Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.

What is Loopy Pro?Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.

Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.

Download on the App Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Yep, America, Land Of The Free

edited July 2022 in Other

Hey @CapnWillie, sorry, bro, you can close this but, for sure, they’ll be coming for everyone that’s not white KKKhristian male patriarch.

«13

Comments

  • Ouch, that’s bad

  • This ruling being specific for "taxpayer funded establishments" means that it was already legal for establishments without taxpayer funding?

  • @Grandbear said:
    This ruling being specific for "taxpayer funded establishments" means that it was already legal for establishments without taxpayer funding?

    Yeah, I wondered about that, too. But “taxpayer funded” may just mean taxpayers spend their money there.

    I don’t know, but I may have to get one of my assault rifles down from my gun case and head to Tennessee. I’m not waiting for an email from my pal, George Soros.

  • edited July 2022

    A simple web search proves this post is not only defamatory, it’s a lie. Stop posting this garbage. Democratic Underground is well known for their far-Left bias and they regularly lie about everything.

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/jewish-couples-lawsuit-over-christian-foster-home-rejection-dismissed.html

    From the misrepresented article on the ruling:

    A Tennessee court has rejected a lawsuit by a Jewish couple suing the state government after being told that they couldn't undergo foster parent training through a publicly-supported Christian charity due to religious differences.

    In a decision released June 27, a three-judge panel of the Chancery Court in Davidson County ruled 2-1 to grant a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram against the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and DCS Commissioner Jenifer Nichols.

    The court rejected claims of discrimination.

    The Rutan-Rams argued in a January lawsuit that they were denied access to foster training programs through the state-supported Holston United Methodist Home for Children because they were not Christian. The organization only offers foster training programs to couples who uphold Christian beliefs.

    The majority concluded that the couple's legal claims were moot, as they were able to complete the programs and receive certification through DCS months after being rejected by Holston.

    "Because the Couple has received the very services they claim they were previously denied, the Panel Majority adopts the Defendants' analysis and concludes that any issue related to denial of services is not capable of the prospective relief the Plaintiffs seek and is now moot," read the panel majority opinion.

    The majority ruled that the couple's complaint about the Holston Home for Children was inapplicable because they originally planned to foster a child in Florida, while Holston only handles in-state arrangements.

  • ^

    "So that means that Holston United Methodist Home for Children is allowing Jewish couples to undergo foster parent training, right?... That means that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is allowing Jewish couples to undergo foster parent training...RIGHT?"

    https://i.redd.it/8zin767fov371.jpg

  • edited July 2022

    @AlexY said:
    ^

    "So that means that Holston United Methodist Home for Children is allowing Jewish couples to undergo foster parent training, right?... That means that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is allowing Jewish couples to undergo foster parent training...RIGHT?"

    >

    Read the original article and stop falling for propaganda from Democratic Underground.

    https://www.christianpost.com/news/jewish-couples-lawsuit-over-christian-foster-home-rejection-dismissed.html

  • And todays wooden spoon award for stirring goes to @LinearLineman

  • wimwim
    edited July 2022

    I hope the two in this thread who are supposed to be ignoring each other do so. I'd hate to see either of them get banned.

  • @BiancaNeve said:
    And todays wooden spoon award for stirring goes to @LinearLineman

    Well, when they tie my Jew hands behind my back I won’t be stirring anymore. By all means, don’t talk about it., and certainly don’t comment,

  • edited July 2022

    @LinearLineman said:

    @BiancaNeve said:
    And todays wooden spoon award for stirring goes to @LinearLineman

    Well, when they tie my Jew hands behind my back I won’t be stirring anymore. By all means, don’t talk about it., and certainly don’t comment,

    Nobody came for anyone. A Christian run charity only provides its services to other christians I’m sure Jewish charities favour other Jews and Muslim charities look after Muslims.

  • @BiancaNeve said:

    @LinearLineman said:

    @BiancaNeve said:
    And todays wooden spoon award for stirring goes to @LinearLineman

    Well, when they tie my Jew hands behind my back I won’t be stirring anymore. By all means, don’t talk about it., and certainly don’t comment,

    Nobody came for anyone. A Christian run charity only provides its services to other christians I’m sure Jewish charities favour other Jews and Muslim charities look after Muslims.

    That’s about the size of it.

  • @BiancaNeve said:
    Nobody came for anyone. A Christian run charity only provides its services to other christians I’m sure Jewish charities favour other Jews and Muslim charities look after Muslims.

    The complication is state funding. The organization receives taxpayer money. That gets extremely sticky in the US due to how the statement "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." has interpreted by various groups over time.

    If the discussion gets into the nuances of that, which involves the concepts of "separation of church and state," taxpayer funding of services provided by religious organizations, and religious freedom (that of the organization providing the services as well as the people seeking the services), it could get ugly indeed. Not that I'll be around to find out. I'm bowing out now.

    This Tennessee case dismissal does little to nothing. It didn't rule on the validity of the law, but was dismissed because the couple did get the services that they wanted. A technicality. The couple and the group supporting them will absolutely appeal, because their real goal is to get the law itself struck down. They may indeed prevail eventually.

  • @Grandbear said:
    This ruling being specific for "taxpayer funded establishments" means that it was already legal for establishments without taxpayer funding?

    Establishments/organizations that take government funding (taxpayer funding) are often not allowed to discriminate in ways that privately funded establishments/organizations are allowed to.

  • This looks like a job for The Satanic Temple!

    https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/about-us

  • I love the argument “this is totally not true, but if it is I am totally ok with the discrimination that didn’t happen.”

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • The correct response to “the majority discriminates against minorities” is not “it’s ok: minorities discriminate, too.”

  • @LinearLineman

    Not to stir the pot further, but I honestly thought this thread would finally raise awareness to the factual overturning of Roe v Wade that actually happened, where women are left at the mercy of state governments to decide whether terminating a pregnancy should be legal or not. I noticed a deafening silence in regard to that topic here.

    And what does Christianity have to do with the KKK? Sure that group of dangerous bigots believe their racism is justified by their warped version of "Christianity", but perhaps you should put more thought into what you post online before you post it.

    I don't mean to be so harsh, but you're a good person, and this type of thread isn't like you. Try not to fall for any fringe media mate, no matter which side it favours.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • @espiegel123 said:
    The correct response to “the majority discriminates against minorities” is not “it’s ok: minorities discriminate, too.”

    That isn’t what happened. Read the original story.

  • Thanks. That much was clear, but apparently I am falling for propaganda if I believe this report.

  • @AlexY said:

    Thanks. That much was clear, but apparently I am falling for propaganda if I believe this report.

    No, the JTA link isn’t riddled with the propaganda the Democratic Underground link was. It’s more evenhanded.

  • And Fox News ALWAYS tells the truth and Donald Trump has never told a lie!

  • That ruling will almost certainly be overturned on equal protection grounds. Guess why? Wait for it and come back and see how confident you all still feel with your “no there there, get over it, but thuh soshialist librul propagand” uninformed bullshit.

  • @SNystrom said:
    And Fox News ALWAYS tells the truth and Donald Trump has never told a lie!

    What does that have to do with anything? That’s a diversion.

  • This thread is about the Tennesse ruling “No Jews allowed” The case dismissal was only in reference to @AlexY ’s post.

    I posted this because it is the type of development that will most likely fly under the radar until the next, bigger abuse happens.

    @jwmmakerofmusic i appreciate the good will in your response. However, it is very much like me to post this. As to the white Christian bs, just listen to Lauren Boebert, MJT and the Supreme Court, the separation between church and state is very much in play and the Constitutional assurances are in the process of being chucked. And that theocratic govt/church will not be Jewish, Muslim or B’hai. It will be the white Christian church, my friend. Oh, did I mention gay rights, interracial marriage and contraception? If you don’t think that’s on the white Christian church’s agenda, well, you’ll be just as surprised as all those who thought it was impossible for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.

    Look, I know this is a hot topic. The mods can shut it down. But it is off topic and everyone, no matter what their political affiliation is, should at least know what’s going on. Just my opinion, of course.

  • edited July 2022

    @legsmechanical said:
    That ruling will almost certainly be overturned on equal protection grounds. Guess why? Wait for it and come back and see how confident you all still feel with your “no there there, get over it, but thuh soshialist librul propagand” uninformed bullshit.

    Just like the original post, this is a wild and uninformed claim which has nothing to do with what actually happened in this particular case. Lying about what happened doesn’t speak well to the motives of any person making said wild claims.

  • @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    The correct response to “the majority discriminates against minorities” is not “it’s ok: minorities discriminate, too.”

    That isn’t what happened. Read the original story.

    I was responding to your words and BianaNeve's . The two of you agreed that it is ok for Christian organizations to discriminate against Jews and Muslims because their organizations probably discriminate to. Here are @BiancaNeve's words that you agreed with --- and to which I was referring -- "A Christian run charity only provides its services to other christians I’m sure Jewish charities favour other Jews and Muslim charities look after Muslims."

    My comment is about what the two of you said and not the article that was posted (though that case even as presented in the article you posted is concerning to those many of us that believe in the separation of Church and State -- but that is irrelevant to the comment you replied to).

This discussion has been closed.