liberal tolerance - Justice Scalia at Wesleyan University

[spence]

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Fluke's ploy acting as Pelosi's pawn at a contrived hearing suggesting that the government should give her free anything, or suggesting that if she can't get it free from the government , the government should either force the religious institution that she attends to give it to her for free.... or force the insurance company of the religious institution(or any institution for that matter) to give it to her for free deserves mocking....she's also argued the same for gender reassignment procedures and other things....she's an activist and the left's current Cindy Sheehan and not at all what she was portrayed to be by her enablers.....I don't think Rush should have used the language that he did and he admitted himself that he went overboard but ...please...this is pathetic and a fraud on the American public....maybe Ms. Fluke should attend a Scalia lecture and learn a little more about what she is and isn't "entitled" to as an American(23 year old....oops...30 year old law student/professional activist). another phony dem scam

I'd refer to her as a "sleeper cell"

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify. There's outrage so they hold another and invite a few token women with no real discussion.

So to get visibility on a very reasonable issue, the Dems invite a young woman to speak about how some women do need medically prescribed conception for valid health issues.

And in response, arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women.

Republican's, terrified of Rush's wrath are frozen and offer only token responses. In what should be a leadership moment, none of them lead. George Will nails it "They want to bomb Iran, but they're afraid of Rush Limbaugh."

And all you do it tighten the tin foil.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Let's summarize...

So the Republicans hold a panel on women's health without a single female to testify.

-spence

Spence, you're entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. The Republican-sponsored hearings were not about women's health, they were about religious freedom and the first amendment. Ms Fluke has no expertise in these matters.

How weak is your position to start with, if you need to lie about the fundamental nature of the issue? you're being dishonest right off the bat.

"arguably the most influential Conservative out there, basically defames all women"

He is defaming women of financial means, who somehow insist that they can't afford their own condoms.

"And all you do it tighten the tin foil."

If defending the first amendment is tightening the tin foil, I proudly plead guilty. The Bill of Rights applies to all of us Spence, even Catholics. If enough people want to change the Constitution so that condoms supercede the freedom of religion, there are mechanisms to amend the constitution thiusly. Until then, not even Obama has the authority to decide who has religious freedom and who doesn't.

[scottw]

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

[Jim in CT]

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, if Republicans are afraid of Rush, doesn't that make Obama equally afraid of Bill Maher?

You're trying to stretch the argument here but it doesn't work. Maher has a very limited reach, really limited and compared to Rush only a fraction of influence.

In the wake of the Arizona shooting, Obama called for more civil discourse. A noble idea. No one spits in the face of that idea more than Bill Maher, who has referred to Sarah Palin as a c*nt and a tw*t.

Yet Obama's super-PAC takes $1 million from Bill Maher?

Spence, I'm confused. Bill Maher is clearly guilty of doing exactly what Obama says none of us should be doing, yet Obama takes $1 million from Maher. If this is, as you said, a "leadership moment", shouldn't Obama return that money? It seems to me that if Obama wants to put his money where his mouth is, returning that money is morally obvious. If he keeps that money, Obama surrenders (more accurately, whores out) the moral position to say that there is no place for that kind of language

GOOD LUCK MAKING THAT WRONG, SPENCE. GOOD LUCK.

Obama didn't take 1 million from Maher.

A Super PAC supporting Obama did and Obama is prohibited by law from directing what they do with the money.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't need to "make" your comments wrong...they already were.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

Spence's indignation runs on a 1-way street and is feigned for the most part...

it's not a tin foil hat Spence..it's a Liberty Cap...you should try to locate one for yourself

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

she's free to buy her own contraception..I think Walmart has a good deal, she's free to purchase her own insurance or apply for state assistance if she's so destitute and she's free to attend a different university with policies that she favors....dosn't appear as though the University is asking the state(government) to force her to do anything or treating her any differently than anyone else under their policies...this appears to be the difference that you don't seem to comprehend...probably that positive liberties/ negative liberties thing again

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If you were really for liberty you'd stand behind a women's right to not have her employer's beliefs dictate her freedoms.

-spence

Again, you're way off base.

The constitution says the feds cannot approve or disapoprove of a soecific religious view. I have posted that.

Spence, please show us where the constitution says that citizens have the right to have contraception provided to them at their place of wmployment.

"her freedoms."

Spence, who are all these women who cannot get contraception, unless it's provided by their employer? Furthermore, these women, fortunately, have the "freedom" to work anywhere they want. If they want free condoms at work, they can work at Planned Parenthood or, thanks to liberals, in any public elementary school.

You make it sound like condoms are only available at work. Do these women all live in th wilds of Alaska? Are there no pharmacies or gas stations, or clinics, where they live?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her?

As for respect, give me a break. I'm sure the Judge loves it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

Spence, maybe you're right, maybe Scalia does love this stuff. I know I do, because it exposes liberals for the intolerant, hateful anarchists that so many are. your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

"Was Fluke's ploy to make Rush mock her"

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

Is civil discouse simply beyond the ability of liberals? By throwing condoms, these kids are saying "I don't agree with Scalia, but I cannot explain why, I can't engage him in debate, all i can do is throw condoms".

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I'm not comparing what these kids did to Rush's comments, because there is no comparison. Ruch called someone names, these kids threw condoms at someone invited to speak at their school. The kids' behavior is worse.

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.

Your refusal to condemn their actions, in fact brushing it off because Scalia "loves it", tells us everything we need to know about you.

Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?

Finally, your notion that some group of Republicans in Iowa might have acted inappropriately adds nothing of any value. I didn't say that conservatives never do this stuff, I said it's almost always liberals. Your suggestion that you viewed conservatives doing this once, assuming it's true, proves nothing whatsoever. As usual.

I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.

no, Fluke's ploy here is the same as the ploy tried by all liberals on this issue...to pretend this is about women's health, and distracting attention away from the blatant constitutional violation.

It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?

Like when Paul S calls tea-partiers tea-baggers. He knows that he cannot deny that basic fiscal responsibility is better than spending ourselves into oblivion...he knows he cannot debate the merits of our position, so he uses a disgusting homosexual epither to disparage us. Nice.

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

-spence

[scottw]

Fluke attended a Jesuit University knowing full well beforehand what the policies were, she's spent her time there undermining those policies...this was an attempt, though a rogue assist from the Federal Government to further those goals.

Spence, the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American. You seem to struggle with the limits placed on government and the guarantees , in this case, religious freedom, guaranteed by the Constitution, there is no guarantee of free contraception or gender reassignment anywhere in the Constitution, Ms. Fluke could easily attend another University with acceptable policies to her, noone forced her to attend this school, she's chosen to spend her time while at this school undermining the University's policies and it's Constitutional protections on this issue as well as many others just as so many that you support spend their time undermining our Constitution and Constitutional protections. Obamacare is the example in this case, the government now feels inclined to order private institutions and companies to provide things for free, particularly things that they feel they can get a lot of mileage out of politically. If the Constitution is what makes us quintessentially American and you spend all of your time undermining it and supporting the undermining of it....what does that make you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's not even close. Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after. Rush's attack was extremely personal and cruel.


Do you realize that whenever you want to make something up you state it as a "refusal" by someone else?


I have the paper...it proves that college students of all inclination will do stupid things. Always have and always will, it's part of growing up.

To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly.


It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?


No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

-spence

"Scalia knows what he's getting into and knows exactly what the heckers are after"

OK. Using your logic, Ms Fluke is a self-described women's reproductive rights activist, so why didn't she know what she was getting into. She got into Georgetown Law, so she's obviously very bright. Why do you assume she was innocent, naive little waif? because it makes my side look bad, that's why...

"To claim this is somehow evidence a "liberal" condition is silly."

Please show me proof of consrvetive college students throwing condoms at an invited liberal guest. The left has an ALMOST (not quite) monopoly on this type of behavior Spence. You almost never hear of right-wing riots. Anarchy is the method of liberals, not conservatives.

"It is ALL about women's health and equal treatment under the law. You are aware that religious institutions must abide by laws right?"

Not if those laws prohibit the church from pursuing their beliefs. Have you even read the first amendment? Do you ever get one right, even by accident? Read this please, from the first amendment...

"prohibits the federal and state governments from establishing an official religion, or from favoring or disfavoring one view of religion over another."

The church isn't interfering with women's health. The church isn't telling these women that they cannot use condoms, the church is just saying that the church doesn't want to provide them. A small number of women need birth control pills for true medical needs (my wife is one of them). In the vast majority of cases, contraception is a tool to engage in casual sex, and thus not anything remotely resembling "medicine".

Spence, if I buy a gun, it's in everyone's interest for me to attend a gun safety class. But I can't force my employer to pay for it. If I choose to get involved with guns, that's my choice, and thus my responsibiolity to ensure I do it safely. I have no right to ask anyone else to pay for it. Similarly, if I want to get involved in casual sex, by what right to I take your money out of your pocket to buy my condoms with? Putting aside women who have legitimate medical needs, which is a very small minority.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by spence

No, he said tea-bagger because it's funny that someone in the tea-party called themselves that and he knows it goes right up your a$$

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;926156]
"maybe not all liberals behave like this, or even approve of it. But (1) I don't hear a lot of liberals chastising this behavior, and (2) when you hear of this behavior, it's virtually always liberals who do it. Almost always."

Didn't you see my post saying I didn't approve of the behavior? And I didn't see any conserv. chastising the behavior of calling woman sluts and prostitutes (sure there was some half hearted comments after the uproar - but conserv. constantly insult people they don't like. You yourself call woman vile names on this site.

"Should I go dig up some racist posters from the teabagger rallies"

One or two posters out of hundreds, and there are liberal groups that now admit to planting people at Tea Party Rallies with racist signs to discredit the group (how is that for civilized debate).

"So if I pull up a picture of a leader of the teabaggers with a racist sign that doesn't that discredit this comment?"

Paul, I'm sorry that there's an endless list of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes your side look uncivilized. That's not my fault.

And Jim, I'm sorry there is a whole lost of this type of behavior from your side. I'm sorry it makes "your side" look classless and uncivilized. That is not my fault. PS - I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

"the teabagger rallies"

And there's that liberal hypocrisy. You tell me I'm offensive, yet you see nothing wrong with calling me a tea bagger, simply because - OH MY GOODNESS- I feel fiscal responsibility is better than fiscal suicide.

"Wasn't that what they refered what they refered themselves to? Frankly I'm just responding to your posts."

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I use to be a moderate Repub. until they b/c so extreme. Sort of a Reagan Repub."

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;926379]... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types on most issues and many on the right, you'll likely note that much of what is being debated in this current election was addressed quite thoroughly by Reagan...you should spend some time

here's one that is currently applicable..his radio addresses were brilliant..1961

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. Our government is in business to the extent over owning more than 19,000 businesses covering different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.

But at the moment I’d like to talk about another way. Because this threat is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman Administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So, with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand Bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those who are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for Social Security.

Now, Congressman Ferrand brought the program out on that idea of just for that group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the- door philosophy, because he said “if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

Walter Ruther said “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record as backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. Well, let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say about it.

They say: “Once the Ferrrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population.’ Well, we can’t say we haven’t been warned.

Now, Congressman Ferrand is no longer a congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill, by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores the fact that in the last decade a hundred and twenty seven million of our citizens in just ten years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.

Now the advocates of this bill, when you try to oppose it, challenge you on an emotional basis. They say “What would you do, throw these poor old people out to die with no medical attention?” That’s ridiculous and of course no one’s has advocated it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr-Mills Bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried, to see if it works, they have introduced this King Bill which is really the Ferrand Bill.

What is the Kerr-Mills Bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens that I have mentioned. And it is provided from the federal government money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it. Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says “we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on the basis of age alone; regardless of whether they’re worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they’re protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.”

I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-Congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time – socialized medicine.


funny how history repeats itself

[zimmy]

[QUOTE=scottw;926385]

Originally Posted by zimmy

... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. QUOTE]

you've said this before with absolutely nothing as evidence.......there is a wealth of available audio and reading material of Reagan in his own words to better acquiant yourself with his political views which align quite nicely with Tea Party types

Tefra, Payroll taxes, amnesty for illegals. You apparently aren't very familiar with his policies? His words may jive with the flea party, but his policies aren't even close.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=zimmy;926715]

Originally Posted by scottw

Tefra, Payroll taxes, amnesty for illegals. You apparently aren't very familiar with his policies? His words may jive with the flea party, but his policies aren't even close.

Tefra...a Reagan policy?
TEFRA was created in order to reduce the budget gap by generating revenue through closure of tax loopholes and introduction of tougher enforcement of tax rules, as opposed to changing marginal income tax rates.
Ronald Reagan agreed to the tax hikes on the promise from Congress of a $3 reduction in spending for every $1 increase in taxes. One week after TEFRA was signed, H.R. 6863 - the Supplemental Appropriations Act(SPENDING) of 1982 which Ronald Reagan claimed would "bust the budget" was passed by both houses of Congress over his veto.


amnesty...a Reagan policy? a compromise he later regretted, he supported sanctions on employers who employed illegals which were called "draconian".... and supported Simpson saying " I’ll sign it. It’s high time we regained control of our borders and his bill will do this.”


Payroll taxes....I think we've learned that it's a mistake to compromise with dems(and many repubs) with regard to tax increases, particularly when they accompany promised spending reductions that never seem to materialize

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA

Pennsylvania Legislature swears in new members; GOP has majority
Tuesday, January 04, 2011,
By The Associated Press The Associated Press

The Pennsylvania General Assembly began its new legislative session today by swearing in new and returning members and electing Republican veterans to lead each chamber.

Twenty-one freshmen Republicans and eight new Democrats were sworn in to the House, and Jefferson County Republican Sam Smith was elected speaker. The Senate swore in 25 members, including three Democratic freshmen, and elected Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, to a third term as president pro tempore.

Neither Smith nor Scarnati was opposed.

Smith urged members to live up to the responsibilities of their office, and gave the freshman class particular advice. "Don't read your own news releases, keep your feet on the ground and be mindful of why you wanted to be here and why the voters elected you," Smith said.

With both the House and Senate in GOP hands, and Republican Gov.-elect Tom Corbett preparing to be inaugurated Jan. 18, the Capitol is poised to take a rightward turn from the divided government of recent years. State government's massive deficit will be their first challenge.

House Republicans regained the majority in the November election after two terms in the minority; their margin is 112-91. The Senate has been firmly in GOP hands for many years, and its majority is currently 30-20. Each house also has a vacancy created by the death of a Democratic lawmaker.

I also count 1 Republican Senator and 1 Democrat Senator as well as 12 Republican Congresspeople and 7 Democrat Congresspeople

which Pennsylvania were you referring to ????

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

yup...barely any Republicans left in PA

There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

There you go again, change what people say to fit your H.J. Simpson thought processes I'm sure you know, in PA there are districts where a Democrat may never win. I wasn't talking about the Hegin's pigeon shoot crowd. I was referring to the middle of the road Republican's who have left the party in pretty substantial numbers over the last decade or 2


Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general.

Republican Governor
Republican controlled state senate
Republican controlled state house of reps
1:1 Senators
12:7 Republican Conresspeople

apparently they aren't voting for democrats very much

what is your definition of "barely competitive"?

how do I "change what you say" if I quote you exactly?

never mind..I get it...

Originally Posted by zimmy

Even if your point is 100% true, it is pretty much irrelevant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I was a republican, as well. Growing up, everyone I knew was Republican. They have almost all either switched or are independent. It is one reason why PA is barely competitive in the general. I have said it before... Reagan would be too liberal for the tea party. Apparently, Huntsman is too. There has always been a wacked out component of the Republican party. Now they are driving the bus off the cliff. Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's.

Where to begin?

You're saying today's Democrats aren't more liberal than a generation ago? Condoms in elementary schools? Partial birth abortions? Willfully ignoring immigration laws? Giving public labor unions a blank check? Pretending that we're not at war with Islamic terrorists?

"Started with Newt and Rush in the 90's"

Yeah, Newt was a real nut. He (along with Bill Clinton, who I assume you also consider a right-wing nut) balanced the budget, cut spending, cut taxes, and got millions of welfare recipients back to work. God knows, none of those ideas has any usefulness today, right, Zimmy?

Our country is more polarized today than at any time since the Civil War, and I'm as guilty of that as anybody. Any group that thinks murderers have more of a right to live than unborn babies, who think that affirmative action isn't clearly unconstitutional, who is afraid to admit that there's any such thing as Islamic terrorists, who thinks it's OK to ignore immigration laws, and who thinks it's OK for states to go bankrupt to enrich public labor unions, is kooky in my opinion.

My side stands for individual freedom, compassion for those who need it, strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, supporting the free market. I can see how Zimmy sees these ideas as radical.