In America, atheists are still in the...

In America, atheists are still in the closet

There are 51167 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

#48452 Apr 30, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
Over 300 years and counting, manchild..
Nope.

Anything else, SuperFAG?

Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?

What is 'unanimous' mean in the UK, SuerFAG?

SupaAFC
#46664
Tuesday Jan 22
Review: Macmillan was the unanimous choice of the sitting Conservative cabinet; he was duly appointed the new PM.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#48453 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
Anything else, SuperFAG?
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?
What is 'unanimous' mean in the UK, SuerFAG?
SupaAFC
#46664
Tuesday Jan 22
<quoted text>
You're still here? Or did they let you out, again?

You are just as ugly-inside as ever, I see.

Typical True Believer™, though.

Sad.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48454 Apr 30, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United King_dom a monarchy?
Yes or no?
USA is a republic

Yes or no ?
SupaAFC

Falkirk, UK

#48455 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Americans elect their president, Aunt Sally.
The words of the Constitution against the words of a resident internet manchild.

I opt for the Constitution.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
When was the last monarch of the UK elected?
When was the last prime minister elected?
OH... right: you live in a monarchy where the monarchy isn't elected and the monarchy appoints the PM.
And can close down the Parliament if she wants.
That you are still ignoring the electoral process of our MPs, and with that the PM, is outright dishonest.

That you are still ignoring that our PM is nothing like your president as a legislative entity due to our politics having emphasis on the parties, is outright dishonest.

That you still think the Queen uses her powers on her own initiative despite how it works in reality, is outright dishonest.

But then, manchild does dishonesty.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Poor SuperFAG: now it's the 1966 World Cup.

All to avoid admitting the UK is a monarchy.
Poor manchild: deliberately playing obtuse to ignore the point of the analogy.

Analogies really are your holy water.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>No sweetie: it isn't me to disprove.
Of course not because Barefoot never has to prove anything.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I like to prove is when you flat out lie and I use your exact quotes.
I am well aware that you think owning cars means you are a car.

It would mightily help you to actually read what those quotes say to save yourself from further embarrassment.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Putting aside the nonsense that a monarch has to have legislative powers to be a monarch, and putting aside the monarch of the UK does have legislative powers.
Show us the Queen making a law. You claim we are not a democracy by virtue of having a monarch, so show us our undemocratic government at work.

That's right... you cannot.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Including: only the monarch has ultimate approval of the legislation you inside he/she has no power over.
Over 300 years and counting.

You even gave me a big scary list of bills, but could not show a single case where the Queen refused to give assent.

The smoke is still wafting up from your foot as I type.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.

Anything else, SuperFAG?
Yup. Over 300 years and counting. No wonder all you can do is stomp your feet and deny it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the United KING_dom a monarchy, yes or no?
Already answered; it is not my fault you cannot find it.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is 'unanimous' mean in the UK, SuerFAG?
You still cannot address the argument months after that exchange. Cling to that pawn tight, manchild.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48456 May 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still here? Or did they let you out, again?
You still following me around, Fat Bob?

That part-time job flipping burgers not work out for you?

Getting up every morning too stressful for you, eh?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48457 May 1, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
USA is a republic
Yes or no ?
Already posted... before you asked.

Sweden still have a king?

Yes or no?

No king over here.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48458 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<quoted text>
The words of the Constitution against the words of a resident internet manchild.
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.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48459 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
That you are still ignoring the electoral process of our MPs, and with that the PM, is outright dishonest.
The prime minister of the United King_dom is appointed by the MONARCH.

Yes or no?

I say yes.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48460 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
That you are still ignoring that our PM is nothing like your president
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.

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.

The PM is not elected.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48461 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
That you still think the Queen uses her powers on her own initiative
I've listed the major powers of the UK monarch many times.

You insist she has no powers.

Does the monarchy appoint the PM?

Yes or no?

You have never EVER voted for the office of PM.

Never.

Can the Queen shut down the Parliament today, if she wanted? Yes or no?

Of course: legally, she can.

I'd bet you but then you have already demonstrated you are not a man of your word: you britished out of the bet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48462 May 1, 2013
SupaAFC wrote:
<
You still cannot address the argument months after that exchange.
Address?

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

Does unanimous mean everyone, yes or no?

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48463 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Already posted... before you asked.
Sweden still have a king?
Yes or no?
No king over here.
USA is a republic not a democracy

Sweden still a democracy and still more democratic than police state usa

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#48464 May 1, 2013
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
USA is a republic not a democracy
You no speaky English.

PS:

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 more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#48465 May 1, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You no speaky English.
PS:
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.
You seem to be really bad at writing english!

PS:
de·moc·ra·cy
[dih-mok-ruh-see]
noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
SupaAFC

Falkirk, 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.

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.

Newt Gingrich Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Dole says GOPers should fall in line behind Trump 6 hr USA Suicide Watcher 7
News Santorum, Gingrich tote Etch A Sketch toys (Mar '12) Sun Vaginal wall failure 25
News Gingrich: Romney will win 'over 300 electoral v... (Oct '12) May 27 Alimony 29
News Gay half-sister of Republican Gingrich backs Obama (Dec '11) May 27 Adolph Trumpler 215
News Newt Gingrich slams Bush family's friendliness ... (Jul '14) May 27 Elite Billionaire... 18
News Newly released court documents cast doubt on Gi... (Dec '11) May 25 Marla Maples jr 29
News Cain endorses Gingrich (Jan '12) May 11 Rigby 145
More from around the web