« Blogger Amanda Marcotte Quits John Edwards Campaign | Main | Arab School to Open in Brooklyn »

i don't understand why any conservative with a shred of common sense would have an issue with this. what costs more money, treating people for std's w/medicaid or at "free" clinics and subsidizing children on welfare with wic and other moonbat social programs or passing out condoms? talk about being penny wise and pound foolish. and if you object to this on moral grounds, then you're not really a conservative at all, just part of the religious right.

Let those that want the condoms: get a job, earn a paycheck, buy their own condoms, and then MAYBE they will have proved enough responsiblity and maturity to engage in sexual activity.
If somebody wants to hand out condoms, AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, go right ahead. If you are foolish enough to use a condom, give to you by a stanger, go ahead. Stop asking the rest of us to foot the bill for your actions!

And to think I left God out of that, how did that happen?

Two words: personal responsibility. That's something the Left simply doesn't understand.

"i don't understand why any conservative with a shred of common sense would have an issue with this"

Yes you do. You know exactly why. You just happen to be AGAINST the things we stand for.

Human - common sense = liberal

Ooooh, there's the Left's biggest phantom-the dreaded "Religious Right" again!!! The Left's preoccupation with born again Christians has been ongoing since the founding of the Moral Majority in the early 70's to counteract the social decay sweeping America. I don't know how to tell you, but the U.S.A. was founded upon Biblical principles, and was intended to be free, not secular. It is a fact that is demonstrably true. Many of the Founders even wanted to put God in the Constitution (and should have), but decided otherwise in debate. God was very much on the mind's of the Founders, who saw religion as the only way for a free Republic to surivive for long. Social decay and immorality and freedom CANNOT coexist. It's time for Americans to tell you peope to SHUT UP with you lies about American history. Your opposition to religion and religious based laws and morality are ANATHEMA to the American Republic.

first of all i think it's really funny that since i dislike religious conservatives that you all automatically mistook me for a liberal....it could'nt be further from the truth. and if you folks don't think there are plenty of conservatives just as embarresed by the religious right as i am you're living in a very insular world.

second you guys have done nothing but throw up straw man arguments like "well they should get jobs and pay for their own condoms." well that's great, even ideal, but the simple fact of the matter is that for whatever reason lots of people don't.

i don't know about the rest of you, but i'm sick and tired of spending my tax dollars raising other peoples children because they're irresponsible and can't foot the bill themselves. i would much rather try to spend a little extra money to prevent this shit in the first place.

true conservatism isn't about making moral judgements ie. "How else would a city succumbing to socialism and degeneracy celebrate Valentine's Day?" it's about a common sense approach to governing, and letting people be free. i live in manhattan and am fully aware that this city is leading the league in moonbattery. i'll even grant you that this program was almost certainly cooked up by liberals, but the fact of the matter remains that in the real world where we do have to pay to solve the mistakes of the irresponsible this isn't such a bad use of money. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

It seems that "Anonymous" has no idea of the concept of personal responsibility, or for that matter what "Conservatism" (his label, not mine) really is or means. (Quick side note, is it any mystery that the posting is from "Anonymous"? I would guess that "Anonymous" is not brave enough to post any other way.) "Conservatism" (once again his label, not mine) is about far more than the bottom line. If it were ONLY about the bottom line, not only would condoms NOT be given away, the children born from NOT using the FREE condoms would not be cared for. Lets be real for a moment, if we were to assume that this had any impact on the behaviour of people, does that mean if they DID NOT get a free condom, they would not have sex?

why don't you adress the argument that i'm actually making?

i fully understand the concept of personal responsibility, do you understand that regardless of the way we'd all like things to be that we as taxpayers are forced to pay for the irresponsible actions of others? if so then you must also realize that money spent towards prevention is not a waste of resources. the simple point is that as long as we're stuck paying for the mistakes of others why is it such a bad idea to try to prevent the mistakes in the first place?

again what do you think costs more....paying to treat someone with aids via medicare or handing out a condom? i'll grant you that giving someone a condom won't automatically dictate their behavior, but if you get even a small percentage of people staying off real social programs (welfare, medicaid, etc.) it more than pays for the cost of this.

as for your side note, what you think posting with the handle ~~~bdj~~~ is any different than posting as anonymous? think bdj makes you brave because it's so crystal clear who you are? get real..... and if it means so much to you my name is alex.

i'm not saying it's only about the bottom line. there's no upside for anyone, to have a child born to an unwed mother who can't really afford it. there's no benefit to anyone in people contracting std's. it's about alot more than the bottom line, but the bottom line is an issue as well.

"Lets be real for a moment, if we were to assume that this had any impact on the behaviour of people, does that mean if they DID NOT get a free condom, they would not have sex?"

and here's where you make my point for me. no they'll just have sex without a condom, and run the risk of disease and unwanted pregnancy. if they would abstain if they were'nt given a free condom THEN there would be no point in handing them out.....but since you've made it perfectly obvious that you know that's not the case you're acknowledging that handing them out may accomplish something from a prevention standpoint. and as i said early a very small percentage of prevention would more than pay for this, and just to show you that it's not all bottom line, it might save someones life or save them from a mistake they'd regret for a long time.

Anonymous is a person who is so ignorant of America and it's values and history that it's really not worth it to engage him/her. I am guilty at times of allowing myself to be pulled in. Let's just let the leftists simmer in it. Since the 70's, secularist/leftits have been on defense. Since the early 1980's and the election of Ronald Reagan, they have been in retreat-however many court cases they win with the ACLU regardless.

why on earth do you people keep calling me a leftist? do you even read the full posts? is anyone who disagrees with you a leftist? i honestly don't get it. read the posts again if you still think i'm a liberal you're hopeless.

and chris if you could find any holes in the argument you would've shot it down rather than copping out and saying i'm not worth engaging.

does anyone want to debate my actual points, or are you all happier staying in your comfort zones by calling me a leftist and tossing mild insults at me?

At NO TIME did I call you a leftist. I have many other "classes" I can put you in, but I don't label. As far as your so called point goes, you are missing the bigger point of personal responsibility. Giving a condom to anybody DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL USE IT! Once you've figured that out, (concentrate now) you'll realize that a condom WILL NOT fix the root cause of all the woes you've listed. By dispensing them, you condone that behaviour. Are you familiar with the failure rate of condoms? Should my city issued condom fail, does that make the city / state responsible? Quick question, even with a condom would you risk having sex with somebody with HIV?

Anon isn't a leftist. There. Said it. But so what? You're just mimicking the same tired old socialist crapola that's been shoved down our throats and up our assholes for ages now.

Just because we freely offer condoms, clean needles, free clinics etc. to the less responsible doesn't mean they use them. In fact, THEY DON'T use THEM. THAT's the point. I'm sick and tired of hearing public officials and non-officials tout "educating" others on the dangers of blah, blah, blah. Education and free paraphenalia don't work for the same reason morality is lost on many people...they refuse it. So what, "anon" do you suggest we do when the free stuff doesn't work? (Hint: it doesn't work). Force people to use condoms? Force them to use free clinics when their STDs are killing them and others? We live in a culture that glorifies death. Why should we pay at all? I say let them kill themselves and their children too. And stop paying their bills. If they want death, let 'em eat cake.

What if they hand out Bibles? Any libs have a problem with that?

Condoms = good.
Bibles = bad.

bdj and jael. am i correct in assuming that at least some of your objection to this is strictly on moral grounds? if so we'll have to agree to disagree on whether it's the governements place to make moral judgments about things like this.

you're both correct, giving someone a free condom does'nt mean they'll use it. but i already adressed this before. the total cost of the program is a little over $700,000, basically peanuts. if you have even a tiny sucess rate you more than pay for the cost of it. i never said it would fix the root causes, all i'm trying to get you guys to acknowledge is if you keep a small % of recipients off the welfare/medicaid roles as a result the program is a huge success for the taxpayers. you can talk about personal responsibilty all day long, but the fact remains that we don't live in a society where personal responsibility is encouraged, and while that is something that needs to change, it's also a reality that you have to deal with.

Jeal-you say why should we pay at all. its a valid question, my reasoning behind that is that since we are forced to pay for the mistakes of those in question anyway, why not spend a small fraction of the cost of mistakes to try to prevent them beforehand. i like this program simply because i don't want to see people going on medicaid and welfare after the fact. there's nothing even vaguely socialist about that. it's about being practical, in a perfect world where i'm not forced to shell out money for the irresponsible, i would agree with you that this program is a waste.....but it's not a perfect world, and we do have to spend money on these people regardless.

whales for jesus-
do you really want to live in a country where the state promotes one religion? would you be fine with the government handing out korans? i would'nt, but i don't want them handing out bibles either, so at least i'm consistent.

When you talk, all we hear is "blah blah blah I hate America blah blah blah I hate conservatives blah blah blah Christians are evil..."

No one cares about your warped point of view.

whales for jesus

is that really all you can come up with? at least the other people who disagree with me have put some coherent ideas out there about the subject at hand.

you're bringing very little to the discussion, so if you don't care about my point of view stop responding.

The cost of the program was $700,000

The lifetime cost of a single AIDS patient is $600,000 in drugs alone. Hospital cost (including death) are more varied but are in the $200,000 range.

So if this program prevents a single case of AIDS, we have broken even. And we have saved a life. No wonder Conservatives are against it: It makes fiscal sense and it might save lives.

^^^^thats the whole point right there...... thanks for posting numbers.

oh come on nothing more from the peanut gallery after the numbers come out?

Prove to me and others here that these "programs"
amount to savings in the long run. Prove to me that
anyone who's used these programs has come off
welfare, medicaid or has stopped their deathstyle
activities. Everything "anon" and "blah" have mentioned
is theoretical and hype at best. We've had plenty of
these programs fousted upon us for many years...I've not
yet seen a shred of evidence anything positive has come out
of these efforts, time and money.

So you think the education and prevention efforts here in the US have had no effect on stemming the AIDS epidemic? They are just a big waste of money?

In your opinion we should just let the disease run it's course, like in Africa.

Amazing...

jael:"Prove to me and others here that these "programs"
amount to savings in the long run."

blah: "So you think the education and prevention efforts here in the US have had no effect on stemming the AIDS epidemic? They are just a big waste of money?"

me: ^^^what he said... there's got to be some reason the aids rate is so much lower here than in the third world and yes, eduaction and acceess to preventative measures just might have something to do with that.

and jael, it's not about proving that this caused someone to get off of medicaid. the idea is if they don't get aids they won't be a further expense in the first place.

AIDS is less prevalent in the USA because we have better meds,
people are more narcissistic about taking care of themselves
AND despite what the media would have us believe...fewer people here are engaging in anal and homosexual intercourse than in Africa. Anal sex among men is considered "normal" in many African societies on top of their heterosexual lives. It has NOTHING to do with "education" or passing around rubbers. I LIVE IN the real world, I AM a medical person and YOU two don't know jack, except how to arrive at nonsensical, laa-laa land arguments. I suggest you move to Africa immediately, take your condoms and "education" and see just how ineffective that project becomes.

you're a "medical person" and you think the lower rate of hiv/aids infections in this country has something to do with medicine? there are'nt drugs to prevent transmission hence the need for condoms. and besides the drugs that you reference are what cost you, me, and everyone else so much money in the first place. and you do know that you can get it from heterosexual sex too right, and things like sharing needles( come on now, you're not really in healthcare are you?). so the whole thing about homosexuality being more common in africa is a red herring at best.

we know how to arrive at lala land conclusions? that's funny first you guys were calling me a socialist, and saying that i was in favor of wasting money. then you say that we should let these people die (what sort of health care are you in exactly?) then the numbers come out and you insist that we prove a negative (ie. show me one person who isn't on these programs as a result of this). you bury your head in the sand, refuse to see common sense and say that this has no chance of being a big win for the taxpayer and we're the ones in lala land?

take a look around all the other zealots on this thread got spooked when the numbers came out and everything we were saying made perfect sense. you must realize these people would love to shoot the argument down, but since they can't they've had nothing else to say. and that leaves us with you, someone who stares at the obvious and still insists that 2+2=5.