In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

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.

Comments (Page 2,262)

Showing posts 45,221 - 45,240 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46936
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SupaAFC wrote:
You did not even cite Wikipedia. I had to copy-paste your quote into Google as per usual.
I did not cite Wikipedia because I did not get it from Wikipedia. You loaded it into google and then FOUND a copy of it in wikipedia.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

From there you JUMPED to the conclusion that that is where I got it.

You did not look any further- not to the LIST of other sites including the ORIGINAL source and instead went off on the Wiki rant.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46937
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

SupaAFC wrote:
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?
You don't know the difference between sources, DOLT. That something put into Wikipedia isn't a FACT just because it exists there, that unless it is sourced- that we can identify who put it there- it is just an uninformed opinion.

Just as you could go to Wikipedia and insist that the UK isn't a monarchy, for example. Other readers who see that do know just how stupid you are, they don't know how many times I have caught you lying, they don't know that when you take something a person says here you don't hesitate a second to change what he said and then insist that it is a quote, even when you have changed entirely that meaning.

You don't have it in you to admit you are wrong.

Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46939
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not concerned with what you choose to believe, bigot.
I am able to back every single thing I say.
Liar – all you can do is stamp your foot and scream refuted through your cloud of lack of evidence and offer lies and outdated and/or irrelevant links.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Standard sexist bigot.
Let's not miss who initiated this line...Lying T\/\/AT
:)
Polly want a cracker?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure mine is no comparison to yours, Skanque.
And we all know as far as real life experience, who here has had those drippydicks running across her gums.
Still no proof then so still relying on assumption, totally expected
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The members of our upper Congress: elected, Skanque,…
WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHH!
Looks like you medication is failing again, time to see your psychiatrist again – Johnson and Ford plus a few other unallocated presidents you will remember
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I *shall* remind you that this is wrong.
No matter how hard you stomp your b8ig fat lying bigoted feet.
Macmillan: an example posted many times.
You can remind who the f_ck you like, it makes no difference to fact –
Not posted by me, no matter how hard you stomp your big fat lying bigoted feet.
Remember Andrew Johnson , about the time when you first started voting. How about Gerald Ford – another UNELECTED president
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Still official State Church and will continue to be so long after they bring in the dozer to dig the hole to bury you in, Chubby.
Still on a rapid decline.– honey, I’m going to get burnt and my ashes scattered in the places I love. No wasteful holes in the ground on a meaningless patch near a church for me. But you are welcome to stick your head in any hole you like and shout you can’t see me.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Difference = USA has freedom of speech; freedom of religion.
Rights guaranteed.
UK = NOT.
Name of your state church, again, Chubby.
UK has freedom of speech enshrined in law for almost 1000 years, tell me how good were your laws 1000 years ago, oh hang on, the US did not exist back then did it.

And freedom of/from religion – guaranteed in all three constituent legal systems in effect in the UK, national, European, and international law in addition is the universal declaration of Human Rights, tell me has the US ratified that yet?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't dish it out when you can't take it, Skanque.
And I wouldn't know you have had any husbands if you didn't bring it it, Skanque.
Hey you sill old butt breath drippydick cuckold I can take anything you spew and hand back retaliation by the bucket full, as you may have noticed. Whether you know or not does not prevent you making lying claims.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Complete nonsense, of course.
Post removed by the censors are REMOVED. The posts removed by the script leave a post removed message.
DOLT.
….
Still there fatty.
Say what? Are you complexly ignorant? Did I or did I not say “REMOVED” Go back and check the numbering of the posts, you have several missing, those on whioch you racially abuse Straa, there are even post of yours that I and others have replied to that are now removed by the censor. You really don’t know much do you?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You insisted my 'wife" ran off with a black man.
Everyone here - including you, you ugly fat racist sexism pig - know EXACTLY what your intention was.
And IS.
Yes to make the world see you for the racist chickenshit cuckold that you are and it worked.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Macmillan.
~stomp stomp stomp~
Poor lying Skanque.
Why do you need to make sh|t up? Johnson – Ford?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46940
Feb 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar – all you can do is stamp your foot and scream refuted through your cloud of lack of evidence and offer lies and outdated and/or irrelevant links.
Is the UK still a monarchy?
Does the Queen still appoint the prime minister?
Is it true that Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated?
True that the LAW requires collective Christian worship in tax-funded schools?
And that UK captured TWO working Enigma's in Norway?

What else, Skanque?

That you tried to "insult" me by insisting my "wife" ran off with a black man?

And that you say you aren't the bigot by suggesting it?

Caught up?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46941
Feb 4, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
Remember Andrew Johnson , about the time when you first started voting.
How dare Lincoln die in office!

Do see: 12th Amendment

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46942
Feb 4, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Still no proof then so still relying on assumption, totally expected
Do you post video, Skanque?

There must be experience to back up all this drippydick talk.

You do understand guys don't care?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46943
Feb 4, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
UK has freedom of speech enshrined in law for almost 1000 years
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAYAHAHA!

You don't say?

Tell me: does the expression "Off with his head!" ring any bells?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Skanque: do show us all the law that guarantees the SUBJECT of the monarch freedom of speech.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46944
Feb 4, 2013
 
[QUOTE who="ChristineM"
How about Gerald Ford – another UNELECTED president
[/QUOTE]

12th Amendment.

You do understand that procedures are in place for the office being vacated, i.e., presidents die?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46945
Feb 4, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
And freedom of/from religion – guaranteed in all three constituent legal systems in effect in the UK
The UK has a state church.

See above...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46946
Feb 4, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
UK has freedom of speech enshrined in law for almost 1000 years
Liar.

(quote)
Wednesday, 26 December 2012 13:12
In U.K., Freedom of Speech and Press Hang in the Balance
Written by Alex Newman

In U.K., Freedom of Speech and Press Hang in the Balance

British subjects have never had the broad protections for freedom of speech or the press that American citizens take for granted as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but historically, the United Kingdom has been a beacon for free expression when compared to the rest of the world. Today, however, the right to freely express oneself in the U.K. is increasingly under threat, as exemplified by hundreds of bizarre prosecutions in recent years. The debate is heating up, though, as lawmakers consider reforms that would expand or quash liberty.

In recent years, authorities have been fiendishly prosecuting individuals merely for what they say on social media services such as Twitter and Facebook. Using controversial laws purporting to criminalize “insulting” or “offensive” comments, for instance, prosecutors have brought well over 1,000 cases each year since 2009. The numbers are steadily rising, too, according to data obtained by the Associated Press through freedom of information requests showing that 1,286 people were convicted last year merely for what they said in electronic communications.

Consider the case of 20-year-old Azhar Ahmed. After reports that some British troops had been killed in Afghanistan, he made a post on Facebook saying that soldiers should "should die and go to hell." He reportedly deleted the offensive comments almost immediately, saying he had written them in anger. Still, he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to 240 hours of so-called “community service.” Ahmed got off easy though — more than a few victims of the U.K. speech police have actually been jailed for their supposed “crimes.”

In another incident that attracted international attention, a 19-year-old man was arrested and held for a day after posting a picture of a burning paper poppy on Remembrance Day, a day to commemorate those who lost their lives defending freedom that is often associated with the poppy. He was finally released on bail and may still face charges. "What was the point of winning either World War if, in 2012, someone can be casually arrested by Kent Police for burning a poppy?" wondered lawyer David Allen Green, who has worked on other free speech cases.

Just last week, an atheist who ripped up a Koran in front of some Muslims was defending himself in court against charges of “causing religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress, by demonstrating hostility based on membership of a particular religious group,” according to news reports about the case. After long deliberations, the trial ended in a hung jury, but the Crown Prosecution Service might still decide to go for a re-trial.

Christians in particular have found themselves in the crosshairs of the speech police. Several street preachers, for instance, have been arrested just for criticizing homosexuality. In a 2010 case, Dale Mcalpine was arrested after he told a homosexual police officer that homosexuality was a sin. And as The New American reported recently, 81-year-old pro-life activist Edward Atkinson has been persecuted relentlessly for his activism on behalf of unborn children.
While free speech is supposed to be protected in the U.K., there are countless “exceptions” that could land somebody in jail merely for what they say. On the list of verboten expression: speech that is abusive, insulting, distressing, indecent, likely to cause a breach of the peace, racist, incites religious hatred, seditious, obscene, defamatory, scandalous to a court by criticizing judges, and more. Also prohibited is possession of information that could be used by a terrorist or even imagining the death of the monarch. Libel laws in the U.K....
(clip)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46948
Feb 4, 2013
 
*scroll*
SupaAFC

Larbert, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46949
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you saying the very first post that you were wrong would have demonstrated that you were wrong.
This is how it is done in English:
"Gee... I was wrong".
As you recall, you took us through the "I made a grammatical error".
Which.. in English... is a lie.
Speaking of lying, when are you going to admit that you lied about universities not giving out politics degrees or the Weimar republic not being a democracy which you then tried to change by adding "in WWII"?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Almighty?

Just another in a long line.
Of word games. You pounce on semantics to avoid the arguments themselves.

For instance, like refusing to define democracy.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I like to keep it in the same breath as whether or not the UK is a monarchy, so we can all see if it is a matter of you just being wrong, or that you are a liar.
Yet you refuse to declare whether Britain counts as a Constitutional monarchy. For all your talk about integrity and deceit, it sure is ironic that you are incredibly selective with what you say.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I've addressed everything you have brought many times.

You bore me.
Lie. If that were the case then you would have defined democracy already.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not inclined to respond to the same question since you can't seem respond to the very first question I asked.

Is the United Kingdom a monarchy, yes or no?
Lie. I, and many others, have told you why this question is fallacious. You only bring up this refuted question when you have no argument which appears to be the majority of the time.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Still waiting for you to find anything that would indicate that I was a fundamentalist.

I understand: it is part of your rant, a prelude that you are unable to make an utterance without insisting someone -anyone- who points to the crap that falls from your sticky lips must be a fundamentalist or a Christian or whatever flavor of religion you foist upon the him/her.

You wear your NotBot badge with distinction: a first class rated idiot.
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...
SupaAFC

Larbert, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46950
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions end with this punctuation mark:?
Still waiting for you to acknowledge that you LIED about the word "unanimous" being a grammatical error.
I am still waiting for you to accept that you were wrong about universities and politics degrees, the Weimar republic, and that Britain is not a democracy.

Facts are, manchild, that you are a massive hypocrite, cannot refute the arguments themselves, thus cling to word games.

Scores a point, claims knock-out. Barefoot logic.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not cite Wikipedia because I did not get it from Wikipedia. You loaded it into google and then FOUND a copy of it in wikipedia.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
From there you JUMPED to the conclusion that that is where I got it.
You did not look any further- not to the LIST of other sites including the ORIGINAL source and instead went off on the Wiki rant.
HAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
It could not be anymore obvious that you got the excerpt from Wikipedia. Every time I paste a quote from your uncited quotes into Google, I get an ad-verbatim copy from a website.

You most likely do not have the physical copy of the source - Wiki does not even quote it because the author of the article, whether citing it or not, wrote his/her own version of the statement;

Wikipedia is the -only- source where the quote shows up ad verbatim;

You -never-, ever, cite your sources.

Conclusion? Manchild got caught in another contradiction and is trying to save face.

Prove me wrong - show me the original source.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know the difference between sources, DOLT.
So says the guy who used an anonymous unaccredited website for a claim about Edward VII that no other source validated.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
That something put into Wikipedia isn't a FACT just because it exists there, that unless it is sourced- that we can identify who put it there- it is just an uninformed opinion.
Right. But you ignored the points I raised that were suppoted, and cited, in Wikipedia, yet demand that I accept the claims from the same website.

How does that work? Explain it to me.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as you could go to Wikipedia and insist that the UK isn't a monarchy, for example.
I see. So if Wikipedia's cited statements support your beliefs, they are legit, but if they do not, we cannot trust Wikipedia.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Other readers who see that do know just how stupid you are, they don't know how many times I have caught you lying, they don't know that when you take something a person says here you don't hesitate a second to change what he said and then insist that it is a quote, even when you have changed entirely that meaning.
Speaking of lying, when are you going to:

Accept you lied about universities not giving out politics degrees?

The Weimar republic not being a democracy?

The fact you refuse to define democracy?

Obviously integrity is a fundamentally important issue for you, so let's tidy up your own mess first.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have it in you to admit you are wrong.
Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?
Are mammals A and B the same? Yes or no?

Is is only possible for words to be defined by one definition? Yes or no?

Can guilt only be proven through an admission by the accused? Yes or no?

After wafting through your latest tirades I see that you failed to answer:

Whether guilt is only proven through the accused;

Whether Britain is a Constitutional monarchy or not;

How democracy can be defined;

Whether mammals A and B are the same;

Whether words can only be defined by one word or not.

And you -again- ignored my citations proving universities hand out degrees that I myself have!

Liar, liar, pants on fire.
fdsfds

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46951
Feb 5, 2013
 

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46952
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The UK has a state church.
See above...
the world has no god, so what's new...lots of crazy people build building for non-existent deities around the world, what is your point?

Are you crying about getting the constitutional monarchy definition wrong again?
SupaAFC

Larbert, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46953
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
(quote)
Wednesday, 26 December 2012 13:12
In U.K., Freedom of Speech and Press Hang in the Balance
Written by Alex Newman
Did you actually read the article or just stop at the title?

The debate is focused on the extent to how far people should have the right to express strong/extreme views in social media. Because many people use Facebook, Twitter, and so on, many people affected by tragedy can and have read comments by others that are considered offensive.

That is a completely different kettle of fish compared to expressing your views on, say, the government. We have the right to protest against whatever we want - even against that whole issue over to what extent posting on social media should be accepted or not.

You want to talk about denial of freedom of expression? Go ask a Chinese dissident or someone in Saudi Arabia who cannot criticise their regimes without being killed.

You truly are clutching at straws.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46954
Feb 5, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
the world has no god, so what's new...lots of crazy people build building for non-existent deities around the world, what is your point?
Are you crying about getting the constitutional monarchy definition wrong again?
Skeptic - just like to say, I like your forthright style. Keep up the good work!

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46955
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the UK still a monarchy?
Does the Queen still appoint the prime minister?
Is it true that Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated?
True that the LAW requires collective Christian worship in tax-funded schools?
And that UK captured TWO working Enigma's in Norway?
What else, Skanque?
That you tried to "insult" me by insisting my "wife" ran off with a black man?
And that you say you aren't the bigot by suggesting it?
Caught up?
Yes
Approves the appointment
Yes, is it true that John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur and Gerald R. Ford were never elected president?
It is one law, as explained to you several times it is overridden by the Universal declaration of human rights. Tell me is it true that the US has no intention of ratifying the Universal declaration of human rights?
Working but not full spec as I have REPEATEDLY shown you and which you REPEATEDLY fail to respond.
What else drippydick cuckold?
You repeatedly try to insult me by calling me skanque, by lying about my husband, you repeatedly try to racially insult Straa and you rant and rave in incredulity when it backfires on you.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How dare Lincoln die in office!
Do see: 12th Amendment
How dare Eden resign? Do understand that until then the UK had no formal mechanism for selecting a new leader under such circumstances. Now it does.

Look, works BOTH ways
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you post video, Skanque?
There must be experience to back up all this drippydick talk.
You do understand guys don't care?
Still no proof and making up BS in frustration only means you are making up BS in frustration.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAYAHAHA!
You don't say?
Tell me: does the expression "Off with his head!" ring any bells?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Skanque: do show us all the law that guarantees the SUBJECT of the monarch freedom of speech.
So are you saying that a fictional play by Shakespeare is colouring your judgement (or perhaps the black adder II series) or are you saying your are fooking clueless about British history?

Free speech is a tenet of common law, the British legal system and courts uphold this principle. It is backed up by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Better luck next time.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
12th Amendment.
You do understand that procedures are in place for the office being vacated, i.e., presidents die?
Not my problem, still UNELECTED. Live with it
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The UK has a state church.
See above...
So, it also has a road system, that does not mean everyone drives.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar.
(quote)
Wednesday, 26 December 2012 13:12
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998

It does not matter how some sensation seeking reporter interprets HUMAN RIGHTS for New American sensationalism magazine.

Funny how Newman forgot to mention that each of the cases he cited broke other laws, the argument between freedom of speech and say, anti terrorist laws, anti racism laws, deformation laws is argued in court. That is what the British legal system is all about, I realise it’s not written on a piece of paper for the hard of thinking like you (and Newman) to follow but hey, you don’t live here so who cares what you think?

What him, you and many americans seem to get all confused over is that freedom of speech comes with responsibility, not freedom of speech on YOUR terms but responsible freedom. In the UK you are free to verbally abuse who you want but expect the FULL weight of the law to jump on you if you cross the boundary to irresponsibility.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46956
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of lying, when are you going to admit that you lied about universities not giving out politics degrees
Waiting for proof.

Setting aside your claim to have two.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46957
Feb 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SupaAFC wrote:
.. or the Weimar republic not being a democracy which you then tried to change by adding "in WWII"?
Never the quote.

Always the straw man.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 45,221 - 45,240 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the Barack Obama Forum right now

Search the Barack Obama Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Jesus Christ 1,034,499
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min wojar 167,662
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 9 min Bonnie 218,575
5 Ways The U.S. Can Respond To Russia Invading ... 11 min Yep2 1,596
Leonard Pitts Jr.: Race and Obama news coverage 25 min REAL BRO 1
Obama blasts 'least productive Congress in mode... 38 min senior citizen 417
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 47 min frontporchreactionary 29,919
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••