10-22-2003, 10:48 PM
that is certinly a heart felt reply. and I fully understand your misgivings. and yes there is always going to be the scum bags and bottom feeders who will take atvantage of any given situation.
this is
but a true fact of life. yes I personaly know a man who weighs 450 pounds scarffs down on junk food, goes to mcdonalds and orders 3 bigmacks and a large coke to wash it down then for desert he has 6 apple pies. but if you were to put a vegitable on his plate he would sceram bloody murder. I know this because I did, I put a couple spoons of green beans on his plate at a barbique and he threw a kniption fit, litteraly. yes because of his weight he is handicaped because of the strain he alone places on his heart just by mataining his junkfood diet.
yes it is apauling and sickining realy. but the right to fish act is for the benifit of the disabled and low income individuals. who for some reason would rather go out and gather their nuts and berries from the wildernes instead of using foodstamps. emagin if that 450 pound junk food addict had to go out and catch his dinner off the river. you know in the first week he is going to loose 50 pounds just trying to get to the river. this is no joke.
and this is where lays the problem, yes there are those who abuse the system, but what about those who dont. is it right to make those who dont abuse the system suffer for the sake of those who do abuse the system?
this falls in the same catigory as the rights of due prossess, you are presumed inocent till proven guilty. to presume you are guilty or in the case of discussion here not disabled untill you can prove it. (this is the case in this country) till you can prove you are disabled you will spend your entire lifes savings before you are able to receive any aid at all. In the case of the fat man I speak of, he stuck it to the auto industry. he draws 3 times what I get for disability, he has a wife who dose not work, and in just a few years he will be able to draw another 2g's per month ssda compisation.
he has been on this for more than 10 years, emagin the kind of money the auto industry would have saved if they locked him up and placed him on a diet.
point being he will never go fishing. he would loose too many fat cells in the process. yes he drives a 50k van, his second in two years.
the point here is realy that those who rather go to the river to catch thier dinner in my book is a by far better human being than some one who stocks up on kfc in the freeser.
so if you give a disabled or low income man a fishnig pole and a spot to catch his dinner he will do his dammedest to go out and get it. you give a fat man a fish and tell him to cook it, he will starve to deth because it aint cooked allamode.
this is
but a true fact of life. yes I personaly know a man who weighs 450 pounds scarffs down on junk food, goes to mcdonalds and orders 3 bigmacks and a large coke to wash it down then for desert he has 6 apple pies. but if you were to put a vegitable on his plate he would sceram bloody murder. I know this because I did, I put a couple spoons of green beans on his plate at a barbique and he threw a kniption fit, litteraly. yes because of his weight he is handicaped because of the strain he alone places on his heart just by mataining his junkfood diet. yes it is apauling and sickining realy. but the right to fish act is for the benifit of the disabled and low income individuals. who for some reason would rather go out and gather their nuts and berries from the wildernes instead of using foodstamps. emagin if that 450 pound junk food addict had to go out and catch his dinner off the river. you know in the first week he is going to loose 50 pounds just trying to get to the river. this is no joke.
and this is where lays the problem, yes there are those who abuse the system, but what about those who dont. is it right to make those who dont abuse the system suffer for the sake of those who do abuse the system?
this falls in the same catigory as the rights of due prossess, you are presumed inocent till proven guilty. to presume you are guilty or in the case of discussion here not disabled untill you can prove it. (this is the case in this country) till you can prove you are disabled you will spend your entire lifes savings before you are able to receive any aid at all. In the case of the fat man I speak of, he stuck it to the auto industry. he draws 3 times what I get for disability, he has a wife who dose not work, and in just a few years he will be able to draw another 2g's per month ssda compisation.
he has been on this for more than 10 years, emagin the kind of money the auto industry would have saved if they locked him up and placed him on a diet.
point being he will never go fishing. he would loose too many fat cells in the process. yes he drives a 50k van, his second in two years.
the point here is realy that those who rather go to the river to catch thier dinner in my book is a by far better human being than some one who stocks up on kfc in the freeser.
so if you give a disabled or low income man a fishnig pole and a spot to catch his dinner he will do his dammedest to go out and get it. you give a fat man a fish and tell him to cook it, he will starve to deth because it aint cooked allamode.