wkmac
Well-Known Member
We should have all the moderators tested everyday too!
Who's going to pay for it? Cheryl? Advertisers? Charge all of us a user fee? What is the return on investment of such outlay for testing? What is the end benefit? Does it effect in a positive way, prevention? What models do you have to support such a position? Had evidence supported a broad problem to begin with?
You propose a gov't program to address what you percieve is a sociatal risk and you justify this need based on some noble idea. I propose then a system of welfare to eliminate the risk of poverty. I propose a system of universal heathcare to elimnate the risk of people not getting heathcare. I propose a system of gov't ownership of banks and investment houses to eliminate the risk of economic loss. I propose a system of fill in the blank.
Many of you howl when gov't programs that you don't like are out there and you are forced to take part or pay for and you love to call this communist, socialist, etc. etc. and yes in principle I would agree. But how is what you are proposing any different? Jut because you think you get some direct gov't benefit in risk reduction doesn't make it so nor does it justify the gov't action. On what legal authority in the Constitution do you support your claim and be very careful because your argument to justify can also be used by others to equaly justify things you don't want.
How far do we go and where does it all end? Yes, we can do many things all in the name of noble cause but the risk will still be there and in the end we have a society dominated by authoriterain rule and statism by our own hand.
Maybe instead of worrying about Obama taking drugs and abusing his power, we should de-power the office of the President along with Washington DC. Smoking weed, snorting cocaine or doing an intern on the oval office rug wouldn't matter to us at all!
Besides, all that makes Leno and Letterman's monolog more humorous so it does serve some purpose.
