Touchy, touchy

My, what a response from my blog! Let's see if we can calm the waters a bit.

First, and as I've repeatedly said in the past, just because I don't HATE Bush doesn't mean he's my hero. With some people it's either all or none, but that's not me.

The main point that was apparently missed about Andrew Speaker is that it's ironic to have a "personal injury" attorney sue one of their own. No, you didn't get all the information on what the CDC said to him or their initial involvement in the situation. There was, and still appears to be, quite a bit of confusion on what they told him. It could easily appear that this guy did what he wanted, regardless of what they told him, but there is controversy on the conversation that took place. At this point, the credibility of the CDC is starting to become questionable with all the news some of their employees have created recently. Even it if turns out that he's held responsible for flying when he should not have, those people in Canada don't have TB, period. What's the basis of this lawsuit? Money, period! The sad fact is, the suing attorney will get most of it, and the plaintiffs won't see much at all, if it even comes to that. That's how the ambulance-chasers (Tort attorneys) work the system. As for John Edwards, it seems I'm picking up the Blue lady's habit of perpetually bringing someone into the fold, sort of like Newt Gingrich being brought into every conversation (alternating with George Bush), whether it relates to him or not.

AmericaBlog presented their view as facts, not spin. I just want to know what news source they got them from. If you don't question that, then you don't know what's real and what's "Memorex". Didn't you say that it's good to question these things? Shouldn't we base our views on facts vs. emotions or opinions? This particular topic isn't even something that should be debated, either the administration did or didn't act at the time. Since we're all military experts out here, there is a lot we could debate, but I'd rather know where the source of the information originated.

I love the last line of the Blue lady's post: "I, personally, don't like to be drawn into a corner by a label". Well, look who's talking. I'm accused of being a hard-core conservative (among other things), of which I beg to differ. I do lean in that direction, but once again, as I've previously stated on several occasions, there are a couple of views that I take the side of libs on. I believe we already know what they are, so I won't even repeat them. It appears a difficulty for liberals to understand that different topics can be subject to various views. Being a conservative doesn't mean you have to agree with everything involving the conservative agenda. I do, indeed, stand by my views on particular topics, whatever side of the fence they may fall. I don't play the wishy-washy game of what is convenient at the time. If I take the liberal view on something, it stays that way too.

Speaking of labeling, I've never categorized Blue lady, no matter how left she sways, and yes, she does more often than not. I've been called "hard-core Republican" in front of a group of people in the past, where politics were not even being discussed. I think the timing took some aback, as there was a moment of silence, either because they didn't understand the context in which is was stated, or perhaps they were shocked that I was conservative. I've withstood innuendos in a public forum on more than one occasion, where I was conveniently outnumbered in the conservative/liberal ratio. Therefore, the insinuation of being labeled into a corner is just that, a figment of one's imagination. The reality of it is false. BTW, who's doing the labeling here?