The General US Politics Thread

In short, yes, he wants the parents to rule by fear.

Yeah, I just read that. I had a hard time deciphering exactly what he was even trying to say: "parents should be able to execute their children because what an awesome threat that would be but of course they should never actually do it so let's make it legally hard"?

The guy doesn't seem to have any web presence at all besides coverage of that and the previous deport ALL the Muslims remark. I wonder if he's just some troll who is looking for attention. He sure has a rather unfortunate name.

For the record, the relevant scripture is not referring to young children who throw tantrums, as far as I can tell. The nearest equivalent today would be the deadbeat cocaine addict, not the toddler who won't eat his vegetables. So it wouldn't really do what he thinks it would do anyway.

And really, most parents have access to far more effective sources of fear than death, which is something most kids can't even fully grasp the meaning of.

edited 9th Oct '12 1:44:21 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

Fuqua is too crazy (or even stupid) to do anything about what he's advocating for.

Hell, ruling through fear is never a good idea. Eventually, people will get angry, and heads will roll. His "solution" to rebellious children would likely breed even more rebellion anyway.

edited 9th Oct '12 1:48:51 PM by Serocco

In the form of parental contempt, at that. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of other avenues to go down and consider before parents would ever consider this. And the ones that would should get their heads examined.

I remember one such an example with Alfred Hitchcock. His father told the police to lock him in a cell for ten minutes, but they never told him why he was arrested. When he was let out, the sergeant told him, "This is what we do to naughty boys." That gave Hitchcock a life-long fear of the cops, and it shows in his works. His father did die of some awful disease later in life, I hear, though.

Ruling through fear is effective, but only temporarily. Like I said, the fear would've subsided in the form of contempt.

Now, with Fuqua, the death penalty for children? You know damn-well that a couple of, say, teenagers would've ran for the hills before their parents even considered using that on them.

edited 9th Oct '12 2:00:18 PM by Serocco

This causing contempt for one's parents is a good point since contempt for authority is generally what causes rebellion in the first place. It also causes kids to fear their parents which is the opposite of how they should feel about them.

edit: Just pointing out. This guy is against abortion.

edited 9th Oct '12 1:54:38 PM by Kostya

Well, unless it's abortion for the born fetus.

Exactly, and kids young enough not to hit the road are too young to even comprehend the threat of death.

A healthy fear of one's parents in the sense of "these are the people who will enforce the rules if I break them" is a good thing. Death threats aren't.

Which is to say, I've always promised to join you in calling out actual BS, even though I spend most of my time contesting alleged BS, and now I am making good on that promise, because in the absence of some really unexpected mitigating factors this guy is not thinking straight.

Which is a perfect illustration of how ridiculous this is.

edited 9th Oct '12 1:59:20 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

if by rules, you mean the rules that the parents and the kids have 'agreed' to (like, don't steal the car, and you'll keep your gaming privileges), then definitely.

Fuqua doesn't understand that there's discipline (stripping your kid of, say, internet access for week if you crashed the car), and then there's psychological torture (what I explained with Hitchcock). Parents who rule through fear are not real parents - they're tyrants.

Hell, let's say Fuqua wants parents to use the threat of the death penalty on their kids (which he does, apparently). What if the kid runs away to live with their aunts, uncles, grandparents or cousins? What, do we still advocate for the death penalty? His entire logic is flawed to hell and back.

edited 9th Oct '12 2:11:27 PM by Serocco

@Edwards: Was a reply to a point tangentially raised by Karkadinn

@Ace: I'm not arguing against certification, but if certification requires upfront non-trivial costs, then it is a regressive tax that actually injures small businesses to the benefit of big ones. Seems fairer for certification costs to come from taxes on the profits those certifications enable. (similarly, but too off-topic to elaborate on, I don't think regulations should be allowed to mandate the use of patented technologies.)

edited 9th Oct '12 2:14:44 PM by Tangent128

Certification is to ensure that the person is actually capable of performing the task, because tax preparers are not liable personally for the tax penalties imposed upon the people they're working for even if they screw up.

I guess you could subsidize the tax prep courses more though.

This Fuqua-tard is just a candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives. He hasn't been elected yet, and he's seeking a position that's about as low as you can get in statewide politics. Let's wait until he rides into office with a 98% vote before getting worried.

That reminds me: How's Akin holding up?

By the way, Grizzly, please tell me you think he's an idiot for his moronic "forcible rape" comments.

Akin has said stupider stuff.

I hear he's leading in some polls. He's also dealing with Johnathan Dine from the Libertarian Party, so that may take votes away from the Democrat.

I'm getting nervous as fuck waiting for the next debate.

@Serocco: Akin is a case where what he was trying so say was not as bad as it was made out to be, but yes, he said it in a pretty stupid way and seemed to be ignorant of some relevant facts.

Rape is forcible. Akin's stupid enough to feel that he has to "categorize" it.

Though I feel the intent behind his comments are much worse than the comments themselves.

edited 9th Oct '12 3:34:00 PM by Serocco

Well Edwards, where do you stand on the World Of Warcraft controversy?

What I want to know is, how the fuck is that even a controversy in the first place.

...what would happen if a Republican was outed as playing World Of Tanks?

edited 9th Oct '12 3:35:09 PM by Greenmantle

Double Speak from the politicians, probably.

edited 9th Oct '12 3:35:11 PM by Serocco

<sarcasm> Because clearly, someone who plays vidyagaems in their leisure time (as opposed to healthy American pastimes like, say, golf or poker or poke-her) cannot be trusted with any position of power! </sarcasm>

edited 9th Oct '12 3:36:51 PM by Reflextion

At least the Republicans don't seem like the type to play video games.

No Double Standard there, for once.

edited 9th Oct '12 3:37:20 PM by Serocco

Billionaire CEO Threatens To Fire Employees If Obama Wins

How is that legal?