Because they are genuinely that clueless, sadistic, and misogynistic. They want to hurt women as much as possible. They feel no sympathy for a woman who has been raped at best, and most outright enjoy her suffering; pregnancy is just frosting on the rape cake to them, it makes the situation “better” by increasing her misery. Their attitudes towards rape and abortion and women in general are shaped by their desire to harm women as much as they can get away with, and sometimes it comes out. If they could, they’d turn America into a Christian Saudi Arabia and have women beaten in the streets with clubs by religious enforcers.
I’d say it’s a combination of a couple factors;
-
There’s a strong tendency among Republicans to believe that admitting an error is a show of weakness, and that to contradict another Republican is treason. So when one Republican shoots his mouth off about rape, they can’t disown him without being idealogically impure, and they can’t back down from it without being weak.
-
There’s a belief that allowing women to get abortions allows them to avoid the “consequences” of their immoral lifestyle. Since rape is a genuine example of a case where a woman becomes pregnant through no choice or action of her own, they feel the need to downplay the possibility of rape-related pregnancies to close the “loophole” in their belief.
-
Genuine scientific ignorance coupled with belief in an active God and the sanctity of life. If God is good and active in the universe, unborn babies are precious to Him, and rape is an evil act, then God wouldn’t create a baby out of a nonconsensual union. Therefore, if a woman is raped and she gets pregnant, it wasn’t a legitimate rape.
So, anyway, when I was saying that it wasn’t possible to exaggerate the evil inherent in the Forces of Darkness (R)? Turns out I was wrong.
It’s not an exaggeration. I specifically used the example of Saudi Arabia as an example of how yes, people really can be that bad.
Now I’m visualizing some expatriate New Hampshirite keeping a wingnuttery-spewing android around to remind him why he left.
That was actually a remarkably good example of duckspeak.
While the Hitler comparison is a bit ridiculous, Wilson was a racist authoritarian who segregated the federal bureaucracy, showed Birth of a Nation in the White House, and put opponents of World War I in prison.
Excellent points. I can only add what’s already been implied: Modern 'Pubs are more concerned with ideology itself than with individuals and the effects of that ideology on them.
No no, the problem is, they set up nattering wingnuts here to attract others to them, and it works!
We call them extremists or Free Staters; they call themselves “Freedom-Lovers”. Mark Warden from the previous page is actually from Las Vegas and moved here five or so years ago. Not much is known about Stella Tremblay aside from being politically repugnant to all kinds of people, and a fellow legislator described it as so extreme, “if she played at Fenway Park she’d be out on Boylston Street.” She did send a video around to her colleagues in which Obama admitted he wasn’t an American, or some such, and there is text on the video that says Not Natural Born. Stella, herself, was born in Italy.
Okay, they were elected and the state owns that…but just keep in mind we’re being fucked with.
Did you know that bicyclists cause more pollution than cars? WA State Rep. Ed Orcutt is just *sure *this is true.
But less than trees, I trust.
And he’s on the Transportation Committee?
I’m just wondering how she has an advisor. There are 400 New Hampshire representatives, and they’re only paid a small stipend for the short time the legislature is actually in session. I don’t think “advisor to a New Hampshire state representative” is a step up in the job title department from “some guy with a blog” or “that guy who writes those letters to the editor to the local paper, you know the ones.”
And trees cause most pollution. Didn’t Reagan teach you anything?
I can speak from experience, because in my younger days as a right-wing religious conservative I believed it. (Nowadays I am a left-wing religious progressive ;)).
The myth is enabled by scientific ignorance (#3), motivated by the desire to punish promiscuous women (#2), and clung to despite the evidence by the desire not to admit error (#1).
The idea that God wouldn’t create a “precious to Him” baby about of an evil act is wrong, though. The idea that God salvages good out of evil is a foundational belief of Christians both conservative and liberal and is attested to throughout the bible from Noah to Joseph to Jesus to Paul. It’s just that these people have enough self-awareness to know they can’t stand up in the public square and say that rape babies are good because God loves them.
If you take what he said very narrowly - *you *give off less CO2 when driving rather than biking - it’s true. It’s a stupid point, because your *car *is giving off a hell of a lot more CO2 than you ever would, but it’s technically true.
The article itself is what makes the leap that Orcutt was basing his assertion on How to Live a Low Carbon Life, and that he meant biking causes more pollution than driving. And I don’t get why that would mean bikes have to pay for road upkeep - they don’t put much wear on roads.
Reading the article he left himself some wiggle room such that he might be technically correct. It isn’t that bicycles cause more pollution than cars, it’s that people riding bicycles breath harder and so produce more carbon dioxide than people driving cars. However the amount of CO2 produced by either is so miniscule as compared to the amount of CO2 produced by the driver’s automobile that it’s entirely moot.
If by “moot” you mean “asinine,” I’m with you.
Funnest fact: Wells are a pretty deep subject.
Have you seen the mess they leave when they get run over? 