After the decision ruling the individual mandate of the Obama admin's health care legislation Unconstitutional, I saw a lot of chatter around the net. Most of it fairly low-brow, as you might imagine. Most of it was biased to one view or another. But even articles that I didn't find to be biased where being flamed in comments sections for being biased because the commenter didn't like the ultimate conclusion. Question - is it possible to present a political piece, in the current climate, in a way that isn't going to engender flaming? If so, how would you go about it. Using the health care law as an example, I agree that the mandate has a big problem in terms of the U.S. Constitution. I like other aspects of the law. In writing an article on my viewpoint, I expect that no matter how rational the piece was, or how unbiased in presentation, that final conclusion would generate some feelings on one side or another. Is it possible to write it so that it comes across as a thoughtful analysis and even those who disagree will see merit in it? Seems like it should be, but my experience tells me that it is not. Anyway, I am working on something to that effect, though it is more for a talk. What do you guys think? I intend to present both sides of the argument in a respectful manner but I ultimately come down against Constitutionality. Could be a great springboard for discussion if people don't get ugly about it.