In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

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.

Comments (Page 2,157)

Showing posts 43,121 - 43,140 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44698
Dec 13, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
GOSH!
Let's try to remember which one of us who was saying that the monarch APPOINTED the prime minister!!!!
Let me check...
Oh, that was me!
Only that you referenced Macmillan because you thought that the Queen, on her own, selected him as PM. As the link showed, she did not - she fulfilled her ceremonial obligation of appointing a politician who was selected by the majority of elite Conservative figures.

So once again, Barefoot, you are simply wrong that the Queen is a serious political player in our system.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait, wait, that is that tricky definition of appointed that you (et al.) insisted was the "technically correct" meaning of the word...
Macmillian was a unique case because the Conservatives at the time had no system of replacing their leaders. They, not the Queen, decided that Macmillan would be the next PM. Just like Labour decided that Gordon Brown would replace Tony Blair.

It really is that simple to understand.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And then you (et al.) INSISTED that the prime minister was ELECTED by the Parliament.
Wrong. Whenever you have brought up your dead horse about the PM's election I have simply restated that like the other 649 MPS, he is elected by his constituency voters.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
(putting aside, the PM is "elected" by part of the (sometimes) majority party of the hOUSE OF cOMMONS.
For the exact same reason that Democratic and Republican delegates select presidential candidates: to appeal to as many voters as possible.

Political campaigning 101.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
GOSH! there I go again... being..."factually" correct...
Translation: there Barefoot goes again finding a unique case where a PM was selected by party elites, but because the Queen did her usual role of rubber-stamping their decision, he believes that she must have therefore selected Macmillan all by herself.
why hah

Wheeling, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44699
Dec 13, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are a real freaking HO.
Why do you's old guys always pissss down your own leg?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44700
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Only that you referenced Macmillan because you thought that the Queen, on her own,
You didn't know who he was until I reminded you and, you stupid DOLT, I had to remind you AGAIN that**YOU** are the one who keeps insisting the prime minister is "elected" by members of the Parliament.

I know: I am only 'technically' correct because I am using 'actual' facts.

PS: Queen Elizabeth was under NO obligation to talk to a soul when SHE decided to appoint Macmillian.

Appoint. A- p- p- o- i- n- t.

And there was NO election involved, no vote.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44701
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Macmillian was a unique case because
Translation:
Barefoot2626... right again.
SuperFag: blah blah blah blah!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44702
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Whenever you have brought up your dead horse about the PM's election I have simply restated that like the other 649 MPS, he is elected by his constituency voters.
Nope.

I instructed you (et al.) long long long time ago: the "prime minister" office is NOT an elected office.

You remember when you insisted that you voted for the PM? And I laugh and laughed and laugh and laughed and insisted that you tell us what election that was and you never got around to telling us which one because you had no involvement non ZERO with either of the last PMs.

And as I pointed out: I have as much involvement in the selection of the PM as you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44703
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
For the exact same reason that Democratic and Republican delegates select presidential candidates
Vote.

I understand you don't understand the difference: why you confuse 'select','appoint' and 'vote' and use them, in error, interchangeably.

I.E.: you are a dolt, SuperFag.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44704
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Translation: there Barefoot goes again finding a unique case
It wasn't a unique case.

I find another and you never post in this thread again, eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44705
Dec 13, 2012
 
SupaAFC wrote:
Macmillian was a unique case because the Conservatives at the time had no system of replacing their leaders. They, not the Queen, decided that Macmillan would be the next PM.
You are a m/f, c/s liar.

But then, we knew that already, eh, SuperFag?
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44706
Dec 13, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't know who he was until I reminded you
If you want to play "let's make up our own facts", then sure, I am game.

Barefoot doesn't know who Lionel Ritchie is.

Back to you, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
and, you stupid DOLT, I had to remind you AGAIN that**YOU** are the one who keeps insisting the prime minister is "elected" by members of the Parliament.
I have to keep reminding you that you get your responses mixed up with the posters you "debate" with on these forums. I have never claimed that the PM is elected by MPs; the PM gets his position by virtue of being the leader of the party in government.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know: I am only 'technically' correct because I am using 'actual' facts.
I know: Barefoot refuses to go below the surface of his arguments because he knows that the practical machinery of British politics flatly contradicts his outdated version on how it supposedly functions.

If you want to believe that this is the medieval world and Queen Elizabeth is planning to launch an armada, then by all means be my guest; just let us know when you want to join us in the 21st century.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: Queen Elizabeth was under NO obligation to talk to a soul when SHE decided to appoint Macmillian.
Elizabeth did nothing but rubber stamp a decision made by Conservative party elites. That you outright refuse to accept this simply shows how far you will go to refuse to admit that you are simply wrong when it comes to the Queen's influence in British politics.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Appoint. A- p- p- o- i- n- t.
Ceremony. C-e-r-e-m-o-n-y.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And there was NO election involved, no vote.
Well of course not, at that time the Conservatives had no system of selecting leaders under an active government.

I'm glad we can finally agree on one thing, even if you only stumbled into this by accident.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44707
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to play "let's make up our own facts", then sure, I am game.
Barefoot doesn't know who Lionel Ritchie is.
WAHHHHHHH! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! MOMMY! Barefoot2626 put his foot up my azz AGAIN! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44708
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
I have to keep reminding you that you get your responses mixed up with the posters you "debate" with on these forums. I have never claimed that the PM is elected by MPs; the PM gets his position by virtue of being the leader of the party in government.
The PM is appointed by the monarch.

Do try to keep up.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44709
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
I know: Barefoot refuses to go below the surface of his arguments because
Because the anser is right there on the surface:

The United KING*dom is a monarchy.

The prime minister of this monarchy is APPOINTED by the monarch.
Nancy0714

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44710
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Although these may seem rather lengthy for some to read and there are only a few I have listed here, but to me, it seems that our Forefathers did base the founding of this country on Christian principles. Having said that, one does have the freedom to worship or not, anything or anybody they so desire. So......MERRY "CHRIST"MAS Y'all. And if that offends you....MOVE!:)

John Quincy
SIXTH PRESID...ENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”

My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to].... the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenance...s [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7

The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God”[Isaiah 52:10].8

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9

Patrick Henry
Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
--The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.
nd been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God”[Isaiah 52:10].8

In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9

Congress, 1854

The great, vital, and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.25

Alexander Hamilton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
--Famous American Statesmen, p. 126

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44711
Dec 13, 2012
 
Thinking wrote:
Well, it wasn't a brilliant harvest this year, was it?
<quoted text>
Hehehe.

Thought you'd get the reference.

I refer, of course, to the 1972 classic with Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee, not the 2006 cockup with I-don't-care-who.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44712
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

SupaAFC wrote:
Elizabeth did nothing but rubber stamp a decision
The monarch asked opinions of two people for whom she had respect.

The decision was entirely hers to make.

No matter how hard you stomp your feet, SuperFag.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44713
Dec 13, 2012
 
Nancy0714 wrote:
Although these may seem rather lengthy for some to read and there are only a few I have listed here, but to me, it seems that our Forefathers did base the founding of this country on Christian principles.
I guess that explains why most of the "forefathers" owned slaves.

Eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44714
Dec 13, 2012
 
Nancy0714 wrote:
Alexander Hamilton
A monarchist.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44715
Dec 13, 2012
 
Nancy0714 wrote:
--The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia
Slave owner.
Thinking

Zeals, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44716
Dec 13, 2012
 
Apart from as Big Daddy, I-don't-care-who has been dire for years now.
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hehehe.
Thought you'd get the reference.
I refer, of course, to the 1972 classic with Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee, not the 2006 cockup with I-don't-care-who.
SupaAFC

Kinross, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44717
Dec 14, 2012
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
WAHHHHHHH! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! MOMMY! Barefoot2626 put his foot up my azz AGAIN! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Is that why none of your three short, tiny, non-factual responses actually addressed the Macmillan issue?

Run away, manchild.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 43,121 - 43,140 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••