Bush's constitutional remedy (was Bush is beyond adoubt Veratrum A)

[Shannon Nelson]

But I think Ellen's points are well taken!
E.g. the analysis of Will T's that was recently posted, includes rubrics
which are very much a judgment call--some of us will think they are
accurate, but others of us will think that they simply reflect the writer's
prejudice and ignorance. This is the wrong forum for exploring the *facts*
that would (if we actually had them, which we don't) be necessary to decide
the truth of that particular matter.

Nancy, I didn't see anything offensive in your analysis and I am not
directing this at you, but some of the remarks and repertorizations and
analyses *have* been offensive to those who support Bush, which IMO
(agreeing with you!) makes it not a good topic for this list *unless* it
could be done in a non-critical and non-inflammatory way, which I am (argh)
quite certain is not the case at this point.

Now talking about the laws that have been and are being passed, talking
about how this administration has affected and is affecting the field of
health care, that I think is very worthwhile for discussion. That also
could be inflammatory or offensive to some, *but* if it takes place in the
form of *documented* laws, bills, court cases, occurrences, etc., then I
think it would be very worthwhile. "Opinions" are arguable; the machineries
of politics are largely hidden from us; but laws, policies, court cases,
etc., are things that will impact us directly (some sooner than others), and
things that we *need* to become aware of, and need to be ready to take
action on as appropriate.

Shannon

on 11/10/04 8:42 AM, Nancy Siciliana at nasiciliana@hotmail.com wrote: