In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 Full story: Spiked 47,713

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
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46842 Jan 26, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside that every single UK prime minister in the history of time has been appointed by a monarch.
Which amounts to nothing considering that in the past century at least PMs have been appointed based on the results of the general elections.

If the Queen had selected a non Tory PM in '57, then maybe, Barefoot, the people would have worried about democracy. Yet, she did not. Why? Because a Tory government entitled the people to a Tory PM - and thus Macmillan.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
He was appointed and there was no party election, SuperFAG.
If Macmillan did not have a large support within the Tory ranks he would not have been selected. The Queen rubber stamped the party majority.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Next?
How about defining democracy?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong word?

You told us he was the UNANIMOUS choice.
And unanimous was meant to illustrate that Macmillan was the most popular choice. You, of course, have ignored this point to try and refute me on semantics.

Again: you have scored a point in a boxing match and have run to the referee claiming a knock out.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I say that you are a liar.
Of course you do. In manchild land you are the expert about everything and nobody else knows anything.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I also say he wasn't the elected choice.
I also say that you are arguing with yourself.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Was he the UNANIMOUS choice, SuperFAG, yes or no?

Was he the elected choice, yes or no?
Was Macmillan the popular choice of the Tories? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Is a constitutional monarchy a monarchy, yes or no?
Are variants the same as other variants within their umbrella terms? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Why would you?

I provided you the right answer from the very first time it was mentioned.

The UK does NOT have a constitution.

I don't care if you answer it or not- clearly, you don't even know what a monarchy is.
So is Britain a Constitutional monarchy or not?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>So it is your explanation that anything you ever say- any time anywhere no matter what- you can define it as a "grammatical error".

Even though there was absolutely no grammatical error in the statement you put up.

Even yes or no questions, eh, SuperFAG, any position you take can be explained away as a grammatical error.

COUGH.
Speaking of grammar, are you going to define democracy yet?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am still waiting for you to post a link to a university that issues degrees in "politics".
Undergraduate:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/a...

Postgraduate MRes:

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/prospectus/pgrad/study/...

What are your new demands now?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside you don't know sh!t about what degrees I may or may not have.
Considering your inability to construct an effective argument outwith online dictionaries and independent websites, your clear absence of social skills and inability to go a day without posting over 75-80 posts on Topix, I am going to assume that you have no degrees.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hint: SuperFAG, if you want to invent degrees that you claim to have, you might make sure the university you claim to have attended actually has such degrees.
And they have as evidenced in the above links. I will look out blueprints for how to build a time machine for your next demand of having to watch my graduation ceremonies in person.
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46843 Jan 26, 2013
Mikko wrote:
bsfoot is a troll
Who serves as an excellent time killer; it gives his life purpose.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46844 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. So what you are saying is...
We know whenever you start a sentence that way that you are going to lie about what you insist I have said but you just can't find that quote.

Side bets?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46845 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
... that what I see you post is not what I see you post but what you want me to believe you post based on nothing but what you think you post even if what I see you post says differently.
Clearly, when you lied about your two degrees in "politics" you at least knew better than to claim you got them in English.

Translation?

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46846 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If the Queen had selected a non Tory PMn.
Goalposts:

SuperFAG asserts that Macmillan was 'elected' by his party to be nominated by the Queen as PM.

Barefoot2626 proves: there was no election, Macmillan was appointed by the Queen who asked advice of three senior Conservatives.

I.E.: Barefoot2626 correct, SuperFAG wrong.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46847 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Another strawman: I have never denied that worship can take place in public schools.
follow the thread, SuperFag.

You are not the only NotBot in the audience.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46848 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Ironically you used Wikipedia
I've pointed out to you several times now and had to remind you yet again:

Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.

And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.

And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge..

I have have NEVER EVER 'disqualified' anyone from using Wikipedia as a source.

Anymore than I laugh and laugh and laugh at you for using it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46849 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If Britain cannot be a democracy due to having a monarch
The United King_dom is a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46850 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
If Britain cannot be a democracy due to having a monarch, then America certainly cannot be a democracy due to having a president.
The USA is a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46851 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Remember that Einstein question you have run away from twice now?
Do you remember the have you stopped downloading kiddie porn question you refuse to answer, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46852 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
For instance, a democratically-elected Parliament.
You keep forgetting the fact that MOST of the UK parliament is appointed.

And waste my time having to remind you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46853 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
How about addressing the argument instead of clinging to word games?
Word games?

So when you lie about the nomination of Macmillan being the UNANIMOUS choice, you are insisting that I am not allowed to the point that you lie?

I am still waiting for you to announce that you were WRONG and that Macmillan was not only NOT the UNANIMOUS choice, but he was not even the UNANIMOUS choice of his own party.

Do you know what UNANIMOUS means, SuperFAG?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46854 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Do tell us when you decide to attack the argument itself.
Do you mean like when you tried to excuse yourself out of saying that you were wrong by insisting it was a "grammatical error"?

SuperFAG?

In an assertion that had no grammatical errors?

Clearly: you can excuse yourself out of anything (as we have seen here) by insisting whatever you say was a 'grammatical error'.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46855 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
I shall assume that you will no longer be asking if Britain has a Constitution or not.
Sweetie: You know what happens when you ASSuME.

PS: I'm the one that had to remind you that the UK has no constitution.

PSS: It's still the United Kingdom, btw.

It will probably be "Britain" in twenty years, as Scotland, wales, and Cornwall dump you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46856 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Simple - I used the wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity.
He wasn't popular (a) and UNANIMOUS is one of those black and white questions that you insist don't exist.

I.E. It was an either unanimous choice... or you lied.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46857 Jan 26, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
And unanimous was meant to illustrate that Macmillan was the most popular choice.
Ah!

So I was correct when I said that you lied.

u·nan·i·mous
/yo&#862;o&#712;nan &#601;m&#601;s/
Adjective

1 (of two or more people) Fully in agreement.
2 (of an opinion, decision, or vote) Held or carried by everyone involved.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46858 Jan 26, 2013
u·nan·i·mous
/yo;s/
Adjective

1 (of two or more people) Fully in agreement.
2 (of an opinion, decision, or vote) Held or carried by everyone involve

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Sweden

#46860 Jan 27, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Meatball is a dolt.
stop watching yourself in the mirror while writing
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46861 Jan 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We know whenever you start a sentence that way that you are going to lie about what you insist I have said but you just can't find that quote.
Side bets?
We know that you like to play word games and selectively respond to posts in order to suit your situation.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, when you lied about your two degrees in "politics" you at least knew better than to claim you got them in English.
Have you checked the links yet?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalposts:
SuperFAG asserts that Macmillan was 'elected' by his party to be nominated by the Queen as PM.
Lie. Nobody else brought up Macmillan - you did.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Barefoot2626 proves: there was no election
Nobody claimed otherwise.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Macmillan was appointed by the Queen who asked advice of three senior Conservatives.
That is news to me - you never even claimed that the Queen asked for advice - you simply claimed that because Macmillan was not elected party leader then he was selected by the Queen.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I.E.: Barefoot2626 correct, SuperFAG wrong.
Barefoot making up strawman, SupaAFC refuting strawman.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>follow the thread, SuperFag.

You are not the only NotBot in the audience.
Then keep your other rants out of your responses to me - I have plenty of moles to whack already.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.
Yet you do not mention this until you use Wikipedia. Why is that?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.
You did not even cite Wikipedia. I had to copy-paste your quote into Google as per usual.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge..
Yet when I use Wikipedia all you could comment on was the anonymous aspect of the website. Why, Barefoot, are you defending Wikipedia when you need to use it, but when I used it, you simply ignored the material?

Could it be confirmation bias? I think so.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have have NEVER EVER 'disqualified' anyone from using Wikipedia as a source.
Yes you have - you have even disqualified people from using -anything- from the internet since your words were along the lines of "anyone can find anything they want on the internet if they look hard to find it".

If you can ignore online material on that stipulation, then why do I, or anybody, have to listen to yours?
SupaAFC

Crieff, UK

#46862 Jan 29, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We know whenever you start a sentence that way that you are going to lie about what you insist I have said but you just can't find that quote.
Side bets?
We know that you like to play word games and selectively respond to posts in order to suit your situation.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Clearly, when you lied about your two degrees in "politics" you at least knew better than to claim you got them in English.
You have completely ignored the links I posted.

Actions speak louder than words, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalposts:
SuperFAG asserts that Macmillan was 'elected' by his party to be nominated by the Queen as PM.
Lie. Nobody else brought up Macmillan - you did.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Barefoot2626 proves: there was no election
Nobody claimed otherwise.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Macmillan was appointed by the Queen who asked advice of three senior Conservatives.
That is news to me - you never even claimed that the Queen asked for advice - you simply claimed that because Macmillan was not elected party leader then he was selected by the Queen.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I.E.: Barefoot2626 correct, SuperFAG wrong.
Barefoot making up strawman, SupaAFC refuting strawman.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>follow the thread, SuperFag.

You are not the only NotBot in the audience.
Then keep your other rants out of your responses to me - I have plenty of moles to whack already.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia is not the orginal source of most of what it posts.
Yet you do not mention this until you use Wikipedia. Why is that?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out EXACTLY the original source.
You did not even cite Wikipedia. I had to copy-paste your quote into Google as per usual.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I pointed out to you THE LITTLE NUMBERS of what you say I quoted, i.e., Wikipedia is replete with FOOTNOTES you dumfudge..
Yet when I use Wikipedia all you could comment on was the anonymous aspect of the website. Why, Barefoot, are you defending Wikipedia when you need to use it, but when I used it, you simply ignored the material?

Could it be confirmation bias? I think so.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have have NEVER EVER 'disqualified' anyone from using Wikipedia as a source.
Yes you have - you have even disqualified people from using -anything- from the internet since your words were along the lines of "anyone can find anything they want on the internet if they look hard to find it".

If you can ignore online material on that stipulation, then why do I, or anybody, have to listen to yours?

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 26 min Dogen 14,431
Christianity Created Hitler 45 min Uncle Sam 79
why? 2 hr geezerjock 1
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 2 hr thetruth 39
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 2 hr thetruth 274
Our world came from nothing? (Jul '14) 5 hr thetruth 1,225
Richard Dawkins needs to get a life 8 hr Thinking 17
More from around the web