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
SupaAFC

Kirkcaldy, UK

#48466 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The election of the president of the United States in November against the railings of SuperFAG who cannot even admit the UK is a monarchy.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."

Nope, nothing about November elections.

The words of a manchild against the words of the Constitution. I opt for the Constitution.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The prime minister of the United King_dom is appointed by the MONARCH.

Yes or no?

I say yes.
The Queen has always appointed the leader of the winning/majority party after an election.

Yes or no?

I say yes.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how you have to invent things I never said to try to make a point.

I never ever said anything remotely like comparing the POTUS was similar to the prime minister of the monarchy of the UK.
The fact that you keep asking me if I have ever voted for the PM demonstrates your attempt to make a connection between the two.

Your problem is that our PM is not like your president; the roles are different.

I am quoting you exactly, manchild. Inventions are your game.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the one that had to remind you that the UK was appointed in the first place and I am the one who corrected you when you insisted that the Queen had to rubber stamp an "election" of the PM.
And these assertions can be found where, exactly?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The PM is not elected.
Of course not because people do not "run" for PM. Party leaders run for constituency seats like any other MP.

Start arguing against what I actually say instead of running with red herrings.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I've listed the major powers of the UK monarch many times.
And they have been explained as being ceremonial acts as evidenced by when the Queen uses these powers. You, of course, cannot accept this.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You insist she has no powers.
Stop lying, manchild. The argument is that these powers are ceremonial.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the monarchy appoint the PM?

Yes or no?
Has the Queen ever refused to appoint a party leader? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have never EVER voted for the office of PM.

Never.
Maybe because the office of PM has NEVER been an elective process.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can the Queen shut down the Parliament today, if she wanted? Yes or no?
Will she ever? Yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd bet you but then you have already demonstrated you are not a man of your word: you britished out of the bet.
Lying once again. Like your dignity and maturity this bet is non-existant.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Address?

I pointed out to you that you were wrong, and you were unable to admit it.

Does unanimous mean everyone, yes or no?
To point out I was wrong would require showing that Macmillan was not a popular choice nor was an elected MP.

You, of course, pounced on a word.

A word.

To run away from the argument.

That is because, manchild, you are a coward who thinks that
catching a pawn means you win the game. Ignore the king, go for the pawn.

Why can you not admit that the Electoral College elects the president?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48467 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states,
Americans vote for their head of state.

The subjects in the United King_dom do not.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48468 May 1, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be really bad at writing english!
How would you know, Meatball?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48469 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Stop lying, manchild. The argument is that these powers are ceremonial.
Poor SuperFAG: they are indeed Lawful.

And far from ceremonialo.

And the FACT that members of the Parliament meet with the Queen and even Prince Charles for consent on proposed bills.

(quotye)
The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.

Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war.

The internal Whitehall pamphlet was only released following a court order and shows ministers and civil servants are obliged to consult the Queen and Prince Charles in greater detail and over more areas of legislation than was previously understood.

The new laws that were required to receive the seal of approval from the Queen or Prince Charles cover issues from higher education and paternity pay to identity cards and child maintenance.

In one instance the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament.

She was even asked to consent to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 because it contained a declaration about the validity of a civil partnership that would bind her.

In the pamphlet, the Parliamentary Counsel warns civil servants that if consent is not forthcoming there is a risk "a major plank of the bill must be removed".

"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role," said Andrew George, Liberal Democrat MP for St Ives, which includes land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales' hereditary estate.

"It shows the royals are playing an active role in the democratic process and we need greater transparency in parliament so we can be fully appraised of whether these powers of influence and veto are really appropriate. At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

Charles has been asked to consent to 20 pieces of legislation and this power of veto has been described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" that may help explain why ministers appear to pay close attention to the views of senior royals.

The guidance also warns civil servants that obtaining consent can cause delays to legislation and reveals that even amendments may need to be run past the royals for further consent.

"There has been an implication that these prerogative powers are quaint and sweet but actually there is real influence and real power, albeit unaccountable," said John Kirkhope, the legal scholar who fought the freedom of information case to access the papers.

The release of the papers comes amid growing concern in parliament at a lack of transparency over the royals' role in lawmaking. George has set down a series of questions to ministers asking for a full list of bills that have been consented to by the Queen and Prince Charles and have been vetoed or amended.

The guidance states that the Queen's consent is likely to be needed for laws affecting hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.

Consent is also needed if it affects the Duchy of Cornwall. These guidelines effectively mean the Queen and Charles both have power over laws affecting their sources of private income.
(clip)

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48470 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You, of course, pounced on a word.
Yea, I pounce on a word especially when I catch you in a lie and then watch how you twist and turn and try to lie your way out of it.

Of course... I have the exact quote.

Like when you asserted that NO ONE denied the UK was a monarchy... and I immediately proved a quote that where you denied UK was a monarchy.

And you have to explain to people what I mean by what I said... instead of quoting me.

And enough red herring to start a cannery.

What an embarrassment you are for anyone who calls him or herself British.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48471 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Why can you not admit that the Electoral College elects the president?
Why can you not admit the United King_dom is a monarchy?

Oh, that's right... you did, and then you denied it.
SupaAFC

Kirkcaldy, UK

#48472 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans vote for their head of state.
The subjects in the United King_dom do not.
I have the Constitution. You have your word.

Constitution > manchild's word.

Do you not just -hate- it when your own silly logic is used against you?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Poor SuperFAG: they are indeed Lawful.

And far from ceremonialo.
If they are far from ceremonial then the Queen would have a record of dissolving Parliaments and vetoing legislation.

She does not.

Why, if not for her powers being ceremonial, do you think that is?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the FACT that members of the Parliament meet with the Queen and even Prince Charles for consent on proposed bills.
Does not explain the FACT that assent has not been refused to any bill in over 300 years.

That is evidence of ceremony.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret....
I see that you have gone back to your Guardian article that also had the big scary list of bills you failed to substantiate.

Why post an article then fail to show its relevance to the fact that bills have not been refused assent in over 300 - three hundred - years?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Yea, I pounce on a word especially when I catch you in a lie and then watch how you twist and turn and try to lie your way out of it.
Yeah, you go for pawns to run away from the King. You are an intellectual coward.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text
Of course... I have the exact quote.

Like when you asserted that NO ONE denied the UK was a monarchy... and I immediately proved a quote that where you denied UK was a monarchy.
Lying again and you know why.

"My neighbour Jeff has a car. Therefore, Jeff is a car".
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text
And you have to explain to people what I mean by what I said... instead of quoting me.

And enough red herring to start a cannery.

What an embarrassment you are for anyone who calls him or herself British.
Unlike you I can quote you word for word - everything you spout in every post.

You, on the other, pick on scraps.

You are a coward, manchild, and you know it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Why can you not admit the United King_dom is a monarchy?

Oh, that's right... you did, and then you denied it.
Why are you still arguing that Jeff is a car? You know you are lying, I know you are lying, why keep doing it?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48473 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
I have the Constitution.
You don't have a Constitution.

We have a Constitution.

You have a monarch.

You have no say.
None.

You have a prime minister.
Your monarch appoints the prime minister.
Anyone he or she pleases.

We have an election.

You should learn how your own government works first.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48474 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Do you not just -hate- it when your own silly logic is used against you?
Funny how you never have a quote around when you need it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48475 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
"My neighbour Jeff has a car. Therefore, Jeff is a car".
Funny how you never have a quote when you need it.

Funny how I don't have to explain to others what your quote is.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48476 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know, Meatball?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You no speaky English.
That's easy look!
SupaAFC

Newtownabbey, UK

#48477 May 2, 2013
I made the point that the Constitution clearly states that the Electoral College elects the president.

Manchild's (non) response:
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a Constitution.
We have a Constitution.
You have a monarch.
You have no say.
None.
You have a prime minister.
Your monarch appoints the prime minister.
Anyone he or she pleases.
We have an election.
You should learn how your own government works first.
Face it, manchild, you got schooled with your own argument.

If we must take British law literally, then we must take American law just as literally. That means the Constitution states that the Electoral College elects the president.

You can stomp, but facts are facts regardless.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how you never have a quote around when you need it.
Funny how you never explain what you "really" meant when cornered with your own inane arguments.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how you never have a quote when you need it.
Funny how you cannot explain what you "really" meant.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how I don't have to explain to others what your quote is.
Of course not because Barefoot can make claims out of thin air and never has to back them up.

It is beyond your intellectual capabilities.

Just like it is beyond your capabilities to explain why British law has to be taken literally, and we must ignore how the Queen acts in reality, yet we must pretend that the Constitution does not give the electoral power of the president to the Electoral College.

Stomp some more, manchild.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48478 May 2, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
I made the point that the Constitution clearly states that the Electoral College elects the president.
The sun rises in the east.

As I have pointed out many dozen times: the kind of government the US has doesn't matter.

Putting aside the Citizens of the USA elect the head of state where the SUBJECTS of the monarch in the UK do not.

The questions is not what kind of government does the US or Germany or North Korea or Botswana have: its...

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy? Yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48479 May 2, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Face it, manchild, you got schooled with your own argument.
Face it: you are a lying *t.

SuperFAG writes:
If Britain is a monarchy then the Queen should have legislative powers.

She does not.

Thus, Britain's system of government is not a monarchy.
++

SupaAFC
#48063

Nobody, despite your continual spin, denies that Britain has a monarchy. Or that it has "powers". Or that the monarch is our head of state.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48480 May 2, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Of course not because Barefoot can make claims out of thin air and never has to back them up.
Of course, Barefoot2626 not only backs up his assertions, he uses your exact quotes to do it.

He doesn't have to explain what you meant, or insist you should responsible for convoluted logic he invented.

NO: he quotes you exactly and watches you spin.
SupaAFC

Newtownabbey, UK

#48481 May 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The sun rises in the east.
And the Electoral College elect the president.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have pointed out many dozen times: the kind of government the US has doesn't matter.
As I have pointed out many dozen times: the best way to expose your hypocrisy is to use an analogy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Putting aside the Citizens of the USA elect the head of state where the SUBJECTS of the monarch in the UK do not.
Putting aside that the Constitution says differently.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The questions is not what kind of government does the US or Germany or North Korea or Botswana have: its...
... it's about showing how a hypocritical manchild is intellectually bankrupt.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy? Yes or no?
Already answered. Go find it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Face it: you are a lying *t.
You are the one deliberately trying to conflate has and is. The lying "*t", manchild, is you.

Tell us again about how Jeff is a car.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, Barefoot2626 not only backs up his assertions, he uses your exact quotes to do it.

He doesn't have to explain what you meant, or insist you should responsible for convoluted logic he invented.

NO: he quotes you exactly and watches you spin.
Nope, you grab smidgets of my posts to try and claim victory while running away like a coward from the arguments.

Manchild plays for the pawns... but never the King.

Because he is a hypocritical coward and knows it.

I have the Constitution on my side. You have nothing.

Better hope that the Electoral College votes wisely in 2016.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48482 May 2, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
And the Electoral College elect the president.
Americans vote for the electors who vote for the president, SuperFAG.

You have NO VOTE for PM. You have NO VOTE for who is the monarchy.

I have every bit as much say as who is the UK prime minister as you.

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, SuperFAG? Yes or no?

Let's see what you said so far>

SuperFAG writes:
If Britain is a monarchy then the Queen should have legislative powers.

She does not.

Thus, Britain's system of government is not a monarchy.
++

SupaAFC
#48063
Nobody, despite your continual spin, denies that Britain has a monarchy. Or that it has "powers". Or that the monarch is our head of state.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48483 May 2, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
Putting aside that the Constitution says differently.
Funny how you never have the quote you need, eh, SuperFAG?
SupaAFC

Newtownabbey, UK

#48484 May 2, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans vote for the electors who vote for the president, SuperFAG.
So therefore Americans do not vote for the president.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have NO VOTE for PM.
Of course not because people do not "run" for PM. As always you are trying to force reality to fit in with your delusions.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have NO VOTE for who is the monarchy.
Thankfully it matters not as the monarchy are nothing but ceremonial ornaments despite what an internet manchild living in another continent thinks.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have every bit as much say as who is the UK prime minister as you.
I have every bit as much say as who is the United States president as you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, SuperFAG? Yes or no?
Already answered. Go fish instead of asking it ad nauseum.

Then show me where you ever answered about the United States being a republic.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see what you said so far>
SuperFAG writes:
<quoted text>
++
SupaAFC
#48063
<quoted text>
And you continue to lie as is expected of desperate cowards.

Just because Jeff has a car does not mean that he is one, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Funny how you never have the quote you need, eh, SuperFAG?
I have already posted the twelfth amendment. As always you ran away.

Do let us know when the American public start voting for the president.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48485 May 2, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
So therefore Americans do not vote for the president.
I voted for POTUS in November.

As did 120 million other Americans.

Over in the UK, one person gets to vote on who is Prime minister.

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
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 11 min Thinking 2,230
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 43 min ChristineM 232,708
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 5 hr Thinking 23,171
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 12 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 17 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 17 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 17 hr Geezerjock 1
Evidence for God! 20 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web