In America, atheists are still in the closet

[Buck Crick]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go again butt (oops buck) making assumptions
Wrong, everyone is responsible for their actions, his action was making a film to incite hatred and violence, as I said to Aura he cannot just shrug his shoulders and say “so what”. I realise that you are of that opinion that he can, convicts usually are but that is not typical of human society. However I can completely understand why an ex con like you gets confused between bloody minded idiocy and responsibility.
Where did I say I was against the first amendment? All I have said about any amendment is that they are amendments to the “unalienable rights” offered in the constitution, which I find rather amusing.
I thought you had learned you lesson but no, you go round and round in circles just as the good butt crack should- So do you want to go into the name calling again you ignorant pratt of an apologist for paedophiles?
Nice one and best wishes

The first 10 amendments are the "Bill of Rights". The amendments are protective of rights, they don't "amend" rights.

You are empty-headed. You should never comment on rights or the Constitution.

Stick to something you know...if there is such a subject.

[barefoot2626]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
The difference is the muslim world is full of stupid, hate-filled, homicidal maniacs.

That is no different from your house, fat boy.

Nor is it any different from the Christian world.

[ChristineM]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Double Fine no savvy

We are discussing that anti Muslim film and whether a person is responsible for their own actions or not.

[barefoot2626]

Buck Crick wrote:

On average, Social Security recipients receive more in benefits over their lifetimes than they and their employers contributed in taxes during their working years.

Nope.

And according to your favorite source, FOX "news"

"People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades.

"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year, after both spouses earned average lifetime wages, paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/07/ne...
"

[barefoot2626]

Buck Crick wrote:

You never get anything right, do you?

Mopping the floor with you, fat boy.

You have a right to your opinion, you do not have a right to your version the facts.

[barefoot2626]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
He didn't dodge any draft.

Dodged the draft.

There really is no bigger example of a chicken hawk- even chicken hawk Rush pimple on his ass Limpballs.

Draft dodger Romney demonstrated FOR the war and FOR the draft... and then got FIVE deferments and hid in France.

Darft dodger = to dodge the draft.

[ChristineM]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
The difference is the muslim world is full of stupid, hate-filled, homicidal maniacs.
The film was legal and inoffensive to anyone other than a moron.
It doesn't matter what is illegal in another country. The film was made in this country. Going 70 in a 70 zone on the interstate is not breaking the law because other roads have a limit of 55.
You are stupid, and a muslim terrorist apologist.

Says the stupid, hate-filled, homicidal maniac

The film was deliberately offensive and created to incite hatred by a known fanatical coptic christian Muslim hater

So you are saying that everyone in the world is responsible for their actions except Americans.

You are saying that no American has the responsibility of a human being in considering other human beings

You are saying stuff it if it’s legal in your back yard then f_ck everyone else

OK, fair enough, that at least explains why you are a convicted felon

And an apologist for paedophiles. I hear you have a child too. How sick is that

[ChristineM]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
The first 10 amendments are the "Bill of Rights". The amendments are protective of rights, they don't "amend" rights.
You are empty-headed. You should never comment on rights or the Constitution.
Stick to something you know...if there is such a subject.

Yes right, that’s why there are called AMMENDMENTS dumbo Look up the word in a dictionary

[barefoot2626]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that's not what government is for. At least not in this country.

That is what government is for, fat boy. No matter how hard you stomp your ignorant feet- among many other things, to provide for those that need to be provided for.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes right, that’s why there are called AMMENDMENTS dumbo Look up the word in a dictionary

You might try spelling it correctly before putting it in all CAPS and calling someone else dumbo, dumbo.

[barefoot2626]

Buck Crick wrote:

Stick to something you know...if there is such a subject.

Not knowing what you are talking about: It never kept you from posting.

[SupaAFC]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how you have to paraphrase every thing I say.

You are the one who cuts off my posts in mid sentence and pedanticly splits them into multiple replies.

Paraphrasing is your ballgame; not mine.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny what you claim I say never fits what I actually say.

Funny how your arguments change when they get refuted.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
I have NEVER said CITIZENS of the US vote directly for the president of the USA.

Then you agree that the people do not vote for the president of the United States? Perfect.

Why can you not translate this logic to British politics and subsequently admit that the Queen, just like the Electoral College, does nothing more than rubber stamp the will of political entities?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
I know you are confused as you do not get any kind of vote for the head of sate in the UK. Not a direct vote, not an indirect vote, you get no vote whatsoever.
NONE.

I never claimed as such. Shall I start yelling and screaming about you being mean and dishonest based on this gaffe?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
As you get no vote for the larger half of the Parliament: none. ZERO.

Who, other than you, cares?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
And as you get no vote- NONE- for the Prime minister.

Are you saying that voters in the Kirkaldy constituency did not vote for Gordon Brown in 2010? How about Witney with David Cameron?

Well, we certainly know that nobody other than 538 Electors vote for the United States president. Does this mean the United States is just as non-democratic as the UK?

Oh wait, that's right. You go by the logic that words speak louder than actions.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
You get to vote for a MP in the lower house.

Yes, the "lower house" that has power over issues such as the economy, welfare, sport, health, transport, policing, the environment, culture, etc, etc.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW: STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO BACK THAT CLAIM THAT YOU GET NO VOTE FOR MPS, sUPERfAG.
fUNNY HOW YOU KEEP SKIPPING OVER THAT.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why anybody should care about vestigal political figures of the past.

Nobody, other than you, remotely cares about the Lords or the Queen.

[Khatru]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Nor should the twelth amendment that clearly states that the Electoral College, and only the Electoral College, votes for the president of the United States.
Yet, Barefoot claims that the people do.

Absolutely

Not that it'll make any difference to barefoot - his aim is to continue arguing with you and as many other people as he possibly can.

Have a look and see how many of barefoot's posts actually agree with anyone.

For him the pointless argument is all.

That's why he says so many dumb things - it's his way of fuelling the argument.

He's obsessed. At nearly 76 posts a day, all of them hostile, all of them bitter and most of them wrong, he has a lot of issues. No doubt it's to make up for his failings in the real world.

It wouldn't surprise me if barefoot is disabled and has little better to do than be frequently obnoxious with all and sundry.

[Khatru]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
You are the one who cuts off my posts in mid sentence and pedanticly splits them into multiple replies.
Paraphrasing is your ballgame; not mine.
<quoted text>
Funny how your arguments change when they get refuted.
<quoted text>
Then you agree that the people do not vote for the president of the United States? Perfect.
Why can you not translate this logic to British politics and subsequently admit that the Queen, just like the Electoral College, does nothing more than rubber stamp the will of political entities?
<quoted text>
I never claimed as such. Shall I start yelling and screaming about you being mean and dishonest based on this gaffe?
<quoted text>
Who, other than you, cares?
<quoted text>
Are you saying that voters in the Kirkaldy constituency did not vote for Gordon Brown in 2010? How about Witney with David Cameron?
Well, we certainly know that nobody other than 538 Electors vote for the United States president. Does this mean the United States is just as non-democratic as the UK?
Oh wait, that's right. You go by the logic that words speak louder than actions.
<quoted text>
Yes, the "lower house" that has power over issues such as the economy, welfare, sport, health, transport, policing, the environment, culture, etc, etc.
<quoted text>
I'm still waiting for you to explain why anybody should care about vestigal political figures of the past.
Nobody, other than you, remotely cares about the Lords or the Queen.

From the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-fai...

"This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.

An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president.(Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California is a nontheist but doesn’t talk much about it)."

and

"The Republicans have claimed God as their own this entire campaign, each candidate trying to out-Christian the other. Even Obama, though 17 percent of registered voters think he is a Muslim, has talked about being a Christian as often as he can.

Still, none of Obama’s references have been in a debate. And there was Obama-- grim faced, nervous, fumbling his words and wearing his American flag pin -- letting Romney, confident and aggressive and in control, roll right over him at every turn.

But the God thing clinched it. If Obama wants to win the next debate, he needs to wear God, as much as it offends him to do so, the same way he captured the flag for this one."

[SupaAFC]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely
Not that it'll make any difference to barefoot - his aim is to continue arguing with you and as many other people as he possibly can.
Have a look and see how many of barefoot's posts actually agree with anyone.
For him the pointless argument is all.
That's why he says so many dumb things - it's his way of fuelling the argument.
He's obsessed. At nearly 76 posts a day, all of them hostile, all of them bitter and most of them wrong, he has a lot of issues. No doubt it's to make up for his failings in the real world.
It wouldn't surprise me if barefoot is disabled and has little better to do than be frequently obnoxious with all and sundry.

I am amazed that even Buck and Wolverine are arguing with him also. Considering that guys like them are polar opposites, and have debated with, guys like you and I on these forums, this is akin to Superman and Lex Luther sharing a joint enemy.

I'm beginning to think that Barefoot is simply a contrarian and holds no genuine viewpoints of his own. If the other poster believes X, he believes Y.

[SupaAFC]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-fai...
"This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.
An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president.(Democratic Rep. Pete Stark of California is a nontheist but doesn’t talk much about it)."
and
"The Republicans have claimed God as their own this entire campaign, each candidate trying to out-Christian the other. Even Obama, though 17 percent of registered voters think he is a Muslim, has talked about being a Christian as often as he can.
Still, none of Obama’s references have been in a debate. And there was Obama-- grim faced, nervous, fumbling his words and wearing his American flag pin -- letting Romney, confident and aggressive and in control, roll right over him at every turn.
But the God thing clinched it. If Obama wants to win the next debate, he needs to wear God, as much as it offends him to do so, the same way he captured the flag for this one."

But by Barefoot's logic of words speak louder than actions, we must ignore reality and pretend that the world works based on what pieces of paper say.

Therefore, ignore Westboro Baptist Church, ignore the big debates about Obama being a Muslim and Romney's Mormon faith, ignore the polling data that demonstrates religion matters to the vote of Americans...

... because a piece of paper says X, therefore, X.

[wolverine]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
If only draft dodger Romney got extra points for TV ratings.

LOL...He Knocked Odumbo Out Of The Park, Your Guy Looked Stupid And Amazed He Couldnt Answer The Questions, He Refused To Look Mitt In The Eye, And Was Very Upset He Couldnt Use His Teleprompter To Lie To America.

Next Foriegn Policy....Wonder How Odumbo Will Answer The Cover-up For The Killed Ambassador ?....After All, He Was Trying To Get Back The Weapons Odumbo Gave To The Taliban To Kill Kadaffy.
When The Truth Comes Out On This One....Odumbo May Be Thrown Out Before The Election.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
You are the one who cuts off my posts in mid sentence and pedanticly splits them into multiple replies.

So many lies, so little time. Pedantically speaking.

Process one lie at a time.

We we still waiting for you to catch up with your lie that I said subjects in the UK did not vote for members of the House of Commons.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Paraphrasing is your ballgame; not mine.

You don't quote, you paraphrase.

We we still waiting for you to catch up with your lie that I said subjects in the UK did not vote for members of the House of Commons.

[wolverine]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Nah.
Of SA's white presidents, I'll vote for a guy like De Klerk.
But most of the other were douches.
Smuts was okay, I suppose.

Detroit Built Cars For Decades Without Help From China, Japan, Or Samali Pirates.....Seriously, Converters Could Be Made Out Of Different Materials....GM Took Our Money And Moved Its Business And Jobs Overseas....I Wouldnt Allow Them To Come Back.

I Think They Owe The American People About 40 Billion Or So.