Actually, it sounds like YOU do not know what either word means. Socialism and fascism are variants on the same principle. If you study history you will discover that all fascists started out as socialists. In socialism, the government takes ownership "socially critical" industries and runs them according to what the government thinks is best. In fascism, the government leaves those industries owned by private individuals, as long as those individuals run them according to what the government tells them is best. There is no difference for the average citizen.

What you are missing is that the same logic used by the article to claim that cellphone use while driving is dangerous based on the statistics the article use applies to the data about the number of traffic accidents. The article used the fact that in 21% of accidents the driver was talking on the cellphone to conclude that talking on the cellphone caused 21% of accidents. I can use the fact that as cellphone use has increased, accidents have decreased to conclude that cellphone use reduces accidents. The fact is that in neither case are other contributing factors accounted for.

I am sorry, but there is no problem for the Republican Party to find its identity on this. The only reason you think there is is because you base your opinion of the Republican Party on what Democrats say about it.
I will admit that it is much harder for Republicans to decide their position on this than for Democrats. Republicans are, for the most part, trying to decide which side is the right side, based on their principles. Not everyone is going to agree on the answer. On the other hand, it is fairly easy for the Democrats to decide, since for them the only question is, "Which side will give us more power?"

Um, you do remember the feminists who said that a sexual relationship between a CEO and a corporate intern could NEVER be consensual who then defended Bill Clinton because his relationship with Monica Lewinski was consensual?
More importantly, you seemed to have missed the fact that Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rick Perry are all Republicans. Chris Christie has never taken an anti-regulatory stance on anything. The two Republicans who are mentioned in the article as taking Tesla's side (or at least saying that it has merit) are also the two Republicans who have taken stances in the past opposing excessive regulation. SO, when two out of the three FAIL to support the regulations which protect their "buddies", how do you conclude that Republicans want a regulatory environment that "favors their buddies"?

Actually, the third world approach is that taken by the Democratic Party, have so MANY regulations that no one can possibly be in compliance with them all, so that the only way to do business is to pay bribes.

I won't argue about your "Case 1", because, while I think it is flawed, it has a certain merit. However your "Case 2" is a pure strawman. The Republican stance has NEVER been that all regulation is bad. The Republican stance is that regulation is often bad and has often been introduced to "solve" problems created by previously existing regulations.

Rick Perry is not running for re-election and the campaign for his replacement is under way. So, he is not "under the thumb" of the National Automotive Dealers Association, since a threat fro them to contribute to his rivals is not really much of a threat. Based on previous contributions to national campaigns, Rick Perry is more interested in setting himself up for what he perceives as the stronger national position on this issue. I am pretty sure that Chris Christie is statutorily barred from seeking another term as governor of New Jersey.

I do agree that states should not have laws preventing direct sales of automobiles.

We would much rather pay the cost of having younger workers make the mistakes the older workers learned to avoid. This is the problem we see repeatedly. Younger workers buy into the "Oh look, new, shiny!" Older workers look at this "new" idea and say, "Didn't we try that 5 years ago? and 5 years before that? It didn't work either of those times either."

Yes, but as far as I know, Pielke has never claimed that others do not have standing to question his conclusions because they do not have credentials in his field. Whereas these climatologists have.

It may or may not be, but what makes climatologists people to trust on this? They are speaking outside of their area of expertise

I am sorry, but climatologists are claiming that modern structures and forecasting should reduce costs. Why? For example, the more modern structure of automobiles intentionally increases the cost of fixing an automobile involved in a crash. The design change is intended to decrease the chance of serious injury to the passengers, but it is accepted that this means that repairing the automobile will cost more.
When the climatologists make this claim, they are operating outside of their area of expertise. By doing so, they are being hypocrites, since these are the same people who have rejected much of the criticism of the theory of AGW because the people presenting it are not "climatologists".

What expertise do climatologists bring to this part of the discussion? This is not a question of climatology but of economics. The guys criticizing Pielke are out of their area of expertise on this.

Except of course for the fact that these are supposed climatology experts arguing economics. Which of course has been one of the problems with this debate all along. We have people who dismiss others' criticism of their own work because those others are not climatologists tell us what the economic and political fallout of not following their advice will be...and try to tell us to ignore what those who are experts in politics and economics say because they are not climatologists.

Absolutely, especially considering that there is some evidence that, in many cases, society would be better off if certain crimes were punished with a harsh punishment that is over quickly.

While some of the 58 donate Republican and some of the 58 split their donations, the majority spend their political money on Democrats.