Apparently you have not read the articles from various states about politicians who have proposed introducing a mileage tax...and "oh yeah, we will do this by requiring everyone to install a GPS monitor in their cars."
The politicians are already salivating at the thought of using EVs as an excuse to track our cars all of the time, all in the name of taxing us based on miles driven. It is a bogus argument anyway since cars already have a thing called an odometer that would allow the government to tax based on miles driven.
You keep quoting most of that sentence while leaving out the key part that comes at the end ""...Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said." It does not matter how many times nor in how many articles the opinion of Paul Steier is quoted, it does not change the fact that the law does not actually say that. You appear to be basing your argument on, "They published it in the newspaper. It must be true."
I will try one more time. The article links to the relevant law. You can read that law for yourself. I did. The relevant law says that in order to sell automobiles at retail in Iowa someone must be a licensed dealer. It does not say that in order to "act as a dealer" one must be licensed. It says that in order to sell one must be licensed. So, the wording of the law does not say that someone must be licensed as a dealer in order to conduct test drives anymore than someone must be licensed as a dealer to make repairs on a car. Dealers do that as well, so that you could say "State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering to repair cars, the local mechanic was acting as a dealer." It still would not mean there was a legal requirement to be licensed as an auto dealer in order to repair cars, no matter how many times someone from the DOT said it. Read the law, it does not say what the DOT spokesman said.
That statement is the OPINION of the DOT. There is NO place in the law which states that offering test drives makes one an auto dealer. In fact, the law states that selling cars retail makes one an auto dealer. Tesla was not selling cars retail in the state.
The article could say this: "State law requires pharmacists to be licensed, and by giving George aspirin, Henry was acting as a pharmacist," but that would not necessarily make it true (even if that statement was made by a state official).
But the law never states that you must be a dealer to offer test drives. The law says that you must be a dealer to sell cars retail. The law does not say that a manufacturer may not offer test drives. So, to recap, the DOT has ruled that only licensed auto dealers may offer test drives. However, the state law does not say that it says that only licensed auto dealers may sell autos at retail.
Now I understand that progressives think that bureaucrats should be allowed to make the law say whatever they think is should say, but that is not how our system is supposed to work. There does exist an argument that supports the position taken by the DOT. However, until that argument is made in front of a theoretically impartial third party known as a judge and Tesla is allowed to make their counter-arguments it is not accurate to describe what Tesla was doing as illegal, since it does not violate the letter of the law.
State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer...
Actually, that is not anywhere in the law. As I said, I read the law. The law explicitly states that in order to sell cars retail, someone must be licensed by the DOT. That sentence you quoted is the interpretation of the DOT, NOT something written in the law.
Where does the law say that they cannot offer test drives? I actually READ the law. It says that they cannot sell automobiles retail. It says nothing about test drives.
Well, his original post was that it should be illegal to use drinking water to flush toilets. I think that Barsteward just wants to force other people to live the way HE thinks they should, without actually knowing anything about the conditions which apply where they live.
First of all, my friend did NOT have a copy of the ordinance, he merely was aware of what the ordnance said.
Second, Steier said that Tesla was acting as a dealer. The law at no place says that offering test drives makes one a dealer. It does not even say that offering test drives is illegal. Just because Steier says that it is illegal does NOT mean that it is illegal. It may be that a judge will agree with Steier, but until that happens it is not accurate to say that Tesla was doing something illegal. As a a matter of fact, I read the two laws and do not see any place in them where test drives are mentioned.
You strike me as one of those people that believes that since the FCC is the Federal Communication Commission they have authority to regulate all forms of communication, even if Congress has passed no law giving them such authority. In this case, while the DOT has the authority to regulate automobile dealers, the law defines automobile dealers as those who offer automobiles for sale in the state. Tesla was not offering the cars for sale. They were merely offering test drives. The law does not specify that you must be a licensed dealer to offer test drives. The law specifies that you must be a licensed dealer in order to sell at retail automobiles.
Whether or not Tesla was doing something illegal is up to a judge to decide, NOT up to the head of the DOT. Especially not when the law so clearly does not state that it was illegal. The only thing which dealers do which the law states that automobile manufacturers are not allowed to do is sell cars at retail in Iowa.
As the anonymous coward pointed out, most states(I believe that it is all states, but there may be exceptions) require you to pay their sales tax on a car to register it in that state. There are special exceptions if you have owned the car long enough before moving to the state in question (I believe that is typically a year, but I have not looked at that clause for some time).
Until then, Tesla has to cease and desist because what they were attempting to do is illegal, am I right?
No, you are wrong. They had to cease and desist because a bureaucrat ruled that what they were doing was illegal...even though they were not doing what the law the bureaucrat based that ruling on said was the illegal act.
I will give you an example that may help you understand. I have a friend who made some renovations to a house he bought. The township building inspector came by and said, "These renovations were illegal because you didn't get a building permit. " Your answer would be, "See, what he did was illegal because the building inspector said it was illegal." However, my friend had a copy of the township ordnance on what types of renovations required a building permit. The township ordnance explicitly stated that you only needed a building permit if you increased the number of doors and/or windows or expanded the footprint of the house. My friend had decreased the number of doors and windows as part of his renovation and did not change the footprint of the house. The fact that a bureaucrat says that something is illegal does not meant that it is illegal.
While what you are saying is probably pretty close to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, it bears no resemblance to what the courts have actually ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat for consumption by livestock on his own farm was subject to regulation under the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling reversing that one, everything and anything is interstate commerce.
The funny thing about your comment is that the some of the strongest backers of the Jim Crow laws, at a time when most politicians were turning against them, were Al Gore, Sr (perhaps you've heard of his son?) and William Fulbright (mentor to one William Jefferson Clinton).
Perhaps where you live it does, but not where I live. It is perfectly safe to drink water out of the wells in my area with no treatment. This is exactly the problem I was referring to. You assume that everyone needs their drinking water treated before it is safe to drink. I live in an area where most of the people drink water that does not need treating in order for it to be safe to drink, but you would like to pass laws making us deal with our water as if it required treatment.
And as someone else pointed out, in some areas that do require that water be treated in order to be safe for drinking, that cost may be less than the cost of re-engineering the plumbing in a house in order to use grey water for flushing a toilet. The fact of the matter is that you want to extend your limited knowledge to create a rule that everyone must live by.
it should be a crime to use drinking water to flush a toilet.
This is the type of generalization that is the problem with all central planners, including those who advocate doing so in order to "save the environment". Where I live the amount of fresh water available so far exceeds the needs of the population and the environment that the additional costs in energy and other environmental impact exceed any value gained from using "grey water" to flush toilets. Not only is the rainfall more than adequate, the landscape is such that the rain which does fall is able to soak into the ground sufficiently to replenish the ground water levels.
That is a strange definition of "right" and "left". Traditionally, the left has advocated for getting the government out of enforcing traditional moral codes, while at the same time inventing new, more intrusive moral codes which they demand the government enforce.Of course part of the problem is that most people define the poltical spectrum as going from the "ultra-right wing" fascists, who push for government control over the economy, to the "ultra-left wing" communists, who push for government control over the economy. Personally, I favor a government based on the idea that people are responsible for their own economic well-being.
You mean sort of the way Democrats like to spread a vague sense that they seek to improve the lives of minorities while following their traditions of doing everything in their power to keep them down? Of course the Democrats are much better at being two-faced than Republicans because they have managed to convince people that, despite the fact that their policies are bad for minorities, and despite the fact that most of their arguments for those policies amount to stating that minorities need whites to take care of them, they actually are attempting to improve the lot of minorities and that they believe that minorities are just as capable as whites. Further, they have managed to convince people that those who say that minorities are perfectly capable of succeeding without anybody else's help are racists who think that minorities are inferior.
You missed one "fact" and test for AGW
6)As CO2 in the atmosphere rises, temperatures will rise in some proportion to that rise. Testable? Yes Tested? Yes Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Of course that is because even thought that is testable and tested, the results of the test is that it does not actually work out that way. Observed changes in temperature do not match what any of the projections based on the theory said they should be in relation to observed changes in CO2 concentration. This suggests to any rational observer that there are some serious shortcomings in the theory that should be worked out before people start surrendering freedom in order to combat the predicted problems (especially when the result of surrendering that freedom is projected to have almost no impact on the problem it is supposed to combat).
You do know that if Canadians truly cared about Canadian artists, books, movies, etc. there would be no need for a government mandate? But they don't really care about such things, they just want to appear to care.
Piers Gaveston and Hans Hermann Von Katte were influential in the lives of the prominent men BEFORE they rose to power, and the information on Elisabeth Woodville fails to suggest that she pulled Edward the IV strings, merely that her family profited from her relationship with him causing a rift with another courtier who desired those profits for himself or his allies. in additon, Elisabeth Woodville had an ability to influence Edward IV that was not open to Cheney.
So, once again, if Dick Cheney had been at W.'s side while he was governor of Texas, it might be believable that he was pulling W.'s strings, but since Cheney did not become part of W.'s inner circle until after he was well on his way to power, it is not.
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.
Dick Cheney brought us the current mess. He set the bar. W was just his sock-puppet.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you have not read the articles from various states about politicians who have proposed introducing a mileage tax...and "oh yeah, we will do this by requiring everyone to install a GPS monitor in their cars."
The politicians are already salivating at the thought of using EVs as an excuse to track our cars all of the time, all in the name of taxing us based on miles driven. It is a bogus argument anyway since cars already have a thing called an odometer that would allow the government to tax based on miles driven.
You keep quoting most of that sentence while leaving out the key part that comes at the end ""...Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said." It does not matter how many times nor in how many articles the opinion of Paul Steier is quoted, it does not change the fact that the law does not actually say that. You appear to be basing your argument on, "They published it in the newspaper. It must be true."
I will try one more time. The article links to the relevant law. You can read that law for yourself. I did. The relevant law says that in order to sell automobiles at retail in Iowa someone must be a licensed dealer. It does not say that in order to "act as a dealer" one must be licensed. It says that in order to sell one must be licensed. So, the wording of the law does not say that someone must be licensed as a dealer in order to conduct test drives anymore than someone must be licensed as a dealer to make repairs on a car. Dealers do that as well, so that you could say "State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering to repair cars, the local mechanic was acting as a dealer." It still would not mean there was a legal requirement to be licensed as an auto dealer in order to repair cars, no matter how many times someone from the DOT said it. Read the law, it does not say what the DOT spokesman said.
That statement is the OPINION of the DOT. There is NO place in the law which states that offering test drives makes one an auto dealer. In fact, the law states that selling cars retail makes one an auto dealer. Tesla was not selling cars retail in the state.
The article could say this: "State law requires pharmacists to be licensed, and by giving George aspirin, Henry was acting as a pharmacist," but that would not necessarily make it true (even if that statement was made by a state official).
But the law never states that you must be a dealer to offer test drives. The law says that you must be a dealer to sell cars retail. The law does not say that a manufacturer may not offer test drives. So, to recap, the DOT has ruled that only licensed auto dealers may offer test drives. However, the state law does not say that it says that only licensed auto dealers may sell autos at retail.
Now I understand that progressives think that bureaucrats should be allowed to make the law say whatever they think is should say, but that is not how our system is supposed to work. There does exist an argument that supports the position taken by the DOT. However, until that argument is made in front of a theoretically impartial third party known as a judge and Tesla is allowed to make their counter-arguments it is not accurate to describe what Tesla was doing as illegal, since it does not violate the letter of the law.
Actually, it does.
FTFA:
State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer ...
Actually, that is not anywhere in the law. As I said, I read the law. The law explicitly states that in order to sell cars retail, someone must be licensed by the DOT. That sentence you quoted is the interpretation of the DOT, NOT something written in the law.
Where does the law say that they cannot offer test drives? I actually READ the law. It says that they cannot sell automobiles retail. It says nothing about test drives.
Well, his original post was that it should be illegal to use drinking water to flush toilets. I think that Barsteward just wants to force other people to live the way HE thinks they should, without actually knowing anything about the conditions which apply where they live.
First of all, my friend did NOT have a copy of the ordinance, he merely was aware of what the ordnance said. Second, Steier said that Tesla was acting as a dealer. The law at no place says that offering test drives makes one a dealer. It does not even say that offering test drives is illegal. Just because Steier says that it is illegal does NOT mean that it is illegal. It may be that a judge will agree with Steier, but until that happens it is not accurate to say that Tesla was doing something illegal. As a a matter of fact, I read the two laws and do not see any place in them where test drives are mentioned. You strike me as one of those people that believes that since the FCC is the Federal Communication Commission they have authority to regulate all forms of communication, even if Congress has passed no law giving them such authority. In this case, while the DOT has the authority to regulate automobile dealers, the law defines automobile dealers as those who offer automobiles for sale in the state. Tesla was not offering the cars for sale. They were merely offering test drives. The law does not specify that you must be a licensed dealer to offer test drives. The law specifies that you must be a licensed dealer in order to sell at retail automobiles. Whether or not Tesla was doing something illegal is up to a judge to decide, NOT up to the head of the DOT. Especially not when the law so clearly does not state that it was illegal. The only thing which dealers do which the law states that automobile manufacturers are not allowed to do is sell cars at retail in Iowa.
As the anonymous coward pointed out, most states(I believe that it is all states, but there may be exceptions) require you to pay their sales tax on a car to register it in that state. There are special exceptions if you have owned the car long enough before moving to the state in question (I believe that is typically a year, but I have not looked at that clause for some time).
Until then, Tesla has to cease and desist because what they were attempting to do is illegal, am I right?
No, you are wrong. They had to cease and desist because a bureaucrat ruled that what they were doing was illegal...even though they were not doing what the law the bureaucrat based that ruling on said was the illegal act.
I will give you an example that may help you understand. I have a friend who made some renovations to a house he bought. The township building inspector came by and said, "These renovations were illegal because you didn't get a building permit. " Your answer would be, "See, what he did was illegal because the building inspector said it was illegal." However, my friend had a copy of the township ordnance on what types of renovations required a building permit. The township ordnance explicitly stated that you only needed a building permit if you increased the number of doors and/or windows or expanded the footprint of the house. My friend had decreased the number of doors and windows as part of his renovation and did not change the footprint of the house. The fact that a bureaucrat says that something is illegal does not meant that it is illegal.
While what you are saying is probably pretty close to what the Framers of the Constitution intended, it bears no resemblance to what the courts have actually ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing wheat for consumption by livestock on his own farm was subject to regulation under the commerce clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Until the Supreme Court makes a ruling reversing that one, everything and anything is interstate commerce.
The funny thing about your comment is that the some of the strongest backers of the Jim Crow laws, at a time when most politicians were turning against them, were Al Gore, Sr (perhaps you've heard of his son?) and William Fulbright (mentor to one William Jefferson Clinton).
Perhaps where you live it does, but not where I live. It is perfectly safe to drink water out of the wells in my area with no treatment. This is exactly the problem I was referring to. You assume that everyone needs their drinking water treated before it is safe to drink. I live in an area where most of the people drink water that does not need treating in order for it to be safe to drink, but you would like to pass laws making us deal with our water as if it required treatment.
And as someone else pointed out, in some areas that do require that water be treated in order to be safe for drinking, that cost may be less than the cost of re-engineering the plumbing in a house in order to use grey water for flushing a toilet. The fact of the matter is that you want to extend your limited knowledge to create a rule that everyone must live by.
it should be a crime to use drinking water to flush a toilet.
This is the type of generalization that is the problem with all central planners, including those who advocate doing so in order to "save the environment". Where I live the amount of fresh water available so far exceeds the needs of the population and the environment that the additional costs in energy and other environmental impact exceed any value gained from using "grey water" to flush toilets. Not only is the rainfall more than adequate, the landscape is such that the rain which does fall is able to soak into the ground sufficiently to replenish the ground water levels.
That is a strange definition of "right" and "left". Traditionally, the left has advocated for getting the government out of enforcing traditional moral codes, while at the same time inventing new, more intrusive moral codes which they demand the government enforce.Of course part of the problem is that most people define the poltical spectrum as going from the "ultra-right wing" fascists, who push for government control over the economy, to the "ultra-left wing" communists, who push for government control over the economy. Personally, I favor a government based on the idea that people are responsible for their own economic well-being.
You mean sort of the way Democrats like to spread a vague sense that they seek to improve the lives of minorities while following their traditions of doing everything in their power to keep them down? Of course the Democrats are much better at being two-faced than Republicans because they have managed to convince people that, despite the fact that their policies are bad for minorities, and despite the fact that most of their arguments for those policies amount to stating that minorities need whites to take care of them, they actually are attempting to improve the lot of minorities and that they believe that minorities are just as capable as whites. Further, they have managed to convince people that those who say that minorities are perfectly capable of succeeding without anybody else's help are racists who think that minorities are inferior.
You missed one "fact" and test for AGW 6)As CO2 in the atmosphere rises, temperatures will rise in some proportion to that rise. Testable? Yes Tested? Yes Could anyone devise a test? Yes Of course that is because even thought that is testable and tested, the results of the test is that it does not actually work out that way. Observed changes in temperature do not match what any of the projections based on the theory said they should be in relation to observed changes in CO2 concentration. This suggests to any rational observer that there are some serious shortcomings in the theory that should be worked out before people start surrendering freedom in order to combat the predicted problems (especially when the result of surrendering that freedom is projected to have almost no impact on the problem it is supposed to combat).
You do know that if Canadians truly cared about Canadian artists, books, movies, etc. there would be no need for a government mandate? But they don't really care about such things, they just want to appear to care.
Piers Gaveston and Hans Hermann Von Katte were influential in the lives of the prominent men BEFORE they rose to power, and the information on Elisabeth Woodville fails to suggest that she pulled Edward the IV strings, merely that her family profited from her relationship with him causing a rift with another courtier who desired those profits for himself or his allies. in additon, Elisabeth Woodville had an ability to influence Edward IV that was not open to Cheney.
So, once again, if Dick Cheney had been at W.'s side while he was governor of Texas, it might be believable that he was pulling W.'s strings, but since Cheney did not become part of W.'s inner circle until after he was well on his way to power, it is not.
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.
Dick Cheney brought us the current mess. He set the bar. W was just his sock-puppet.
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.