2,089 comments posted · 176 followers · following 122
ps. I think the context of protest is important:
President Obama deflected heckling by AIDS protesters during a Saturday rally, suggesting they take up their cause with “the other side” that’s opposed to funding.
A group of people interrupted Obama’s speech before 9,000 in Connecticut chanting “Fund Global AIDS.”
The president was quick to respond to the chorus of protesters saying, “You’ve been appearing at every rally we’ve been doing. And we’re funding global AIDS. And the other side is not. So I don’t know why you think this is a useful strategy to take.”
if ppl think that global aids funding is inadequate, i don't see how protesting obama is the most effective thing they could be doing. i doubt he would refrain from signing a bill that increased global aids funding if presented to him.
it is interesting that you would admit to operating from such a simple playing field on this.
let's play around with your FULL STOP.
how far exactly do you take the "only affects them" part? what consideration does your precious theory give to negative externalities?
-- contracts for the sale of organs? ok to regulate/ban that due to negative externalities?
-- contracts between an employee and an employer that say that the employee will never sue the employer for anything, no matter what the employer does? ok to regulate/ban that due to negative externalities?
-- contracts between hospital patients and doctors to limit the doctor's liability? ok to regulate/ban that due to negative externalities?
[ If you're have trouble understanding what the negative externalities in the above situations would be, feel free to ponder further or use the Google. ]