Well, we never really did agree to not waterboard anyone, but that is more of the semantics that I love. 
But in all seriousness, I do think the legally binding question is the core issue. If someone comes up to you and says "We should help poor people" you would probably agree. However, if someone comes up to you and says "we should help poor people, so give me all your money, sell your house and I will take it all." You would most likely say No. Right? I imagine so.
So, if those are the options on the table, and you want to come out with some agreement, you can probably all agree that poor people could get some help. If you reach the agreement that we will issue a statement saying poor people should get help knowing that it has no bearing on how you have to act, you will probably go along with it.
I think it would be unfair if someone came back after you did that and said well you agreed that you wanted to help poor people, so I will take all your money now. You never did actually agree to that. You can see the issue, I probably could explain it somewhat better, but I am hungry, so I leave it at that.
Yes there are, but I think the scenario here is somewhat different.
Agree to disagree it sounds like. But I do enjoy the back and forth with you.
Don't worry, I won't ask you for a job. Sounds like a good set up though.
I think other issues are more pressing.
