Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

GOP Candidate Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children

page: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Unidentified_Objective
 



Pro Life, Traditional family values Thoese are so evil concepts




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mahatche
 


In my opinion, John McCain and Harry Reid are prime examples of National Reps that spout off comparable stupidity all the time.
Fuqua has been thrown into the same mix as Jon Hubbard and Loy Mauch as per this Huffington Post article.

Huffington Post

The fact that all three are from the GOP and all three from Arkansas, it stands to reason that the inflammatory writings of all three will become muddled together to the point that no one will care who said what.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
reply to post by Unidentified_Objective
 



Pro Life, Traditional family values Thoese are so evil concepts


"Traditional Family Values" seems to only apply to Christian upper middle class and wealthy white families, for the GOP. They are no better than the religious nuts in the middle east. Peace and love....but only to people who share our background and beliefs.

I do have to say though...this year's line up of clowns and 'tards from the GOP and TeaPotty provided endless laughs and amusement.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by knightrider078
reply to post by Unidentified_Objective
 



Pro Life, Traditional family values Thoese are so evil concepts


I'm sorry, but you can't claim Pro-life while endorsing the murder of kids who disobey, and it defiantly doesn't fit under my idea of family values.

Seriously, what are you doing here? You are clearly interested in defending Christianity but you are going about it in a really bizarre way.

Why don't you just hold this man accountable? Why are you lumping these other views in with his? In your attempt to defend the Christianity, you are basically justifying what he said. You wouldn't happen to be Fuqua would you?

Why the finger pointing "oh obama's guy said questionable things" ok... and? How does that clear this guy? Let's hold crazies accountable regardless of party, forget the finger pointing in defense of each side, regardless of what liberals or obama or athiests or anyone else did, this guy is saying crazy stuff while running for office, and he isn't the only one.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by anarky1965
reply to post by mahatche
 


In my opinion, John McCain and Harry Reid are prime examples of National Reps that spout off comparable stupidity all the time.
Fuqua has been thrown into the same mix as Jon Hubbard and Loy Mauch as per this Huffington Post article.

Huffington Post

The fact that all three are from the GOP and all three from Arkansas, it stands to reason that the inflammatory writings of all three will become muddled together to the point that no one will care who said what.


I don't remember Reid or McCain saying anything comparable to this, passing laws to kill disobedient kids seems uniquely extreme.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mahatche
If anyone had any doubt that a Christian equivalent to the Taliban is out there, read this. It's incredible, he fears sharia law, but wants the be the christian version. He is anti-abortion but ok with killing teens.



Charlie Fuqua, the Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives who called for expelling Muslims from the United States in his book, also wrote in support for instituting the death penalty for "rebellious children."

In "God's Law," Fuqua's 2012 book, the candidate wrote that while parents love their children, a process could be set up to allow for the institution of the death penalty for "rebellious children," according to the Arkansas Times. Fuqua, who is anti-abortion, points out that the course of action involved in sentencing a child to death is described in the Bible and would involve judicial approval. While it is unlikely that many parents would seek to have their children killed by the government, Fuqua wrote, such power would serve as a way to stop rebellious children.


read the full story
www.huffingtonpost.com...


He is twisting the Bible to suit his needs. The Bible NEVER suggested the death penalty for use against CHILDREN, but rather Children who grown up to become drunks. You can't just straight read the Bible, you have to put into perspective the era. Back then they didn't really have the room for Jails or Detox places. It doesn't take much imagination to realize how a village drunk could easily use too much resources and endanger the entire community. This "Christian" Republican is a devil worshiper bound for Hell(as the fate of those who willfully harm children was made very clear by the Messiah).

This is more of a Race/Culture issue. Charlie Fuqua being from the South probably has a good amount of Anglo(English) in him. Even if the Anglo DNA is limited, the South suffers from the English's gynocentrism that has existed practically since before the Romans invaded.

It was common in England for the English to murder little boy's younger then 12 for the crime of stealing bread(or other trivial crimes) while the English always sought to protect little girls and women(a Matriarchy that pretends to be a Patriarchy but the tell tale Judicial test reveals that Anglo Culture is Matriarchal{a test used on ancient civilizations to label them patriarchal, whom ever has the true highest standing in a society is held to the least amount of criminal liability, and if a member of the privilege class hurts or murders a member of the oppressed class, there is little to no punishment]).

You see this kind of garbage of men being treated as sub human in Anglo nations such as the UK(where they are talking about closing all women's prisons), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and other nations infected with the Anglo's Matriarchal culture. This has nothing to do with Christianity, Charlie Fuqua is a white knight Matriarch through and through, as abortion goes against the Traditionalist's doctrine of woman's divine right to marry, have children and to lord over their husbands and children. If what Charlie Fuqua wants done was done, who would hold such power in reality? The mother of course, the final manifestation of women's argument "because I have a uterus".

This is why I consider "church going" Traditionalist's, alongside Feminist's, as such rotten, irredeemable monsters. You really have to look up in the ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about the Mothers of the Republic Women's rights movement.

Feminist's go out of their way to ignore that women's rights movement because they would no longer be able to foam at the mouth about the "patriarchy", if what that movement did was brought to full public knowledge.

If you study that movement then the course history took in an honest fashion, then it is plain to see that the big bad patriarchy of the 1950's was nothing more then a Matriarchy that went butch. People like Charlie Fuqua want to bring back the Butch Matriarchy. Do you honestly think he is trying to appeal to men? No, the demographic he is trying to appeal towards is the overwhelmingly female population of Southern Churches.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
direct my samurai sword and extended mag glock. this is the most embarrassing existence i could even imagine. At such a young age I've been able to decipher these assholes. If i don't try to make a difference I'm as weak as anyone else. Time to make a difference in existence. and no. I don't own weapons. lol. i can get them though…..



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mahatche
 


WOWWWWW....."Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents." (excerpt from Fuqua's book). How can ANYONE, lest children give respect to someone who instills nothing but FEAR in them? Some definitions of "respect" as a verb are: regard; revere, reverence; hold in reverence, honor, venerate, hallow; esteem (approve of); think much of; entertain respect for, bear respect for; look up to, defer to; have a high opinion of, hold a high opinion of; and as a noun: given admiration by others. (Thesaurus.com). I cannot fathom a child having any of these feelings towards parents who display this type of authority, as they threaten to use the higher courts to impose a death sentence on their own brood! The Bible is trouble whenever taken at it's word....with different versions and interpretations. This is a far cry from Aretha Franklin's version of "Respect!"
What bothers me most is how far this man's career has gone with views such as these, and the fact that he could appear so unaware of the disdain most people would feel towards him as they learn of his warped notions.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Was out for awhile, "church karate" class, sure that will stir up a whole other thread LOL.

Some good answeres/questions. Don't have time now to answer but I'll just say the following.

Several Christians are outspoken when some of "our" crazies step up. You don't see that with Islam nearly as much. Each side has it's extremists. But i think the extremists of Islam are well documented and the lists runs in the thousands of violent incidents. Christians tend to say alot of stupid stuff...but typically not act on it. There has been a couple of abortion bombings/shootings in the last 25 years, but that pales in comparison.

Besides, I see some statements just as bad from athiests. "Kill all the Christians" , "if we could wipe out the religious not jobs we would be fine!!".. yeah right, check yourselves.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I feel compelled to quote from his book so that we clarify what he said and what he didn't. You say he doesn't advocate such horrid things as medicating the water supplies....I say different, and so the best way is to look at his words. How you can tell me to read his stuff and tell me that he's not advocating this stuff I don't know but I think you are somehow making excuses because he is part of the Democrat machine in power right now.
So let's have a look shall we?



Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal


"Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."


Ok so here he is saying even it might be Constitutional to force people to have abortions. I mean it's one thing for communist China, but another for the US.


Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
"One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society. "


Now here is some seriously fascist nanny statism and social control going here. FORCED ADOPTIONS for underage girls.

Next here's the comment on sterilization, and notice all he does is make suggestions to make it acceptable. Nowhere in this statement does he say how horrifying it would be, only that it sounds bad and people might not accept it. He clearly thinks its a neat idea though.
It's bad enough they are still putting toxic flouride waste in our water like the Nazis did in their concentration camps.


Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn't harm livestock
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock. "


zombietime.com...

Be realistic here. On what planet could a man write a book like this with all these bizarre suggestions and you think he's not advocating for it?

Now on topic: I think this Rep is way over the top in his ideas. I can understand that he thinks we have gotten too permissive as a society, but the death penalty should only be given for the most heinous crimes. Rarely are they committed by young children but it does happen, and I do not advocate the death penalty for children unless they show they are the demon seed of mass murderers and chain saw nut jobs. Otherwise, we just need to allow parents to properly discipline their kids without being overly aggressive. No real discipline should ever be given without love.
edit on 9-10-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Roper vs. Simmons

Death penalty cannot be imposed on anyone under the age of 18.

So even if he tried to get some crazy law like that passed, it never would.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   


If anyone had any doubt that a Christian equivalent to the Taliban is out there, read this


"A" Christian Taliban? More like 20% or 30% of US Christians are like the Taliban. Christianity has been so twisted it doesn't even resemble what it used to be when I was young. Of course now I'm an atheist.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mahatche
 


I would think that John McCain breaking into a song glorifying the bombing of Iran to be extreme as well. We all know that innocent civilians, including young children, are not spared the horrors of illegal wars of aggression/regime change.

As far as Reid, well, here is a link to get you started.

LegalInsurrection

My point is that Fauqua does not have any national audience other than those who buy his book. He is a candidate for a position in the Arkansas legislature, not the US legislature. His poisonous words may well have some bearing on the people of the district he is running for, but the MSM should not be giving voice to it on a national level.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mahatche
 


Great posts! This must be the childrens logic section of ATS. I'm new so you'll have to forgive me, but how is a statement made by one person the same as a group who murders people? This is by far the dumbest post I have ever read. Only in a liberals mind does this make any sense, or a child, or a liberal arts major. Your really smart though, because you dislike religion, that makes you intelligent! Thanks for the laugh.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
A thread started about the insane GOP advocating death penalties for rebellious children and it gets derailed by the PRO LIFERS. If you can’t see the difference you are just as ignorant as the GOP.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The American Taliban is alive and well.

We need a revolution of a different kind. A revolution that denies Extremist Christianity the audience it seeks in this country.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Okay, so Muslims occasionally strap on a bomb and kill a few innocent people. The Christian neocons instead build weapons that kill hundreds of thousands at a clip. And what do they think gives them the right to do this? They worship the Great Exterminator in the sky (whom they invented) and use that to justify mass genocide for the slightest trivial nonsense, like taking someone's land and the resources on it.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche
 


Great posts! This must be the childrens logic section of ATS. I'm new so you'll have to forgive me, but how is a statement made by one person the same as a group who murders people? This is by far the dumbest post I have ever read. Only in a liberals mind does this make any sense, or a child, or a liberal arts major. Your really smart though, because you dislike religion, that makes you intelligent! Thanks for the laugh.


Taliban is able to kill people because they are "the law" in a lawless region that has no one to stand in their way. Look at Somalia for example, there is no structure of any type, so groups like Al-Quieda target them and present themselves as "stabilizers" in order to win over the heart and minds of locals, and as the law they are free to act as they please. .

Charlie Fuqua lives in a place that has an actual structure to stop him from going though with his beliefs.

Ideologically a Muslim who says "my god says it's ok to kill you for going against his law" is no different than a christian who says "my god says it's ok to kill you for going against his law". Philosophically they are both extreme fundamentalists.

You are highly naive if you believe those beliefs wouldn't turn into actions with out laws to stop him. The whole reason he wants to pass laws to make it ok is SO WE CAN DO IT!
edit on 10-10-2012 by mahatche because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by pyramid head
reply to post by mahatche
 


Only in a liberals mind does this make any sense, or a child, or a liberal arts major. Your really smart though, because you dislike religion, that makes you intelligent! Thanks for the laugh.


And who said I hate religion? I hate religious extremists who use their religion to justify murder, but I'm fine with religion. I hate the Idea of any religion setting up a theocracy, because I think politics is a corrupting force, and a corrupted religion is a scary thing, but I'm actually Buddhist, and last I checked that is considered a religion.

I'm an atheist, but don't hate your god, I can't hate something I don't believe in, but I will challenge all morals I see as incorrect, like killing rebelliousness children.

It seems to me you are more interested in defending your side, and in doing so you promote further division based on nothing more than prejudice inspired assumptions. I'm only interested in accountability, what do you have against it?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Wow.
What a mutha-fuqua.





new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join