In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,724

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.

Full Story

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46766 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The queen follows rules, one of those rules is when the PM wishes to dissolve paramount then the queen must give her approval
Nope.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46767 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The christian way is to murder and rape as taught in the babble
The United KING_dom is not only a country of Christians, it has a STATE RELIGION: the Church of England.

So I guess it is the British way as well.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46768 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I see you have been getting all hot and bothered reading porn stories,
We go back to you being a pathological, menopausal liar.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46769 Jan 23, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
Nope only a racist would be upset by the suggestion
[/QUOTE]

Only a racist would make the suggestion- intended as an insult- that someone's wife ran off with a BLACK man.

Putting aside your continued attacks on my "wife" says more about you then me.

Do you really think this makes you look good in the eyes of your fellow NotBots?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46770 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The monarch approves the appointment of the person who is first elected by his constituents and the by his party,
I've already refuted this.

And I have already proved that the Queen isn't compelled to appoint anyone suggested by the Parental.

And have already proved (Macmillan) that the PM isn't always elected by his party.

And I have reminded you several dozen times that you have no say in it.

None.

That I have exactly the same say in who is the PM of the UK as you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46771 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
suggested by the Parental.
Parliament.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46772 Jan 23, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Oh is your wife in to bestiality too?
Again, Skanque: one has to wonder about the mentality of someone who has clearly fallen off the deep end.

hormone therapy?
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46773 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, so in answer to: Is the United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no? the response "YES" is absolutely correct.
Like I said some six months or so ago.
Nope, Britain is a parliamentary democracy with a figurehead monarch. If we were strictly a monarchy as you keep claiming, then our government would be akin to Saudi Arabia's.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>There is no such thing as a degree in "politics".

Obviously, you have degrees in BS.

And the S does not stand for Science.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/pir/department/index.ph...

Nope, it exists alright.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You have the source- because I gave you a long quote- but insist that I ran away from it.

Funny how that is.

And my quotes are EXACT- word for word... because that is how those of us who have actual degrees know quotes are supposed to be, not paraphrases.
An important skill required for analysis is to check the source itself. You, my manchild friend, have nothing to back your claim other than an independent website written by an author we know nothing about.

Regardless, you hadn't even bothered reading it or else you would have realised that the source claims Edward refused assent because he wanted the government to "ask the Country".

"ask the Country".

Monarch, asking the government, to ask the people.

Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>As I pointed out the first 38 times you whined about it: the UK is a monarchy, that is my position. You just acknowledged the UK is a monarch. I don't care if you post 39 volumes of the Oxford dictionary.

It has nothing to do with my assertion: the UK is a monarchy.
And your position is just plain wrong. Prove me wrong and get yourself published in a political science journal.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Are humans mammals, yes or no?

Do you want to give us the definition of a fish now?
Way to dodge my question.

By your umbrella-term logic, there are no distinctions between humans, foxes, bears, and so on. If we must use the umbrella term for everything, then they are all called mammals - you would have had no idea what I was asking you if I asked "is mammal a mammal?"

But then, that is what happens when we use your screwy logic. Distinctions lose their meaning and everything is either black or white.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I am positive.

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy?

Yes or no?
Then get it published in a political science publication. Good luck!
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I SEE!!!!!!!!!!

Do you already forget you asserted Macmillan was the UNANIMOUS choice?

So- you move the goal post again?
Pretty sad, Barefoot, that you think you can claim victory on semantics rather than actually attacking the argument itself.

It really makes no sense why you think Macmillan's appointment as PM struck a body blow to British democracy considering he was a popular choice amongst the Tory cabinet, a fact you cannot refute, hence why you lunge desperately onto a single, solitary, word.

But then, we know that you will cling to anything.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46774 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, Britain is a parliamentary democracy
Monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46775 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Pretty sad, Barefoot, that you think you can claim victory on semantics
You mean when you said that MacMillan was the UNANIMOUS choice of his party?

And that I proved yet another thing you said to be a lie?

You did say MacMillan was the UNANIMOUS choice of his party?

Yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46776 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If we were strictly a monarchy as you keep claiming, then our government would be akin to Saudi Arabia's.
Nothing could be further than the truth. There are many types of monarchy.

Do you want me to take you down the list, shoving each up your azz one after the next, and then have you say it's semantics?

Tell us: what does 'unanimous' mean?

PS: The UK is a monarchy.

Statement of fact.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46777 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, Britain is a parliamentary
Still waiting: proof that you have two degrees in "Politics".

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46778 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one.Distinctions lose their meaning and everything is either black or white.
You must like to hear your own voice.

Are you pregnant, yes or no?

Heads or tails?

Have you ever hear anyone say "heads or tails or the edge?"

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46779 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
It really makes no sense why you think Macmillan's appointment
APPOINTMENT?

You don't say?

So the UK prime ministers are appointed... as I said... from my very first post on the subject.

Now let's go back to what you said was an unanimous choice of his party.

Where you wrong? Yes or no?

Remember: I had to tell you there was no "election" of his party in the first place.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46780 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
else you would have realised that the source claims Edward refused assent
Refused assent?

You don't say?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46781 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Where is that proof they even offer a degree in "Politics"?

Before we get to the proof you have two of the?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46782 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
But then, we know that you will cling to anything.
You mean like when you say something that is wrong, and I prove that you are wrong, and then you say you are only wrong "semantically", even when it is a yes or no question: I cling on to the fact that I have proved you wrong again?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46783 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Distinctions lose their meaning and everything is either black or white.
Is a fish a mammal?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46784 Jan 23, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Then get it published in a political science publication. Good luck!
No need.

Like... the earth revolves around the sun.

Only an idiot would argue that the UK is not a monarchy.

I look forward to your paper disproving it.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46785 Jan 23, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Monarchy.
Parliamentary democracy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean when you said that MacMillan was the UNANIMOUS choice of his party?
And that I proved yet another thing you said to be a lie?
You did say MacMillan was the UNANIMOUS choice of his party?
Yes or no?
Word games. My point was that Macmillan was a popular choice amongst the Tory elite - fact - so his appointment was based not only on how popular he was within the party, but in turn how he would portray the party to voters.

You jump on one word because you think it refutes the whole argument; it does not.

But then, we are well aware that you will latch onto anything if you think it suits your purposes.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing could be further than the truth. There are many types of monarchy.
Yet you simply call Britain a "monarchy". You refuse to go into detail despite the facts that our government is anything but a monarchy and that of the powers the Queen does possess, she uses in line with democratic procedure.

You can't have your cake and eat it, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to take you down the list, shoving each up your azz one after the next, and then have you say it's semantics?
Tell us: what does 'unanimous' mean?
Of course it is semantics. You think that by making a bee-line to one word you can refute the argument itself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: The UK is a monarchy.
Statement of fact.
Britain is a parliamentary democracy.

Statement of fact.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting: proof that you have two degrees in "Politics".
Until you tell me what you would consider as legitimate proof there is no point going on a wild goose chase. Like all fundies I am sure it is going to end up with you demanding that I build you a time machine so that you can observe me in the flesh receiving my degrees.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You must like to hear your own voice.
I suggest you get mental help if you hear voices while reading on an internet forum.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you pregnant, yes or no?
Is pregnancy determined by social science?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heads or tails?
Have you ever hear anyone say "heads or tails or the edge?"
Are coins manufactured or determined by social science?

False comparisons, manchild. If you want to make an analogy at least try to get in the right forest, let alone bark up the right tree.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min KiMare 232,888
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 51 min havent forgotten 146
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr Eagle 12 2,412
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 4 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 4 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 20 hr _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web