Using the law to benefit one group at the expense of the nation should be considered an immoral act and a perversion of the purpose of government by liberal, conservative, and libertarian groups. Now we're going to try and “fix” this deliberate sabotage by attacking the insurance companies and/or tort lawyers. It's insane!

Sorry for the rant, but this whole health care debate seems surreal at times.

So fast forward to this topic, President Obama does nothing on a whim. Rather we disagree with his decisions or not, he is always thinking in my opinion. Look at what you wrote in your recent post Kathy:

“But Obama’s decision has to be seen in the specific context in which he made it: He has decided not to institutionalize indefinite preventive detention. For those of us who were horrified beyond measure when Obama asserted his intention to do just that, in his National Archives speech, the fact that he has changed his mind is an enormous relief.”

Look at that! Talk about intellectualizing a decision. Nuance galore and he got it right, in my opinion. Look, I disagree with how he's handling the economy and health care. I'm a jobs guy and I wish that was a priority. But President Obama is a thinker. And it irritates at times but it is what it is. I admire thinkers that are able to translate it into action.

President Obama isn't the punch you in the mouth type in my opinion. If all what you said happens, he's going to think, re-think, out-think, re-re-think, and think again about a course of action. And I bet he'll salvage something out of that big nothing.

You know, I actually agree with this. And I say “actually” because there's really no objective evidence for it — it's a gut feeling, an intuitive feeling, based on the sense you get of his spirit, of his soul, for lack of a better word. How he thinks. How he approaches his life, and issues. I haven't said it because it's not really a point you can argue — because there isn't any tangible support for it that you can point to. But I was really struck by what you wrote here, because inside me, I have had the same belief. It's why I'm not always as upset as I might be when he does something that disappoints me. I think he'll get there. Hopefully, he'll be given the time to get there.

If it's war, casualties occur on both sides. A country's moral compass should not be one of those casualties, or you take the very meaning from a soldier's life.

We gree again.

The political parties demonstrate simplistic views, humans are a little more complex.

If you send men and women into war, even the brave and patriotic who volunteer to serve, you owe them some consideration. One example would be not to release prisoners taken in the course of the war who might reappear on the battlefield and try to kill them again. When making this decision, you err on the side of caution. That means, in an imperfect world, detaining prisoners–apparent enemy fighters– about whom convincing exculpatory evidence is lacking for an indefinite period of time.

Spock needs to become Mike Tyson and start punching people in the mouth.

And I didn't mean that belittling was the point. I think part of the problem with the misunderstanding between Left and Right comes down to how the respective brains are wired.

Health care discussions on this board seem to have a running theme of practicality vs moral imperative, this translates into a false understanding of the opposing sides intention. It's one of the reasons we see the debate as being a health care reform or health insurance reform effort. I'm going to use generalities here on out, so parse my analysis accordingly.

The Right, by and large, see health insurance reform generally as an economics problem testing Federalist/States Rights, and the Left sees health care reform as a social imperative that validates the Constitution's general welfare clause. No wonder each side scratches its head trying to figure out what salient points the other side is making. We're actually debating two different questions, money or morals.

Leo

In this we agree. Unfortunately, Federalists have been trying to circumvent the Constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams.

And in that we agree as well. Thing is, if we ever sat down and talked for a few hours we'd likely be very surprised with the number of issues we can agree on. The political environment in the US consists largely of two vey artificial groups, the left and the right. Many who are in opposite camps in general if taken out of that context on specific issues can be in agreement. We all simply do not fit our particular defined hemisphere that neatly. I know many on the “left” who are anti-gun control, anti-abortion, and pro indefinite detention; I also know many on the right who were anti-Iraq war, pro-gay rights, and pro-choice. if, however, those issues never come up and you only see these folk when operating in the “comfort zone” of their hemisphere its easy to get the wrong impression. I know I'm as guilty of this as most, but I do try to make an effort. Its just a shame when the members of our own “hemisphere” or the other “hemisphere” are able to create an environment that makes it difficult to express ourselves when our views do not conform with that of our own “half”.

Are you confident enough in this theory to bet a low-country barbeque dinner on it?

I think that President Obama is only prioritizing issues. And after reading Kathy's recent post (http://themoderatevoice.com/47423/sometimes-the…), it seems to be a VERY smart prioritization as well as a very smart move. I didn't mean to “belittle” (for lack of a better word) the progressive left's feelings on both health care and indefinite detention.

I think you may misread the progressive left. Health care and justice or both moral issues; you can't trade one for the other. That may be the way politicians think, but the groundswell that backed Obama doesn't calculate morality. It's seen as disingenuous.

Today is sure weird.
I agree with you completely about Gitmo. It onlt stands as a symbol of America's imperial, jingoistic cravings of a century past.

In this we agree. Unfortunately, Federalists have been trying to circumvent the Constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts under Adams.