Do you know where 75 percent of all the funding for conservation agencies in all 50 states comes from? Federal funding? Nope. Greenpeace? Nope. PETA? No again. Hunters and fishermen? YES! Want to hazard a guess as to which party the hunters and fishermen generally back? The people who are the loudest aren't necessarily the ones who care the most or contribute the most. Incidentally, I was once a member of PETA and SETA myself. Here is a sight that might interest you.
hunters and the environment

Drilling. Interesting topic. Environmental agencies have been making money off of drilling companies for years. Audubon Society was in a partnership with the energy industry to extract natural gas from the Society's Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary in Louisiana from 1941 until last year. As for Bush's plan to drill in the ANWR...

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/..%5Cpdf%5Cenv%5CANWR.htm





I remember Al Gore's 50,000 dollar per couple fundraising dinner in San Fransico (during the 2000 campaign), so I must disagree with you there as well.

Both conservatives and liberals are equally inconsistent. Each party panders to their voter base, knows where it's bread is buttered, and uses the tactic of loudly and proudly asserting moral superiority.

The terms conservative and liberal are generalizations to start with. To expect anybody carrying either label to support any and every idea similarly given a label is (IMO) ridiculous. Just because people may swing with a general train of thought does not mean they have to catch every ride. It's a reflection of individuality, not of inconsistency within either label.

Mike wrote:


Jehovah's Witnesses will not take donated blood, even if necessary for survival. A JW in med school, however, must still learn the procedure, and why it is important.

Kids in school can learn about condom use because factually, condoms are a fairly effective method of preventing STDs and pregnancy. It doesn't mean they have to use them.

And Mike, when you said that abstinence is 100% effective... I think what BJ was saying, and it was true, is that abstinence as the sole sex education doesn't work. Kids are still going to have sex, and we have to address that.

Sorry for being OT, just had to clear this up.

Everyone's inconsistent. We are not robots, we're complex people. As soon as we think in terms of generalizations about each other, we are lessening the level of debate. If you replaced this thread title with "white" or "black" it would be awful, and people would be up in arms about it.

I am inconsistent because that I think everyone should have equal rights.... except dirty, stinking conservatives.

Point of constitutional law:

The phrase "... respecting an establishment of religion" has nothing to do with a prohibition against giving respect to religious establishments. Rather it could be rephrased without changing the intended meaning as: "concerning an establishment of religion" or "on the subject of an establishment of religion."

Once that confusion is cleared up, it also becomes grammatically clear that "establishment" is meant as an action of the federal government, not a thing. Thus, the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment could read, without any change of the Founder's intended meaning: "Congress shall make no law having the effect of establishing an official national religion." Note also that did not prohibit states from having official religions, as several of them did at the time of ratification, only the federal government.

That's quite a bit different from the way it's commonly thought of, and difference doesn't seem to arise from so much from different legal philosophies as simply from the changes in English usage and idioms since the Constitution was written. Which is not to say that there can't be legitimate differences on the interpretation, just that the differences should not be based on linguistic misunderstanding.

As I was reading Izdaari's cogent point, I looked again at part of Platypus' bit:



Actually, the government allows the Native American Church to legally use peyote in church rituals. That's the only example I could think of.

But of course, all this is rather beside the point. Are conservatives inconsistent? Of course. As are we all.

This topic has been stagnant for over a month... But I'm still going to reply, because there is one major inconsistency that I've never heard anyone address.
President Bush is anti-abortion and anti-comprehensive sexual education. I think we can all agree on this - I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks Bush would support a woman having an abortion, or a school teaching comprehensive sexual education. He has recently pushed for many initiatives to hamper a woman seeking an abortion - i.e. making abortion clinics show women pictures of the fetus at different stages of development, only he justifies it by saying that he simply wants the woman to have all the information possible regarding her decision.
And yet... he wants federal funding to go to schools who only teach abstinence.
This is a GLARING inconsistency in many conservatives, not just Bush.
Source: http://www.wanaral.org/s09issues/200307092.shtml
Many of the statements in that source are too opinionated, but these are the main ones that simply state a fact:
"Over thirty states have abortion-specific “informed” consent laws requiring that a woman seeking abortion services listen to a state-mandated lecture prior to an abortion."
"More than twenty states combine these “informed” consent laws with waiting periods that prohibit a woman from obtaining an abortion until a specified period of time after receiving the lecture."
I'm still searching for the article in which Bush made the comment about wanting women to have all the tools needed to make an informed decision.

I'm sorry, Suzy, I don't see what's inconsistant. Were you to throw in that Bush supports the death penalty and not abortion, then I could agree. However, merely saying he's against abortion and 'comprehensive' sex ed is not, in itself, inconsistant. With what is it inconsistant?

Jaime, I think it was the idea that he is opposed to abortion, and yet does not want to educate young people about sexuality, which will probably lead to more teens getting pregnant.

It could be a right wing ploy to spur a population boost...

This is why in one post I talked about the neo vs paleo conservative, because they seem to have very different ideas about gov't intrusion.

I can think of no greater interference in a private citizen's life than the goverment deciding who you can and can't marry, a la' gay marriages. The second greatest interference by the goverment against a private citizen is what we injest or how we waste our money ( gambling, prostitution and drug use). These are the most private and personal decisions we can make, and the goverment interferes. This is a HUGE conservative inconsistancy since anybody that defines themselves as conservative always says "I am for less goverment, get the goverment off the backs of the POEPLE"- how are restrictions of these activities LESS intrusive than regulatiing your business, a decidedly, by neccesity, public affair?

I do like the idea of fiscal conservative- it is simply the most beneficial to all segments of society- don't spend what you don't have, don't tax so high you stifle business etc- good sound economic principles. That being said, this administration, that defines ITSELF as conservative, has been HORRIBLY remiss at fiscal conservative, and in fact, some have coined a new phrase for it- as opposed to 'TAX and SPEND" of the 70s dems, this administration is "borrow and spend" - a much worse practise. Very inconsistant with conservative idealogy.


AS for the enviroment- that has all gone out the window. This administration has tried an and run around about every enviromental control that is up here in favor of oil and logging, sometimes at the expense of other industries.

Funny Mrs. Pigpen mentioned ANWR- a big, probably the second biggest next to the subsistance state constitutional crisis, issue in the state. One side says "the foot print is so tiny, there is no impact"- true on the face, but that is not the problem- oil spills usually happen when oil is TRANSPORTED not drilled. So the problem is not that ANWR DRILLING is a possible enviromental problem, but the moving of that oil through that enviroment, and the oil companies have a lousy record of taking care of business in that direction- one reason I believe in the death penalty for all resource developement company board members with "accidents" involving more than a 100 million dollars. Might put a damper on some reckless behavior eh?

So Bush says he wan't to be an "Enviromental" president while attempting to take every safeguard and liability he can away- pretty inconsistant too eh?

Eh? Your saying that by not educating people about sex, it will lead to less pregnancies?

Well, I'm feeling a whole lot better because I found out how sex work out all by myself!

Honestly though, if you think you can keep kids in the dark about sex and have it remain a big mystery for them up until age 18, well, thats ludicrous! I really think that most people can figure it out by themselves. I mean, obviously cave men found out, otherwise we wouldnt be here!! (Not to turn this into creation vs. evolution).

Usually, sex education doesnt teach you how to have sex. It teaches all about birth control and dieseases. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I still hold that republicans are against sex education and birth control because conservatives are tight with religious organization (Bush running himself as a christian man, for example). And religon teaches one value about sex, ABSTINANCE!!! Sex only for procreation (a gift to the married), nothing else.

Back on topic, I really think that you'll never pin down the conservative movement for being inconsistant. Its why the history books arent being changed after Ann coulters book, treason. For every example she can point of a democrat being "teasonous"; there will always be a democrat who stood up for the american system.

Liberals arent beyond being inconsistant either. There are plenty democrats who are; and many who are not.

You'll have the same problem pinning the conservatives; there are plenty of intelligent conservatives out there that make sure there policys are consistant. You cant make a blanket statement claiming that all conservatives are inconsistant.

That wasn't the part of my post that was pointing out conservatives' inconsistency.
"He has recently pushed for many initiatives to hamper a woman seeking an abortion - i.e. making abortion clinics show women pictures of the fetus at different stages of development, only he justifies it by saying that he simply wants the woman to have all the information possible regarding her decision.
And yet... he wants federal funding to go to schools who only teach abstinence."
That was. There is an obvious inconsistency in someone claiming they want to give a woman who wants to have an abortion all the information they need to make that decision, but not wanting teenagers to have all the information they need to make an equally important, if not more so, decision about their sex lives.

I see. Thanks for the explanation

I see a lot of inconsistancy in this arguement. Keeping people, and obviously teen/youth in the dark as to reproductive/hormonal systems, how they work in male and female, how and when pregnancy is possible, the risks of disease is inconsistant with an anti-abortion, anti programs, anti health benefits situation. Education is MUCH cheaper than lifetime support of children and unwed, especially teen mothers and a strain on the health care system for STDS. If it werent for such archaiic beliefs which have NO bearing on todays youth, we'd have a healthier, more responsible young population who might very well go on to having healthy families, not so many impoverished, babies raising babies, struggling and possibly terminally sick.
Being against sex education is definately one of the Republicans most extreme inconsistancies. If you dont educate, then refuse to help either mothers or children born through ignorance, and offer no health care, you have backed people, especially young women into a corner in a no win situation.
Of course Republicans 'teach' abstinance? Where? How? They dont teach abstinance, they Preach It and remain inconsistant. You cannot teach do as I say and not as I do. Kids are not stupid when it comes to figuring out that certain rules apply to them and not to adults. That is a big inconsistancy for them. Divorce rates at 50 %, and they DO understand that Dad has run off with his secretary or the babysitter and mom has various lovers too and know thats not all about lifetime love and dedication and certainly not about abstinance.
In todays world sex education is a MUST.

To my knowledge, sex education was brought on by the increasing number of people getting STD's, AIDS in particular. Sex education was to teach "safe sex". In fifth grade, I had a sex ed class, pregnancy was a little blurb somewhere in the middle of a long class. It's primary focus was to point out how easy it is to contract diseases through sexual intercourse. Then, to show us the ones that are curable and which ones are not. You could probably call it a "scare tactic" but I'm all for scaring them a little if it means they'll think twice before having unprotected sex.

That being said, I'd still rather see some parental responsibility. Something in which I think conservatives are more "consistent" with(since we're using gross generalizations, blanket statements, and stereotypes as an entire thread anway).

I really hope you don't see abortion as a "decision about their sex lives". Please tell me that statement came out wrong.


Right. America's youth should follow the Bill Clinton model and fool around with the intern and STAY MARRIED. And then have the wife rationalize his actions.

Also, the Conservative stance on death penalty and abortion are not inconsistent. In one case, there are actions taken which bring death upon the condemned...

What any two people choose to do in the bedroom isn't any of the government's business. If Clinton wants to sleep around on his wife and she wants to stay with him, so be it. I don't respect the decision, but it isn't my decision to make, is it?

So why are you so concerned about it?

What he does IN THE WORKPLACE should be a concern to the American people. What he does WITH A SUBORDINATE would be very much an issue in the corporate world.

It's over now (thankfully), but the damage is done. I only wish it WERE done in a bedroom.

The conservative drive for decentralized government is about maximizing control for local governments and individuals, the large military push is irrelevant to that, hence, not contradictory.

My comparison was that the decisions about their sex lives are equally or more important decision that the decision to have an abortion. My apologies for any perceived misinterpretations.

As I talk with more and more people that call themselves conservative, I think it is becoming time to distance the Bush adminstration from the label of Conservatism.

They are not fiscally conservative. I do think the Bush administration does advocate a plan of social conservatism. But in a central area of conservatism, the concern about limited roles and power for the federal government, the Bush administration seems to be increasing the size and scope of the federal government at a record pace.

He did nothing wrong in the pursuit of his job as President. If he wants to have mistresses under his desk in the Oval Office, that's fine and dandy by me, so long as it doesn't harm his performance as President. And if Bush could find anyone to blow him... more power to him.

It was still a Republican witch hunt which they declared before he ever got into office. If that was Bush in there getting laid, you can be sure you'd hear crickets from the Republican side.

Eeyore is exactly right. There seems to be a huge discrepency about whether President Bush is too liberal or too conservative. I can tell you that among conservatives, he is looked at as far too liberal. The huge spending is a huge part of that. In his defense though, I do think he had to create the biggest part of all that, the Homeland Security Dept.

That got me curious about how much is being spent on "Homeland Security" because I have heard a lot of news reports about the Coast Guard being stretched thinner, Customs being unable to inspect everything, etc.

I thought that I would see what our Professor of "Fuzzy Math" had actually accomplished with this concept. It was fascinating.

Narcotics Law Enforcement is a page that I stumbled across by accident while searching for something else. I expected that the "War on Drugs" would be an integral part of this. After all, the ads on TV tell us that using illegal drugs helps support terrorism. Spending apparently peaked at about 6.3 Million dollars in 1997, and there is a request for 1 million dollars for 2004.

The U.S. Coast Guard is now part of Homeland Security. In a CNN story in March, the President is quoted as requesting 4 Billion dollars for the Homeland Security Dept., which is now responsible for the Coast Guard.. The Coast Guard Budget request shows that they last operated on 4 Billion dollars about 5 years ago, without the added bureaucracy of The Homeland Security Dept. No wonder they’ve adopted a guilty until proven innocent stance.

The FBI Budget, shows them hiring 1000 more people, with 50 Million dollars less to train, equip, and pay them. That should be good for morale.

The INS Budget was easy to find, straightforward to read, and apparently is growing at a steady pace.

It was interesting. Some budgets are clearly presented. Others are very difficult to read. U.S. Customs budget?

My original intent was to follow the money, and see where our focus shifted after 9/11. Some budgets go back as far as 1975 for comparison. Some go back as far as this year.


I doubt if we will spend in a year on Homeland Security, what he plans to spend monthly fighting in Iraq. I'm told that we are currently budgeting a billion dollars a day fighting, and the CNN story cited above said that George Dubya Bush only requested $4 billion a year for his highly touted Homeland Security Dept. I am often left wondering if he allowed 9/11 to happen so that he could initiate a war. Has he chosen to put all of our money into "defending truth, justice, and the American way" halfway around the world so that he can say "Oops!" when we're attacked again?

In the interest of fairness, we are closing this thread (along with The Far Left thread).

Please feel free to start a similar (perhaps less blanketing) thread anytime.