Annoyed by inconsistent political beliefs

I'm annoyed by inconsistent political beliefs. Here's a few:

GOP members who are anti-drugs, anti-drinking, anti-marijuana, yet vote to prohibit any kind of restrictions on tobacco companies

PETA members who say an animal life is equal to a human life, yet apparently don't care enough to protest against the millions/billions of rats, mice, and bugs killed each year, instead protesting to save a few thousand lab rats. They're all equal, right?

People who vociferously oppose using embryos for stem cell research because it's "kiling" the embryo, but who didn't say one single word back when (and now when) we throw away unused embryos. Which human lives are more important, a few dozen embryos used for research or a few thousand going in the trash? Where's the protests?

Abortion protestors who say that killing is wrong, then shoot at abortion providers.

Globalization protestors wearing Nike shoes, Levis, and Tommy Hilfiger shirts.

Don't forget anti-fur protesters (e.g., PETA) and the like that are pro-abortion!

[Rockhound]

Or the people who support obscene art in public museums as "free speach", but also support "speach codes" that restrict what inidviduals can say to each other, in colleges.

Here's one:

A drunk person is legally responsible for any harm caused while driving their car.

Yet, a drunk college co-ed generally is considered not responsible and incapable of giving consent to having sex; falls within the date-rape category. (No, she's not unconscious.)

Yet, a drunk college guy who has sex with the drunk college girl is considered responsible for his actions.

And another:

The NOW and the GLBT types who join in political ranks. Specifically, that what gay men do (repressively referred to as "sodomy") is considered a natural part of their identity and a beautiful expression of love between two committed people in a caring lifelong relationship.

Yet, when a straight man wishes to engage in the same conduct with a woman, it is considered a vile expression of male dominance over women.

Yet another:

Woman retain the "pro-choice" right to choose control over their bodies; that the unborn have no rights.

Yet, use the same abortion right to abort fetuses that are female or perhaps having an unfavorable trait, and you have an evil action.

"Don't forget anti-fur protesters (e.g., PETA) and the like that are pro-abortion!"

How is this inconsistent? Has PETA come out in favor of animal abortions or something, and I didn't hear about it?

People with Gay Pride and Darwin stickers on the same bumper.

[Rockhound]

People who atuomatically say any research that is funded by a corporation is tainted, but don't see the same in research funded by activist groups like the Sierra Club, NOW, or Families USA.

My favorite was reported in a newspaper opinion column. The columnist discussed a photo she had been sent of two women ("both are underdressed, and one has a whip"). Was this (a) male-oriented, and therefore degrading to women, or (b) an empowering representation of women's sexuality? If it was produced by men, it was (a), if produced by lesbian women, it was (b). The question she (the columnist) asked was: "Should I, as a straight woman, feel degraded or empowered?"