penrose wrote:I like the idea of charging more for RVs. Anything you can sleep, cook and shower in pays an extra C-note. Or three. I don't care how it's justified, if people are able to spend more to be comfy, then they are willing to spend more to be comfy. Churn the extra money back into low-income ticket subsidies or something. (Disclosure: I always pay full price.)
penrose wrote:I like the idea of charging more for RVs. Anything you can sleep, cook and shower in pays an extra C-note. Or three. I don't care how it's justified, if people are able to spend more to be comfy, then they are willing to spend more to be comfy. Churn the extra money back into low-income ticket subsidies or something. (Disclosure: I always pay full price.)
penrose wrote:I like the idea of charging more for RVs. Anything you can sleep, cook and shower in pays an extra C-note. Or three. I don't care how it's justified, if people are able to spend more to be comfy, then they are willing to spend more to be comfy. Churn the extra money back into low-income ticket subsidies or something. (Disclosure: I always pay full price.)
Captain Goddammit wrote:You sound like a perfect stupid hippie!
Look asswipe, my first burn I went in a borrowed pickup truck with an old camper that had been dropped, that I patched up good enough to use. I probably had LESS money into it all than a lot of the tent campers did.
Even my current setup is all stuff I spent lots of time scrounging for deals on because I'm not some rich aristocrat.
Losers like you who have nothing entirely because you're either stupid, lazy, or both don't deserve a fucking cent extra from guys like me who probably have no more $$ than you do, we just work harder, and if we want an RV we find a way to deal/trade/fix our way into one.
Your poor-me, screw those guys who try harder attitude will keep you down. Good, stay down.
Hoolie wrote:... However, I do advocate a tent-only section somewhere within the main city, i.e. not isolated and banished to the outskirts like the walk-in section. ... I wrote BRC LLC with such a proposal a while back, but never got a response.
Bay Bridge Sue wrote:I'm not surprised you didn't get a response - because unlike VILLAGES which have proven themselves to hold to whatever theme and popularity and whatnot, where they *do* have their own rules, BRC and in particular the LLC is NOT into divvying up the city like that. At least not now.
The key phrase is INCLUSION, not EXCLUSION. I would say that's why you didn't get a response - nothing in that is meant to promote community of different people; actually, it's kinda anti-community.
Hoolie wrote:Exclusion already exists in the city. The walk-in section is doubly exclusive: vehicles are not allowed and it's isolated in the outskirts. Why not just move it into the city proper, thereby making it more inclusive? There are other restrictions too. For example, if your sound system exceeds 300 watts, out to the edge you go. Your argument would have merit if the city were a true free-for-all, but it is not. Anyway, I don't believe that's the reason I didn't get a response. Does BRC LLC really only respond to people they agree with?
Return to Politics & Philosophy
Users browsing this forum: Mrpatatomoto and 1 guest