In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 20 comments on the Apr 11, 2012, Spiked story titled In America, atheists are still in the closet. In it, Spiked reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Spiked.

SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47740 Mar 19, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the imagination that insists they do, SuperFAG.
Then I must be imagining that the multitude of pages in this thread do not exist. The posts and the words they contain - every single one of them - are all in my head.

Is that the case? Is this thread only a few posts long? Do they only contain the posts you do not ignore? Tell me - just how does reality function in Barefootland?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one living soul is surprised you Britished out of the bet, SuperFAG.
"No one" living soul is surprised that you have never shown where a bet was agreed.

You avoid this like the plague despite giving lectures about the importance of providing quotes.

That is because, manchild, you are lying through your teeth about a bet taking place. And you know it just as much as everybody else.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a m/r c/s liar, SuperFAG.

As I said... from unanimous... it becomes "popular".
Yet you refuse to let go of this scant victory and address the point that both words are meant to convey.

You know full well what the point was, and how it, along with the other points (Macmillan being a Conservative, an MP) all demonstrate that your claim that Macmillan's appointment as PM being a blow to British democracy is laughable.

Yet you, with the one meagre pawn, still declare victory.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how that is, SF.

SupaAFC wrote:
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.
But of course, no one here would expect anything less of someone who tried to Britished his way out of a bet.
"Okay, I know you took my bishops, my rooks, all my pawns, my knights, my Queen, and cornered my King with a check-mate, but I took your pawn so nyeh, I win!"

Same old Barefoot, being deliberately obtuse to avoid the argument.
Siro

Australia

#47741 Mar 19, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Which means that you agree with him that Australia is a monarchy, governed by the Queen, and therefore you do not live in a democratic state.
If Barefoot said that then he is quite correct.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the titular head of state or as our proper title is -'The Commonwealth of Australia'.
The Queens representative in Australia is the Governor-General and the G-G has control over the army and can dismiss the federal government/parliament but the reverse is not true.
The Queen acts on the advice of her representatives and ministers and on that advice she sanctions their actions.
.
Sounds like a monarchy to me......

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47742 Mar 19, 2013
Monarchy of Australia

The Monarchy of Australia is a form of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of Australia. The monarchy is a constitutional one, modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia.

The present monarch is Elizabeth II, styled Queen of Australia, who has reigned since 6 February 1952. She is represented in Australia by the governor-general, in accordance with the Australian constitution and Letters Patent from the Queen. In each of the states, the monarch is represented by a governor, appointed directly by the Queen on the advice of each of her respective state governments.

The Australian monarch, besides reigning in Australia, separately serves as monarch for each of fifteen other Commonwealth countries known as Commonwealth realms. This developed from the former colonial relationship of these countries to Britain, but they are now independent of each other and are legally distinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Aust...
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47743 Mar 20, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
If Barefoot said that then he is quite correct.
Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the titular head of state or as our proper title is -'The Commonwealth of Australia'.
The Queens representative in Australia is the Governor-General and the G-G has control over the army and can dismiss the federal government/parliament but the reverse is not true.
The Queen acts on the advice of her representatives and ministers and on that advice she sanctions their actions.
.
Sounds like a monarchy to me......
Only problem being that as a result of having a monarchs, Barefoot argues that countries are not democracies.

Is that the case for Australia? Are your Constitutions, parties and elections all meaningless?
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47744 Mar 20, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Monarchy of Australia
The Monarchy of Australia is a form of government in which a hereditary monarch is the sovereign of Australia. The monarchy is a constitutional one, modelled on the Westminster style of parliamentary government, incorporating features unique to the Constitution of Australia.
I am sure Barefoot would love to read this.
Face the Facts

Aniwa, WI

#47747 Mar 20, 2013
barefoot2626 is a typical lying hypocrite just like all the lefties. Say one thing do another. Lefties are lying. racist, intolerant bigots. and etc etc etc
Face the Facts

Aniwa, WI

#47748 Mar 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the imagination that insists they do, SuperFAG.
No one living soul is surprised you Britished out of the bet, SuperFAG.
How is it that you can call SupaAFC a "superFAG" and then go to the SSM topix threads and say you support homosexuals?
Siro

Ringwood East, Australia

#47749 Mar 20, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Only problem being that as a result of having a monarchs, Barefoot argues that countries are not democracies.
Is that the case for Australia? Are your Constitutions, parties and elections all meaningless?
Is Australia a 100% democracy? No.
The Commonwealth/Federation has its own constitution as do the states and they have their own G-Gs.
You cannot directly vote for the PM unless you are resident in their electorate. The parties decide who their candidate for PM is, even if you are a member of a party you do not get to say who the candidate for PM is unless you are 'connected'.
In the end the G-G decides if a potential government will be sworn in, not the voting public.
Although such situations have never caused problems, legally speaking this is true.
So you cannot say Australia is a democracy in classic terms, it may have democratic principles but is not a democratic state.
Face the Facts

Aniwa, WI

#47750 Mar 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how when SuperFAG gets caught with his pants around his ankles in the sheep barn, he insists on creating an argument I have never been part of and picking out my position for me.
Is the United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?
---
Wipe your chin, SuperFAG.
,
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the imagination that insists they do, SuperFAG.
No one living soul is surprised you Britished out of the bet, SuperFAG.
How are you are able to justify calling SupaAFC a "SuperFAG" and then go to the SSM topix threads and say that you support homosexuals?

How does that fit into your phony reality? Seems a bit hypocritical.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47751 Mar 20, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Australia a 100% democracy? No.
The Commonwealth/Federation has its own constitution as do the states and they have their own G-Gs.
You cannot directly vote for the PM unless you are resident in their electorate. The parties decide who their candidate for PM is, even if you are a member of a party you do not get to say who the candidate for PM is unless you are 'connected'.
In the end the G-G decides if a potential government will be sworn in, not the voting public.
Although such situations have never caused problems, legally speaking this is true.
So you cannot say Australia is a democracy in classic terms, it may have democratic principles but is not a democratic state.
For curiosity's sake, when was the last time the G-G refused a potential government?
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47752 Mar 20, 2013
Face the Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
,
<quoted text>
How are you are able to justify calling SupaAFC a "SuperFAG" and then go to the SSM topix threads and say that you support homosexuals?
How does that fit into your phony reality? Seems a bit hypocritical.
Barefoot is a man(child) of many contradictions. I assume he believes that every thread he participates in and the arguments they contain are all entirely separate to the others, and as such, he can contradict himself to his heart's content.

One of his main arguments about Britain being an undemocratic monarchy is that we must take laws and definitions literally, even though our government and Queen act completely different in reality. Yet in another thread, he has outright said that actions speak louder than words.

Seems like he argues for the sake of arguing and will play contrarian no matter the debate.
Anonymous

London, UK

#47753 Mar 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yea, he does.
And then he gives you about a dozen sources.
And then when he proves that you are wrong, you move the goalposts.
SupaAFC wrote:
"Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM."
When Barefoot proved you wrong, you whined about semantics.
Is the United Kingdom a monarchy?
Yes or no?
Do you need the definition of monarchy again, SuperFAG?
You still can't find that quote about a bet, can you battyboy, until you do, you have no credibility and are a proven liar, yet again
Anonymous

London, UK

#47754 Mar 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the imagination that insists they do, SuperFAG.
No one living soul is surprised you Britished out of the bet, SuperFAG.
Is the USA a republic, yes or no?
Is the USA a republic, yes or no?
Is the USA a republic, yes or no?
Is the USA a republic, yes or no?
Is the USA a republic, yes or no?

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#47755 Mar 20, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Australia a 100% democracy? No.
The Commonwealth/Federation has its own constitution as do the states and they have their own G-Gs.
You cannot directly vote for the PM unless you are resident in their electorate. The parties decide who their candidate for PM is, even if you are a member of a party you do not get to say who the candidate for PM is unless you are 'connected'.
In the end the G-G decides if a potential government will be sworn in, not the voting public.
Although such situations have never caused problems, legally speaking this is true.
So you cannot say Australia is a democracy in classic terms, it may have democratic principles but is not a democratic state.
USA is a republic not a democracy
CunningLinguist

Hernando, FL

#47756 Mar 20, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a bad habit of ignoring refutations and pretending that they never happened.
<quoted text>
Notice: you ignored the refutation anyway.
<quoted text>
The argument was that Macmillan's appoint as a popular, democratically-elected politician who was a member of the incumbent party in government demonstrated that his appointment reflected the democratic values and results of the general election of 1955.
That is the king of the argument.
You, on the other hand, jumped onto a pawn - a wrong word - and completely ignored the argument.
If there is one thing we have learned about Barefoot, it is that he will be as pedantic as he possibly can if it means he can wriggle out of the core points of the debate.
<quoted text>
So you are saying that I just made up an argument where you copied and pasted a quote about logical fallacies in response to an analogy about Australia being a monarchy?
Have I got that right? It sure reads that way. Perhaps you can now, for once, "properly" explain what you meant instead of going into a tantrum.
<quoted text>
Is the United States a republic, yes or no?
<quoted text>
Not by answering yes or no but by expanding by saying that America is both a republic and a democracy.
You took liberties to circumvent your own question by adding additional information, yet when people do the same regarding Britain you scream that we must only answer with a yes or no.
In other words, you contradicted yourself as per usual and pretty much declared that we must play by your rules, but you do not have to.
You say you have answered the question? Excellent. Answer it using your own rule:
Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?
Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?
No - The USA is a Oligarchy

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47757 Mar 20, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I must be imagining .
Imagining is just another way of saying you are a m/f c/s liar.

We know that.

And now we see you Britishing out of a bet.

No surprise there.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47758 Mar 20, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
"No one" living soul is surprised that you have never shown where a bet was agreed.
I know, Shug, it wasn't a bet because you had your fingers crossed.

Still waiting for you to admit that the quote was posted elsewhere on that net, SuperFAG.

Do you want me to post your quote again or is 20 times enough?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47759 Mar 20, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
If Barefoot said that then he is quite correct..
Funny how someone who (I assume) lives in Australia but doesn't have a problem "admitting" the type of government running that country.

Why is it that people live in England want to pretend they live in a democracy and that the Queen that the rest of the world knows and has known about doesn't exist?

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy? Yes or no?

Gosh... watch this:

Yes... the United Kingdom is a monarchy...

Is the sky falling?

No, obviously: SuperFAG is just one of those persons who can't admit he's wrong.

Grated... I've slapped the snot out of him many times here.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47760 Mar 20, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
Monarchy of Australia
WIKIpedia!!!!!!!!!!

Now, we know that SuperFAG uses WIKI but forbids anyone else from using it.

SHAME SHAME!

Here's another quote from another source that SuperFAG will insist doesn't exist (or was copied first from WIKI or other such nonsense):

"Australia’s formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. The form of government used in Australia is a constitutional monarchy –‘constitutional’ because the powers and procedures of the Australian Government are defined by a written constitution, and ‘monarchy’ because Australia’s head of state is Queen Elizabeth II."

Gosh... let's put aside for a second the government of Austratilia doesn't seem to be ashamed that they are a monarchy... but look at this clip again...

"... government used in Australia is a constitutional monarchy –‘constitutional’ because the powers and procedures of the Australian Government are defined by a written constitution..."

WRITTEN CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!

Let's all recall how SuperFAG (and his fellah NotBots) rolled around and kicked and screamed because I made the SAME observation (applied to the UK) in the *lack* of written constitution.

Of course, we cannot expect SuperFAG to be a "man" of his word... as he Britishes out his bet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47761 Mar 20, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Is that the case for Australia? Are your Constitutions, parties and elections all meaningless?
Fallacious logic and of course: the standard SuperFAG loaded question.

Have you stopped downloading kiddie porn, SF?

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 Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 min Thinking 2,064
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min New Age Spiritual... 238,210
News Confessions of a black atheist 17 min audy17 414
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 43 min Wolftracks 9,340
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 51 min Patrick n Angela 6,107
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 hr Denisova 18,697
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 8 hr prophecydotorg 7,408
More from around the web