[TheRealThing]

You can't be serious. You actually think that just because somebody has an "R" beside their name that they're conservative? Using your logic, then does "D" automatically mean liberal? Conservatism vs. liberalism wasn't nearly the issue it is now at the time of Roe v. Wade. What you didn't mention is that one of the dissenting judges, Byron White - appointed by Democrat JFK - often gave pro-life votes in the SCOTUS. He was also one of the dissenting judges in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which by a 5-4 vote upheld Roe v. Wade.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who was one of the court's most liberal justices, was appointed by Republican Gerald Ford. Here I had it wrong this whole time, I should've known because Ford appointed him that he was conservative.

It's hard to take this seriously, you're more here just trying to get a rise out of the conservative base here.

Very good answer. ^^

I get the sense he's a true believer. Because if you ask me beginning mid 20th Century, the left began a moral migration which has carried them across a certain historic line. I believe many politicians from the days of the Clinton Era onward, have stretched the boundaries of what once constituted honorable dealings on behalf of their own constituents, and they did that for the cause of social justice. The tenets of which they consider worthy to supercede any Constitutional restrictions, or any voter-conferred mandate. Or better, for the sake of secular humanism. A force which requires an absence of Godly awe to grow, and is actually the absence of religion. Further, it is the product of man’s own pride and inflated sense of self worth, delusions under which he imagines himself to be inherently moral and wise. And thusly having turned his back on the sovereignty of God, prefers that his own wisdom is sufficient, owing to what he insists are the changing times. All of which in turn causes him to worship other men in whom are found the ever morphing solutions and answers the 'times' demand.

From that endless cycle cometh the present chaos, revisionist recklessness and continual state of dispute.

But the left's war had been moving at a snail's pace. And lacking an adequate argument to sway the people quickly, and in order to defeat any supportive feelings of country or nationalism or patriotism, the afore mentioned amoral adherents of social justice have used identity politics as a wedge to drive "the people" as far apart as possible. The old divide and conquer. Identity politics as were exploited in Hitler's day, in an effort to manufacture some sort of moral appearing shroud behind which to operate. And in the US we see the resultant devastation at every level of our culture. Even the NFL has been politicized and become corrupted. But where Hitler had his eye on world domination by force, the progressives have their eye on world domination by a sort of hokey secular humanistic movement.

To wit, you're talking about a voting base that STILL wants Hillary in there, even though there is more verifiable evidence of wrongdoing than likely every US President in history combined. And she accumulated that remarkably unfortunate baggage while serving in lower posts. Imagine if she actually had gotten elected President.

In fact and in general, and if one can believe the media to any degree, the hands of the Obama administration are so dirty it will take 7 more years just to define the extent of the subversion and identities of the culprits. There is small wonder that the 'resistance' is so rabidly daring, they’ve bet all that they have on the ’transformation.’ The sides are therefore well defined as it were, and so to your point.

The converts of the 'transformation' will say or do anything to avoid further exposure and loss of power, thus the deception you have observed in his talking points. Talking points which if repeated often enough will sway some of the people. While on the other hand, conservative anti-revisionist traditionalists, seek only to counter the propaganda and preserve the Republic in the form and vision of the Founders. I agree with your post in other words, I just think the disagreement as it exists between the two bases, is so fundamental at the root of our society that it has been with us since the days of the Founders. And I believe that was the central lament of Ben Franklin’s answer to the lady who had asked, following the Constitutional Convention, what it was that we “the people” had attained?

“Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”. Mr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

In such conflict, continual strife and personal responsibility, is found the true nature of self-governance. And at it’s heart there cannot be a people who're willful victims of circumstance, completely dependent on a government with a record of buying voter allegiance.