In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51414 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

Thinking

Cirencester, UK

#43569 Nov 23, 2012
BS. I was never made to pray.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
(quote)
Collective Worship
The law in England and Wales provides that children at all maintained schools "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship". In community schools, the worship must be wholly or mainly of a Christian character. In Academies and free schools the arrangements will depend on the funding agreement, which will usually have a compulsory worship element built in.

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#43570 Nov 23, 2012
Thinking wrote:
If you've ever been in a US board meeting, you'll never hear anyone give an honest opinion on anything. It's all about not offending the boss.
<quoted text>
Kissing Ass that must be a major pain in the as well...

The board of US?

Who came up with that? A boss's game...*:0n * what's he saying?
Look to your left he looks a little like some clown...

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#43571 Nov 23, 2012
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
I have never been forced to swear allegiance to an invisible sky fairy.
Never heard of that before.
Lucifer may have been a tat leaning you know that way he was very into the finer things...
Art and such, Jesus by now who knows what they are both into...

God a Fairy?

They don't pray to female though( I think a Mormon may have to commit suicide if they had done so) you know can you imagine what if it were so though the CHristiability to the account that they have been taken in...
toadmann

Masontown, PA

#43572 Nov 23, 2012
youtube.com/watch... …Elf Rant will still be in the Closet and will be like a unworn shirt

“I am an ALIEN!!!”

Since: Dec 06

KREUZBERG...

#43573 Nov 23, 2012
Who is Elf Rants? Always the last hour it's the one before really hu?
Just before the hand turns over to the last second...a n d t tt hhh eee rrr it g ooo eee s....past safely...

Well ??? Can farts kill like hick ups could?

That guy?
The back ground is way interesting...

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#43574 Nov 23, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun rises in the east.
The Concorde was not a commercial success. The plan was for 1,800 jets, only 16 were finally flown commercially.
I know: math isn't your forte, yours, apparently, is one night stands. That figure would be less than one percent of the airliners were actually built.
The Concorde was a government boondoggle and it cost the taxpayers billions of dollars; every single passenger mile flown was subsidized by tax funds.
It isn't hard to turn a "profit" if you don't take into account the actual costs.
So, plans change. Consider the Boeing 2707 for example, the plan was for a sst to fly but hey, you failed and the US taxpayer footed the bill.

I don’t know about the good old US of A but in the UK business travellers could only claim a percentage of specific travel expenses against tax. If the traveller commuted to the US for work, that was NOT tax deductible, just at leisure travel is NOT deductible. However if say they were travelling to a meeting, a percentage of this was deductible. Just as a percentage of driving to a meeting is deductible

So unfortunately for you the UK tax laws leave you looking stupid

This is true, and as you can see I am not taking into account the “actual” development costs. They were offset in a different way as I have explained to you on several occasions, sometimes in words of one or two syllables
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly I know more than you, dear, you want to insist the Concorde was "profitable" but you want to pretend the BILLIONS of dollars that were used to develop and build the Concorde fell from the sky.
Profit, you stupid skanque, means the Concorde would return more dollars than it cost.
Happy to see your PROOF that these tax dollars were return to French and UK tax payers.
Clearly you just think you know, it’s a barfy butt face delusion thing.

Wrong, the cost of development is far outweighed by such goodies as international co-operation, joint ventures both public and commercial, the growth of the EU and of course your hateful ranting all on it’s own makes it all worth while.

Pounds, not dollars, pounds and francs, later pounds and euros.

BA and Air France made an operating profit from Concorde, there is no argument there and that is all I am arguing. You can dance and prance and masturbate all you want to the development costs, I am not interested past the benefits that expenditure has brought to 2 countries.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS, Skanque.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
"The development costs of Concorde were around £1.134 billion, which was funded by the UK and French governments. The cost to build the 16 production Concordes was £654 million of which £278 million was recovered through sales returns (this included spares, technical support, etc.). This debt was also funded by the 2 governments. "
Skanque:
Costs:£1.134 billion plus £654 million.
Minus:£278 million...
Hmmmmm.
My dear mr obesity it was pounds, not dollars and what are you claiming dollars in one sentence and claming £ in the next, you are confused

You seem to be forgetting the more than 3.5 billion operating profit that air France and ba made of over 27 years less of course the 2 billion operating costs so tell me mr obese mathematician, what does 3.5 billion less 2 billion come to in PROFIT terms?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#43575 Nov 23, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course it was.
BA bought the jets from the government for less than what they cost.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!
The plan was for (up to, depending on which dreamer you care to quote) 1,500 airliners of which 20 were built of which 16 were actually used of which NINE were eventually sold at a loss.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
FYI, the UK government is not in the business of making jets

You don’t know much about UK business and tax law do you?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Total loss?
Compared to the loss of billions lost by UK & French taxpayers?
Feasibility studies are just that: investments to see if larger projects are viable. Some are; some are not.
The US Congress wisely withdrew from the project and we can look to the concorde as proof that they made the right decision.
Yup total loss of what was it?

In the early 1960s, an adviser told President Kennedy that failure to enter the supersonic transport market would cost the United States 50,000 jobs,$4 billion in income, and $3 billion in capital. In 1968, the federal government began subsidizing the development of the Boeing 2707—an aircraft that was expected to compete with the French Concorde. Supersonic travel uses a lot more fuel, and spikes in the price of fuel made the project uneconomical. Concorde flights were also so loud that they provoked a backlash against supersonic flight. After spending nearly $1 billion without completing a prototype, the Boeing project was canceled in 1971.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/24/when-gove...

That is almost $1 billion with nothing to show for it.

Plus the loss of

With Concorde the job was completed for a little more and there was product to make an operating profit.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#43576 Nov 23, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd buy a Dodge pick up truck if the US government paid for 90 percent of it...
Well... maybe 95 percent of it...
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd buy a Dodge pick up truck if the US government paid for 90 percent of it...
Well... maybe 95 percent of it...
You really have no taste do you?

Already subsidised, oh, no sorry, that was GM after the US b(w)ankers screwed them

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#43577 Nov 23, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
More of you defining what "is-is".
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/20...
I assume you did not see the second line …(Commissioned by The Times but not published)… I can only ask myself why?

Sorry, did John Adams own any concord?

Did John Adams post any tax returns for the operating profit made from Concorde

Did John Adams post any certified accounts for the concorde?

Who is John Adams anyway?

John Adams is a tree hugger, on the board of directors of Friends of the Earth in the early 1970s and have been involved in debates about environmental issues ever since.

Is this all you can get?

No, ok, never mind

By the way, you seem to be loosing it again – up you medication

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#43578 Nov 23, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
"Maybe airfares are tax deductible in the US but they have NEVER been tax deductible in the UK"
If you're an employee or a director you might be able to get tax relief for business expenses you've paid for. These include the cost of professional fees or subscriptions, business travel and subsistence, tools and specialist clothing.
What counts as a 'tax-deductible' expense?
You can only get tax relief for business expenses you've paid for and if they were for the cost of:
* travelling you had to do in doing your job
other expenses you had to pay in doing your job - and which related only to doing your job
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/tax-allow-ee...
Seems you have overlooked a tax deduction .
Should have kept your receipts for flying on Concorde.
“Might”

I have clarified my statement in a later post

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

I did overlook it, I have used this tax concession myself several times (twice on Concorde) however butt face claimed that EVERY passenger mile was tax deductible. Not so, leisure travellers and travellers to/from work, travellers not in work (children for example) had no such deductions.

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#43579 Nov 23, 2012
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Lucifer may have been a tat leaning you know that way he was very into the finer things...
Art and such, Jesus by now who knows what they are both into...
God a Fairy?
They don't pray to female though( I think a Mormon may have to commit suicide if they had done so) you know can you imagine what if it were so though the CHristiability to the account that they have been taken in...
I am sorry could not make out what you were trying to convey.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43580 Nov 23, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So, plans change. Consider the Boeing 2707 for example, the plan was for a sst to fly but hey, you failed and the US taxpayer footed the bill.
It wasn't. It was funded to see if it were to be economically viable: seed money.

The difference of course: the USA doesn't have a state-run airlines that use tax subsidies to pick up acquisition and operating costs of their airliners, or, as in the Concorde's case, operational fundings.

The difference being, of course: Americans were able to see the project was not economically viable... ad the Concorde would not have been able to be built and fly without the infusion of tax dollars.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43581 Nov 23, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
"Compulsory worship" that doesnt happen
Already proved it does.

Not interested in you acknowledging.

PS: It's the law.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43582 Nov 23, 2012
straa wrote:
bit half of all American children are FORCED to swear allegiance to a god
Do let us know when you can prove one child in America is forced to swear allegiance to a god.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43583 Nov 23, 2012
straa wrote:
I'm fortunate that both my kids go to a British school,
Shame you never attended a school that taught English, eh, Packy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43584 Nov 23, 2012
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweden is a parliamentary democracy,
A constitutional monarchy.

Is the official name of Sweden 'Kingdom of Sweden'... yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43585 Nov 23, 2012
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
the king have no political power.
sweden is a parliamentary democracy,
So you do have a king.

Must be why they call it the "Kingdom of Sweden".

Call me when the king is deposed, until then: constitutional monarchy.

This is from the website that says it is the official Sweden gateway:

http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/

'The Swedish monarchy

Sweden is a constitutional monarchy. The Swedish head of state since 1973, King Carl XVI Gustaf, exercises no political power and does not participate in political life. He is the representative of the country as a whole, and in that capacity performs mainly ceremonial duties and functions. Among his duties the monarch chairs meetings of the Advisory Council on Foreign Affairs. The king is supported in his duties by Queen Silvia and their three children, Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine. Queen Silvia was born in Germany to the German-Brazilian Sommerlath family.'

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43586 Nov 23, 2012
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
that wasn't a translation that was official swedish government
SOURCE: http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Quick-facts/

Quick facts about Sweden

Area: 174,000 sq mi (450,000 km²), the third largest country in Western Europe
Longest north-south distance: 978 mi (1,574 km)
Longest east-west distance: 310 mi (499 km)
Capital: Stockholm
Population: 9.5 million inhabitants
Languages: Swedish; recognized minority languages: Sami (Lapp), Finnish, Meänkieli (Tornedalen Finnish), Yiddish, Romani Chib
Form of government: Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy
Parliament: The Riksdag, with 349 members in one chamber
Religion: In practice, Sweden is very secularized. The Church of Sweden is Evangelical Lutheran; co-exists with many other beliefs
Life expectancy: Men 79 years, women 83 years
MCPLI

Woodridge, IL

#43587 Nov 23, 2012
CODEsapphire wrote:
<quoted text>
You don`t have to be an Atheist to be a bully, since it`s obviouse that your not yet your being highly offensive to all Atheist yet any person with common sense knows to the judge a whole group of people just by a single member
Question- Does that also apply to religious people? I choose not to judge all Muslims for the acts of some. I also do not judge all Christians for the acts of some. Can you say the same?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#43588 Nov 23, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the one who brought an explanation, and you are the one who ran away like a wuss and can respond with nothing but ad homs.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it, SuperFag, I'm not the can't answer the question: Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no.

I've slapped the snot out of you every time you stick you ugly head up.

The sun rises in the east, sets in the west, and the UK is a monarchy, make sure to remind Odoriferous Skanque you have a problem with that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 42 min Frindly 83,960
News BILL-BORED: Get Ready For Atheists' Annual Use ... 1 hr Eagle 12 - 9
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Frindly 3,303
News Scientist Richard Dawkins weighs in on Malaysia... 23 hr Eagle 12 - 6
High School Atheism Thu blacklagoon 3 41
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Wed Eagle 12 - 4,965
Where have all the Atheists gone? (Apr '17) Wed Eagle 12 - 132
More from around the web