In America, atheists are still in the closet

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

FYI, Hitler was christian.

Stalin was an atheist.
Mao was an atheist.
Pol Pot was an atheist.

If you want to study the numbers of people in the last 100 years or so, it looks like the atheists are still winning the humans killed.

If you want to insist it was about religion...

[KittenKoder]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your picture is enough to soften anything, Chubby.
Sometimes permanently, for those who fail to look away quickly, apparently.

Aw, you're flirting with me, how cute.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Government type: constitutional monarchy
source: http://www.indexmundi.com/sweden/government_t ...
Today, Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy form of government and a highly developed economy.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

Sweden is a democracy

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
You did.
Quote above.
You keep working on your ESL classes.

No i didn't

you should go to school and learn about sweden instead of using cia world fact book

[barefoot2626]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Aw, you're flirting with me, how cute.

Get some D-cells, Chubby.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Stalin was an atheist.
Mao was an atheist.
Pol Pot was an atheist.
If you want to study the numbers of people in the last 100 years or so, it looks like the atheists are still winning the humans killed.
If you want to insist it was about religion...

nope
nope
nope

[KittenKoder]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Get some D-cells, Chubby.

You take batteries? This is interesting, and kinky.

[RHill]

What's all this talk about the Enigma being undecipherable? It was little more than a character scrambling electric typewriter. Why are we mucking about with Quantum Cryptography if the Nazis already invented an unbreakable code generating machine? Undecipherable? Hogwash! Maybe back in those days. How often did they change the 'key'? Could it even be changed or was it hardwired (geared?) into the device?

[barefoot2626]

RHill wrote:

How often did they change the 'key'? Could it even be changed or was it hardwired (geared?) into the device?

All the time.

The big break came when someone got sloppy and reused the same one.

It was... "LIKE" an IBM Selectric typewriter and had... four "balls" "elements" in IBM-eese and they were selected from a box of elements and you had to have the right elements (aka rotors, so now you can shift to the IBM Wheelwriter, aka daisy wheels) in the machine to decypher the message.

So... if you want to stretch the metaphor to a strict "substitution" code (A=K, K=P), not only would you have to figure out the substitution, you'd have to do it for three (early versions) random rotors (and the Germans added more rotors to each new version)... because (A=K, K=P, then P=Q... then Q=B)

And the rotors the radioman would put in... he'd selected disk from a... "deck"...

The most critical enigma would have been the last one captured by the Americans (U505) as the Germans were aware of the British's capture of the early models of the code machine...

[barefoot2626]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
nope
nope
nope

Of course, Meatball: you don't acknowledge the Kingdom of Sweden is a monarchy...

[Lincoln]

RHill wrote:

What's all this talk about the Enigma being undecipherable? It was little more than a character scrambling electric typewriter. Why are we mucking about with Quantum Cryptography if the Nazis already invented an unbreakable code generating machine? Undecipherable? Hogwash! Maybe back in those days. How often did they change the 'key'? Could it even be changed or was it hardwired (geared?) into the device?

This is not a mystery.
Extensive writing on this subject.
Poland role impressive

[Lincoln]

A high percentage of atheists seem to be agnostics?

[SupaAFC]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
mon·ar·chy
[mon-er-kee]
noun, plural mon·ar·chies.
1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch. Compare absolute monarchy, limited monarchy.
2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
++

de·moc·ra·cy
/di&#712;mäkr&#601;s &#275;/
Noun
A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
A state governed in such a way.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Swallow, SuperFAG.
mon·ar·chy
[mon-er-kee]
noun, plural mon·ar·chies.
1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch. Compare absolute monarchy, limited monarchy.
2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.

How does pasting a dictionary definition refute the fact that the monarchy has not refused assent to a bill for over 300 years?

I can only conclude that you think that dictionaries literally define reality. If a duck was defined as having flippers, then ducks all over the world would magically grow flippers.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
You mean the larger half of the UK Parliament?
Gosh, you mean when I say more members of the UK Parliament are appointed, I am right again!
OH MY!
Wipe your chin, SuperFAG!

Nobody has claimed otherwise, but if I could only claim victory by arguing with red herrings, I suppose that is your best option.

Lords, do nothing. Queen, does nothing. Conclusion? Britain is a representative, parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch at the top.

Define that, manchild.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Moving the goalposts, again, SuperFAG?
Like when you insisted ALL PMs were elected and I proved you wrong - that Macmillian was not elected... and you wanted another example?
Of course: I only have actual facts and actual laws on my side...

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Moving the goalposts, again, SuperFAG?

Not at all. You keep saying "Already refuted" for points you have never attempted to refute in the first place as a get-out for actually doing anything. You claim that you have refuted the Queen rubber-stamping bills...

... but have done nothing to demonstrate as such.

Those goalposts have remained firmly in place for over 300 years. You shot wide and claimed victory anyway.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like when you insisted ALL PMs were elected and I proved you wrong - that Macmillian was not elected... and you wanted another example?
Of course: I only have actual facts and actual laws on my side...

Macmillan was elected as an MP like any other Prime Minister, first representing Stockton then being Bromley's MP for many years.

Like all MPs in the Commons, he was democratically elected. You -think- he was unelected purely because the Conservatives at the time had no system for replacing PMs in a sitting Parliamentary session, so had to recommend one to the Queen.

Only you seem to think that the Queen acted independently in this issue, which is why you would rather find a case over 50 years old instead of look at the Conservative leadership challenge to Thatcher in 1990, when they did have a system in place.

Regardless, Macmillan was elected just like any other Commons MP. So, whatever victory you think you had, you don't. Accept it, little boy.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.
United KING_dom, monarchy, YES OR NO, BOY!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Barefoot has gone into meltdown again - someone fetch him his blankie.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
Funny how it makes a difference if dare I call the UK Britian, FUNNY HOW THAT IS.
I guess the NotBots have being pedantic trademarked.

Nope, couldn't care less as demonstrated in my posts - not your head.

Does my manchild need his nap now? You have gone all grouchy-wouchy.

[Hedonist]

Lincoln wrote:

A high percentage of atheists seem to be agnostics?

Actually it would be more accurate to state that a high percentage of atheists are agnostic.

A-theism is literally "not-theism". So everyone is either a theist or a not-theist (atheist).

Theism is a category to define all people who believe in the existence of one or more deities. Atheism is a category for everybody who does not fit into the category theism.

Agnosticism deals with the question of knowledge, not belief.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course, Meatball: you don't acknowledge the Kingdom of Sweden is a monarchy...

Sweden is a democracy and more democratic than usa will ever be and you hate that!

[RHill]

Lincoln wrote:

A high percentage of atheists seem to be agnostics?

Agnostics are wimps with commitment issues.

[KittenKoder]

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
Agnostics are wimps with commitment issues.

Theist agnostics, perhaps. But atheist agnostics, we're just honest enough to say "we don't know." ;)

[barefoot2626]

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
Agnostics are wimps with commitment issues.

Either that or require proof lest they look no better than the people they make fun of for committing to things that cannot be proved.

Or disproved.

[barefoot2626]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
Sweden is a democracy

~stomp stomp stomp~

[barefoot2626]

KittenKoder wrote:

But atheist agnostics,

No such thing.

Like agnostic Christians.