In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51437 comments on the Spiked story from Apr 11, 2012, 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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46648 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
If you can’t reap what you sow then don’t sow it.
So you torture metaphor as well as the Ex?
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46649 Jan 22, 2013
Stalin couldn't f**k people's lives up without the usual compliant believers.

No church = no dictatorship.
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok then why did he reinstate the church? Why did he reinstate theological schools?, why did he reinstate the church patriarch

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46650 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
What C word, I can’t say I remember using the C word
Well, isn't that too bad everyone else here does?

Again: it says something about you, dear, not me.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46651 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Oh drippydick, I do not have an ex, I have been married to the same wonderful man since 1995,
You also told us you weren't fat.

And I can't imagine anyone knowing you as well as we know you and not escaping, no matter how henpecked.

I'll go with my gut.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46652 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The citizens of the US vote but have no say on who will run for president, your point being what???
Americans have the vote and they have every say on who runs for the heads of the party and if they want they can run for POTUS themselves.

And have.

Are you going to tell us you have two degrees in "politics", too?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46653 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Nope, only you and the aissie sheepshagger are stupid
Yeaa, and you will say you weren't dishing it out to him either.

Poor baby...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46654 Jan 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
Don’t be jealous just because the US democratic political system is based in the British system
[/QUOTE]

The USA is a democracy.

The UK is a monarchy.

Anything else, dear?

PS: We have two houses in our Congress. We elect every single member and the houses are pretty much equal strength.

And we don't have a state church which appoints members to either house.

Or even to dog catcher...

When the US looked at the UK "system", we fixed the glaring mistakes.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46655 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
It is doubtful that any political scientist would dispute that the UK is a democracy.
Yea... too bad, political scientists begin with this: the United KING_dom is a monarchy.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46656 Jan 22, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
The UK has never failed to meet Freedom House’s benchmark for ‘electoral democracies’
It isn't much of a benchmark: start with "Do you elect the head of state, yes or no"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46657 Jan 22, 2013
Mikko wrote:
you are the liar here.
the opposite of democratic is non democratic
It isn't.

Putting aside: you are the one using the term 'non democratic' and trying to foist it into something I have said.

Of course: like pretty much EVERY OTHER THING you have attributed to me, it is a quote that you invent.

Be my gust: show us the link.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46658 Jan 22, 2013
Mikko wrote:
north korea is a democracy if we fallow your rules of name of the country tells us what a country is
Umm... not sure what this means in English.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#46659 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
It isn't.
yes the opposite of democratic is non democratic a coin can only have two sides

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Nykvarn, Sweden

#46660 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm... not sure what this means in american.
You do not know anything about Sweden!
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#46661 Jan 22, 2013
Great point. BSfoot shoots himself in his BSfoot once again.
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
north korea is a democracy if we fallow your rules of name of the country tells us what a country is

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46662 Jan 22, 2013
Siro wrote:
BTW - I thought this thread was called 'In America, atheists are still in the closet'
it started out there...

The Anglophiles don't like to be reminded that they have a state church.
SupaAFC

Dunblane, UK

#46663 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Monarchy.
PS:
A Constitutional monarchy is:
A) a monarchy
B) a kumquat
C) a long haired cat
D) a monarchy
If a Constitutional monarchy is just a monarchy then it would just be called "monarchy", but it is not.

Once again, you are trying to argue that the colour grey is not grey, but black or white. Your logic, your fallacy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does the United KING_dom have a constitution, yes or no?

PS: Funny no matter how many times I invite you to quote me, you cannot ever seem to find the quote you need.

And you make one up.

Yes or no: Does the United KING_dom have a Constitution, yes or no?
If we are not a Constitutional monarchy for not having one physical Constitution then your source is wrong and we can dismiss it.

Thank you, Barefoot, for refuting your own source based on your own playbook.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>In actual fact: my posts are replete qith quotes.
From online dictionaries and anonymous websites that you do not bother citing.

Not exactly screaming "scholar" at me, to be honest.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>SuperFAG = full of [email protected]
Two politics degrees to zero. That's a fact, manchild.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: You continue to insist the UK isn't a monarchy. Your "degrees" should be put to better use: pull them from the frames and use them to wipe your azz.
The whole social science world continues to insist that Britain -has- a monarchy but it is not our political system.

Like all man-on-the-street whackies, you see the situation as Barefoot versus the World. One man, with no qualifications, no social skills, nothing whatsoever, who knows more about everything else than people who have spent years or are even paid to devote their lives to the subjects that you know nothing about.

That is why you lose all the time; that is why you cry all the time; that is why your life amounts to nothing more than being my online whack-a-mole b!tch.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: Do let me know what you think a "politics degree" is supposed to be.
A degree specialised in political and social science research methods.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, I have given you around twenty responses.
That all amount to you saying you do not care about Britain having a Parliament.

And we, manchild, know why.

Maybe you can pick on that you like.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, I never ever said that Macmillan was not democratically elected as an MP.

Gosh, you cannot put two sentences together without lying.
Then your whole argument is meaningless, as nobody, not even me, claimed that every Prime Minister is democratically elected in any capacity other than as an MP.

So what, exactly, are you arguing against?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for an example of PM who was elected BY HIS PARTY to be *nominated* as PM which- as I pointed out to you- the Queen could consider and then APPOINT the PM to that office... if she felt like it.
Never happened; you brought up Macmillan on your own accord, on your own terms.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You insisted that PMs were all elected and that the monarch HAD to make the "appointment".
And, it happened. Eden and Macmillan were both elected as MPs; the only sticking point, which you claim victory over, was that at the time the Conservatives had no system for replacing PMs in a sitting government.
SupaAFC

Dunblane, UK

#46664 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to inform you that he was NOT elected by his party, i.e., I stuck my foot up your azz yet again.
Of course not - at that time the Conservatives had no system for replacing sitting PMs.
You keep thinking this is some kind of body-blow for British democracy; it was not. Parties have consistently chosen leaders that they think will attract appeal from voters - Macmillan, a pragmatic politician - was no different.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
That indeed the Queen asked for advice on who should be appointed PM and that there was NO election.
Of course not, manchild, because the Conservatives had no system for replacing sitting PMs.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
And I informed you- you who claims to hold two..."political" degrees... at which point you said er um hmm err... ummm... give me TWO examples...
Nope, didn't even make one. As stated before: you simply brought up Macmillan on your own initiative.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Review:
Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated for PM.
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Review:
The monarch is not compelled to take any nomination or advice given in her APPOINTMENT of that office.
Review: the monarch has consistently appointed the winning party's leader as PM. It is nothing but a rubber stamp.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: You still haven't proved the name of the university and the year you got these "political degrees".
University of Aberdeen, 2011 and 2012.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>I also refused to give you my recipe for slow crock bread pudding.
My standard of proof, SuperFAG, is that the UK ins a MONARCHY.
We know why you refuse to define democracy; because you are terrified that Britain easily qualifies as such.
If we were to play by your literal rules and take democracy at its logical extreme, then democratic states are a utopia. Unless every single person in the state has a say and influence on policy making, then a "real" democracy simply cannot exist.
By your logic, no state out there today, certainly in the West, is a democracy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't care.
PS: Here's where you got the defintion:
http://www.ecovisionquest.com/defdemocracy.ht ...
I invited everyone to click on the link and to find that the US was given as example of a democracy... and the UK... not.
PPS: The United KING_dom is a monarchy.
We know you don't care about defining democracy; because it shatters your feeble argument.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You are a liar.
We've establish that, of course.
If the appointed members of the UK Parliament were unable to do anything of substance, then there would not be a House of Lords.
The is a House of Lords.
There is also an Electoral College. Thus if the Lords are influential purely because they exist, then the Electoral College likewise holds the presidency in their hands.
Your logic, your rules.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes twelve definitions in a row, taking them in order as they appear one after the next complete with links and EXACT quotes.
How many pieces of social science research on political institutions do you think rely solely on dictionary definitions?
Not just in politics, but in any academic discipline? Were you taught to actually go in depth with analyses or did you just take a dictionary 101 class?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
mon·ar·chy
Which does not refute what you pasted this in response to: the fact that the Commons, the big players of our system, are democratically elected.
Nice try anyway.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46665 Jan 22, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
yes the opposite of democratic is non democratic
T'ain't.

I know, you struggle with English.

E.G.: non Dairy is not the opposite of nondairy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#46666 Jan 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
T'ain't.
I know, you struggle with English.
E.G.: non Dairy is not the opposite of nondairy.
That's brilliant.

Is your corollary "Dairy is not the opposite of dairy"?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#46667 Jan 22, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
If a Constitutional monarchy is just a monarchy then it would just be called "monarchy", but it is not.
A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy.

You are not the scholar you claim to be, 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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min Cornelius Scudmister 240,083
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Hill4me 222,815
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min The Northener 205,463
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 5 min payme 1,619
News Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 6 min barefoot2626 159
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Teaman 1,420,721
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 9 min Lawrence Wolf 8,050
News Trump calls on GOP to improve African-American ... 19 min barefoot2626 405
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 24 min Slade Surfer Thom... 393,421
More from around the web