Why is it that so many conservatives are no longer interested in conserving natural resources?

[martybegan]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Who told you that they don't? And don't use a stupid example of a few people trying to get a liberals goat by making comments like that....now, excuse Me while I go tend to My tire fire in the back yard.

You had better be roasting an endangered specie on that fire.

 

[2aguy]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Oh,......and what made it possible for Roosevelt...the king of American Conservation to be that conservation champion.......he was rich......his family was rich.....and he used his wealth to make things better.....not so the poor guy working 16 hours a day just to survive.......

Wealth creates a better environment, that is why capitalist countries will always be cleaner........

 

[Darkwind]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

Who told you that they don't? And don't use a stupid example of a few people trying to get a liberals goat by making comments like that....now, excuse Me while I go tend to My tire fire in the back yard.

You had better be roasting an endangered specie on that fire.

Just some spotted owl....I know, its so last century, but they're so tasty!

 

[bripat9643]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Wilderness areas in those days were almost entirely owned by the government, so it's ridiculous to blame capitalism for the problem. When forest land is privately owned it's managed responsibly. Owners don't allow clear cutting on their property.

 

[hipeter924]

Contemporary conservatives think that capitalism is a form of gov't and therefore if something doesn't turn a profit then it has to be plowed under. Funny coming from them since vietraq cost this great nation dearly & they were cheering it on the whole time to this day.

Its actually just the opposite Dotty. As it's proven over and over again that when you put land into "commons", there is no personal interest in not abusing it. In Africa, when the govts attempted to run the all the wildlife land, it was constantly plundered and abused. When they released it to LOCAL control, the folks discovered new CAPITALIST methods to make it valuable to them. When your livelihood depends on the tourism and research that occurs in your little slice of nature -- you tend to protect and defend it much better..

Same story with fishing commons versus site licenses. The "owners" and leasees will spend their time and money to assure that it's not abused or overfished and act to improve its health..

True story dude... Capitalizing on nature aint always a bad thing..

thats funny "dude" because I've never met a conservative who happened to give a shit about the environment. True story

Well, that's because you're a moron. Opposing left-wing schemes to bankrupt the country for the sake of making the environment 0.0000000001% cleaner does not equate to not giving a shit about the environment.

Oh look, rage queen got upset. Better call the radio station to rage about liberals, so your head doesn't explode.

 

[Nyvin]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Oh,......and what made it possible for Roosevelt...the king of American Conservation to be that conservation champion.......he was rich......his family was rich.....and he used his wealth to make things better.....not so the poor guy working 16 hours a day just to survive.......

Wealth creates a better environment, that is why capitalist countries will always be cleaner........

Cherry picking 1 person doesn't change the facts. Besides Roosevelt just came along at the right time, the industrial revolution was in full swing and there were rampant fears of running out of wood going around the country (coal and oil were not as developed back then as energy sources). There were also growing understanding of nature and wildlife. Back before Roosevelt's time if you saw an endangered animal you usually shot it...so it could be stuffed and put into a museum or collection.

It was basically only "after" most of the wilderness areas in the Eastern US were destroyed that people started to wise up about preserving them. Hence why the vast majority of National Forest are in the western US.

Capitalism, by nature, does not preserve wilderness or wildlife. If left to it's own without outside influence it will cut down all the trees for profit and farmland, it will shoot all the animals for furs and meat or whatever else. How in the world else do you get extinctions??? Did government officials go out and kill all the eastern woodlands bison? Was there no profit motive to create all the farmland we have in place of forest? Your argument is pretty silly in light of facts.

 

[Nyvin]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Wilderness areas in those days were almost entirely owned by the government, so it's ridiculous to blame capitalism for the problem. When forest land is privately owned it's managed responsibly. Owners don't allow clear cutting on their property.

No they weren't. The vast majority of government owned land is in the West. In the eastern half of the country the government would transfer land ownership to private investments usually to make living space or farmland very quickly after statehood. The reason the government started hanging onto more land in the West is because the public started realizing how letting people have at it with land usually left everything destroyed, like in the east.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Oh,......and what made it possible for Roosevelt...the king of American Conservation to be that conservation champion.......he was rich......his family was rich.....and he used his wealth to make things better.....not so the poor guy working 16 hours a day just to survive.......

Wealth creates a better environment, that is why capitalist countries will always be cleaner........

Cherry picking 1 person doesn't change the facts. Besides Roosevelt just came along at the right time, the industrial revolution was in full swing and there were rampant fears of running out of wood going around the country (coal and oil were not as developed back then as energy sources). There were also growing understanding of nature and wildlife. Back before Roosevelt's time if you saw an endangered animal you usually shot it...so it could be stuffed and put into a museum or collection.

It was basically only "after" most of the wilderness areas in the Eastern US were destroyed that people started to wise up about preserving them. Hence why the vast majority of National Forest are in the western US.

Capitalism, by nature, does not preserve wilderness or wildlife. If left to it's own without outside influence it will cut down all the trees for profit and farmland, it will shoot all the animals for furs and meat or whatever else. How in the world else do you get extinctions??? Did government officials go out and kill all the eastern woodlands bison? Was there no profit motive to create all the farmland we have in place of forest? Your argument is pretty silly in light of facts.

Did government officials go out and kill all the eastern woodlands bison?

Who preserved the bison?

 

[Iceweasel]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

We say things like that to make liberals soil their panties. It's fun. We poke fun at them because they spout off their bullshit while living in homes much larger than they need, live in cites and sit in traffic burning fuel while complaining about the mpg of a bigger auto, buy new cars on a regular basis, disregarding the energy required to make them, water their lawns in drought ridden areas. Complain about Walmart's Chinese deals while standing in line for the latest Apple doodad.

The list is endless, the hypocrisy infinite and smugness that's nothing short of comical. As if we weren't supposed to notice.

 

[2aguy]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Oh,......and what made it possible for Roosevelt...the king of American Conservation to be that conservation champion.......he was rich......his family was rich.....and he used his wealth to make things better.....not so the poor guy working 16 hours a day just to survive.......

Wealth creates a better environment, that is why capitalist countries will always be cleaner........

Cherry picking 1 person doesn't change the facts. Besides Roosevelt just came along at the right time, the industrial revolution was in full swing and there were rampant fears of running out of wood going around the country (coal and oil were not as developed back then as energy sources). There were also growing understanding of nature and wildlife. Back before Roosevelt's time if you saw an endangered animal you usually shot it...so it could be stuffed and put into a museum or collection.

It was basically only "after" most of the wilderness areas in the Eastern US were destroyed that people started to wise up about preserving them. Hence why the vast majority of National Forest are in the western US.

Capitalism, by nature, does not preserve wilderness or wildlife. If left to it's own without outside influence it will cut down all the trees for profit and farmland, it will shoot all the animals for furs and meat or whatever else. How in the world else do you get extinctions??? Did government officials go out and kill all the eastern woodlands bison? Was there no profit motive to create all the farmland we have in place of forest? Your argument is pretty silly in light of facts.

Sorry. You are wrong.....the industrial revolution created our wealth....and people had time and money to complain about their own living conditions and the world around them....go to the socialist paradises....Russia and China....they have been around longer than we have and their countries are crap with pollution.....but....as I said....Chinese people are getting wealthier....and are going to want their environment fixed...they now have the money to do it....

Everything you posted changed when our nation became industrial and people didn't have to spend every waking moment trying to scrape a living together.....Capitalism by nature has to conserve...Capitalism has to make people happy to succeed....government controlled economies don't have to make people happy......

 

[Uncensored2008]

Enslavement under a totalitarian regime isn't "conserving natural resources."

You leftists seek a totalitarian state. You use Scientology (hey, AGW ain't science.) to promote your goal, but conservation has nothing to do with it.

 

[bripat9643]

A lot of Republican Presidents have been interested in protecting and preserving National Parks, so it isn't strictly true that all Republicans are anti-conservation, and there are plenty of wealthy donors.

Ah but he didn't say "Republicans" -- he said "conservatives".

If you are making that distinction, then mainstream conservatives love fracking, oil wells, and the oil spills they create. India and China are testament to the 'free market vision', lots of expendable serfs there to exploit, and the rivers? Who cares.

You're proficient at spouting all the usual left-wing straw men and outright lies.

*yawn*

Your proficient at being a partisan ass, and calling me 'left wing' with no evidence of my voting history is just plan stupid.

Everything that comes out of your mouth is usually rage and put downs, or just so silly it could have its own comedy routine.

I call you left-wing because of the left-wing idiocies you are always spewing in this forum.

You claimed free enterprise is communism, but you accuse my posts of being silly?

 

[BluesLegend]

OMG the epic hypocrisy of the left really has no bounds. Do you people really want to have a discussion on conservation that includes your toxic pollution spewing sewage spilling liberal cities vs conservatives who tend to live in the country growing their own food?

 

[bripat9643]

Conservation.

It is (or at least it used to be) a concept that conservatives embraced. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was on the vanguard of the conservation movement through the establishment of our national parks. Now, conservatives routinely deride the setting aside of public lands for preservation.

In fact, very often today I hear conservatives mock the concept of conservation. As an example of that, it's not uncommon for some conservatives to come on this board on Earth Day and proudly proclaim that they fully intend on turning on every light in their homes with the intention of leaving them on all night.

What happened to the conservative movement to make them abandon one of their core beliefs and instead embrace waste up to and including the destruction of our natural environment?

No...what you hear is us mocking the fake conservation of the left......they hate people and want to limit what people can do.....and capitalism lead us to having the clean environment we have today...rich, wealthy countries like to live in green, clean places....it is the socialist countries of the world that allow their governments to destroy their environments...

We want clean energy...and the left blocks nuclear energy.....they instead want energy that is unreliable and unpredictable......

Capitalism nearly consumed all wilderness areas until the conservation movements in the 60's started up....capitalism by itself is designed to consume, consume, consume. That isn't to say socialism "doesn't"....it just means they both do.

Also the left doesn't block nuclear energy by itself, there are plenty on the right that are against it as well. It's a mixed issue.

Wilderness areas in those days were almost entirely owned by the government, so it's ridiculous to blame capitalism for the problem. When forest land is privately owned it's managed responsibly. Owners don't allow clear cutting on their property.

No they weren't. The vast majority of government owned land is in the West. In the eastern half of the country the government would transfer land ownership to private investments usually to make living space or farmland very quickly after statehood. The reason the government started hanging onto more land in the West is because the public started realizing how letting people have at it with land usually left everything destroyed, like in the east.

The clear cutting you whine about occurred on government owned property in the West.

 

[hipeter924]

A lot of Republican Presidents have been interested in protecting and preserving National Parks, so it isn't strictly true that all Republicans are anti-conservation, and there are plenty of wealthy donors.

Ah but he didn't say "Republicans" -- he said "conservatives".

If you are making that distinction, then mainstream conservatives love fracking, oil wells, and the oil spills they create. India and China are testament to the 'free market vision', lots of expendable serfs there to exploit, and the rivers? Who cares.

You're proficient at spouting all the usual left-wing straw men and outright lies.

*yawn*

Your proficient at being a partisan ass, and calling me 'left wing' with no evidence of my voting history is just plan stupid.

Everything that comes out of your mouth is usually rage and put downs, or just so silly it could have its own comedy routine.

I call you left-wing because of the left-wing idiocies you are always spewing in this forum.

You claimed free enterprise is communism, but you accuse my posts of being silly?

No. I pointed out calling state-capitalists communists is your daily routine.

Even more funny is your claims we live in a free market, rather than a mixed-economy.

You are clearly not economically literate, if you think that we live in a 'free market',

It is basic Economics 101, that this is a mixed-economy with some lassiez faire policies. Stiglitz, Friedman, Hayek, and the Austrian school, would all tell you that.

 

[bripat9643]

Ah but he didn't say "Republicans" -- he said "conservatives".

If you are making that distinction, then mainstream conservatives love fracking, oil wells, and the oil spills they create. India and China are testament to the 'free market vision', lots of expendable serfs there to exploit, and the rivers? Who cares.

You're proficient at spouting all the usual left-wing straw men and outright lies.

*yawn*

Your proficient at being a partisan ass, and calling me 'left wing' with no evidence of my voting history is just plan stupid.

Everything that comes out of your mouth is usually rage and put downs, or just so silly it could have its own comedy routine.

I call you left-wing because of the left-wing idiocies you are always spewing in this forum.

You claimed free enterprise is communism, but you accuse my posts of being silly?

No. I pointed out calling state-capitalists communists is your daily routine.

Even more funny is your claims we live in a free market, rather than a mixed-economy.

You are clearly not economically literate, if you think that we live in a 'free market',

It is basic Economics 101, that this is a mixed-economy with some lassiez faire policies. Stiglitz, Friedman, Hayek, and the Austrian school, would all tell you that.

I'm not calling this country a free market. You used the term to describe fracking, oil wells and oil spills.
I have no idea what "state capitalists" have to do with this discussion. You keep bringing in new terms and using them incorrectly. Correcting your English is an endless task.

The idea that you aren't a leftist has to be on the top ten list of preposterous statements posted to this forum.

Your a ******* communist. Of that there is no doubt.

 

[flacaltenn]

Contemporary conservatives think that capitalism is a form of gov't and therefore if something doesn't turn a profit then it has to be plowed under. Funny coming from them since vietraq cost this great nation dearly & they were cheering it on the whole time to this day.

Its actually just the opposite Dotty. As it's proven over and over again that when you put land into "commons", there is no personal interest in not abusing it. In Africa, when the govts attempted to run the all the wildlife land, it was constantly plundered and abused. When they released it to LOCAL control, the folks discovered new CAPITALIST methods to make it valuable to them. When your livelihood depends on the tourism and research that occurs in your little slice of nature -- you tend to protect and defend it much better..

Same story with fishing commons versus site licenses. The "owners" and leasees will spend their time and money to assure that it's not abused or overfished and act to improve its health..

True story dude... Capitalizing on nature aint always a bad thing..

thats funny "dude" because I've never met a conservative who happened to give a shit about the environment. True story

Well that would make sense Dot.. Because they probably don't believe that CO2 is a pollutant or that a roadside ditch is a "navigible waterway". Maybe their version of clean water is different from the Zero Risk paradigm that your radical eco heroes adhere to. Just my skepticism on Global Warming would allow you to classify me as "not giving a shit" about the the environment. Go ahead. Be a tool. It would not bother me.

Didya look up the history of wildlife conservation in Africa and see for yourself how DEVOLVING control of nature leads to better stewardship...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Why are Progressives more interested I the life of a the tadpole than humanity itself? Christ, you fuckers would decimate 1,000,000 acres of farmland to save a frog.

 

[Lumpy 1]

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats care so much about the environment they promote race riots and perpetual inner city slums.