[BlackElk]

Your #37 responds to my #31 which responds to your #27 to someone else. The question you posed at #27 was as to examples of how social liberalism costs taxpayers many dollars. My #31 said AIDS (certainly not a result of social conservatism but of the socially liberal fad of turning homosexual or other anal sex from the lust that dared not speak its name to the lust that simply will not shut up). Your #37 then gave a discourse as to how it was "unprotected anal sex" an the attendant viruses and bacteria, coupled with depressed immunity among drug abusers that causes AIDS and not HIV that causes AIDS. Where did I disagree? I never mentioned HIV.

I don't claim expertise in science or medicine and your theory sounds fine to me. Why is my example not a good one? Certainly taxpayers are paying the freight for most AIDS patients. Where do you disagree?

[InterceptPoint]

Certainly taxpayers are paying the freight for most AIDS patients. Where do you disagree?

I agree that we are paying the freight. The problem I have with the example is that the premise for the payment is false. The Government is paying for medication that doesn't work and that they know doesn't work because the politics of the situation (don't get the gay communitity and their supporting major media mad at you) requires it. The Government is not doing anything and we are not paying for anything that actually helps people with AIDS.

Consider the "social costs" of my solution which is to do nothing. People with AIDS would die and they would keep on dying until the gays and drug users finally figured out what was killing them. Right now they are told and I think convinced that it is a virus and not their drug habits that are doing the trick. This gives them carte blanche to keep right on taking the drugs that are killing them.