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

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46810 Jan 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, I said no such thing.
You have a thing with blacks, it seems, Skanque.
You implied it quite often (I will admit you are quite good at implying without actually saying what you mean), in fact you objected quite vehemently to any suggestion that your wife is getting screwed by a black man.

But now you are admitting it. cool…there is hope for you yet.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The "British" had a monarchy.
So now you moved to the US democracy was based "loosely" on the British monarchy.
Sort of like the Mars rover was based "losely" on the Model T.
Who is the king of the USA?
Why do you cherry pick I assume you have nothing otherwise, you made the fooking suggestion you drippydick cuckold, let me remind you…

Your post 46654
PS: We have two houses in our Congress.

The item under discussion was of the two houses of the US political system hence my mentioning the fact that the US political systems is based loosely on the much older, tried and tested British system.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly: you have mental issues.
Menopausal... though not limited to that.
You insist on uses your racist slurs to attack a woman who does not even exist.
And then you celebrate these racist attacks - telling your fellow NotBots how injured I must be, for you to attack me by attacking my 'wife' even though some time ago I pointed out that I wasn't married.
Not now, not ever.
You do know this goes to your character, not mine?
Honey, not yet but I expect to me menopausal soon, sorry, do you have an issue with female biology? Or are you yet another godbot misogynist?

I insist on making suggestions that I know upsets your racist attitude and as for whether your wife exits or not – who knows, you have often been seem to lie, it must come as natural to you.

And when you began attacking my relationship with husband I told you that you were mistaken, that did not stop you, did it? When you attacked (repeatedly) Straa’s nationality and you were told your racism was objectionable and some of your posts were removed by topix admin that did not stop you, did it? When you originally began calling me Skanque perhaps over a year ago now and I retaliated that did not stop you, did it?

When you stop brewing up your odious and vindictive spite in that festering cauldron you call a mind then you will notice that retaliation also stops. Until then however you will continue to reap what you sow.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
("A break-through came in March 1941, however, when the German trawler Krebs was captured off Norway, complete with two Enigma machines and the Naval Enigma settings list for the previous month. This allowed German Naval Enigma to be read, albeit with some delay, in April, by codebreakers at Bletchley.")
Let me update you on that

A major advance came through Operation Claymore, a commando raid on the Lofoten Islands on 4 March 1941. The German armed trawler Krebs was captured, including the complete Enigma keys for February, but no bigram tables or K-book. However, the material was sufficient to reconstruct the bigram tables by "EINS-ing", and by late March they were almost complete

Notice the “NO BIGRAM TABLES OR K-BOOK”

Also notice the

“ALMOST COMPLETE”
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Stalin: Atheist.
You still have not provided an evidence to prove your assertion, stomping your foot just don’t hack it

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#46811 Jan 24, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a racist bigot.
Proved.
How wrong you are, yet again
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes and… christianity is dying, churches are closing, emergency meetings are being held by church representatives to tackle the problem of where there pay cheques will be funded in 30 years time.

And the US is full of STATES, many of which demand acknowledgement of belief in god before applying for any official STATE employment

The UK is also part of the European community and (unlike the US) is signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, jeez you wont even ratify your own draft, the American Convention on Human Rights. No wonder you have difficulty understand the concept
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Yup
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
That is changing, in the last 10 years the latest census shows the call in christian belief as 12.4%. Following that trend within 50 years christianity will be juts a memory. What will be the point of a state religion then there is no religion.

And the US is full of STATES, many of which demand acknowledgement of belief in god before applying for any official STATE employment

Yes but at least in the UK and most of Europe christianity is rapidly declining
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We go back to you being a pathological, menopausal liar.
festering drippydick misogynist, Unlike you, I don’t lie, I did however assume from that fact that you questioned me on something that is mentioned in a sex story
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
You have a very distorted idea of the word black, I personally find some black people very attractive and your wife obviously did. Putting aside that you repeatedly you continued attacks in my relationship with my husband, your continued racist attacks on Straa and your continues name calling
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What you claim to have refuted and actual fact are two different things

Proved what? That Macmillan was appointed PM after Eden resigned, the party then had no formal policy for such an event and so the queen appointed a replacement after only after consulting Winston Churchill and Robert Gascoyne-Cecil. You will also remember that Macmillan was an elected member of parliament. No proof needed form you, it’s fact
And I have remanded you several dozen times that every member of the prospective PM’s constituency has the vote do as does every member of the conservative party
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Skanque: one has to wonder about the mentality of someone who has clearly fallen off the deep end.
hormone therapy?
You were the one who made the orangutan statement, not me
Siro

Australia

#46812 Jan 24, 2013
Another worthless deadbeat christine rant.
Just copy and reinterpret previous posts, reword a sentence here, change a letter there, chop and change quotes to change the context.
Make the definitions to define the results - an old marxist propaganda ploy.

And then present it as 'evidence' and the new 'truth' which christine will hold to be true until it doesnt suit her delusion of the day and thus the 'truth' changes according to her whim because she is christine!(well at least on here anyway)

So ChristineM....Hows your 'white guilt' travelling these days?
You should form a tag team with KittenKoder (he/she/it screams at 'her' dick everyday hoping it will pack and leave)
.
.
.
Seriously.......what a freakshow

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46813 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
You implied it quite often
AH! In other words... no, there's no quote.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46814 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
in fact you objected quite vehemently to any suggestion that your wife is getting screwed by a black man.
I object to your racism... and racist statements (as well as your misogyny).

And happy to point them out to your fellow NotBots.

And the outright foolish behavior of you continue to insult a wife that doesn't and hasn't ever existed.

And your cowardliness is attacking even the hypothetical wife.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46815 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<
But now you are admitting it. cool…there is hope for you yet.
Funny how many times you insist I admit to something you have invented.

NotBot motto= if you can't find the quote you need, invent it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46816 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Why do you cherry pick I assume
Cherry pick = Barefoot2626 proves Skanque to be wrong yet again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46817 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
PS: We have two houses in our Congress.
Yes... one of them entirely appointed by the monarchy, the other made up by wealthy land owners.

The USA used the UK as a model of what we did not to do in our goverment.

E.G.: state religion & monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46818 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Honey, not yet but I expect to me menopausal soon
I've seen the flags around your house: you are hip deep, Fatty.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46819 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Yes and… christianity is dying,
UK = state church; no separation of church and state

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46820 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
And the US is full of STATES, many of which demand acknowledgement
Over here in the USA, the Supreme Court rules on what we have and you don't: a Constitution.

And The Constitution is the rule of the land, Skanque.

And SKANQUE: the rule of the land is sepeartiopn of Church and STATE.

And: as I pointed out 50+ times... the rule of the UK land is: required collective worship in tax funded schools.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46821 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
And I have remanded you several dozen times that every member of the prospective PM’s constituency has the vote do as does every member of the conservative party
And then I remind you that voting for an MP isn't voting for the PM.

Several dozen times.

And then I ask you: HAVE YOU EV ER VOTED FOR PM, Yes or NO?

And of course... you don't respond.

And then I remind you that **I** have exactly as much influence of the outcome of who is APPOINTED PM as you.

And so does my dog.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46822 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
festering drippydick misogynist,
Let's do remember your repeated use of the misogynistic pejoratives that you directed at me and my "wife" including those terms you have to use symbols to get past the Topix TOS & censors (such as t\/\/at).

You brought to the table, you sexist, racist bigot.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46823 Jan 24, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
You have a very distorted idea of the word black,
[/QUOTE]

You announced that my wife had run off with a BLACK man.

You intended as in insult, period.

What else are you going to lie about, Skanque?

Do you want to claim it was a grammatical error?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46824 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
I personally find some black people very attractive...
Another racist statement, thank's t\/\/it!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46825 Jan 24, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Proved what? That Macmillan was appointed
Gosh, how soon we "forget" that you insisted that Macmillan was elected by his party to be nominated for PM.

I know: another grammatical error...
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46827 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is one word important?
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise with what we say, otherwise, you will pounce on lax terminology to avoid addressing the argument itself.

Meanwhile, when we press you to address what you mean with words - democracy, for instance - you handwave them away to continue obsfuscating.

In other words, you think words are important only when we use them, but you never, ever, have to be precise with yours.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I find when dealing with LIARS such as yourself, one word is important.
How about defining democracy? That word is certainly important.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now did you NOT tell us that Macmillan was the UNANIMOUS choice of his party, yes or no?
Did you not tell us that Wikipedia, the only source you ran to to verify this, was anonymous?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretend for a second I didn't already prove you LIED about this already.
By using Wikipedia. The exact same source you claimed was hypocritical for me to use when refuting your Edward source.

Why do you get to use Wikipedia, but we don't?

In fact, why do you get to dismiss internet sources since anyone can find anything on it if they look for them, but we don't?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already prove this to be a lie as well, SuperFAG.
What else you got?
Nope, you brought up Macmillan on your own accord for your own argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You are a m/f c/s liar.

But I have already proved that.

You told us all that he was the unanimous choice.

Now you are down to popular choice.

Gosh, those EXACT quote I have sure seem to back me up as the person telling the truth and as you telling the lies.
How about addressing the argument instead of clinging to word games?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I see a jiizum-breathed liar standing in front of me.

I see he has no shame.

I wonder: why would he continue to lie about what he said when he knows I have already quoted exactly what he said?
Translation: Barefoot could not answer the question.

That is why your black-or-white logic fails, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I see you can cling to anything that you say that is wrong and say it was a grammatical error.

If you say "yes" and the correct answer is "no" you say "oh, it is a grammatical error".
Do tell us when you decide to attack the argument itself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for those two degrees in politics, SuperFAG.
Still waiting for you to establish what counts as legitimate evidence.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>

[QUOTE who="barefoot2626"] <quoted text>

[QUOTE who="barefoot2626"] <quoted text>Still waiting for that quote.
So you are agreeing that Britain is a Constitutional monarchy? Excellent.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for that quote and you insist you have numerous to choose from.
I shall take that as a yes; excellent. I shall assume that you will no longer be asking if Britain has a Constitution or not.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for that proof of "politics degrees"
And I am still waiting for you to state what you will consider as evidence for those degrees. Without agreed terms you can obfuscate forever.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46828 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for the proof that he was elected PM.

You seem to make a whole bunch of "grammatical" errors.
Nice strawman. The point is that he was elected like any other MP so I was asking why his appointment to PM actually matters when the people had their say.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
As you must recall, I said he was appointed by the Queen and that there was no election among his party members.
And the question raised is "so what"? Had Macmillan been elected leader by the Tories you would have simply gone further back in time to find another example.

Macmillan became PM in 1957. This is 2013. Parties have changed significantly since then. How about joining us instead of trying to validate an incredibly-weak argument with cases that happened outwith my, and possibly your, lifetime?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Where are those two "politics degrees" so you can explain this- that a constitutional monarchy is not a monarchy.

I say that a constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.

Explain your position: how is a constitutional monarchy not a monarchy?
Nice strawman. The point is that Constitutional monarchy is called as such because it is a variant form of monarchy.

A Constitutional monarchy differs because power is largely vested into a democratically-elected government that the Queen ceremoniously oversees - even extending to her powers.

In other words, my manchild friend, a Constitutional monarchy is a democracy with a glorified figurehead.

No wonder you cling to the umbrella term; you think that if you use that, and only that, then these finer details can be ignored.

Is a Constitutional monarchy the same as other monarchies?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man.
Neither were elected PM.
Macmillan was not even ELECTED by his party to be nominated for PM.
Nice red herrings, but you are still not explaining how this qualifies as a strawman considering I have not even denied as such.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>^^^^^^^^^^ Here is your EXACT statement.

Now: show us the grammatical error.

Take your choice of definitons of grammatical error:
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.

You, of course, have latched onto it because you cannot address the argument itself.

Now that I am done addressing you, do you mind finally defining democracy, explaining how things cannot be defined by more than one word, and what the Weimar republic was if it was not a democracy?

It would be quite nice if you could actually answer my questions instead of poo-pooing or outright ignoring them.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46829 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise
It isn't your problem with being precise, of course, it is your problem of saying that you quote me but what you say I say isn't what I actually say.

Like when I make a statement and you take the word "NOT" out of the statement and insist your new paraphrase means the same thing.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46830 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
According to you it appears to be. What I and many posters have come to realise when dealing with manchildren like you is that we must be very precise with what we say
You mean when you make claims that something is UNANIMOUS and I easily refute what you say and then you move the goalpost and pretend you never said it, SuperFAG?

Or when you roll around on the for screaming for an example of which prime minister wasn't elected as you insisted and I say Macmillan and who cry and whine and say you want another example, eh, SuperFAG?

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
Our world came from nothing? 8 min NightSerf 1,001
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 16 min Insults Are Easier 229,855
Islam for peace, or violence? 26 min Larry 23
Man center of the universe. 54 min Thinking 85
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr Dak-Original 22,978
Razer and Ben Affleck take on the atheists Fri Thinking 6
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Oct 16 Mikko 1,401

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE