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
44,961 - 44,980 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46662 Jan 22, 2013
Siro wrote:
BTW - I thought this thread was called 'In America, atheists are still in the closet'
it started out there...

The Anglophiles don't like to be reminded that they have a state church.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46663 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Monarchy.
PS:
A Constitutional monarchy is:
A) a monarchy
B) a kumquat
C) a long haired cat
D) a monarchy
If a Constitutional monarchy is just a monarchy then it would just be called "monarchy", but it is not.

Once again, you are trying to argue that the colour grey is not grey, but black or white. Your logic, your fallacy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
If we are not a Constitutional monarchy for not having one physical Constitution then your source is wrong and we can dismiss it.

Thank you, Barefoot, for refuting your own source based on your own playbook.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>In actual fact: my posts are replete qith quotes.
From online dictionaries and anonymous websites that you do not bother citing.

Not exactly screaming "scholar" at me, to be honest.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>SuperFAG = full of cr@p.
Two politics degrees to zero. That's a fact, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The whole social science world continues to insist that Britain -has- a monarchy but it is not our political system.

Like all man-on-the-street whackies, you see the situation as Barefoot versus the World. One man, with no qualifications, no social skills, nothing whatsoever, who knows more about everything else than people who have spent years or are even paid to devote their lives to the subjects that you know nothing about.

That is why you lose all the time; that is why you cry all the time; that is why your life amounts to nothing more than being my online whack-a-mole b!tch.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: Do let me know what you think a "politics degree" is supposed to be.
A degree specialised in political and social science research methods.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I have given you around twenty responses.
That all amount to you saying you do not care about Britain having a Parliament.

And we, manchild, know why.

Maybe you can pick on that you like.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, I never ever said that Macmillan was not democratically elected as an MP.

Gosh, you cannot put two sentences together without lying.
Then your whole argument is meaningless, as nobody, not even me, claimed that every Prime Minister is democratically elected in any capacity other than as an MP.

So what, exactly, are you arguing against?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Never happened; you brought up Macmillan on your own accord, on your own terms.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You insisted that PMs were all elected and that the monarch HAD to make the "appointment".
And, it happened. Eden and Macmillan were both elected as MPs; the only sticking point, which you claim victory over, was that at the time the Conservatives had no system for replacing PMs in a sitting government.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46664 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to inform you that he was NOT elected by his party, i.e., I stuck my foot up your azz yet again.
Of course not - at that time the Conservatives had no system for replacing sitting PMs.
You keep thinking this is some kind of body-blow for British democracy; it was not. Parties have consistently chosen leaders that they think will attract appeal from voters - Macmillan, a pragmatic politician - was no different.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
That indeed the Queen asked for advice on who should be appointed PM and that there was NO election.
Of course not, manchild, because the Conservatives had no system for replacing sitting PMs.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Nope, didn't even make one. As stated before: you simply brought up Macmillan on your own initiative.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Review:
Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated for PM.
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Review:
The monarch is not compelled to take any nomination or advice given in her APPOINTMENT of that office.
Review: the monarch has consistently appointed the winning party's leader as PM. It is nothing but a rubber stamp.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: You still haven't proved the name of the university and the year you got these "political degrees".
University of Aberdeen, 2011 and 2012.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
We know why you refuse to define democracy; because you are terrified that Britain easily qualifies as such.
If we were to play by your literal rules and take democracy at its logical extreme, then democratic states are a utopia. Unless every single person in the state has a say and influence on policy making, then a "real" democracy simply cannot exist.
By your logic, no state out there today, certainly in the West, is a democracy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
We know you don't care about defining democracy; because it shatters your feeble argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
There is also an Electoral College. Thus if the Lords are influential purely because they exist, then the Electoral College likewise holds the presidency in their hands.
Your logic, your rules.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes twelve definitions in a row, taking them in order as they appear one after the next complete with links and EXACT quotes.
How many pieces of social science research on political institutions do you think rely solely on dictionary definitions?
Not just in politics, but in any academic discipline? Were you taught to actually go in depth with analyses or did you just take a dictionary 101 class?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
mon·ar·chy
Which does not refute what you pasted this in response to: the fact that the Commons, the big players of our system, are democratically elected.
Nice try anyway.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46665 Jan 22, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
yes the opposite of democratic is non democratic
T'ain't.

I know, you struggle with English.

E.G.: non Dairy is not the opposite of nondairy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#46666 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
T'ain't.
I know, you struggle with English.
E.G.: non Dairy is not the opposite of nondairy.
That's brilliant.

Is your corollary "Dairy is not the opposite of dairy"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46667 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
If a Constitutional monarchy is just a monarchy then it would just be called "monarchy", but it is not.
A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.

You are not the scholar you claim to be, SuperFAG.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46668 Jan 22, 2013
Apparently we have to pay lip service to the senile.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
That's brilliant.
Is your corollary "Dairy is not the opposite of dairy"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46669 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Once again, you are trying to argue that the colour grey is not grey, but black or white. Your logic, your fallacy.
Once again, you are making things up I did not say.

The straw man is the most common soldier in the NotBot army.

A country is or is not a monarchy.

The UK is a monarchy.
The USA is not a monarchy.

Pregnancy works the same way.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46670 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If we are not a Constitutional monarchy for not having one physical Constitution
The UK does not have a constitution.

You can wander in any direction you like. Don't make me responsible for what you infer.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46671 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Thank you, Barefoot, for refuting your own source based on your own playbook.
Straw man.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46672 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
From online dictionaries and anonymous websites that you do not bother citing.
A long list of many dictionaries often cited, diminishing returns, if you cannot google an exact quote - a lengthy exact quote- you shouldn't be here.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46673 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
The whole social science world continues to insist that Britain -has- a monarchy but it is not our political system.
Funny how often you insist that I insist that I am the only one who insists that the UK is a monarchy (has? a monarchy... yeah... you done graduated with two 'politics' degrees...) and to prove this you say The whole social science world continues to insist that Britain has [sic]a monarchy.

And you spend months denying that anyone denies the UK is a monarchy while denying the UK is a monarchy and insisting it is a democracy... though it fits no definition of democracy owing its fit to the definition of monarchy, i.e., a monarchy as head of state.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46674 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Not exactly screaming "scholar" at me, to be honest.
I'm not the one claiming to be a "scholar" with two (cough) "politics degrees".

Still waiting for proof: where is that proof?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46675 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
One man, with no qualifications, no social skills, nothing whatsoever, who knows more about everything else than people who have spent years or are even paid to devote their lives to the subjects that you know nothing about.
Yet I slap the snot out of you, SuperFag. Daily.

You and your (cough) "politics" degrees.

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46676 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
We know you don't care about defining democracy; because it shatters your feeble argument.
The United KING_dom is a monarchy.

I don't care what a democracy is... or is not.

It is your strawman, not mine.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46677 Jan 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="SupaAFC"
Of course not, manchild, because the Conservatives had no system for replacing sitting PMs.[/QUOTE]

I don't care if they don't have a full deck of playing cards.

They did not elect him.

You do remember insisting all PMs were electing and rolling around demand an example of a PM that wasn't and I said Macmillan and you started to cry and urinate and then you wanted another example?

WAHHHHHHHHHHH!

which brings us back to the role of the monarch who APPOINTS the PM.

Anyone he/she wants.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46678 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet
You have two degrees in "politics", you say?

So I am sure you can prove this assertion.

Just for fun, let me throw this out there:

"Although the media expected Butler would get the nod, a survey of the Cabinet done for the Queen showed Macmillan was the nearly unanimous choice, and he became Prime Minister on 10 January 1957"

Here's the thing: either something is unanimous, or... it isn't.

Right?

Or do you want to say you constantly being proved wrong is... a shade of grey?

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#46679 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
T'ain't.
I know, you struggle with English.
E.G.: non Dairy is not the opposite of nondairy.
yes you are
and you struggle with facts about sweden
glass is not the opposite to ice cream.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46680 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Which does not refute what you pasted this in response to: the fact that the Commons, the big players of our system, are democratically elected.
I don't care.

The Reichstag was democratically elected.

Having a Parliament does not a democracy make.

Especially when the monarch selects most the members of that parliament.

PS: the word "especially" means in addition to, it isn't needed prove if the UK is a monarchy, yes or no.

You do note that I continue to say the UK is a monarchy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46681 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
There is also an Electoral College. Thus if the Lords are influential purely because they exist, then the Electoral College likewise holds the presidency in their hands.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

And you say you have two degrees in "politics", eh?

" House of Lords

The House of Lords is the second chamber of Parliament and is also called the Upper House. Because it is not elected, it does not have the same powers as the Commons, but it retains the right to revise and scrutinise the Government's actions and legislation. Its independent minds and extensive expertise form a crucial check on the power of the executive in Parliament but it is much more likely to wield this power by asking Ministers to think again than to veto whole pieces of legislation."

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min Thinking 226,571
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Dak-Original 21,530
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 7 hr Thinking 5,921
The Ultimate Evidence of God 12 hr James 68
The myth of the angry atheist 23 hr _Bad Company 3
Our world came from nothing? Mon Patrick 436
It seems there are more Atheists in the Christi... (Jun '13) Mon Patrick 13
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••