In America, atheists are still in the closet

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

BTW , Black is not an abusive term except by people who want to see black as an abusive term

Oh, Skanque: my wife did not run off with a man... you made it a point... you insisted that she ran off with a BLACK man.

On top of you being a racists and a sexist, you insist that everyone here is stupid.

Do you really think that there is a single person in this forum who did not know exactly what you meant?

[Siro]

Unfortunantly barefoot2626 you are dealing with people in the mold of christine. These people cannot and will not accept responsibility for their own actions, and indeed feel they should not because they are for some unknown reason 'entitled' to make that judgment.

Look at their posts, they cannot stay true and constantly reword what ultimately is vague and meaningless at best and something akin to a scientology rant at worst or near worst.

A crazy person will see others as crazy because they cannot understand their actions.
And a sane person will see a crazy person for what they are because they cannot understand their words.

[Lincoln]

There’s been a great deal of discussion and debate surrounding this year’s inaugural festivities. From atheist activists who have worked diligently to discourage the president from using the Bible and God’s name at the event, to Lawrence O’Donnell and his recent lambasting of these traditions. In all, there’s been much discussion about removing faith from the historic procession. However, despite the criticism, President Barack Obama, once again, decided to keep the words,

“So help me God” at the end of his oath.

The decision to continue with this statement was made by Obama, himself, despite the fact that there is no legal or constitutional mandate demanding that he utter these words. CNN notes that the tradition surrounding,“So help me God” is one that has been intensely-disputed by historians, however the government’s official account, as per the Library of Congress, is that the words were added in by George Washington during the nation’s first inaugural proceeding.

[barefoot2626]

Lincoln wrote:

“So help me God” at the end of his oath.

The USA still has freedom of religion.

And even presidents are allowed to be Christian if that is what they want to be.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Meatball still insists coins have three sides.

douche still insists that the sweden and britain are non democratic

[barefoot2626]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
douche still insists that the sweden and britain are non democratic

Poor Meatball, never the quote he needs, he is stuck creating them yet again...

[SupaAFC]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Poor NotBot: as always, never the quote he needs, so he has to make them up.

Numerous times in the past you have been told that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy which you claim is false because we do not have one physical Constitution.

The only person making up stuff is you - excuses - rather than dealing with the substance of my posts.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>All I need, SuperFAG: you have contributed anything new in two months.

Right. So while we must provide thorough research and evidence for our arguments, you are at liberties to provide nothing for yours other than assertions, ad homs and the odd dictionary definition (because dictionaries dictate reality for reasons known only to you).

So, we act like adults, and you act like a child.

Yes, I agree; that is all you are required to do as that is all you are capable of actually doing.

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.
Synonyms
1. See kingdom.

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>$49 each, with a frame, good deal for you, eh, SuperFAG?
Politics, eh?

SupaAFC: two politics degrees.

Barefoot: no politics degrees.

That is why your "debate" with me about British politics has been so uneven and I routinely get you frustrated all the time. I am actually educated in what I speak about; you, evidently, are not.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>Poor SuperFAG: stuck making up his own quotes and his own definitions.

Nope, it's cited right in your own pastejob in definition 1.

If Britain is a monarchy then our Queen should be making laws. But she doesn't, because that is the role of the Commons.

The Commons are democractically elected.

Conclusion: Britain is a Parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch.

Conclusion: Barefoot is flat out wrong.

Prove me wrong, manchild: show our monarchy in action - preferably in my lifetime.

[SupaAFC]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
I haven't moved them an inch.
There a many goalposts here, I continue to plant them.

You don't move them, you simply abandon them when you cannot find a tidbit in the person's posts to latch onto.

Case in point: Macmillan being a democratically-elected MP which made a mockery of your claim that he was an unelected Prime Minister.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
If SuperFag wants to continue to deny that the United KING_dom is a monarchy, and his "proof" is the UK has a Parliament... besides reminding him that a Parliament does not a democracy make...

Your best response has simply been that you do not care about Britain having a Parliament. You also flat-out ran away from defining democracy despite being asked to so that we could establish what counts as a democratic state.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>pointing out the FACT that MOST of the members of the UK Parliament are APPOINTED by the monarchy is just another straw in the camel's back.

If those appointed members actually did anything of substance that affects our political system. Unfortunately for you, they don't.

[SupaAFC]

Lincoln wrote:

President Obama will end the oath with
"so help me God" illustrating the influence of Christianity on America in 2013

Because president Obama of all presidents is going to pander to the demands of the religious right.

[Thinking]

Right as in wrong.

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Because president Obama of all presidents is going to pander to the demands of the religious right.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Numerous times in the past you have been told that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy

Monarchy.

PS:

A Constitutional monarchy is:

A) a monarchy
B) a kumquat
C) a long haired cat
D) a monarchy

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Numerous times in the past you have been told that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy which you claim is false because we do not have one physical Constitution.

Does the United KING_dom have a constitution, yes or no?

PS: Funny no matter how many times I invite you to quote me, you cannot ever seem to find the quote you need.

And you make one up.

Yes or no: Does the United KING_dom have a Constitution, yes or no?

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

The only person making up stuff is you - excuses - rather than dealing with the substance of my posts.

In actual fact: my posts are replete qith quotes.

I would say "exact quotes"- because you don't seem to understand what a quote means, and you think that a quote means that you got most of the words in there right.

All quotes- actually- are verbatim.

And that is why when you refer to something you think I mostly said... you don't use them.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

SupaAFC: two politics degrees.

SuperFAG = full of cr@p.

PS: You continue to insist the UK isn't a monarchy. Your "degrees" should be put to better use: pull them from the frames and use them to wipe your azz.

PS: Do let me know what you think a "politics degree" is supposed to be.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Your best response has simply been that you do not care about Britain having a Parliament.

Actually, I have given you around twenty responses.

Maybe you can pick on that you like.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Case in point: Macmillan being a democratically-elected MP which made a mockery of your claim that he was an unelected Prime Minister.

Of course, I never ever said that Macmillan was not democratically elected as an MP.

Gosh, you cannot put two sentences together without lying.

You asked for an example of PM who was elected BY HIS PARTY to be *nominated* as PM which- as I pointed out to you- the Queen could consider and then APPOINT the PM to that office... if she felt like it.

You insisted that PMs were all elected and that the monarch HAD to make the "appointment".

I had to inform you that he was NOT elected by his party, i.e., I stuck my foot up your azz yet again.

That indeed the Queen asked for advice on who should be appointed PM and that there was NO election.

And I informed you- you who claims to hold two..."political" degrees... at which point you said er um hmm err... ummm... give me TWO examples...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

Review:

Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated for PM.

Review:
The monarch is not compelled to take any nomination or advice given in her APPOINTMENT of that office.

PS: You still haven't proved the name of the university and the year you got these "political degrees".

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

You also flat-out ran away from defining democracy despite

I also refused to give you my recipe for slow crock bread pudding.

My standard of proof, SuperFAG, is that the UK ins a MONARCHY.

I do not have to prove (or disprove) that the UK is not
A) a dictatorship
B) a communist state
C) a Fascist state
D) an oligarchy
E) a kumquat
F) a democracy

I have to prove that it is a monarchy.

Which I did months ago.

Tootles...

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Don't care.

PS: Here's where you got the defintion:

http://www.ecovisionquest.com/defdemocracy.ht...

I invited everyone to click on the link and to find that the US was given as example of a democracy... and the UK... not.

PPS: The United KING_dom is a monarchy.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

If those appointed members actually did anything of substance that affects our political system. Unfortunately for you, they don't.

You are a liar.

We've establish that, of course.

If the appointed members of the UK Parliament were unable to do anything of substance, then there would not be a House of Lords.

The is a House of Lords.

PS: still waiting for the name of that universe that gave you these "political degrees".

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<
Right. So while we must provide thorough research and evidence for our arguments, you are at liberties to provide nothing for yours other than assertions, ad homs and the odd dictionary definition

Sometimes twelve definitions in a row, taking them in order as they appear one after the next complete with links and EXACT quotes.

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy...YES OR NO?

How many definitions do you need?

Have you EVER found a link (ONE) that refute the FACT that the United KING_dom is a monarchy?

No... you have not...