... the most transparent administration in history.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_...

Rick, speaking to his newly-created robot:

Robot: What is my purpose?

Rick: Pass the butter.

*robot passes the butter*

Robot: What is my purpose?

Rick: You pass butter.

Robot.... Oh... my god....

Either the government has to declare you to be the bad guy, or CNN does. https://www.google.com/search?...

Those damned republicans probably denied the funding they needed to also make it secure.

Seems to me when their robot operator tells you your call may be recorded for "quality control purposes," that is all the disclaimer that is needed to record the call yourself, no matter what the state wiretapping laws may be.

"I have no faith in government to be an ISP."

I have no faith in the federal government to run an ISP. They would be worse than Comcast, and would probably never get it running until they have spent a year's GDP.

I have slightly more faith in a state government to run one. Not as many people to pay-off around most state capitols as there are around DC.

I would have a lot of faith in a local or city government to get it done. They live right there amongst their customers, typically have to work within a budget, and have a vested interest in doing it right the first time.

Is this why we are not yet traveling in tubes, because they would threaten the taxi industry?

I don't have a background in education, child development, or psychology, yet I read to my son every night.

Regarding collusion in the peer review process:

One of the arguments of "deniers" is that the supposed agreement of all climate scientists is that their funding requires certain conclusions to be drawn, and thus climate scientists are, generally, in lockstep to secure continued funding of their studies. Scare people and get funding. Tell people that climate change isn't the end of the world and start putting out resumes.

Your response is, "Well, there is a peer review process and look, they are 99% in agreement."

They already know 99% of climate scientists are saying the same thing, and keep setting goal posts for the "point of no return," and watching nothing happen. Al Gore certainly didn't help, didn't he say 2009 was the point of no return? Didn't he say hurricanes will be more frequent? Does the sky continue to not fall?

Do you see why that isn't going to sway the denier? Deniers are indeed skeptics, they are just skeptical of the integrity of the people doing the science. That's what y'all have to fix. Continuing to call them ignorant and stupid isn't getting you anywhere.

But what about this... do you realize that in order to grow one single cow, an ENTIRE PLANET had to come into creation, first? Do you know how much energy that required????

That tax money never returns to the middle class. Do you think it is a coincidence some of the richest counties in America are around DC?

... is to do away with the program completely.

First of all, it is flat-out wrong to suggest that one person is not allowed to have an opinion about how another person spends their food stamps. The fact the the stamps come from tax money means EVERY tax payer has paid for the right to have an opinion about it. See also: subsidized health care, and how it makes everyones lifestyle everyones business (I propose all dangerous, injury-causing leisure time activities now be banned for that reason, and I will decide what is "dangerous").

Secondly, I disagree with the notion that just food is cheaper at a grocery store than healthy items, and that it isn't fair to expect poor people to eat rice every day. I am the procurer of provisions in my household of 3, so I have direct experience. "Staples" are refreshed, and used up, every month. To suggest I am being forced to supplement our meals with ten pounds of rice and a bag of potatoes every month is ludicrous, it is just intelligent home economics. Many hours of my free time are also spent in gardening every summer, and tomatoes and onions from that garden are eaten year round after I can it up, an inexpensive technology that has existed in its current form for a couple hundred years, at least.

The only way to fix the problem of "spending their food stamps on steak and lobster and junk food" is just to remove that choice completely. If someone is poor enough for food stamps, then we consult the Official US Government Dietary Needs table for the person at that sex at that age, and they get a box every 2 weeks with exactly the nutritious food they need, at the appropriate calorie level for their age, with enough snack cakes for small dessert every evening. This makes the fiscal conservatives happy... less money is being wasted. This also eliminates the ignorance of a person not knowing which foods are nutritious, and then the government can also even out the production of agricultural products and possibly remove the need for farm subsidies. If the government KNOWS it is going to need X amount of bread each month, then it can more intelligently utilize the nations bread producers. This makes the central-government socialists happy.

Really, it's win/win/win. If the person on the dole still wants a lobster once a month, no one will stop them, they can use their allotment of cigarette money for that week.

SCOTUS will rule that spying on Americans' phone records is perfectly legal because it is a privacy tax, in that they will take away some of your privacy, and the federal government has the power to levy taxes. It worked for Obamacare, so why the hell not.

...to raise a child poorly.

What makes you think this administration has any interest in following the law? Why do you think the media would call them on it if they pulled out his fingernails on live TV during prime time? So far Obama does anything he wants and creates new laws at press conferences with a wave of his hand, with impunity. Snowden better make sure he doesn't get caught, he embarrassed too many people and we always need a new distraction from the Obamacare debacle.