Are we consistent with conservative values? We would need an absolute definition of "conservative values" to be sure. I think that in this thread, the OP has confused "conservative values" with "Republican political positions". The two are not mutually inclusive.

I am suggesting that many republicans are two faced about the US conservative values they preach. A republican who preaches the greatness of our constitution but supports decisions against it. A specific example would be republicans who defended the government spy programs that Snowden leaked.

I am suggesting that many republicans are two faced about the US conservative values they preach. A republican who preaches the greatness of our constitution but supports decisions against it. A specific example would be republicans who defended the government spy programs that Snowden leaked.

This is a cold hard fact, and a large swath of the conservative base is tired of it. How else does Trump get to be the frontrunner for the republican nomination?

Both party's are owned by the same mega rich donors, corporations and special interest groups. Therefore, the goals never really change.

This is why the republican party establishment is so upset that Trump, Carson, Fiorina have gained so much support. It takes them out of the drivers seat, people could find out the truth.

I think most conservatives vote republican because there is no other viable alternative. We hold our nose and vote for the least smelly of the turds made available.

This is a cold hard fact, and a large swath of the conservative base is tired of it. How else does Trump get to be the frontrunner for the republican nomination?

Both party's are owned by the same mega rich donors, corporations and special interest groups. Therefore, the goals never really change.

This is why the republican party establishment is so upset that Trump, Carson, Fiorina have gained so much support. It takes them out of the drivers seat, people could find out the truth.

I think most conservatives vote republican because there is no other viable alternative. We hold our nose and vote for the least smelly of the turds made available.

That is why I am surprised Rand Paul isn't doing better. Sure he is a political insider but his arguments in debates and in congress are at least consistent.

That is why I am surprised Rand Paul isn't doing better. Sure he is a political insider but his arguments in debates and in congress are at least consistent.

Even though I swing more libertarian in my veiws, I dont think many really dig the isolationist ideals of hard core libertarians.   Being a little proactive might be a better solution to some issues.. like Paris?  Costs many more lives to fix the issues when it get to a certain point, than it would if the problem was dealt with sooner.

That is why I am surprised Rand Paul isn't doing better. Sure he is a political insider but his arguments in debates and in congress are at least consistent.

He, like his father, is not really a "conservative". He's a libertarian. Their "live and let live" policies are admirable, but it also leaves them weak on the military and foreign policy.

This demonstrates the real problem with the republican party, it's become factionalized.

It has developed into a fight between three different factions, the majority or "Establishment" faction made up of old timers like Boehner and McConnell who are "go along to get along" types that sway like palm trees with any political wind. The Tea Party, made up of staunchly conservative members too many of whom are seen as religious zealots. The Libertarians, just a sprinkling of these, trying to win a seat at the "big kids" table and only taken seriously due to their Constitutional leanings.

Until these factions unite with a single coherent message and purpose, it's going to be an uphill battle.

This is a cold hard fact, and a large swath of the conservative base is tired of it. How else does Trump get to be the frontrunner for the republican nomination?

Both party's are owned by the same mega rich donors, corporations and special interest groups. Therefore, the goals never really change.

This is why the republican party establishment is so upset that Trump, Carson, Fiorina have gained so much support. It takes them out of the drivers seat, people could find out the truth.

I think most conservatives vote republican because there is no other viable alternative. We hold our nose and vote for the least smelly of the turds made available.

Well said, Ed! 

Hey, I rhymed. I'm a poet and don't know it! 

That is why I am surprised Rand Paul isn't doing better. Sure he is a political insider but his arguments in debates and in congress are at least consistent.

I would support Rand Paul if he got into say the top 5 candidates. Unfortunately, I don't think he has the personality that people want to see. Nothing against the guy. I agree with most (not all) of his views but I really believe there are far better candidates right now for what we need in this country. And I think so far the popularity of Paul bears that out.

Even though I swing more libertarian in my veiws, I dont think many really dig the isolationist ideals of hard core libertarians.   Being a little proactive might be a better solution to some issues.. like Paris?  Costs many more lives to fix the issues when it get to a certain point, than it would if the problem was dealt with sooner.

Unless Rand Paul is hiding it, I don't think he is an isolationist. I think his competition would like to portray him that way though. IIRC he was against our involvement with Syria, among other middle east conflicts, that seem to have only made things worse. I don't know his threshold in terms of when to exert force but I think a leader should be very selective when deciding when to have people lose lives over political issues, internationally speaking.

Unless Rand Paul is hiding it, I don't think he is an isolationist. I think his competition would like to portray him that way though. IIRC he was against our involvement with Syria, among other middle east conflicts, that seem to have only made things worse. I don't know his threshold in terms of when to exert force but I think a leader should be very selective when deciding when to have people lose lives over political issues, internationally speaking.

I don't know. When countries specifically call for the total destruction of other countries and murder of it's people, especially when they claim their religion calls for it,  I think we are moving out of the realm of political.

I don't know. When countries specifically call for the total destruction of other countries and murder of it's people, especially when they claim their religion calls for it,  I think we are moving out of the realm of political.

Is Rand Paul not a friend of Israel?

Is Rand Paul not a friend of Israel?

I did not say he did not, I mean to point out that in you previous post you said, ..."very selective when deciding when to have people lose lives over political issues".   What I mean by that is, when a group or country calls out for utter annihilation of an other country, people, way of life something needs to be done immediately.   Like I said somewhere before, I lean more Libertarian in my views, but one major thing I don't agree with is the isolationist views.  Whether Paul is or is not I don't know.  But in these times I don't believe that this would be a good policy to follow.  It feels like WW2 is starting all over again.  Peacenicks trying to appease and please an enemy that has no intention of being peaceful in any case.

If a dude came into your house an said, "I'm gonna kill you, your wife and kids, and your dog!" are you going to ponder the repercussions, risks, meaning, and intricate details of his statement, or are you going to act?

...If a dude came into your house an said, "I'm gonna kill you, your wife and kids, and your dog!" are you going to ponder the repercussions, risks, meaning, and intricate details of his statement, or are you going to act?

For me it would make a huge difference if he really meant to hurt my dog. 

For me it would make a huge difference if he really meant to hurt my dog. 

...
I agree. The thought of my dog lying in a poodle of blood is so terrierble.
The trauma would hound me for the rest of my life.

I did not say he did not, I mean to point out that in you previous post you said, ..."very selective when deciding when to have people lose lives over political issues".   What I mean by that is, when a group or country calls out for utter annihilation of an other country, people, way of life something needs to be done immediately.   Like I said somewhere before, I lean more Libertarian in my views, but one major thing I don't agree with is the isolationist views.  Whether Paul is or is not I don't know.  But in these times I don't believe that this would be a good policy to follow.  It feels like WW2 is starting all over again.  Peacenicks trying to appease and please an enemy that has no intention of being peaceful in any case.

If a dude came into your house an said, "I'm gonna kill you, your wife and kids, and your dog!" are you going to ponder the repercussions, risks, meaning, and intricate details of his statement, or are you going to act?

I agree isolationism is not a good policy but the opposite can be equally detrimental. Certainly we have shown some restraint (we haven't attacked North Korea) but it does seem we have made some mistakes in deciding to interfere with other governments.

I am particularly interest in the questions that have come up in the debates of what to do in the face of Russian action. Carson mentioned putting a no fly zone in Syria as an option against Russia, but then it comes down to what we will do if a no fly zone declaration zone is violated. Are we going to shoot down a Russian jet (taking lives) thereby possibly risking war over what Russia is doing to support Assad? Or what actions we would take over Ukraine, etc.

When do we take lives to combat a political ideology for example?

...
I agree. The thought of my dog lying in a poodle of blood is so terrierble.
The trauma would hound me for the rest of my life.

I had to paws and wait for the rimshot.

Couldn't resist
 

A few more examples,
when Lois Lerner addressed congress but declined to answer questions, conservatives were calling for her to be arrested. Clearly they don't understand the 5th amendment or disregard it when it suits them.
Some conservatives representatives rightly questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare but also suggest ways of repealing it or changing it in ways that are not consistent with the constitution either.
Others here (mostly conservative I would assume) have suggested that a soldiers duty to go to war exists regardless of whether war is conducted according to the constitution.

 
I think that we as conservatives need to be consistent in having the government following the constitution, not just use it when it suits us and discard it when it doesn't.

Couldn't resist
 

Thanks for the laugh, Hound!!!