Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Red Buhl Should Not Give You Wings:
RED BUHL SHOULD NOT GIVE YOU WINGS:
I can't be everywhere or know everything. Of the many stupid pictures spreading around Facebook, one of them is of a young man with one hand on his nose & mouth with the other hand on a gun. The gun is pointed to where his brain would be located. With no free hands to take the picture, anything could be possible:
He took the picture alone, which means:
1. This picture was taken from a sophisticated camera.
2. This picture is a still image from a webcam.
3. This picture is originally from a camcorder video.
OR
This picture was taken by somebody else, which means this entire thing is a publicity stunt.
These pictures are shared online by losers with too much free time, and are always posting scams on facebook. The titles of the shared pictures say: "R.I.P. Freddy E. Click Here to watch the tragic video http://bit.ly/$c@mmyL!nK".
Every ho that sees this picture has commented with sympathy. Bible thumpers everywhere believe "he is in a better place".
Apparently "Freddy E." is Frederick Eugene Buhl, approximate aged 22, and had a future of potential. He appeared to be in perfect physical health save for obvious neuron imbalance in his head. (or perhaps he was abused as a child) About half of his pictures I found he appears to be extremely sensetive, and even tearful. He also published videos. He was an entertainer on YouTube and many people loved him.
But what is shocking is now he is MORE popular and people love him even MORE. They are loving some dead guy, if he is even dead. So let's assume he is dead: How did he die? Did he die a hero? I mean, did he die rescuing stranded people from a burning building?! Did he evacuate people trapped in a flood?! NO! His life ended with dishonor and he needs to be forgotten.
Of all the trends there are, the "social suicide" is the worst one. Some people will do anything for attention including faking their death, or perhaps actually killing themselves.
I don't think Freddy is going to be remembered for his videos. He is going to be remembered for his "beautiful" death.
Freddy E.'s DEATH is going to be remembered: with sympathy, AND with SUPPORT. The supporters act like it is okay to kill yourself (AND PUBLISH IT ON THE INTERNET). As a result, people will think it okay to do the same, so they can become the next Freddy E.
The most believed motive behind Buhl's suicide was because of a relationship with a girl "Honey Cocaine". What is even more shocking than this fact is NOW EVERYBODY ELSE MAY CONSIDER SUICIDE WHENEVER THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR "RELATIONSHIPS". (and just when I thought their behavior couldn't possibly get any more annoying)
My personal opinion of Freddy:
Had I known him when he was still alive, I might have enjoyed his videos. Whenever he was upset I could have given him a hug and been there for him. Perhaps I could have been a great friend. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE SURE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND ANY BULLETS, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE DID.
BUT SINCE HE FELT LIKE ANNOUNCING: "Hey, World! I want to kill myself! 1 Like = 1 Prayer!"
INSTEAD, I have this urge to bully him. I would still keep him away from any bullets as a torture method.
He has a very soft, squishy personality that makes a pansy look like a cactus.
Because of this I think I could beat him up over and over again. And all he'd do would be cry, point a gun ... to his head ... and post a picture.
And because I'd have kept bullets out of his reach, HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KILL HIMSELF!
I'd have tied him up, and mocked to him "HAH HAH! YOU CAN'T KILL YOURSELF!"
and he'd be forced to sit there and cry and let me torture him again and again and again.
No matter how much he'd point that gun to his head, he would not be able to shoot.
Shame on him for thinking suicide is an acceptable answer. Shame on the others for not stopping him. Shame on the others that support his suicide. AND SHAME ON THE "R.I.P. FREDDY E." CON ARTISTS WHO ARE POSTING THE PICTURE.
Freddy E. must be forgotten before this Social Suicide trend catches on even more.
I can't be everywhere or know everything. Of the many stupid pictures spreading around Facebook, one of them is of a young man with one hand on his nose & mouth with the other hand on a gun. The gun is pointed to where his brain would be located. With no free hands to take the picture, anything could be possible:
He took the picture alone, which means:
1. This picture was taken from a sophisticated camera.
2. This picture is a still image from a webcam.
3. This picture is originally from a camcorder video.
OR
This picture was taken by somebody else, which means this entire thing is a publicity stunt.
These pictures are shared online by losers with too much free time, and are always posting scams on facebook. The titles of the shared pictures say: "R.I.P. Freddy E. Click Here to watch the tragic video http://bit.ly/$c@mmyL!nK".
Every ho that sees this picture has commented with sympathy. Bible thumpers everywhere believe "he is in a better place".
Apparently "Freddy E." is Frederick Eugene Buhl, approximate aged 22, and had a future of potential. He appeared to be in perfect physical health save for obvious neuron imbalance in his head. (or perhaps he was abused as a child) About half of his pictures I found he appears to be extremely sensetive, and even tearful. He also published videos. He was an entertainer on YouTube and many people loved him.
But what is shocking is now he is MORE popular and people love him even MORE. They are loving some dead guy, if he is even dead. So let's assume he is dead: How did he die? Did he die a hero? I mean, did he die rescuing stranded people from a burning building?! Did he evacuate people trapped in a flood?! NO! His life ended with dishonor and he needs to be forgotten.
Of all the trends there are, the "social suicide" is the worst one. Some people will do anything for attention including faking their death, or perhaps actually killing themselves.
I don't think Freddy is going to be remembered for his videos. He is going to be remembered for his "beautiful" death.
Freddy E.'s DEATH is going to be remembered: with sympathy, AND with SUPPORT. The supporters act like it is okay to kill yourself (AND PUBLISH IT ON THE INTERNET). As a result, people will think it okay to do the same, so they can become the next Freddy E.
The most believed motive behind Buhl's suicide was because of a relationship with a girl "Honey Cocaine". What is even more shocking than this fact is NOW EVERYBODY ELSE MAY CONSIDER SUICIDE WHENEVER THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR "RELATIONSHIPS". (and just when I thought their behavior couldn't possibly get any more annoying)
My personal opinion of Freddy:
Had I known him when he was still alive, I might have enjoyed his videos. Whenever he was upset I could have given him a hug and been there for him. Perhaps I could have been a great friend. AND I CERTAINLY WOULD MAKE SURE HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIND ANY BULLETS, WHICH WOULD BE MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE DID.
BUT SINCE HE FELT LIKE ANNOUNCING: "Hey, World! I want to kill myself! 1 Like = 1 Prayer!"
INSTEAD, I have this urge to bully him. I would still keep him away from any bullets as a torture method.
He has a very soft, squishy personality that makes a pansy look like a cactus.
Because of this I think I could beat him up over and over again. And all he'd do would be cry, point a gun ... to his head ... and post a picture.
And because I'd have kept bullets out of his reach, HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO KILL HIMSELF!
I'd have tied him up, and mocked to him "HAH HAH! YOU CAN'T KILL YOURSELF!"
and he'd be forced to sit there and cry and let me torture him again and again and again.
No matter how much he'd point that gun to his head, he would not be able to shoot.
Shame on him for thinking suicide is an acceptable answer. Shame on the others for not stopping him. Shame on the others that support his suicide. AND SHAME ON THE "R.I.P. FREDDY E." CON ARTISTS WHO ARE POSTING THE PICTURE.
Freddy E. must be forgotten before this Social Suicide trend catches on even more.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Fake Reasons Given Regarding Tucked In Shirts
I am going to share with everybody information about all the schools that have a dress code requiring students to have their shirts tucked in at all times because everybody in the world has to grow into respectable pot-smoking adults that are well dressed and have their shirts tucked in at school, at work, and even while they are showering.
Many school districts do not accept transfers from other school districts. In other words, you must attend school in your own school district. Perhaps this information will help you decide where you should not move to. The area economy would be impacted and the rules would be changed. This is very unlikely, but if any schools do revise their dress code to not make it required to tuck in shirts, then they can let me know and I will delete their name.
I will be updating this information often, but not all at once. I will constantly check for dress code policy revisions for schools.
One of the arguments in forcing students to tuck in shirts is because they can carry weapons in their pants and that concealed weaons might be more noticeable if their shirts are not covering their pants.
Also, they say that it will reduce disciplinary infractions and provide a better learning environment.
Oh REALLY?!
http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/dress-code-causing-problems-at-woodland-hills-high/nGmKm/
This argument is wrong for many reasons.
= It is not the tucked in shirts that is the problem, it is baggy clothes.
= It is extremely unlikely that a student will stuff their pants with every weapon possible.
= It is extremely unlikely that a student will be able to walk effictively.
= Students could still conceal weapons in their pants with their shirt tucked in.
= Students could still carry weapons concealed in backpacks or disguised as books or computers.
= It is almost never that students shove every weapon possible down their pants. I don't think that this is a world record challenge. Students are much more likely to carry wallets in their pants. This was not demonstrated in the youtube video. Students also are likely to carry non-approved mobile devices in their pants. There were none in the video.
= Students can still carry weapons in their SHOES. What are schools to do now? Force students into wearing smaller shoes, even ones so small it could break their toes?!
= Don't ban Flip Flops, Crocs, etc. either. Because these types of shoes are obviously more difficult to hide weapons and drugs. (and students refusing to show their toes could be injecting drugs)
= A snug, untucked shirt doesn't necessarily cover up their pants.
The decision is wrong, and it being wrong is a fact. This fact is not up for debate.
Popular Culture examples:
James Bond has no problems with weapons, and he is usually wearing formal clothing, not much different from a stereotypical school uniform.
Schools should focus on health education as a science class, instead of "Forensics". Some teachers go as far as showing CSI episodes because of its setting. But at the same time, CSI teaches all viewers how to kill.
What schools SHOULD do:
Worry about their education. Teach them facts, not opinions.
Enforce snug-fitting clothes. Make sure air conditoning is working properly, as snug-fitting clothes cannot be worn in hot temperatures. Snug-fitting clothes would make it much more difficult to conceal weapons and drugs.
Install "Airport Security" in schools. Surprisingly, Airports do not force everybody into tucking their shirts. All school personnel should be trained into knowing how to operate scanning devices for weapons. Students must be scanned before enering the campus. They need to get more drug dogs.
AND if school personnel are unable to notice a stiff-walking student with weapons stuffed down their pants, these personnel must be terminated effective immediately.
The YouTube Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9FF3LQlhBs
The schools enforcing students to tuck in shirts. Students attending these schools: You must follow this dress OPINION, or they won't provide you any education at all and will send you home.
Churchill, Pennsylvania 15235
Gainesville, Texas 76241
Fort Worth, Texas 76101
More information will be added later.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
I am going to start updating this again,
because people are being very stupid and are getting stupider.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
"One Car Family":
Ditch that second car?! How about ditching the idea of becoming The One Car Family?!
Why would any family of morons ditch their second car?!
Much of this is Liberal politics.
Having too many cars pollutes the earth. So carpool as much as possible. Right?!
And also your old cars pollutes a lot. So buy new hybrid vehicles instead.
Another excuse to become a one car family is they think they can't afford two cars. THAT IS NOT TRUE. ......unless you buy NEW cars, especially Hybrids.
I have seen the State Farm Insurance commercial of the couple, with the woman saying "We have chosen to be a one car family." with the man nodding. A few other people say other things like "We eat hamburger instead of steak" and "I live with my parents." and also "I budgeted my budget." I agree with the last one, and certainly NOT the first one.
State Farm Insurance implies that having insurance policies with their company is much better ways to save money.
And then I Googled "One Car Family", with a suggestion to search for "becoming a one car family"
and then I had to come back to Blog Spot earlier than I had planned to complain about this nonsense.
Don't follow the crowd, and a trend that is popular is becoming a one car family.
I am going to point out that families commonly having two cars has NOT been around for a long time!! While two cars are present in the 1983 motion picture, "National Lampoon's Vacation", the movie Poltergeist II is different. There is a one car garage, and only one car. The wife, a housewife (unemployed in my opinion), does not drive...at least I have never seen her drive that vehicle. This movie series was released in the 1980s.
Shortly afterwards, The Simpsons aired for the first time. I have not watched The Simpsons until 2008 and onwards, so I don't know how long that Homer has had that pink car and Marge has had that red wagon. They both have cars. The husband and father, & the wife and mother. They are not a one car family.
King Of The Hill, a series that has not enjoyed a span as long as The Simpsons because King Of The Hill has been canceled, has characters in which every person that is able to drive is able to get their own vehicle. The only one car family is Kahn and Minh. However, they have had four cars... even though not one time that I know of have I ever seen two of their cars at the same time. The main vehicle seen is a large dark blue van that resembles a Toyota Town Ace and also Ford E-Series. Kahn also drives a silver car to work, but this is seen in one episode before it gets "traded in" for a Chevrolet El Camino. The last car, never seen, is a Ferrari. Kahn brags about it, saying that his neighbors don't keep a Ferrari in the garage. What about the main characters, Hank and Peggy Hill? They both have their own vehicles. Hank drives what resembles a Ford Ranger extended cab or whatever, and Peggy drives what resembles a Pontiac Bonneville...at least until she trades it in for something similar to what Nancy drives. And what do THEY drive? Dale Gribble drives a "Bug-A-Bago", which is actually a Chrysler type of mini-van. Nancy drives...something. I don't know what type of car that is. Bill drives a Ford Escort, and in one episode has a truck but it gets stolen. Boomhauer, (yes, I can't spell) has a classic car. Luanne has a Hyundai Accent, and Lucky has a monster truck. All of the main characters have their own car. The only one not explained on screen is Kahn and Minh. At the beginning of the series, they have one car with Minh being a housewife. Later, she mentions having her own car, but it was never explained what car she was talking about and it could have simply been that blue van. (Also she becomes an investor towards the end of the series)
It is very dumb for the convenience of two cars and the two car family to go away because of "The Economy", "The Environment", and "Gas Prices".
The possibility of having to share a car is one reason for me to fear entering a romantic relationship. I am not giving up ANYTHING. And I INSIST that my spouse would not either. Also, in my opinion, "a housewife", and "a stay at home mom", are the same thing as being unemployed. Everybody needs to get a job. It is different if there is nobody hiring, but everybody should get a job, even if it is a dumb job. It should not matter. Because you get paid!!
The woman (and in modern times: one of the two men, one of two women, one of the the transgendered, and a few members of the polygamists colonies)
I am mentioning that so I don't offend any of these people.
ANYWAYS,
The woman, is usually the one that rides in the passenger seat. And rarely drives. The husband is VERY dominant (another reason to not enter a relationship, even since I am a man that would make me the husband but I don't care I don't like either person in the relationship to dominate) and might even forbid the wife to drive. Sometimes, such as in the TV version of Vinegar Hill, there is one car but both of them drive. But as far as I know, One Car Families were around everywhere in the 1950s and earlier.
The Flintstones: There is an enormous continuity error with the Flintstones TV show source of transportation. The Flintstones aired beginning in the 1960s, and the person with the "car" is Fred Flintstones. Wilma does not have a car. Perhaps it is because Fred has giant feet, which is useful to start the "cars" during the stone ages. The Rubbles don't have a car ... usually. However, at least one time they have TWO cars. Barney has a purple car with a roof on it, and there is a dark blue car made out of wood (resembling a pencil) and it does not have a roof either. Betty and Wilma appear to share that car. Perhaps you remember this episode, in which the car gets a "flat". In the earlier episodes of The Flintstones, where Wilma and Betty are bossier than usual, have yet another completely different car. Wilma and Betty drive it together, despite their small feet. But does any of this really matter? Before there were motorcars, automobiles, or "horseless carriages", other animals such as HORSES pulled the cars. I REALLY doubt that the people that lived many aeons ago ever used their feet to start their cars.
The Jetsons: Not much to pay attention to. It was on in 1962, and then it returned in the 1980s. Everybody seems to have their own car: George, Jane, and Judy. I am not sure if Rosie would need her own car because surely she has the capability to fly. Actually, because of jet packs seen in The Jetsons, transportation is not a problem at all.
Wait Till Your Father Gets Home: More than one driver... actually more than two... and there is one car and a one car garage. I have not seen this series in a while, but I think they always have one car.
The Brady Bunch: Here is an example!! Sort of... There are two cars. However, there is more than one than driver and more than two drivers. There is Mr. Brady (sorry I forgot his name) and Carol Brady, and Alice. And then the children grow and are old enough to drive.
The Andy Griffith Show: I probably did not spell that Correctly. But this series evolved a lot. One example is very obvious: the last 3 seasons were filmed in color. And another example (one that is to the point of this blog post) is "Ain't Bee" who does not drive but in one episode gets her own car and learns to drive it. Notice that she learned to drive a manual transmission, a very useful skill. Later, she also becomes a pilot.
If you can pull off "The One Car Family" and not worry about one person taking over the one car while leaving you stranded, go for it. Actually, don't!!
But there are still other reasons not to become a A One Car Family and there are alternatives.
If you are in an urban area, where public transit is everywhere (even to the point of where you are able to get to work every day), then you could be okay with one car. You might be fine with ZERO cars! And if you need to move anything that you can't take on a Bus or Taxi cab, then you should get a Moving Van. Unfortunately, if you need to get something too big for public transit and too small for most moving vans, then you are helplessly hopeless. Hopelessly helpless. Whatever.
And if you needed or wanted to travel, you could drive a motorhome. Whether you consider them a small house or a giant car, they are useful in travelling long distances (by land... You would need the assistance of a boat if you needed to cross an ocean). You could even have a motorhome as the only source of transportation. If you wanted to save on fuel expenses, you could supplement with motorcycles. Or ... if you were in an urban area, you could commute on a transit service.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN A DENSE URBAN AREA, then you should NOT become a One Car Family. EVER. Especially if you live outside of city limits.
You should never be left stranded at home, or anywhere else. Perhaps if only one person works and the other person has to take care of the children (usually infants since they require lots of care and having a job would be difficult during that time) then whoever stays at home can drive the other person to and from work.
Here is an idea: if you cannot afford two cars, you should not have children because you won't be able to afford to care for your children!!
Couples... Men that dominate over their women and forbid them to drive "The Car" and they are practically locked up in their house .... really bother me.
Also families that don't have anything better to do but have children and don't take care of their responsibilities in caring (and financially supporting) their young children and yet their family keeps expanding ......also bother me.
A lot.
Haven't you idiot One Car Families thought about buying OLDER cars?! What is referred to as "clunkers"?! In some areas, and perhaps everywhere in the future (BUT I HOPE NOT) you cannot have a car older than 10 years old for example and that leaves you with little choice but to buy newer (and more expensive) cars but if this is not an issue (AND HOPEFULLY IT ISN'T) then you really need to buy older cars. Or perhaps one older car and one newer car. For whatever reason, older cars decrease in sale price. And what about having a BORING car???????? Get a luxury vehicle, since they have always had all those features (except for MP3 and GPS which are both newer technologies) but be careful since many luxury vehicles have V8 engines. As for the cost in buying an older car, it is not be a problem to be a two car family.
EVERYBODY that can drive a car (carefully) should have their own vehicle. You should never depend on anybody else, just in case. ...pun not intended. AND every person should have TWO cars. And perhaps two cars and two RVs. each. and also their own computers. EVERYBODY should have their own EVERYTHING. And at least two of each.
How much money are you saving by being a one car family?!
Not much. If your cars are completely paid for, AND if you are both good drivers, then your insurance should not cost very much at all. And what about saving on fuel and repair costs???????
THINK ABOUT THIS:
What you numb skulls are doing by being a one car family is using this one car TWICE as much, meaning you aren't saving much (if anything) in fuel costs, and tires, and other repairs. AND you'd be wearing out this one car much sooner than if you have two cars.
The only noticeable difference is vehicle registration costs... all the taxes on an extra vehicle. BIG DEAL.
The ONE CAR FAMILY... what a dumb idea. it hasn't been that long since people started getting and keeping their own vehicles, and the two car garage became common in houses. and now it looks like this convenience is going to go away because of insignificant reasons.
Find other ways to save money. Cut back on travel and vacations. And also shop in off brands, in bulk. Or perhaps you should find lots of coupons. And perhaps you should quit buying alcoholic beverages and cigarettes.
There ARE other solutions. THINK about them.
Originally posted at http://nap2000.blogspot.com/ Saturday, March 27, 2010 09:29PM
Why would any family of morons ditch their second car?!
Much of this is Liberal politics.
Having too many cars pollutes the earth. So carpool as much as possible. Right?!
And also your old cars pollutes a lot. So buy new hybrid vehicles instead.
Another excuse to become a one car family is they think they can't afford two cars. THAT IS NOT TRUE. ......unless you buy NEW cars, especially Hybrids.
I have seen the State Farm Insurance commercial of the couple, with the woman saying "We have chosen to be a one car family." with the man nodding. A few other people say other things like "We eat hamburger instead of steak" and "I live with my parents." and also "I budgeted my budget." I agree with the last one, and certainly NOT the first one.
State Farm Insurance implies that having insurance policies with their company is much better ways to save money.
And then I Googled "One Car Family", with a suggestion to search for "becoming a one car family"
and then I had to come back to Blog Spot earlier than I had planned to complain about this nonsense.
Don't follow the crowd, and a trend that is popular is becoming a one car family.
I am going to point out that families commonly having two cars has NOT been around for a long time!! While two cars are present in the 1983 motion picture, "National Lampoon's Vacation", the movie Poltergeist II is different. There is a one car garage, and only one car. The wife, a housewife (unemployed in my opinion), does not drive...at least I have never seen her drive that vehicle. This movie series was released in the 1980s.
Shortly afterwards, The Simpsons aired for the first time. I have not watched The Simpsons until 2008 and onwards, so I don't know how long that Homer has had that pink car and Marge has had that red wagon. They both have cars. The husband and father, & the wife and mother. They are not a one car family.
King Of The Hill, a series that has not enjoyed a span as long as The Simpsons because King Of The Hill has been canceled, has characters in which every person that is able to drive is able to get their own vehicle. The only one car family is Kahn and Minh. However, they have had four cars... even though not one time that I know of have I ever seen two of their cars at the same time. The main vehicle seen is a large dark blue van that resembles a Toyota Town Ace and also Ford E-Series. Kahn also drives a silver car to work, but this is seen in one episode before it gets "traded in" for a Chevrolet El Camino. The last car, never seen, is a Ferrari. Kahn brags about it, saying that his neighbors don't keep a Ferrari in the garage. What about the main characters, Hank and Peggy Hill? They both have their own vehicles. Hank drives what resembles a Ford Ranger extended cab or whatever, and Peggy drives what resembles a Pontiac Bonneville...at least until she trades it in for something similar to what Nancy drives. And what do THEY drive? Dale Gribble drives a "Bug-A-Bago", which is actually a Chrysler type of mini-van. Nancy drives...something. I don't know what type of car that is. Bill drives a Ford Escort, and in one episode has a truck but it gets stolen. Boomhauer, (yes, I can't spell) has a classic car. Luanne has a Hyundai Accent, and Lucky has a monster truck. All of the main characters have their own car. The only one not explained on screen is Kahn and Minh. At the beginning of the series, they have one car with Minh being a housewife. Later, she mentions having her own car, but it was never explained what car she was talking about and it could have simply been that blue van. (Also she becomes an investor towards the end of the series)
It is very dumb for the convenience of two cars and the two car family to go away because of "The Economy", "The Environment", and "Gas Prices".
The possibility of having to share a car is one reason for me to fear entering a romantic relationship. I am not giving up ANYTHING. And I INSIST that my spouse would not either. Also, in my opinion, "a housewife", and "a stay at home mom", are the same thing as being unemployed. Everybody needs to get a job. It is different if there is nobody hiring, but everybody should get a job, even if it is a dumb job. It should not matter. Because you get paid!!
The woman (and in modern times: one of the two men, one of two women, one of the the transgendered, and a few members of the polygamists colonies)
I am mentioning that so I don't offend any of these people.
ANYWAYS,
The woman, is usually the one that rides in the passenger seat. And rarely drives. The husband is VERY dominant (another reason to not enter a relationship, even since I am a man that would make me the husband but I don't care I don't like either person in the relationship to dominate) and might even forbid the wife to drive. Sometimes, such as in the TV version of Vinegar Hill, there is one car but both of them drive. But as far as I know, One Car Families were around everywhere in the 1950s and earlier.
The Flintstones: There is an enormous continuity error with the Flintstones TV show source of transportation. The Flintstones aired beginning in the 1960s, and the person with the "car" is Fred Flintstones. Wilma does not have a car. Perhaps it is because Fred has giant feet, which is useful to start the "cars" during the stone ages. The Rubbles don't have a car ... usually. However, at least one time they have TWO cars. Barney has a purple car with a roof on it, and there is a dark blue car made out of wood (resembling a pencil) and it does not have a roof either. Betty and Wilma appear to share that car. Perhaps you remember this episode, in which the car gets a "flat". In the earlier episodes of The Flintstones, where Wilma and Betty are bossier than usual, have yet another completely different car. Wilma and Betty drive it together, despite their small feet. But does any of this really matter? Before there were motorcars, automobiles, or "horseless carriages", other animals such as HORSES pulled the cars. I REALLY doubt that the people that lived many aeons ago ever used their feet to start their cars.
The Jetsons: Not much to pay attention to. It was on in 1962, and then it returned in the 1980s. Everybody seems to have their own car: George, Jane, and Judy. I am not sure if Rosie would need her own car because surely she has the capability to fly. Actually, because of jet packs seen in The Jetsons, transportation is not a problem at all.
Wait Till Your Father Gets Home: More than one driver... actually more than two... and there is one car and a one car garage. I have not seen this series in a while, but I think they always have one car.
The Brady Bunch: Here is an example!! Sort of... There are two cars. However, there is more than one than driver and more than two drivers. There is Mr. Brady (sorry I forgot his name) and Carol Brady, and Alice. And then the children grow and are old enough to drive.
The Andy Griffith Show: I probably did not spell that Correctly. But this series evolved a lot. One example is very obvious: the last 3 seasons were filmed in color. And another example (one that is to the point of this blog post) is "Ain't Bee" who does not drive but in one episode gets her own car and learns to drive it. Notice that she learned to drive a manual transmission, a very useful skill. Later, she also becomes a pilot.
If you can pull off "The One Car Family" and not worry about one person taking over the one car while leaving you stranded, go for it. Actually, don't!!
But there are still other reasons not to become a A One Car Family and there are alternatives.
If you are in an urban area, where public transit is everywhere (even to the point of where you are able to get to work every day), then you could be okay with one car. You might be fine with ZERO cars! And if you need to move anything that you can't take on a Bus or Taxi cab, then you should get a Moving Van. Unfortunately, if you need to get something too big for public transit and too small for most moving vans, then you are helplessly hopeless. Hopelessly helpless. Whatever.
And if you needed or wanted to travel, you could drive a motorhome. Whether you consider them a small house or a giant car, they are useful in travelling long distances (by land... You would need the assistance of a boat if you needed to cross an ocean). You could even have a motorhome as the only source of transportation. If you wanted to save on fuel expenses, you could supplement with motorcycles. Or ... if you were in an urban area, you could commute on a transit service.
IF YOU ARE NOT IN A DENSE URBAN AREA, then you should NOT become a One Car Family. EVER. Especially if you live outside of city limits.
You should never be left stranded at home, or anywhere else. Perhaps if only one person works and the other person has to take care of the children (usually infants since they require lots of care and having a job would be difficult during that time) then whoever stays at home can drive the other person to and from work.
Here is an idea: if you cannot afford two cars, you should not have children because you won't be able to afford to care for your children!!
Couples... Men that dominate over their women and forbid them to drive "The Car" and they are practically locked up in their house .... really bother me.
Also families that don't have anything better to do but have children and don't take care of their responsibilities in caring (and financially supporting) their young children and yet their family keeps expanding ......also bother me.
A lot.
Haven't you idiot One Car Families thought about buying OLDER cars?! What is referred to as "clunkers"?! In some areas, and perhaps everywhere in the future (BUT I HOPE NOT) you cannot have a car older than 10 years old for example and that leaves you with little choice but to buy newer (and more expensive) cars but if this is not an issue (AND HOPEFULLY IT ISN'T) then you really need to buy older cars. Or perhaps one older car and one newer car. For whatever reason, older cars decrease in sale price. And what about having a BORING car???????? Get a luxury vehicle, since they have always had all those features (except for MP3 and GPS which are both newer technologies) but be careful since many luxury vehicles have V8 engines. As for the cost in buying an older car, it is not be a problem to be a two car family.
EVERYBODY that can drive a car (carefully) should have their own vehicle. You should never depend on anybody else, just in case. ...pun not intended. AND every person should have TWO cars. And perhaps two cars and two RVs. each. and also their own computers. EVERYBODY should have their own EVERYTHING. And at least two of each.
How much money are you saving by being a one car family?!
Not much. If your cars are completely paid for, AND if you are both good drivers, then your insurance should not cost very much at all. And what about saving on fuel and repair costs???????
THINK ABOUT THIS:
What you numb skulls are doing by being a one car family is using this one car TWICE as much, meaning you aren't saving much (if anything) in fuel costs, and tires, and other repairs. AND you'd be wearing out this one car much sooner than if you have two cars.
The only noticeable difference is vehicle registration costs... all the taxes on an extra vehicle. BIG DEAL.
The ONE CAR FAMILY... what a dumb idea. it hasn't been that long since people started getting and keeping their own vehicles, and the two car garage became common in houses. and now it looks like this convenience is going to go away because of insignificant reasons.
Find other ways to save money. Cut back on travel and vacations. And also shop in off brands, in bulk. Or perhaps you should find lots of coupons. And perhaps you should quit buying alcoholic beverages and cigarettes.
There ARE other solutions. THINK about them.
Originally posted at http://nap2000.blogspot.com/ Saturday, March 27, 2010 09:29PM
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)