Dubstepforum.com

Markey wrote:My random thought is that I've ben on this forum for hours now and I haven't seen a post more recent that 4 years ago. Dubstep's dead baby, Dubstep's dead.

u wot

Any government that chooses not to provide healthcare to its citizens is essentially declaring war on them.

Discuss.

jesslem wrote:Any government that chooses not to provide healthcare to its citizens is essentially declaring war on them.

Discuss.

You know wot

jesslem wrote:Any government that chooses not to provide healthcare to its citizens is essentially declaring war on them.

Discuss.

No. I mean, it's fucking obvious, but...

Declaring war would imply a change in circumstance - the U.S., for example, have never had nationalised healthcare. Has their government been in a perpetual state of war with the people that elected it (and as such, tacitly agreed to no nationalised healthcare) since the Declaration of Independence? Did Britain only stop its war against itself after WW2? Were we fighting the Germans AND the British until 1945?

What a daft notion.

jesslem wrote:Any government that chooses not to provide healthcare to its citizens is essentially declaring war on them.

Discuss.

only congress can issue a declaration of war, and i dont think thats on the docket anytime soon

I like it. No need to get too technical when you use words like war so close to a word like essentially.

Phenomenologically it's not a totally unsound statement, because there have been wars where the consequences of a deliberate attack were less severe, than ending up with a state without healthcare.
And then you have to define what are actually wars.
A declaration of war is not necessary in a lot of what becomes actual wars historically, so that's not a direct argument against the statement either.

particle-jim wrote:

wolf89 wrote:Sounded almost like one track for an hour

this doesn't really sell it to me tbh

That's the thing though. To make it not boring. It's slow and meditative and moved slowly for part to part. It was the opposite of what a dubstep set would be like for example with drops every however many bars. Instead it was more just grooves and atmospheres shifting.

Apparently Digital Tunes are accepting bitcoins now...

wolf89 wrote:

particle-jim wrote:

wolf89 wrote:Sounded almost like one track for an hour

this doesn't really sell it to me tbh

That's the thing though. To make it not boring. It's slow and meditative and moved slowly for part to part. It was the opposite of what a dubstep set would be like for example with drops every however many bars. Instead it was more just grooves and atmospheres shifting.

It does evolve rather slow, though, doesn't it? Even for painting music.

been on a drug documentary rinse out last day

dont u always think them ppl who get blacked out are just wannabes trying to look hard

if u were some baller south london drug millionaire, why would u incriminate yourself on camera ffs

damn son double murder bout 15 mins from me parents house
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fa ... er-3179063

Goodbye Egon

magma wrote:

jesslem wrote:Any government that chooses not to provide healthcare to its citizens is essentially declaring war on them.

Discuss.

No. I mean, it's fucking obvious, but...

Declaring war would imply a change in circumstance - the U.S., for example, have never had nationalised healthcare. Has their government been in a perpetual state of war with the people that elected it (and as such, tacitly agreed to no nationalised healthcare) since the Declaration of Independence? Did Britain only stop its war against itself after WW2? Were we fighting the Germans AND the British until 1945?

What a daft notion.

I don't know if you know this, but the US was not, and still isn't based on electoral democracy. In the beginning, the only individuals with the ability, let alone right, to vote were land owning white males. And considering that most of the 13 colonies had been largely divided up by the british before the revolution, and only realistically split further after the revolution between successful, and powerful, generals (who in many cases were already part of the land owning elite), could you not say that when they made the decisions which lead to the formation of a new state, set in on and around land that people were already living on, which is after all what constitutes an invasion, wouldn't you at least consider that they were, in essence at least, declaring war?

And to your questions, perhaps.

sevilla trap lords

southstar wrote:Goodbye Egon

heartbroken



2geva at last

jesslem wrote:

magma wrote:

jesslem wrote:Any government that chooses not to provide healthcare to its citizens is essentially declaring war on them.

Discuss.

No. I mean, it's fucking obvious, but...

Declaring war would imply a change in circumstance - the U.S., for example, have never had nationalised healthcare. Has their government been in a perpetual state of war with the people that elected it (and as such, tacitly agreed to no nationalised healthcare) since the Declaration of Independence? Did Britain only stop its war against itself after WW2? Were we fighting the Germans AND the British until 1945?

What a daft notion.

I don't know if you know this, but the US was not, and still isn't based on electoral democracy. In the beginning, the only individuals with the ability, let alone right, to vote were land owning white males. And considering that most of the 13 colonies had been largely divided up by the british before the revolution, and only realistically split further after the revolution between successful, and powerful, generals (who in many cases were already part of the land owning elite), could you not say that when they made the decisions which lead to the formation of a new state, set in on and around land that people were already living on, which is after all what constitutes an invasion, wouldn't you at least consider that they were, in essence at least, declaring war?

And to your questions, perhaps.

no i do not considered elections invasions, thats fucking stupid

#PANE

nowaysj wrote:

wolf89 wrote:

particle-jim wrote:

wolf89 wrote:Sounded almost like one track for an hour

this doesn't really sell it to me tbh

That's the thing though. To make it not boring. It's slow and meditative and moved slowly for part to part. It was the opposite of what a dubstep set would be like for example with drops every however many bars. Instead it was more just grooves and atmospheres shifting.

It does evolve rather slow, though, doesn't it? Even for painting music.

That's why it's good though.

Sorry, contacted the international board of standards, and their song progression committee wrote a quick opinion that the evolution is too slow, and the songs are therefore bad.


They're the standards board man, what are you going to do?