song in longer than I can remember. The last hit movie I liked was LOTR, and I was a fan of the books long before they were popular. I could go on, but the point is, if you want to have an independent culture you need to be willing to not be part of "pop" culture. If Canadians want to be part of "pop" culture, why should their government prevent them from doing so?
Apparently, you fail to understand that if the USA can buy and sell Canada, then this law is an exercise in futility because it has been bought by the USA. I could go on, but I will conclude by saying that government subsidies of culture fail to actually preserve said culture. If Canadians are not interested enough in preserving their own culture without a law forcing them to do so, that culture is doomed anyway.