In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51423 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44767 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, but by Barefoot's logic since VP candidates
Of course, SuperFag can never go by what I actually say- even wioth DOZENS of comments to choose from- but what SuperFag has to construe as to what I must have meant based on what he could understand.

Even when he cannot bring himself to understand basics, e.g., the UK is a monarchy, not a democracy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44768 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realise that "HAHAHAHAHA" simply proves my point that you have nothing to back your claims, right?
You do understand HAHAHAHAHA means I am laughing at you- something you should have picked up on by now?

My "claim" was (most recent claim) that Macmillian was appointed prime minister even without a (supporting) vote in the House of Commons?

And if you want to refute my assertion: all you need to do is show us the results of the election?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44769 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
Barefoot goes at pains to portray his country's politics as democratic and ours, the UK's, as undemocratic.
Actually, no pain is involved: I display the facts as they are.

The United KING_dom is a monarchy.

This is a fact.

Americans ELECT their head of state; subjects of the monarchy do not.

These are facts.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44770 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
Also, the Electoral College decide the presidential race anyway.
The electors in the Electoral College are elected.

Elected.

They then ELECT the POTUS.

Elect.

The prime minister of the UK: appointed by the monarch.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44771 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
Thus due to Ford not being democratically selected in any sense, the people had no say in his selection.
Ford was nominated by the democratically elected president to fill a vacancy.

His nomination was than approved by democratically elected senators and Representatives. This was done by vote: The United States Senate voted 92 to 3; the House confirmed Ford by a vote of 387 to 35.

VOTE.

In the history of time, here is the list of the prime ministers who have been elected to the office in the United KING_dom:

.
Anonymous

UK

#44772 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you aren't an American.
When did you move here? Help me understand so I can better address this 'question'- from where did you move?
Let me erect my religious symbol next to yours- some... municipalities... try to 'offset' the objections of citizens have to religious iconography by making space for 'everyone', so you put up your cross, and next to it... I put up my swastika.
Can you just go on with your life knowing that a symbol for something you don't believe in sitting on the lawn of the local municipal building isn't changing your life in the least?
PS: I would object in either case.
A cross and a swastiki, the national symbols of America eh

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44773 Dec 14, 2012
Thinking wrote:
That's just two decent performances in 15 years...
<quoted text>
*sigh*

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44774 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have cause for alarm should I insist that I want to erect a large lit swastika between the cross and the menorah.
Here's a thought: keep them all off the court house lawn.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44775 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a unique case, SuperFag: a recent example.
I have offered you another case of the UK monarch APPOINTING a PM who did not go through the "election" process.
Putting aside you skipped over the FACT that Macmillian did not go through the election process: as I said.
I provide another example and you stop posting on this thread.
Since I continue to refute things that you post and you can't seem to acknowledge them...
Seems fair to me...
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#44776 Dec 14, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, but by Barefoot's logic since VP candidates are selected by the presidential candidate, and not the public, then he was undemocratically elected both as VP and president post-JFK.
<quoted text>
Barefoot goes at pains to portray his country's politics as democratic and ours, the UK's, as undemocratic. Thus due to Ford not being democratically selected in any sense, the people had no say in his selection.
Also, the Electoral College decide the presidential race anyway. I know as much as you do that they are nothing other than ceremony, but according to Barefoot's logic, this is a literal, pratical election process.
That is why he requires special pleading.
dude, i was just supplying the other side of the arguement

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44777 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for confirming that Macmillian was not elected democratically... or any other way, since he wasn't elected he was appointed, as are all (each and every) prime minister in the UK.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44778 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
One. In two hundred forty years or so.
And of course he was elected into the office he held before he was nominated by Nixon and then elected by majority vote of Congress- both houses- by members all of whom are elected into office.
Compare to: appointed by a monarch who can pick whomever she/he chooses with or without approval or recommendation of any elected official of the government.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44779 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not appointed.
Nominated (by Nixon) and the elected.
You left out: Congress followed the nomination by a vote in both Houses.
As provided by the US Constitution.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44780 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no pain is involved: I display the facts as they are.
The United KING_dom is a monarchy.
This is a fact.
Americans ELECT their head of state; subjects of the monarchy do not.
These are facts.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44781 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The electors in the Electoral College are elected.
Elected.
They then ELECT the POTUS.
Elect.
The prime minister of the UK: appointed by the monarch.
Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44782 Dec 14, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
A cross and a swastiki, the national symbols of America eh
I can't help your stupidity.

Especially since surely you know the origin of the swastika is India.

Eh, Packy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44783 Dec 14, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Has anyone suggested otherwise?
Apart from you, I mean?
Follow the thread.
X Obama Supporter

Coffeyville, KS

#44784 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you aren't an American.
When did you move here? Help me understand so I can better address this 'question'- from where did you move?
Let me erect my religious symbol next to yours- some... municipalities... try to 'offset' the objections of citizens have to religious iconography by making space for 'everyone', so you put up your cross, and next to it... I put up my swastika.
Can you just go on with your life knowing that a symbol for something you don't believe in sitting on the lawn of the local municipal building isn't changing your life in the least?
PS: I would object in either case.
Oh I'm very American, lived here my entire life.

So I take it then you don't deal in cash at all. Wouldn't want to .subject yourself to anything that might symbolize something that you are offended by right? And since on all money, bills and coins, there it is...."in God we trust" on every bill printed and every coin. If you can't stand the idea of a symbol like a cross on a municipal lawn then I bet money really offends you huh? There isn't much worse symbolizism then just coming right out and saying and printing it on something is there? So American.....how do you deal with the money offense? I would imagine like most atheist you find a way to look past that one. Seems your "sensitivity" is something you have already managed to live with.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#44785 Dec 14, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Follow the thread.
I have.

There are 100 cents in a dollar.

The Sun rises in the East.

Ireland is an island to the West of Britain.

The UK is cosmetically a monarchy.

Some heads of State are elected - some also require the ceremonial concession of a titular monarch.

Has anyone suggested otherwise?

Apart from you, I mean?

Quit arguing with yourself.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#44786 Dec 14, 2012
X Obama Supporter wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I'm very American, lived here my entire life.
So I take it then you don't deal in cash at all. Wouldn't want to .subject yourself to anything that might symbolize something that you are offended by right? And since on all money, bills and coins, there it is...."in God we trust" on every bill printed and every coin.
""It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. "

Next?

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 Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 17 min yehoshooah adam 3,793
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 25 min Eagle 12 462
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Subduction Zone 30,136
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 70,135
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 13 hr superwilly 258,471
News Atheism and cowardice (Nov '11) 21 hr Eagle 12 12,674
Evidence for God! (Oct '14) Wed superwilly 579
More from around the web