"DCCARGEEK" (dccargeek)
11/15/2013 at 11:21 • Filed to: None
7
5|
"DCCARGEEK" (dccargeek)
11/15/2013 at 11:21 • Filed to: None | 7
| 5 |
Last night, during my nighttime ritual of browsing 100 year-old newspapers, I came across this classified ad in the November 13, 1913 run of the Wilston Graphic.
It appears that even 100 years ago car-crazed Americans were willing to make what sounds like a horribly bad financial decision to obtain an automobile. Trading a house for a car just sounds crazy, but then again this was 1913.
While some question the desire or ability to own an automobile in today's rollercoaster of economic ups-and-downs, this ad seems to indicate that a century ago people weren't just willing to live in substandard houses to afford nicer cars, as many (of us) do (probably) today, but that they were willing to trade their house FOR a car.
That my friends is passion.
I just hope that whatever automobile our dear friend ended up with was worth a house.
Tom McParland
> DCCARGEEK
11/15/2013 at 11:24 |
|
When my mom was much younger, was struggling, and working as a waitress somewhere in VA (long before I came along). She will always remember having a conversation with an older woman about whether or not she should pay her rent or car-payment. The older woman said in a lovely southern accent... "Honey...you can live in your car. But you can't drive your house."
She paid her car payment. :D
Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire
> DCCARGEEK
11/15/2013 at 11:26 |
|
"You can sleep in your car, but you can't drive your house, or something like that."
-Juan Manuel Fangio
For Sweden
> Tom McParland
11/15/2013 at 11:29 |
|
Can't argue with that logic. I'm going to stop paying my rent and start making payments on a Jag.
sadfasdf
> For Sweden
11/16/2013 at 06:30 |
|
You can drive your house almost as often.
MrDude_1
> For Sweden
11/19/2013 at 19:44 |
|
I cant argue with this logic.
Just be sure to get the convertible F-type.. then you can call it a tent without totally lying.