On 2013-12-26 7:35 PM, Kalmia wrote:

>>
>>>> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having
>>>> children.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they
>>> take
>>
>>> on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family
>>> member?
>>
>>> Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How naive are you Kalmia? Those homeless panhandlers with canine
>>
>> props..... do you think they had those dogs (and tattoos) when
>> their
>>
>> careers soured?
>
> Do you paint all receivers of free pet food as homeless panhandlers?
> WRONG, guy. The vast majority of our clients are elderly couples who
> struggle to get by on soc sec., don't live in the best neighborhoods,
> maybe have a disabled kid at home.....

Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling on
hard times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about elderly
couples struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't know
they are on a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?

>
> There is a vast number of citizens who fall between the Cleavers and
> the panhandling bunch. Why won't you at least entertain the thought
> that I could be somewhat closer to the reality of the situation?
>
> Go work at a shelter for a few months and catch the drift of why such
> places exist.
>


I did mention that I sometimes help out with a food bank and that we
donate a lot of food and hygiene products. Yes, I see a lot of the
people who use them. They need help..... but I reserve the right to
question their priorities when I see the luxury items them can afford
when they (IMO) confuse their priorities..... things like smart phones
and tattoos.

Having trouble getting a job??? Sure... go out and spend hundreds of
dollars on tattoos up the side of your neck and on your face. Spend a
wad on that dozen earrings on each ear.... They are always considered to
be an employment asset.