In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51425 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.

straa

UK

#45251 Dec 21, 2012
Show me the post, show me the post, show me the post, or forever be revealed as the liar you are, I want to see the post where I said Canada had more troops than america, where is that post barefoot, I am waiting, what's the matter, cat got your tongue
straa

UK

#45252 Dec 21, 2012
Come on barefoot, why have you gone all wiry, I'm still waiting for you to show the post where I said Canada had more soldiers than America, show the post or reveal yourself as a liar, I'm waiting and waiting, show me the post, show me the post, or just admit that you are wrong and lied, its not difficult, its only a few words, but you can't say them, can you, show the post or be revealed as a liar

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45253 Dec 21, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't find the post,
I am responsible for what I say, Packy, not for what you have to make up after I pull down your pants and spank you in front of everyone else.
SupaAFC

Whitehaven, UK

#45254 Dec 21, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you remember when you asked me the last time a prime minister wasn't elect4ed (for the nomination for the appointment made by the monarch) and I told you Macmillan and then you wanted another example?
HAHAHAAHAHAH!
Fun times, eh?
No, because this never happened. You brought up Macmillan on your own accord, unrequested.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
United Kingdom: still a monarchy.
Why do we have a Parliament, then? What is the point of a Parliament if we have a monarchy?

I hear crickets chirping.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell me: Is it true royal assention is required before it can become an Act of Parliament (law)? Yes or no?
PS:
Yes.

Now answer my question: if our government is a monarchy, then why does Parliament make the laws in the first place? Why doesn't the monarchy just make the laws themselves?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Proposed to put 500 new Peers into the Lords and they would vote for the closure of the Lords. The Lords gave their consent to the 1911 Parliament Act under duress. The Bill was presented to King Edward VII who refused the Royal Assent on the grounds that it removed a protection given to the Subject by the Constitution.
It is poor practice to leave the source omitted. I copied/pasted this into Google and found an ad-verbatim match on:

http://www.acasefortreason.org.uk/index.php/h...

Riiiight. The only links that make this claim are all about a supposed English Constitution and treason. How about actually providing a legitimate source straight from a historical analysis?

And even if we pretend that this claim is indeed true, that's still only... oh... 100 years ago.

Get with the times, Barefoot.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#45255 Dec 21, 2012
I wasn't aware I couldn't.
I've got an antique sword and a Nepalese kukri on my wall.
Thank you for your concern, though.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Explain to me why it is illegal for you to own a katana.
BTW I own several , also very powerful projectile weapons \ but have no desire to hunt in the petting zoo.
But honestly can you tell me why you cannot own a katana?
I wonder if it is legal for you , a British man to even own a Sykes fairbairn sykes or an Enfield or Brown Bess even for that matter.
why should you not be able too?
straa

UK

#45256 Dec 21, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am responsible for what I say, Packy, not for what you have to make up after I pull down your pants and spank you in front of everyone else.
So you can't find the post, hahaha, so you are a confirmed liar, thankyou for revealing that, but its something we all allready knew, so when you said that i wrote that canada had more troops than anerica, you were lying, i just want to be clear about that, you were both wrong and a liar, you can not find the post, because there is no post, and you are now shown to be a liar, thankyou for that
straa

Dartford, UK

#45257 Dec 21, 2012
Barefoot has been shown infront of everyone to be a flat out liar, just to emphasize that, he has been proven to of lied, he can not find the post that he claimed I said, so now we can all see yet again what a liar you are, what's the matter barebutty, lost for words, show me the post, show me the post, everyone has now seen that you are a LIAR

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45258 Dec 21, 2012
straa wrote:
Come on barefoot, why have you gone all wiry
I understand, Packy: I have pulled down your pants yet again.

I understand: you are stuck trying to support what you actually said and you look pretty silly.

You best approach is to change your alias and come back again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45259 Dec 21, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because this never happened. You brought up Macmillan on your own accord, unrequested.
Already refuted.

In the history of time, no American has ever spontaneously shouted out the name of a UK prime minister not elected to office by his party for recommendation before the British monarch.
straa

Dartford, UK

#45260 Dec 21, 2012
In britain u would be known as a battyboy, which is an apt description i think, barebutt battyboy

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45261 Dec 21, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Why do we have a Parliament, then?
Do let me know if you can think of another way of saying "I could not possibly care less".

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45262 Dec 21, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
It is poor practice to leave the source omitted.
It isn't when I quoted an entire paragraph and the internet is still up.

I wanted to give you a little more than just the fact that you are wrong.
straa

UK

#45263 Dec 21, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand, Packy: I have pulled down your pants yet again.
I understand: you are stuck trying to support what you actually said and you look pretty silly.
You best approach is to change your alias and come back again.
Every time you fail to show the post, you reveal yourself as a liar, it is very simple, either you show the post where I said Canada had more troops than America, or you show yourself to be a LIAR, show me the post, show me the post, I'm not going to drop this, you have been proven to have lied, a flat out liar, show me the post

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45264 Dec 21, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
It is poor practice to leave the source omitted. I copied/pasted this into Google and found an ad-verbatim match on:
You found an exact quote because I know how to quote exactly and marked it such.

Let's review:

(quote)
Proposed to put 500 new Peers into the Lords and they would vote for the closure of the Lords. The Lords gave their consent to the 1911 Parliament Act under duress. The Bill was presented to King Edward VII who refused the Royal Assent on the grounds that it removed a protection given to the Subject by the Constitution.

++

AH! note the (quote) marking.
straa

Dartford, UK

#45265 Dec 21, 2012
Show me the post, show me the post, show me the post. BAREBUTT BATTYBOY HAS BEEN SHOWN UP AS A LIAR, and now you are squirming, but there is no way out for you, you lied, its as simple as that, you have been proven to have been both wrong and a liar, good job

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45266 Dec 21, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
And even if we pretend that this claim is indeed true, that's still only... oh... 100 years ago.
And we again return to your insistence that I should provide an example of as prime minister who was not elected before being appointed by the monarch which I provided and then you said one wasn't enough, and then you ask for a more recent example of a monarch who refused the Royal Assent then the three hundred year example you provided and I gave it to you.

And now you want to pretend it didn't actually happen.

Did King Edward VII refuse the Royal Assent, yes or no?
straa

Dartford, UK

#45267 Dec 21, 2012
I've taken lessons on how to be pedantic, I wonder where I learned that, so I won't be letting this go, show me the post, show me the post
SupaAFC

Whitehaven, UK

#45268 Dec 21, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't when I quoted an entire paragraph and the internet is still up.
I wanted to give you a little more than just the fact that you are wrong.
You omitted the source because it is an anonymous website with no credentials. If I cited that source during my undergrad for an essay it would have simply been scored off as "unacceptable".

I think that is a more apt reason for why you chose to omit it. Meanwhile:

"The Royal Assent has not been refused since 1707, when Queen Anne refused it for a Bill for settling the militia in Scotland."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_par...

Which am I going to believe? BBC Parliament, or Barefoot's anonymous, unaccredited, unsupported website?

Could it just be, Barefoot, that you know that your over-emphasis of the monarchy is a joke, and that Britain is just an average western democratic state like any other?

Tell us when you are ready to join us in the 21st century.

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#45269 Dec 21, 2012
Thinking wrote:
I wasn't aware I couldn't.
I've got an antique sword and a Nepalese kukri on my wall.
Thank you for your concern, though.
<quoted text>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7139724.st...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#45270 Dec 21, 2012
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
You omitted the source because it is an anonymous website
Sweetie: something is either true or not true. It does not become not true because you don't like the person who tells you it is true nor does it become false.

The some came up in the east this morning, this is true without regard to your opinion, SuperFag.

Macmillan was not elected by his peers before he was APPOINTED to his office by Queen Elizabeth, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

You wanted an example of when a UK monarch refused to give the Royal Assent since the example you gave of some three hundred years ago, and I give this:
(quote)
The Bill was presented to King Edward VII who refused the Royal Assent on the grounds that it removed a protection given to English Subjects by the Constitution. King Edward told Asquith he would have to ask the Country.
(end quote)

The (quote) marks what I copied from someone else.

If I wanted to hid something, I would do what you do: paraphrased it and passed it off as mine.

Sweetie: it REMAINS that the monarch IS NOT COMPELLED to give assention, that is why it is called a "prerogative".

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... 16 min yehoshooah adam 3,516
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Subduction Zone 67,030
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 8 hr Dogen 28,569
is it ever right to hate Christians as a group? 12 hr superwilly 21
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) 12 hr superwilly 462
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Apr 22 IB DaMann 5,975
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
More from around the web