2007-04-11 16:24:30 · 22 answers · asked by El Bubba 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You've said it all with those words, you must be a Republican. If people in the US would only live by those words and realize how important they really are, we would have so fewer parasite programs with deadbeats with their hand out begging for help!
Those words are intended for people to learn to help themselves. With a little help, so many people could take the bull by the horns, get on their feet, and once again become independent and self sufficient.
Instead, we have the bleeding hearts who want to help, and help, and help until that's all the poor and downtrodden know, is handouts.
Good question, probably the most thought out of the day !
2007-04-11 16:39:16 · answer #1 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I suppose it would be better to feed the man some fish just long enough to teach him to fish and then let him know that if he doesn't take his fishing seriously from then on out...he will starve.
2007-04-11 16:28:02 · answer #2 · answered by Bubbles 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Make him understand that I'm giving him just enough fish to sustain him until he learns. If he's capable of fishing there's no excuse for not to be on that lake everyday catching his own.
It also helps to get other fishermen to stop enabling him by suggesting and advocating that he should indefinitely be entitled to the fish I bust my a** Monday through Friday to catch.
2007-04-11 16:36:43 · answer #3 · answered by Χαλαρά 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is better to teach a man to fish. That way the government can make him pay for fishing licenses. He may not feed himself but he'll darn well contribute to the economy.
2007-04-11 16:31:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is better to teach a man to fish, for he shall gain fish for his life, not just one moment.
2007-04-11 16:27:07 · answer #5 · answered by Son of Boof 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
In the long run teach, short fix give.
Depends on the man as well. What if hes really hungry now? O.o
2007-04-11 16:27:58 · answer #6 · answered by QuestionsAnswered 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first, give a man a fish, if he loved it, teach him how to fish. if he don't want to fish, let him learn how to want to fish.
2007-04-11 16:30:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Teach...by far!! Liberal/democrats would rather give him fish so he would become dependant upon them, i.e. welfare! While Republican/conservatives would teach him so he would be accountable for his own well being, also he may open a fish market and live the American dream!
2007-04-11 16:29:46 · answer #8 · answered by Bunz 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its better for u to teach him hw to fish rather gv him a fish. If nt u will hv to gv him fish for the rest of his life & he will feel tat u shd do so as u owe him.
2007-04-11 16:45:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
teach a man... that's why liberals support education so much...
the very worst thing you can do is do nothing for the man... which seems to be the Republican strategy... or did I just miss the "teaching" somewhere?
I see a lot of Republicans reference this, yet none that I know of support or create any educational programs that may actually make anyone self-sufficient...
2007-04-11 16:29:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋