Ableton Forum

-

Another trait I've noticed is that most people only seem to approve of democracy when and only when it suits their needs. I doubt, for example, that P. Diddy would have vote-or-died, had the 51% of Americans intended to vote he be made to swallow his own nuts.

Just. Saying.

Samuel L. Jizzle wrote:Another trait I've noticed is that most people only seem to approve of democracy when and only when it suits their needs. I doubt, for example, that P. Diddy would have vote-or-died, had the 51% of Americans intended to vote he be made to swallow his own nuts.

Just. Saying.

Yep just look at the Tea Party for an example of that on the Right. They only really started caring when a Democrat was elected.

There are scenarios where democracy means a large minority is marginalized, Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, and Ukraine are examples of countries with substantial minorities with cultural, religious, historical and ethnic gaps the size of the Grand Canyon exists.

Machinesworking wrote:Yep just look at the Tea Party for an example of that on the Right. They only really started caring when a Democrat was elected.

Debatable.

Samuel L. Jizzle wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:Yep just look at the Tea Party for an example of that on the Right. They only really started caring when a Democrat was elected.

Debatable.

Not that debatable. They had years under Bush to care about human rights abuses and government corruption, but they were for the most part completely silent. IMO because it was their 'guy' in office, good or bad. That's the one thing the right clearly has over the left, the attitude that even if their guy screws it all up at least it isn't a 'liberal'. Lefties turn on each other all the time because they have an ideologically "compassionate" approach compared to a scriptural or dogma based approach. That and even their own authority figures are suspect, and they are all 'experts'.

Machinesworking wrote:Not that debatable. They had years under Bush to care about human rights abuses and government corruption, but they were for the most part completely silent. IMO because it was their 'guy' in office, good or bad. That's the one thing the right clearly has over the left, the attitude that even if their guy screws it all up at least it isn't a 'liberal'. Lefties turn on each other all the time because they have an ideologically "compassionate" approach compared to a scriptural or dogma based approach. That and even their own authority figures are suspect, and they are all 'experts'.

If it's not debatable, then why are you debating it?

Samuel L. Jizzle wrote: If it's not debatable, then why are you debating it?

There's a difference between explaining something and debating it.
You have to have an opposing opinion to have a debate.
All that you present is , not a solid opinion.

-

Machinesworking wrote:There's a difference between explaining something and debating it.
You have to have an opposing opinion to have a debate.
All that you present is , not a solid opinion.

Cute how you feel the need to explain this. Cuter still that you can't conceive of an opinion contrary to your own.

The Finn wrote:

eyeknow wrote:Funny how people don't think the "left" has any religious nuts.

I don't make that assumption. But those Christian broadcasts seem to me to be Tea Party in orientation.

I'm sure they are. Not doubting you for a minute. I was just kinda being general.

eyeknow wrote:I think it's safe to say that right or left, religious nuts are plentiful. BTW, as someone who RARELY posts in the lounge, I just wanted to make clear that I have nothing against religion personally, just saying I don't think it's limited to the right.

Extremism is relative to a perceived middle ground that we deem safe, wholesome, acceptable, repeatable. That pleasant sounding, fair-minded, reassuring, universally acceptable, non-confrontational, safe-to-say middle. That smiling, sweet lying middle; that always to be trusted, never to question, never to be banned "middle". That middle that is simultaneously subverting, pickpocketing, invading everything everywhere. Have a great day!

Samuel L. Jizzle wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:Yep just look at the Tea Party for an example of that on the Right. They only really started caring when a Democrat was elected.

Debatable.

Agreed (at debatable) Though I hate the tea party, it wasn't a simple thing of "well a democrat was elected, let's throw a tea party" thing, it was far more involved.

Personally, I can't stand the separations of any government. It should be less bickering and bullshit and more agreeing. I've been dreaming like that since I was a child, I think some people call it delusional.

-

See, I said it was debatable!

Samuel L. Jizzle wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:There's a difference between explaining something and debating it.
You have to have an opposing opinion to have a debate.
All that you present is , not a solid opinion.

Cute how you feel the need to explain this. Cuter still that you can't conceive of an opinion contrary to your own.

Well now, if that isn't a pot calling the kettle black I really don't know what is?