He was not discussing "work conditions". Work conditions would be his hours or wages. Not his opinion of how executives have decided to run the company. If he was discussing the impact that their choices had on HIS work, that would be different. He was just complaining about the impact to the company. That isn't "working conditions".

He was not discussing his political opinions. Criticizing the hiring practices of your company and the values they attach to their hiring IS NOT your protected political opinion. It is a direct critique of your employer.
If your employer promoted "green energy" and you said "green energy is a bunch of bullshit crap", you aren't expressing your political opinion. You are criticizing your employer. Even though some political parties hold this opinion, you are directing it at your employer.

Affirmative Action IS ILLEGAL in California. For the GOVERNMENT. It is illegal for the state of California to mandate affirmative action or for any government-run agency to enact affirmative action. It isn't illegal for private companies to promote ethnically-diverse workplaces, as long as they do not violate the Civil Rights Act.
Your third point is bullshit and meaningless.

You work at a power station, so you probably already realized that the real currency of the world is the kWh(or megajoule). Since 2010, solar and wind have been able to produce more energy during their lifetime than the total amount of energy needed to create/ship/install the product.

Robots build everything and we hypothetically have unlimited energy(we just need to use energy to build more energy production units).
That is known as a post-scarcity economy. That is what Keynes was beginning to point towards. Think of "Star Trek" or the Culture book series.

Anyway, I would argue that people work for 40-hours per week because it is the amount of work that keeps them sane. Work less and you feel lazy. We will probably always be doing about 40 hours of work, even in retirement.

No it isn't. The legal authority to create an agency isn't limited by the constitution. You are a moron.
The constitution limits the authority to pass laws. The federal department of education does not enforce any laws and is therefore entirely legal.

Have you read the constitution?

It actually isn't an acronym. It is an "initialism"

You mean education standards based on the expert recommendations of pedagogy experts and researchers?
You mean science standards that aren't based on religion or mythology?

Why doesn't it make sense to have a federal standard for education? Because we wind up with "common core"? You realize that common core was a wildly successful and heavily endorsed set of standards that almost everyone in education circles thought was a great idea? The only reason you hate it is because you are too stupid to understand how to teach math to an eight-year-old.

Can't wait to see all the anecdotes about chemicals that cause cancer.

This study is not stating that if we all lived in a paleo-era utopia that we wouldn't get any cancer.
It is simply stating that cancer isn't pre-cooked into our lives. If we lived in a perfectly sterile environment and did not expose ourselves to any energy of any kind, we would be very unlikely to develop cancer. We would just die due to a vitamin D deficiency and a lack of human contact.

I get it. All of this is confusing.
How about we don't get caught up in food trends?

The link between processed meat and cancer has been known for almost 100 years. One of the first two things the FDA did was regulate nitrates in sausage and ban sarsaparilla. We can be pretty confident that both of those things will kill you.
Alcohol? We banned that for nearly a decade because of rampant alcohol abuse and death.

Sugar? Fat? Red Meat? Who knows at this point. Don't worry about it too much.

It was relevant because it was one of the issues highlighted at the time.
Also, Reagan announced the overhaul as a RESPONSE to the strike, but it wasn't given the type of fast-track authorization that would have made it useful

I disagree with this general idea that the police can go fuck themselves because the NSA were a bunch of assholes. The NSA isn't even a law enforcement organization, it is a code-breaking espionage organization. Do you similarly ignore the FAA rules about smoking on an airplanes because the EPA caused a chemical spill?

That being said, I have no sympathy for the police position. They obviously want all the information they can possibly access. It makes it easier to do their job. Everyone wants their job to be easier and everyone thinks that rules don't really apply to them. Every computer user at a large company thinks the IT rules are bullshit and proves my point. It would be easier if they could backdoor into any cellphone and it would be easier if we left all of the accounting files in dropbox without a password. However, we aren't going to do either of those things because they are insanely reckless.

To be clear, Lithium based batteries have decay issues not present in other technologies. The "driving hard" and charging behavior of lithium isn't as deleterious as service life.

Well, just to blow your final assumption out of the water.
Pretty much every single person has agreed that the Leaf is a "piece of shit" car from a luxury perspective. That "$15k new car" is probably going to be just as nice as the leaf. You might want to use the Chevy Volt, which people generally like.

I disagree on a couple of points. Electricity is no more scarce than water. The Earth is being bombarded with 77 Petrawatts of solar energy every moment. We could harvest a great deal of that energy as solar/wind/hydro energy. We are not harvesting it. Electricity is not a "finite resource". We currently use fossil fuels(a finite resource) to create the majority of of electricity, but there is no concrete reason for electricity to be linked with a finite resource.

If we desalinate water, it will be sold by the volumetric unit. This creates a market price for water.This will change the water market. This is what you want to accomplish.It might crash and burn rather quickly, but it would accomplish your goal, so why oppose it?

His question was about banning from a federal district.
Barring someone from Washington DC for life might be seen as a violation of his 1st Amendment.

The GAO report is actually about the cybersecurity of the FAA. The comment about security on the airplane actually starts out by explicitly pointing out that this isn't a problem right now. It MIGHT become one in the future and they aren't satisfied with how the FAA would deal with hybrid system in modern planes. This entire blogpost is a bullshit response to a rather good report.

The GAO simply wants the FAA to increase their cybersecurity. I don't think that is a big problem.

I am reminded of something my accountant friend always tells me: I don't do magic.
Lawyers and accountants are highly trained individuals with a great deal of knowledge. They know a lot of things that you don't know.
However, you probably aren't going to fail an audit just because you didn't use an accountant, as long as you have some idea of how finance works.

Similarly, you aren't going to lose a court case because you don't have a lawyer. An entity can sue you for any reason, however if their claim is entirely false you aren't going to get destroyed in court. The entity's lawyer isn't going to magically produce a legal motion in a foreign language that makes it impossible to defend yourself.

In the end, lawyers are just like car mechanics. They are probably going to do a far better job than you, but they aren't doing any magic. Just applying a significant amount of specialized knowledge.