In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51425 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.

SupaAFC

Leven, UK

#48061 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have a point, SuperFAG.
Parliament has not had assent to a bill refused by a monarch in over 300 years. There is a point. Refute it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a SuperEGO that won't allow you to let it go after I have already humiliated you.
It is your fault, dear.
You have humiliated nobody but yourself. You have even admitted that all you do is try to refute me on word usage because you cannot attack the arguments themselves.

That is why, manchild, all you can do is project your own issues onto other posters.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>And I still make more money than you and have time for the farm and watch TV three or four hours a day.
I was completely unaware that you are an omniscient being that knows everybody inside out.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I KNOW, SuperFAG, you can't keep up.

I would suggest putting less thought in your posts but you clearly... are doing that already.
How about attacking the arguments instead of the person?

Do I really need to post that big nasty list of points you cannot refute once again?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>We've already established you don't know what "loaded question" is.
Or "red herring".
In your world, correct. In reality, no.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>And of course you insisted "unanimous" means "almost everybody".

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
To this day you refuse to address the point itself.

Why, for all your talk of "humiliating" me, can you never actually address the arguments?
Imhotep

Winter Garden, FL

#48062 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are in good company here where there are many stupid people who lie their azzes off whenever they move their lips.
The NotBot forum.
I have always been amused by you and people of your ilk: you rail against people who do not share your beliefs and scream and cry an insist you must be right though you have absolutely no proof one way or the other.
Don't you hate it when you're caught lying, you ignorant fool? You're just another Robo poster with nothing to say

mommy be changing yo'rer diaper around this time.

Whoops I forgot you like to eat diaper contents bon appétit!
SupaAFC

Leven, UK

#48063 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Far be it for me to judge, of course the UK is a monarchy, SuperFAG's (et al.) refusal to acknowledge this is a reflection of his massive ego which is unable to concede that he is wrong, even after proved so.
Though I have to say it's hard for me to understand how an entire country would tolerate the institution, i.e., forking out billions of dollars to keep the queen and her family in bobbles.
Once again my manchild friend is running with a strawman.

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.

The point of contention, oh dishonest one, is your claim that as a result Britain does not qualify as a democracy.

It is no different whatsoever to arguing that the United States is a republic and only a republic. The only difference is your immensely hypocritical standards.
SupaAFC

Leven, UK

#48064 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: If you follow the thread, you will find I define...
Only that the world does not change to fit how a manchild on an internet forum perceives it to be.

If you want to debate monarchies and democracies, then show us actual definitions used by political and legal scholars.

That includes Constitutional monarchy.

That includes democracy.

That includes republic.

It is not "let's play by Barefoot's standards" time. It is time for "let's play by academic standards".
Imhotep

Winter Garden, FL

#48065 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
If Sweden is a democracy, the people can change the official name, eh?
Do you know anyone on the face of the planet who is asserting that North Korea is a democracy?
Not me.
Just a few minutes ago, we were told- not by me- that Sweden was a constitutional monarchy.
Is a constitutional monarchy a type of monarchy... or do we need to change the English language?
.

You lost the argument stupid

I can't help you're reading problem comprehension. I gave you the whole article failure to comprehend it is your problem not mine

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48066 Apr 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Parliament has not had assent to a bill refused by a monarch in over 300 years.
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48067 Apr 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
You have humiliated nobody but yourself.
You don't remember insisting that a ' unanimous choice ' means 'almost everyone'?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48068 Apr 7, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you hate it when you're caught lying, you ignorant fool?!
Did Queen Elizabeth appoint the last prime minister?

Is United KING_dom a monarchy?

Is the Queen the head of the state church?

Does Britain have a law requiring public worship in tax-funded schools?

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48069 Apr 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
Nobody, despite your continual spin, denies that Britain has a monarchy.
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

PS: PACKY insisted the UK was not a monarchy EXPLICITLY.

I'd bet you but you know: you word is absolute garbage and you've already britished your way out of a bet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48070 Apr 7, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
<quoted text>.
You lost the argument stupid
Hey, stupid: your own post proves that Sweden is (as I said) a monarchy.

I guess you banged your head against your boyfriend's belt buckle a little hard.

I don't have to make you admit you are wrong, just slap the snot out of you (not difficult).

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48071 Apr 7, 2013
Imhotep wrote:
**********
Form of government:
Constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy
**********
Is a constitutional monarchy a monarchy?

Yes or no, Shug.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48072 Apr 7, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
It is not "let's play by Barefoot's standards" time. It is time for "let's play by academic standards".
SupaAFC
#46664
Tuesday Jan 22


Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.

++++++++++

Academic standards.... was Macmillan the unanimous choice?

Yes or no?

Remember, I already said he wasn't (NO).

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48073 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar, Meatball.
liar [&#712;la&#618;&#6 01;]
n
a person who has lied or lies repeatedly
You are the liar here douche bag

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48074 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a liar, Meatball
liar [ l&#299;&#601;r]
n
a person who has lied or lies repeatedly
You are the liar here douche bag!
SupaAFC

Leven, UK

#48075 Apr 7, 2013
In response to Barefoot's claim that I had no point, I said:

"Parliament has not had assent to a bill refused by a monarch in over 300 years. There is a point. Refute it".

His "refutation":
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?
Barefoot could not refute the point so instead resorted to the same loaded question he continually asks when backed in a corner.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>You don't remember insisting that a ' unanimous choice ' means 'almost everyone'?

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
If you want to debate words compete on Countdown or play Scrabble with your carer.

When you are ready to actually attack the argument, let me know.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?
Is the United States a republic, yes or no?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: PACKY insisted...
I do not care. Whoever you have racially called "Packy" can argue his/her own points.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd bet you but you know: you word is absolute garbage and you've already britished your way out of a bet.
Only that when pressed to show where a bet was ever agreed, you go amazingly silent - despite hypocritically stressing the importance of quoting people "exactly"!
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Academic standards.... was Macmillan the unanimous choice?

Yes or no?

Remember, I already said he wasn't (NO).
How about showing us the whole post? We would not want people to think that you are deliberately mining a quote to argue a red herring to avoid addressing the actual argument itself now, would we?
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>KING_dom of Sweden.

I didn't pick the name, Meatball.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you can copy and paste.
Now tell us the official name of Sweden.
Karma replied:
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
what's the official name of North Korea
PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF NORTH KOREA, you say
So North Korea must be a democracy, because of its name!!
I guess Lil Kim Un was ELECTED president...
what's the official name of Red China
PEOPLE'S DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CHINA
So Red China must be a democracy,'cause is says so in its name..
and what is Barefoot's official name????
Barefoot responds:
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
PS: If you follow the thread, you will find I define Sweden because it is a monarchy, not because their official name is the KING_dom of Sweden.
Rewind:

"I didn't pick the name, Meatball"

"Now tell us the official name of Sweden"

So... within a page, Barefoot used the name of Sweden as an argument that it is a monarchy... then tried to dismiss a comparative example by claiming the name of a country has no impact on its system of government.

Simply amazing. You can never admit to being wrong, can you?

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48076 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
KING_dom of Sweden.
I didn't pick the name, Meatball.
mon·ar·chy mon-er-kee]
noun, plural mon·ar·chies.
1. a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually ***** or nominally **** lodged in a monarch. Compare absolute monarchy, limited monarchy.
2. supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person.
Sweden is a democracy with a constitution (the king have no political powers)

1. no political power at all
2. no political power at all

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48077 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
MONARCHY, you say?
USA is a Republic Not a democracy

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48078 Apr 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, stupid: your own post proves that Sweden is (as I said) a monarchy.
I guess you banged your head against your boyfriend's belt buckle a little hard.
I don't have to make you admit you are wrong, just slap the snot out of you (not difficult).
you have somekind of mental problem ? monarchies can be democracies and that is a fact no lies from stupid americans like you can change that!
SupaAFC

Leven, UK

#48079 Apr 7, 2013
List of points and arguments that Barefoot cannot refute or explain:

"The world still awaits for the quote where I agreed to a bet.

The world is also waiting for you to define democracy...

... and explain why things within an umbrella term are the same...

... and why things can only be defined by one word...

... and what the Weimar Republic was if it was not a democracy...

... and why you cannot admit that universities do indeed give out politics degrees...

... and why for a supposedly powerful monarchy, Parliament has not had a bill refused by the royals in over 300 years...

... and why a Constitutional monarchy "is a monarchy", but absolute and electives are "kinds"...

... and why a Constitutional monarchy requires one physical Constitution to be defined as such...

... and why, quite simply, everybody and everything else - academia, history, reality - simply ridicules your inane argument about Britain not being a democracy.

For a guy who stresses the importance of quotes and pasting as many source as he can, it sure is funny how you never really seem to answer anything."

Goes for the pawns, ignores the King.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48080 Apr 7, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the liar here douche bag
Still waiting for you to prove it, jizz'mbreath.

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Donald Trump on first 100 days: It's a differen... 2 min Go Trump 107
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min VetnorsGate 1,523,958
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 18 min Jacques Ottawa 240,411
News Trump supporters cheer his combative stance wit... 29 min Samuel Nicholos 1,561
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 2 hr Go Trump 8,562
News Winners and losers from President Trump's first... 3 hr Prosperity Fundie... 1
News Obama meets with at-risk youth ahead of Chicago... 4 hr You Lie 98
More from around the web