In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

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.

Full Story

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44502 Dec 7, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
The prime minister is elected,
appointed.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44503 Dec 7, 2012
straa wrote:
the queen has no choice,
The monarchy could appoint her cat as PM if she is so inclined.

That is the law.
Thinking

UK

#44504 Dec 7, 2012
Correct.
And way behind Sweden, who also has a figurehead monarch.
And Norway, who also has a figurehead monarch.
straa wrote:
The world have made their judgments on democratic nations, and usa is below Britain, hahahaha
Anonymous

UK

#44505 Dec 7, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The monarchy could appoint her cat as PM if she is so inclined.
That is the law.
You are such an idiot, the monarchy qppoint whoever the people elect, she can't just appoint anyone you test, can you imagine what would happen if she tried to do that, the monarchy would be disbanded and they would lose everything, in a democracy like britain tge role of the monarchy is to have pomp and ceremony and attract tourists, the monarchy were stripped of their powers centuries ago, now their role is to keep out of the way, keep their mouths shut, do as their told,and rubber stamp whoever the voters elect as prime minister, the monarchy are not even allowed to talk about politics, they have to be impartial, their role is purely ceremonial, I know you hate the fact that britain is more democratic and free than usa, but there's nothing you can do about it, is there.
Anonymous

UK

#44506 Dec 7, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The actual fact is the UK (and the Allies) would have lost had it not been for the intervention of the USA.
Period.
You can't change facts, the fact is that the UK was winning the war without usa, and Britain would have still won without USA, germanys threat to Britain was defeated in the battle of britain, long before usa got involved, from the battle of Britain onwards it was militarilt impossible for Germany to invade britain, they didn't have the capability, juat like they didn't in russia, so world war two was being won long before America got involved and would have continued to do so without america, can you give me a possible scenario of how Germany could threaten britain, they couldn't, they didn't have the ability, or resources to invqde Britain, thats why they never did, after they lost the battle of Britain it was game over, germany were then powerless militarily to be a threat to Britain, and invading Russia ensured that germany would lose, so really you had no impact, at best you shortened the war by a little bit, but Britain and russiqs role was much bigger, greater and more important than Americas, you cant change facts my deluded friend

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44507 Dec 7, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such an idiot, the monarchy qppoint whoever the people
Your spelling errors make it hard for anyone to read a complete sentence and that is before they get to making a judgement re: content... besides laughing themselves silly thinking that you think you can call anyone else an idiot.

The monarch appoints the PM in the UK.

This is a fact.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44508 Dec 7, 2012
straa wrote:
now their role is to keep out of the way, keep their mouths shut, do as their told
The government of the UK exists at the behest of the monarch, not the other way around, no matter how hard you stomp your ignorant immigrant feet, Packy.

Now no one here is expecting you to say that you are wrong.
Anonymous

UK

#44509 Dec 7, 2012
Germanys mistake was invading Russia, a country which any military tactician would say is beyond germanys capability to win, just as they were incapable of invading Britain, they were incapable of defeating Russia, having to fight Britain and Russia was an unwinable situation for Germany, invading Russia was a massive and irreversible mistake
Thinking

UK

#44510 Dec 7, 2012
And yet Hitler made no secret of his intention to roll into Russia in "Mein Kampf". Madness!
straa wrote:
Germanys mistake was invading Russia, a country which any military tactician would say is beyond germanys capability to win, just as they were incapable of invading Britain, they were incapable of defeating Russia, having to fight Britain and Russia was an unwinable situation for Germany, invading Russia was a massive and irreversible mistake

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44511 Dec 7, 2012
straa wrote:
Germanys mistake was invading Russia, a country which any military tactician would say is beyond germanys capability to win, just as they were incapable of invading Britain
It would have taken Germany- on the outside- two months to run though England... as Patton would say... like sh!t though a goose.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#44512 Dec 7, 2012
Thinking wrote:
Is bsfoot just another watchtower wanker?
I hadn't read his sh!t enough to pick up on that lunacy.
<quoted text>
So I am told by a three reliable sources, all American, one a godbot in her own right
Thinking

UK

#44513 Dec 7, 2012
Thanks. I guess it doesn't matter, though. I'm sure he'd be a wanker anyway.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So I am told by a three reliable sources, all American, one a godbot in her own right
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#44514 Dec 7, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
...the fact is that the UK was winning the war without usa, and Britain would have still won without USA, germanys threat to Britain was defeated in the battle of britain, long before usa got involved, from the battle of Britain onwards it was militarilt impossible for Germany to invade britain, they didn't have the capability, juat like they didn't in russia, so world war two was being won long before America got involved and would have continued to do so without america, can you give me a possible scenario of how Germany could threaten britain,...
(Post 44506, above)
I don’t know why people try to argue this. They don’t seem to have got it from history books or documentaries in the UK.

What is meant by ‘without the USA’, exactly? The USA’s neutrality seemed distinctly biased towards the UK and I think most USAmericans recognised they couldn’t allow the main British islands to be over-run. That was apparently the thinking behind the decision to prioritise the European theatre and defeating the Nazis over the Japanese.

The British and Irish (including Churchill) may have come to terms with Germany if the UK had received no help at all from the USA in 1941 – who knows? It seems very unlikely Germany could have been so totally defeated in May, 1945 with much less help from the USA. And maybe then Germany would have invented The Bomb before Russia could have occupied Germany? With little or no help from the USA, it seems at least feasible that Europe could have been Nazi-occupied at ‘the end’ of WW2.

This is what my education (in England) taught me and it seems confirmed by the books I have read since.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#44515 Dec 7, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government of the UK exists at the behest of the monarch, not the other way around, no matter how hard you stomp your ignorant immigrant feet, Packy.
Now no one here is expecting you to say that you are wrong.
Pure nonsense.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#44516 Dec 7, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
..The monarch appoints the PM in the UK.
This is a fact.
She does this as head of state. She has a ceremonial and figure-head role in the Parliamentary system. Most people realise that the current royal family can be trusted to act reasonably a-politically and constitutionally. I think most western populations accept that real sovereignty resides in the will of the people.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44517 Dec 7, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
So I am told by a three reliable sources, all American, one a godbot in her own right
Naturally, Snatch block, three reliable sources that will remain nameless...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44518 Dec 7, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Pure nonsense.
I am going by what is...

According to your constitution...

oh yeah... that's right...

you don't have one...

well, according to the collection of laws you consider an 'uncodified' constitution.

Tell me: who does the the army and -let me say every "elected" office holder pledge their allegiance to in the UK?

Setting aside for a moment such allegiances are almost useless?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44519 Dec 7, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>She does this as head of state. She has a ceremonial and figure-head role in the Parliamentary system.
It isn't entirely ceremonial and we both know it.

The trick is to see if you want to 'admit' it.

I've already given an example (recent) but when people are unable to even allow them to say the UK is a monarchy... what is the point?

E.G., the pack of Tommies who cannot 'admit' the UK is a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44520 Dec 7, 2012
EdSed wrote:
I think most western populations accept that real sovereignty resides in the will of the people.
What 'will' would that be?

Since we both know that sovereignty is, as of this minute, in the literal- the legal- sense is still the monarch.

It would seem to me that most western populations accept the status as it actually is: that the United KING_dom is still a monarchy.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#44521 Dec 7, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am going by what is...
According to your constitution...
oh yeah... that's right...
you don't have one...
well, according to the collection of laws you consider an 'uncodified' constitution.
The following has been explained to you many times, but you don't accept it. You seem more concerned with winning some sort of argument, perhaps? For onlookers, let me point-out again that the British constitution doesn't exist in the sense that it is unwritten. There is the concept of true sovereignty residing in the hearts and mind of the citizenry.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me: who does the the army and -let me say every "elected" office holder pledge their allegiance to in the UK?
Setting aside for a moment such allegiances are almost useless?
The Queen. And there your interest and understanding will remain.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min I B Eagle 228,529
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 1 hr Patrick 148
Is Religion Childish? 1 hr Patrick 3
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 1 hr Patrick 3
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 22,919
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 3 hr Richardfs 5,584
Our world came from nothing? 4 hr Richardfs 674

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE