If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by dpb on September 17, 2007, 11:32 am
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:22:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>
...
>> And some account for nearly all the burden. (Police stats, for example, find
>> 90% of calls are to 10% of the same locations, again and again.)
>
> Would you prefer that a bill be sent to those locations, exacting a
> specific charge for the call?
>
Actually, if you're simply asking about personal preference, sure I
would prefer that.
Realistically, of course, not practical...but surely would make sense
to, in essence, tax the troublemakers out of existence if it were.
--
|
|
Posted by Don Homuth on September 17, 2007, 11:38 am
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:22:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>>
>...
>>> And some account for nearly all the burden. (Police stats, for example, find
>>> 90% of calls are to 10% of the same locations, again and again.)
>>
>> Would you prefer that a bill be sent to those locations, exacting a
>> specific charge for the call?
>>
>Actually, if you're simply asking about personal preference, sure I
>would prefer that.
>
>Realistically, of course, not practical...but surely would make sense
>to, in essence, tax the troublemakers out of existence if it were.
How might it accomplish that? They'd still be troublemakers,
regardless of whether the bill were paid or not.
Which is why it would make No sense to do it.
Theoretical considerations don't really matter, save to Libertoonians
et al, who prefer to live in their own self-constructed Hypothetical
Universe, where they and Only they get to reify their own personal
preferences into public policies.
Which is not how a representative republic works, is it?
|
|
Posted by Matt Barrow on September 17, 2007, 11:50 am
"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:22:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>>>
>>...
>>>> And some account for nearly all the burden. (Police stats, for example,
>>>> find
>>>> 90% of calls are to 10% of the same locations, again and again.)
>>>
>>> Would you prefer that a bill be sent to those locations, exacting a
>>> specific charge for the call?
>>>
>>Actually, if you're simply asking about personal preference, sure I
>>would prefer that.
>>
>>Realistically, of course, not practical...but surely would make sense
>>to, in essence, tax the troublemakers out of existence if it were.
>
> How might it accomplish that? They'd still be troublemakers,
> regardless of whether the bill were paid or not.
>
> Which is why it would make No sense to do it.
>
> Theoretical considerations don't really matter,
Geez...how do you think our governement was structured?
> save to Libertoonians
> et al, who prefer to live in their own self-constructed Hypothetical
> Universe, where they and Only they get to reify their own personal
> preferences into public policies.
>
> Which is not how a representative republic works, is it?
Which his how a limited constitution republic works.
If you're going to shoot you mouth off, at least know what the hell you're
talking about.
|
|
Posted by Don Homuth on September 17, 2007, 12:07 pm
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:50:02 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>Don Homuth wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:22:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>>>>
>>>...
>>>>> And some account for nearly all the burden. (Police stats, for example,
>>>>> find
>>>>> 90% of calls are to 10% of the same locations, again and again.)
>>>>
>>>> Would you prefer that a bill be sent to those locations, exacting a
>>>> specific charge for the call?
>>>>
>>>Actually, if you're simply asking about personal preference, sure I
>>>would prefer that.
>>>
>>>Realistically, of course, not practical...but surely would make sense
>>>to, in essence, tax the troublemakers out of existence if it were.
>>
>> How might it accomplish that? They'd still be troublemakers,
>> regardless of whether the bill were paid or not.
>>
>> Which is why it would make No sense to do it.
>>
>> Theoretical considerations don't really matter,
>
>Geez...how do you think our governement was structured?
What about it would you like to discuss wrt structuring?
>> save to Libertoonians
>> et al, who prefer to live in their own self-constructed Hypothetical
>> Universe, where they and Only they get to reify their own personal
>> preferences into public policies.
>>
>> Which is not how a representative republic works, is it?
>
>Which his how a limited constitution republic works.
No -- such an entity work the way The Voters want it to.
>If you're going to shoot you mouth off, at least know what the hell you're
>talking about.
Not a problem. Now...what would you like actually to discuss, rather
than simply ranting?
|
|
Posted by The poster last in PDX in 2003 on September 17, 2007, 12:18 pm
wrote:
> "Don Homuth" <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Don Homuth wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:22:19 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>
> >>...
> >>>> And some account for nearly all the burden. (Police stats, for example,
> >>>> find
> >>>> 90% of calls are to 10% of the same locations, again and again.)
>
> >>> Would you prefer that a bill be sent to those locations, exacting a
> >>> specific charge for the call?
>
> >>Actually, if you're simply asking about personal preference, sure I
> >>would prefer that.
>
> >>Realistically, of course, not practical...but surely would make sense
> >>to, in essence, tax the troublemakers out of existence if it were.
>
> > How might it accomplish that? They'd still be troublemakers,
> > regardless of whether the bill were paid or not.
>
> > Which is why it would make No sense to do it.
>
> > Theoretical considerations don't really matter,
>
> Geez...how do you think our governement was structured?
>
> > save to Libertoonians
> > et al, who prefer to live in their own self-constructed Hypothetical
> > Universe, where they and Only they get to reify their own personal
> > preferences into public policies.
>
> > Which is not how a representative republic works, is it?
>
> Which his how a limited constitution republic works.
>
> If you're going to shoot you mouth off, at least know what the hell you're
> talking about.
Baxter and Johnson, no doubt.
|
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | UBuildIt Portland, Oregon | April 29, 2007, 4:06 pm |
| construction | July 15, 2007, 7:04 am |
| Cost of New Construction | August 8, 2006, 7:37 am |
| windowsill construction | September 2, 2006, 11:16 am |
| watching construction via the net? | September 27, 2006, 12:31 pm |
| aluminum for construction | October 16, 2006, 10:11 pm |
| Taxes and construction | October 19, 2006, 4:21 pm |
| roof construction | December 5, 2006, 3:43 pm |
| Question on construction | January 19, 2007, 6:06 pm |
| Construction Contracts | January 24, 2007, 5:52 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap