Clint:

I already DO pay taxes for the miles that I drive in the form of gasoline
taxes, which account for probably about 1/3 of the price of a gallon of gas
that I pay now.

I hope you are not advocating another form of taxation on top of the
LITERALLY hundreds of different kinds of taxation that you and I already
pay.

Tom

"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:udBkh.535479$R63.113596@pd7urf1no...
> Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles you
> drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to someone
who
> doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be charged/convicted based
> on your actions in a collision, rather than relying on your perhaps
> faulty/dishonest recollection of split second timing months later?
>
> Clint
>

 

Clint:

I already DO pay taxes for the miles that I drive in the form of gasoline
taxes, which account for probably about 1/3 of the price of a gallon of gas
that I pay now.

I hope you are not advocating another form of taxation on top of the
LITERALLY hundreds of different kinds of taxation that you and I already
pay.

Tom

"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:udBkh.535479$R63.113596@pd7urf1no...
> Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles you
> drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to someone
who
> doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be charged/convicted based
> on your actions in a collision, rather than relying on your perhaps
> faulty/dishonest recollection of split second timing months later?
>
> Clint
>

 

Clint:

I already DO pay taxes for the miles that I drive in the form of gasoline
taxes, which account for probably about 1/3 of the price of a gallon of gas
that I pay now.

I hope you are not advocating another form of taxation on top of the
LITERALLY hundreds of different kinds of taxation that you and I already
pay.

Tom

"Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:udBkh.535479$R63.113596@pd7urf1no...
> Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles you
> drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to someone
who
> doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be charged/convicted based
> on your actions in a collision, rather than relying on your perhaps
> faulty/dishonest recollection of split second timing months later?
>
> Clint
>

 

You talk about taxation like it is a bad thing. At least we have "taxation
with representation" now. Somehow, it still tastes and smells the same,
huh?

Earle

"mabar" <xyzz4569@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:4592cfda_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Clint:
>
> I already DO pay taxes for the miles that I drive in the form of gasoline
> taxes, which account for probably about 1/3 of the price of a gallon of
gas
> that I pay now.
>
> I hope you are not advocating another form of taxation on top of the
> LITERALLY hundreds of different kinds of taxation that you and I already
> pay.
>
> Tom
>
> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:udBkh.535479$R63.113596@pd7urf1no...
> > Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles
you
> > drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to someone
> who
> > doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be charged/convicted
based
> > on your actions in a collision, rather than relying on your perhaps
> > faulty/dishonest recollection of split second timing months later?
> >
> > Clint
> >
>
>

 

You talk about taxation like it is a bad thing. At least we have "taxation
with representation" now. Somehow, it still tastes and smells the same,
huh?

Earle

"mabar" <xyzz4569@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:4592cfda_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Clint:
>
> I already DO pay taxes for the miles that I drive in the form of gasoline
> taxes, which account for probably about 1/3 of the price of a gallon of
gas
> that I pay now.
>
> I hope you are not advocating another form of taxation on top of the
> LITERALLY hundreds of different kinds of taxation that you and I already
> pay.
>
> Tom
>
> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:udBkh.535479$R63.113596@pd7urf1no...
> > Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles
you
> > drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to someone
> who
> > doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be charged/convicted
based
> > on your actions in a collision, rather than relying on your perhaps
> > faulty/dishonest recollection of split second timing months later?
> >
> > Clint
> >
>
>

 

You talk about taxation like it is a bad thing. At least we have "taxation
with representation" now. Somehow, it still tastes and smells the same,
huh?

Earle

"mabar" <xyzz4569@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:4592cfda_4@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Clint:
>
> I already DO pay taxes for the miles that I drive in the form of gasoline
> taxes, which account for probably about 1/3 of the price of a gallon of
gas
> that I pay now.
>
> I hope you are not advocating another form of taxation on top of the
> LITERALLY hundreds of different kinds of taxation that you and I already
> pay.
>
> Tom
>
> "Clint" <cneufeld@mysocks.shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:udBkh.535479$R63.113596@pd7urf1no...
> > Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles
you
> > drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to someone
> who
> > doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be charged/convicted
based
> > on your actions in a collision, rather than relying on your perhaps
> > faulty/dishonest recollection of split second timing months later?
> >
> > Clint
> >
>
>

 

Presumably the federal tax on gasoline meets the purpose, although in
the case of Jeeps, there is an aerodynamic "brick tax" extra slight
penalty.

Clint proclaimed:

> Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles
> you drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to
> someone who doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be
> charged/convicted based on your actions in a collision, rather than
> relying on your perhaps faulty/dishonest recollection of split second
> timing months later?
>
> Clint
>
> "mabar" <xyzz4569@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:458fb832_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>> The limited information and the limited ways the "black boxes" are now
>> used
>> are just the beginning. I can easily foresee a future where the "black
>> box"
>> is used for all kinds of more government regulations, controls, and
>> limitations on everybody's life.
>>
>> Extra taxation for miles driven, roads that I drive on, lanes that I
>> drive
>> on, where I have been, what time of day or night, and many other
>> limitations, taxations and controls on my life that I am not even able to
>> imagine at this time.
>>
>> For those who think that this is paranoid thinking, please read George
>> Orwell's book, 1984, or Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. I realize
>> that both
>> of these books are fiction, but much of this "fiction" is already
>> happening
>> and will happen in the near future.
>>
>> Just look at all the new controls, regulations, taxations, and
>> limitations
>> on personal freedoms that governments have instituted in the last 10,
>> 20 or
>> 30 years to get an idea of some of the ways "black boxes" might be
>> used in
>> the future. For all you smokers (I don't smoke,) how long will it be
>> before
>> smoking in your own vehicle is outlawed and the "black box" will not
>> allow
>> your vehicle to start if tobacco smoke is detected?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> >bllsht wrote:
>>> >> Just make sure you wear your foil hat at night and you'll be fine.
>>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

Presumably the federal tax on gasoline meets the purpose, although in
the case of Jeeps, there is an aerodynamic "brick tax" extra slight
penalty.

Clint proclaimed:

> Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles
> you drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to
> someone who doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be
> charged/convicted based on your actions in a collision, rather than
> relying on your perhaps faulty/dishonest recollection of split second
> timing months later?
>
> Clint
>
> "mabar" <xyzz4569@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:458fb832_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>> The limited information and the limited ways the "black boxes" are now
>> used
>> are just the beginning. I can easily foresee a future where the "black
>> box"
>> is used for all kinds of more government regulations, controls, and
>> limitations on everybody's life.
>>
>> Extra taxation for miles driven, roads that I drive on, lanes that I
>> drive
>> on, where I have been, what time of day or night, and many other
>> limitations, taxations and controls on my life that I am not even able to
>> imagine at this time.
>>
>> For those who think that this is paranoid thinking, please read George
>> Orwell's book, 1984, or Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. I realize
>> that both
>> of these books are fiction, but much of this "fiction" is already
>> happening
>> and will happen in the near future.
>>
>> Just look at all the new controls, regulations, taxations, and
>> limitations
>> on personal freedoms that governments have instituted in the last 10,
>> 20 or
>> 30 years to get an idea of some of the ways "black boxes" might be
>> used in
>> the future. For all you smokers (I don't smoke,) how long will it be
>> before
>> smoking in your own vehicle is outlawed and the "black box" will not
>> allow
>> your vehicle to start if tobacco smoke is detected?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> >bllsht wrote:
>>> >> Just make sure you wear your foil hat at night and you'll be fine.
>>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

Presumably the federal tax on gasoline meets the purpose, although in
the case of Jeeps, there is an aerodynamic "brick tax" extra slight
penalty.

Clint proclaimed:

> Foolish question, but why shouldn't you pay extra taxes for the miles
> you drive (to pay your share of the road repairs), when compared to
> someone who doesn't drive as many miles? Why shouldn't you be
> charged/convicted based on your actions in a collision, rather than
> relying on your perhaps faulty/dishonest recollection of split second
> timing months later?
>
> Clint
>
> "mabar" <xyzz4569@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:458fb832_1@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
>> The limited information and the limited ways the "black boxes" are now
>> used
>> are just the beginning. I can easily foresee a future where the "black
>> box"
>> is used for all kinds of more government regulations, controls, and
>> limitations on everybody's life.
>>
>> Extra taxation for miles driven, roads that I drive on, lanes that I
>> drive
>> on, where I have been, what time of day or night, and many other
>> limitations, taxations and controls on my life that I am not even able to
>> imagine at this time.
>>
>> For those who think that this is paranoid thinking, please read George
>> Orwell's book, 1984, or Ayn Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged. I realize
>> that both
>> of these books are fiction, but much of this "fiction" is already
>> happening
>> and will happen in the near future.
>>
>> Just look at all the new controls, regulations, taxations, and
>> limitations
>> on personal freedoms that governments have instituted in the last 10,
>> 20 or
>> 30 years to get an idea of some of the ways "black boxes" might be
>> used in
>> the future. For all you smokers (I don't smoke,) how long will it be
>> before
>> smoking in your own vehicle is outlawed and the "black box" will not
>> allow
>> your vehicle to start if tobacco smoke is detected?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>> >bllsht wrote:
>>> >> Just make sure you wear your foil hat at night and you'll be fine.
>>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

What really surprised me about the message string is as follows and
shows something about the brain cells of the majority (but not all) of
those who responded:
The premise is that we already know from credible reports that (a) some
manufacturers have installed the boxes, and (b) not all manufacturers
have clearly told their purchasers about them, (c) only later models
have them, and (d) the devices gather data about at least the last
X-time-period before a given accident.

The question was, Do those specific vehicles have those boxes?

The majority response was, (a) It is paranoid to ask, (b) Asking
implies you are doing something wrong.

In fact, the question was a request for facts, not for ill-thought out
moralizing. In addition, the question is neutral: You want to know just
as badly if there is a box whether you drove the Wrangler or Cherokee
in question or you got hit by one. To say, something like a few posters
have said in effect: "We know it may exist, we know therefore that
someone else thinks the information is worth gathering, but we think it
would be paranoid to ask about it, and in all cases we don't want to
know WHETHER the information is available, never mind what it is" seems
just nuts.

It's the equivalent of the knee jerk response to various efforts to
limit individual rights, i.e., the statement goes, "If you didn't do
nothin' wrong, you don't care if they search your trailer" etc. If you
think about it, you need to care because the same statement could be
made in a totalitarian state and be as equally valid as in a state with
a Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights, EU Convention, etc.

So, if we could cut the "bllsht" and get a real answer, that might be
something!!


doylexus@yahoo.com wrote:
> I am wondering if a 2000 wrangler or 1996 Cherokee would have them (and
> whether they can be turned off). Just read a story saying that the
> auto's manual won't tell you if you have them, but that basically any
> car with an airbag does have them.