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
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

Location hidden

#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?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47762 Mar 20, 2013
Face the Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it that you can call SupaAFC a "superFAG"
I come from the school whose credo is "si non accipiunt... non inferes illud!"

Ask around your alias, see if one knows latin.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47763 Mar 20, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
One of his main arguments about Britain being an undemocratic monarchy
Funny how I have several hundred posts in this thread and state quite clearly what my position is yet SuperFAG continues to insist he can infer what I have said and paraphrase it for you other dullards who apparently cannot read EXACTLY what I have said.

And this is even after I have slapped the snot out of him in his use of the English language, with him insisting that I am merely "semantically" correct when I say 'some' doesn't mean "always" and "occasionally" is not the same as "never", that "most" can mean "many" when SuperFAG says so, that "unanimous" doesn't mean everyone, it means "many".

And of course what I have asked is:

"Is United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?"

And I have given him the answer: Yes.

And now SuperFAG Britishes out of a bet, to no one's surpise.

No one = nobdy, not a single soul.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47764 Mar 20, 2013
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the USA a republic, yes or no?
I gave the answer to this a long time before you asked, Packy.

Before you insisted the UK would have won WWII by itself.

Why not share what you said about Australia's contribution in WWI, Packy, be sure to mention where you are from so you set the stage...
Anonymous

London, UK

#47765 Mar 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave the answer to this a long time before you asked, Packy.
Before you insisted the UK would have won WWII by itself.
Why not share what you said about Australia's contribution in WWI, Packy, be sure to mention where you are from so you set the stage...
Australias contribution in world war one was big, like canadas, its Americas role that was small, Britain and France won world war one, Britain and Russia won world war two, Canada and Australia fought hard alongside Britain from the very beginning in both wars

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#47766 Mar 20, 2013
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
Australias contribution in world war one was big,
Not interested in your moving of the goalposts, Packy.

I've already refuted EVERYTHING you had to say.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47767 Mar 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagining is just another way of saying you are a m/f c/s liar.
We know that.
Quote-mining is just another way of Barefoot contradicting himself when accusing others of deceit.

We know that.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And now we see you Britishing out of a bet.
No surprise there.
And now we see Barefoot unable to show where a bet was ever agreed.
No surprise there.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, Shug, it wasn't a bet because you had your fingers crossed.
Or because I made it clear that I was not interested in your red herring.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for you to admit that the quote was posted elsewhere on that net, SuperFAG.
Still waiting for you to declare where you got the quote from.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you want me to post your quote again or is 20 times enough?
How about posting the quote where I agreed to a bet? Once would be enough.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how someone who (I assume) lives in Australia but doesn't have a problem "admitting" the type of government running that country.
Siro, I assume, is intelligent enough to know that the Queen is as much a serious political player in Australian politics as she is in Britain and that elected politicians actually run the country.
Only you, Barefoot, genuinely believes that the Queen is an active player in British-Australian political processes.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Why must manchildren who claim they "slap the snot" out of their opponents must make up strawman arguments if their opponent's arguments are as weak as they claim they are?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is the United States a republic? Yes or no?

Gosh... watch this... Barefoot will not answer the question.

Because he plays double standards.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
WIKIpedia!!!!!!!!!!
Now, we know that SuperFAG uses WIKI but forbids anyone else from using it.
SHAME SHAME!
Shame, shame indeed that you have resorted yet another strawman.

I never said that you, or anyone, could not use Wikipedia in their arguments.

The contention was that you - yes, you, my manchild friend - poo-pooed Wikipedia for being written by anonymous, unknown authors which in turn - you argued - delegitimised Wiki's content.

Then you copied and pasted a Macmillan quote straight from Wikipedia. We all know you did - you refuse to say where you got the quote from - so your guilt is blatantly obvious.

You refuse, to this day, to say where you got the quote from, then went on a red herring argument about an imaginery bet just because I had the audacity to use a Google search to find where you got the quote from.

The issue about Wiki was your blatant hypocrisy. That you now try and claim I argued otherwise is just plain sad.
SupaAFC

Glenrothes, UK

#47768 Mar 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's another quote from another source that SuperFAG will insist doesn't exist (or was copied first from WIKI or other such nonsense)
Notice that Barefoot does not cite where he got the quote from.

In academia, that would set off alarm bells.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>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...
Let's put aside the fact that your quote simply said that Australia's head of state is a monarch.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
"... 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.
Let's all recall how:

multiple sources have absolutely no problem calling Britain a Constitutional monarchy;

Barefoot seems unable to understand that Britain's "Constitution" is in the form of various documents throughout history that date back to the Magna Carta;

Barefoot says that a Constitutional monarchy "is a monarchy", but other forms of monarchy such as absolute as elective are "kinds". To this day, he has never explained the distinction.

In other words, Barefoot has made up his own definition for Constitutional monarchy in defiance of what academia, history and even the British government itself say.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, we cannot expect SuperFAG to be a "man" of his word... as he Britishes out his bet.
Of course, we cannot expect Barefoot to ever show where a bet was agreed... as he beats this strawman to death.

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 vs. Theism: Knowns and Unknowns 9 min Patrick 47
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min CunningLinguist 227,462
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 52 min CunningLinguist 22,196
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 4 hr Patrick 925
Stump a theist with 2 questions 7 hr Patrick 26
An atheist returns to Christ (Jan '09) 9 hr True Christian wi... 4,086
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 20 hr Patrick 189
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••