In America, atheists are still in the closet

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Yet your own source mysteriously calls us a Constitutional monarchy - why is that?

A constitutional monarchy is - and this is the tricky part- a monarchy.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Of course Britain fits a definition of democracy -

It fits the definition of monarchy.

Funny how no one refers to it as a "constitutional democracy".

Funny how that is.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Your black-or-white logic stumps reason and encourages lazy thinking.

How would you know?

You don't even know that the United KING_dom is a monarchy.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
That's funny. I pasted your quote into Google and found that it came straight out of Wikipedia - you know, that source that only a week or two ago you were screaming about being an anonymous and subsequently illegitimate source for me and other posters to use.

You don't say?

So why don't you show EVERYONE where I uttered such nonsense.

PS: if you learn how to use the scroll button on your mouse, you would find that not always do quotes originate from Wikipedia.

And if you look at the little numbers on sections of Wikipedia, you will find where they came from.

E.G.:[50]

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Your black-or-white logic stumps

Applies.

You've established you lack of intellectual prowess and honesty: e.g., your inviability to say that you are wrong even after it has been crammed repeatedly up your azz so far we can see it whenever you open your flatulent mouth.

Is the United King_dom a monarchy yes or no?

Watch this:

Yes.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Britain is a democratic Parliamentary system of government with a figurehead monarch at the top.

Monarchy.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

If you cannot cite your sources and can only cling to dictionaries, then you should not -

Already cited.

If you really had a degree- even one- and had ever written a paper- clearly, you haven't- you would no you are not encumbered to continue to cite the same source.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

And religious kooks on the street keep screaming that Jesus

What do you charge to move goalposts?

I do believe I smell red herring...

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

It sure was. Congratulations on being correct for once!

So a democratically elected parliament does not a democracy make.

Putting aside: I don't give a sh!t if a monarchy has an elected parliament or not.

Putting aside: most of the UK Parliament is appointed.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

How about looking at what the Lords - actual, physical people - do instead of simply stating what they can potentially do?

The UK parliament: most members are appointed (1), yes or no?

(1) appointed by the monarchy or inherited post by appointment.

Watch this: Yes.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

We are well aware that you will happily latch onto anything if it suits your purposes, no matter how irrelevant or dated it is.

I like the way when you insist that you are correct and use absolutes, and then I get to break it off in your azz, and then you run away from it, and then scream that in social sciences that blah blah bllah de bo bob doodle and the path of the moon...

When it is truly a YES or NO response that is required.

Like when you told us Macmillan had the UNANIMOUS approval of his party...

Over here in the USA, UNANIMOUS means EVERYONE. If the Senate takes a vote, and it's 99-1 (as sometimes it is): it is NOT UNANIMOUS.

I noticed... you skipped over my question above.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

When your "best" case is going back over 50 years to latch onto a case

Funny, when you insist that something NEVER happens and I say: here you go...

And then you say... well... it doesn't count because it happened over fifty years ago...

Putting aside it is another example of me pulling down your panties in front of everyone YET again... WHAT THAT MEANS IS: IT CAN HAPPEN THAT WAY AGAIN.

And- as we all can recall, we are back to: does the UK monarchy appoint the PM, yes or no?

Watch this: YES.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

You hate the word democracy because it blows your argument out of the water; get over it, little boy.

The USA is a democracy, SuperFAG.

The UK is not. The UK is a monarchy.

Post the definition as many times as you like; I only have to look at the window to see one.

While when you look out the window... you see a monarchy.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
The USA is a democracy,

republic

[Very Cynical Person]

The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

The most technical term, our country is a constitutionally limited representative democratic republic.

[macumazahn]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Monarchy.

Yes.

Also a democracy.

There's a range.

You admitted it.

[barefoot2626]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
republic

The federal republic (in the USA) is a kind of democracy.

The monarchy in the UK is a monarchy.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
The federal republic (in the USA) is a kind of democracy.
The monarchy in the UK is a monarchy.

no it isn't

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Funny that , I am not stomping anything, the machines captured form the U110 was the first fully working military spec machine captured.

I proved this wrong, Skanque.

Why not start saying the first fully working military spec with red handles enigma machine captured?

Plenty of room left to move goalposts.

The pigs insisted beds were not beds if they were no sheets/

[Thinking]

When bsfoot types his senile prattlings on this forum he wonders what all these foreign people are doing in his secure accommodation.

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>Yes.
Also a democracy.
There's a range.
You admitted it.