Pure gray area

Originally posted by lemon lime
I'm not interested in your personal opinion of whodey.

But that is all FMF has.

For the love of God, don't force him to actually debate the topic!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I'm not interested in whether or not you are interested in FMF's opinion of Whodey.

And I'm not interested in whether or not you are intetested in being interested in FMF's opinion of me.

I just love debating left wingers. You wind up with twice the headace of merely banging your head against a wall. 😵

Originally posted by whodey
But that is all FMF has.

For the love of God, don't force him to actually debate the topic!

The topic is grey areas. Your moral approach to debating exists almost entirely in a grey area. As for the US needing to enforce its immigration laws more effectively before having a genuine debate about immigration in the future, I am sure we mostly agree. But deliberately poisoned discourse does not make for a genuine debate.

Originally posted by FMF
The topic is grey areas. Your moral approach to debating exists almost entirely in a grey area. As for the US needing to enforce its immigration laws more effectively before having a genuine debate about immigration in the future, I am sure we mostly agree. But deliberately poisoned discourse does not make for a genuine debate.

So we disagree on the immigration issue.

Shrug.

What about Obamacare? Was it "moral" for Obama simply to ignore or delay some of the requirements, even though he signed the bill into law himself?

Originally posted by whodey
So we disagree on the immigration issue.

I think we basically agree but I don't subscribe to the false statements and poisonous hyperbole you use to advance your personal opinions.

Originally posted by FMF
I think we basically agree but I don't subscribe to the false statements and poisonous hyperbole you use to advance your personal opinions.

Answer the question. Was Obama right to ignore/delay elements of the health care bill that he signed?

Originally posted by whodey
What about Obamacare? Was it "moral" for Obama simply to ignore or delay some of the requirements, even though he signed the bill into law himself?

"Morality" in retail politics is certainly an area of greyness, I think we can agree on that. If I want to debate the political nuts and bolts of US health reform I will join one of the many threads on the Debate Forum perhaps.

With every law, a freedom dies. At the same time, without laws people are free to take away your freedom. So the issue always becomes, where should we drawn the lines?

Aside from US domestic politics and President Obama, do you have any other ideas about areas "where should we draw the lines" and especially for issues where the line lies in a very "grey" place. I suggested that the issue of the state [not necessarily just in the US] taking children into care is a "pure grey area". Do you have any other ideas along these lines?

Originally posted by whodey
Answer the question. Was Obama right to ignore/delay elements of the health care bill that he signed?

I don't really know. Retail politics is almost invariably played out in a "grey area". If the implementation is more successful because of political delays and other tinkering, and the end result is better or more effective, then the nuts and bolts of any messy political infighting and manoeuvring will be moot eventually. If more people are harmed by the delay then the "grey" is darker, perhaps. But all politics everywhere is beset by this kind of stuff. Do you have any other "grey area"-related topics aside from the US president that you want to talk about?

Originally posted by FMF
I don't really know. Retail politics is almost invariably played out in a "grey area". If the implementation is more successful because of political delays and other tinkering, and the end result is better or more effective, then the nuts and bolts of any messy political infighting and manoeuvring will be moot eventually. If more people are harmed by the delay t ...[text shortened]... ve any other "grey area"-related topics aside from the US president that you want to talk about?

Interesting, I don't recall anyone saying this in relation to the "religious right's" influence in the US. When it comes to the religious right, everyone was up in arms about seperation of church and state. There seemed to be no gray area in condemning the religious right trying to influence political discourse. It all seemed to be so black and white.

However, with Obama and his atheistic followers there seems to be no outcry when forcing their morality down our throats. Morality regarding abortion, gay marriage, recycling, health care, drinking biggie sodas, and all the rest is OK so long as you don't cite and religious sources for your position it seems. Suddenly, it all tunred "gray".

Originally posted by whodey
Interesting, I don't recall anyone saying this in relation to the "religious right's" influence in the US. When it comes to the religious right, everyone was up in arms about seperation of church and state. There seemed to be no gray area in condemning the religious right trying to influence political discourse. It all seemed to be so black and white.

I don't think it's "black and white". I think it's "grey". There will be those who condemn "the religious right" for trying to influence political discourse and there will be those who condemn "the left" for trying to influence political discourse. I don't see how there is an "everyone" who was "up in arms". It's a
grey" area after all.

Originally posted by FMF
"Morality" in retail politics is certainly an area of greyness, I think we can agree on that. If I want to debate the political nuts and bolts of US health reform I will join one of the many threads on the Debate Forum perhaps.

[b]With every law, a freedom dies. At the same time, without laws people are free to take away your freedom. So the issue always b ...[text shortened]... taking children into care is a "pure grey area". Do you have any other ideas along these lines?

Politics is the gutter of human existance. Those that dwell there are universally accepted as liars, cheats, and sell outs.

Obamacare is a prime example. Obama had to lie about it in order to sell it to voters. He even had to bribe Congressmen in his own party to vote for it.

The US has a standard policy for dealing with pretty much anything. They just print money and throw it around the world at everyone. Those who are rich, poor, or from another country are thrown money, including for health care. Is this "good"? Do they care about us or simply trying to secure influence? I say they care no more for the poor Veterns who were recently turned away for health care than they care about the government in Pakistan that is given foriegn aid, but that's just me I suppose.

In the end, it's all about securing more and more power.

Originally posted by whodey
However, with Obama and his atheistic followers there seems to be no outcry when forcing their morality down our throats. Morality regarding abortion, gay marriage, recycling, health care, drinking biggie sodas, and all the rest is OK so long as you don't cite and religious sources for your position it seems. Suddenly, it all tunred "gray".

I am fairly sure Obama has 'Christian followers' too ~ if you look at US demographics, he could not have got elected twice by only "atheistic followers". I think you should reference your religious beliefs when you state what you think is right or wrong, wise or unwise, black, white or grey, in the public domain and in the context of the machinations of retail politics.

Originally posted by whodey
Politics is the gutter of human existance. Those that dwell there are universally accepted as liars, cheats, and sell outs. Obamacare is a prime example.

Retail politics ~ pretty much anywhere, and not just in the US ~ is a "pure grey area", I think we can agree on that.

Originally posted by whodey
The US has a standard policy for dealing with pretty much anything. They just print money and throw it around the world at everyone. Those who are rich, poor, or from another country are thrown money, including for health care. Is this "good"? Do they care about us or simply trying to secure influence? I say they care no more for the poor Veterns who wer ...[text shortened]... y care about the government in Pakistan that is given foriegn aid, but that's just me I suppose.

Like I said, besides US domestic politics and President Obama, do you have any other issues "where should we draw the lines", especially for issues where the line lies in a very "grey" place?

Originally posted by FMF
I am fairly sure Obama has 'Christian followers' too ~ if you look at US demographics, he could not have got elected twice by only "atheistic followers". I think you should reference your religious beliefs when you state what you think is right or wrong, wise or unwise, black, white or grey, in the public domain and in the context of the machinations of retail politics.

I suppose that depends on what is meant by "Christian". For example, Nancy Pelosi says that she is a Christian. However, I believe that if Jesus Christ appeared to her and told her that abortion was murder and gay marriage was an abomination, she would either ignore him or renounce her espoused faith instead of turn on her own party.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm fairly certain that atheists favor the democrat party, or do you disagree?