bob13579

It should be considered a "special rule" because an exception would be made for Tesla, and no one else (including other small car manufacturers). Either let every car manufacturer sell directly or don't.

I'm responding directly to his "large corporate interests" talking point, when those large corporate interests are barred from selling directly.

Funny how you single out Texas for doing this. How is this different from other states?

Other car manufacturers can't sell directly. Why should Tesla get special rules?

Stock halted. Bracing for a crash.

This will be bad.

You mean they're tearing down trees for new homes and jobs?

The horror!

Are you implying that pharmaceutical companies would happily invest billions into a drug without patent protection?

Generic Lipitor is available at Walmart for $4.

It's quite unnerving that you're concluding things based on hearsay and innuendo. If you have actual evidence of that, please bring it.

Why? Because you don't agree with his conservative positions? The democracy voted for him. Is that not good enough for a "leadership position"?

You're already convicting him for murder based on contradicted conjecture?

Seems like a bait-and-switch. Horrible.

Sorry, but I don't feel like spending $7K+ in taxpayer subsidies to help a rich person get richer is wise fiscal policy for our nation. I know this might sound completely shocking to you.

The difference is that not one company is blatantly favored over another in those industries.

"But those people would be the same ones moaning about how much money we're wasting on NASA in 1964."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

It's quite telling that you're ignoring the billions/trillions we've wasted on useless projects since 1964.

What? The burden of proof is on you. What examples of non mainstream economics are you citing with the WSJ? Links to actual articles that prove your point, please.

You seriously have to be kidding about the non mainstream stuff. When have they advocated for a gold standard? Several prominent mainstream economists write for their op-eds, including Nobel laureates. I can't recall one Austrian.

What exact constitutional right is violated?

When has a Republican senator or representative been kicked out for voicing a differing opinion? I'm assuming, according to your logic, John McCain will be kicked out sometime soon for his vote yesterday? What about the Republican senator who is now pro gay marriage (Dick Cheney is one too as a matter of fact)? Will they be kicked out too? Or what about Ron Paul and his foreign policy? Will they call for his head soon?

With the computation, they still find 0-30 debt/GDP, 4.2% growth; 30-60, 3.1 %; 60-90, 3.2%,; 90-120, 2.4% and over 120, 1.6%

I wonder what you'll conclude with that data.

You're setting up a straw man. That's not my argument. The argument is that the data bolsters the claim that more debt correlates with slower growth.

The correction actually bolsters the claim that more debt leads to lower growth.

0-30 debt/GDP, 4.2% growth; 30-60, 3.1 %; 60-90, 3.2%,; 90-120, 2.4% and over 120, 1.6%

"acceptance and welcoming of diverse lifestyles"

Does that include views of social conservatives or rich people?

How do you explain government rent-seeking, where there is no competition? Take government pensions or teacher unions for example.

Sorry, but law firms operate for-profit. Partners are the owners of those firms and don't give away their profits to charities at the end of every fiscal year. This is quite a ludicrous assertion. Several partners at top law firms pocket several million a year outside of their client fees. For many lawyers from top schools, making partner is the ultimate goal because of the potential windfall.

http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202588541180&...