Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Amanda, Apr 29, 2009.
Which of these strategies makes more sense?
Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish?
teach him to fish..but monopolize the licenses so he has to fish for you.for a modest wage.
hire theman as an apprentice fisherman. Teach him to fish for 10% of his catch. If he catches no fish, give him a fish and add it to his debt. Once he learns to fish, you each take on a new apprentice and the Fishermans's Union continues to grow. Once large enough, hire thugs to keep anyone out of the union from fishing in the area. Require all members to give 10 percent of their catch as fees for membership and draw the fish you need from that coffer. Never fish again...
you take the 5 fish and 5 loaves of bread and multiply them in to enough fish to feed 5000....not one was taught to fish?
Jewish Welfare State.... keep them dependent to maintain your power
Jesus was a Democrat
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
Obviously it would be better to teach a man how to be self sufficient....this is why I believe states should focus on educating their citizens (children)...including a stronger focus on vocational schools.
We're running out of fish anyway.
Obviously the only solution is teach him to be a banker so he can become a parsite feeding off the few remaining fishermen.
Americans who actually produce anything don't count anymore, except as hosts for the banking class to feed off of.
Working people all considered unskilled losers, remember?
9 trillion for a handful of bankers, 740 billion for the rest of us?
I think it's pretty clear who matters to America's masterclass and it surely isn't fishermen.
o what a feel good question.....give a man a fish or gallantly teach him to fish....let me puke here for a minute....
you do not take into consideration any other varitables?
Separate names with a comma.