Liverpool FC Forum

by **dawson99** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:17 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
dawson99 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Midge Ure did it as well. The difference is Midge Ure didn't live off of it for the next 25 years. He just got on with things...

U2 as a band arent my fave. they did some great songs, co wrote a great film and had a fantastic cameo in Entourage. There are probably 1000s better bands around today though than them in my opinion.

Dawson, if there are 1000's of better bands, then why aren't any of them as big? This whole "if it's underground it's cool" fad is just complete bollox. There is a reason why they are underground and unknown to the mainstream: it's because they are either shyte, or they lack ambition. Simple as that.

Just my opinion mate, they aren't my thing. Name the last really good song they made?

Beautiful day in 2000?

For me they will always be late 80s, Joshua Tree, then back again with Achtung Baby, apart from that, not my cup of tea.

Beautiful Day was alright. Kite. City of Blinding Lights was better. Sometimes You Can't Make It got to #1. Although their new album has some of their best songs in almost 20 years. They haven't had a single bad album.

...In your opinion... which i respect.
But they are stadium rock now, boring, nothing new to offer.

by **Emerald Red** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:39 pm

dawson99 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
dawson99 wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Midge Ure did it as well. The difference is Midge Ure didn't live off of it for the next 25 years. He just got on with things...

U2 as a band arent my fave. they did some great songs, co wrote a great film and had a fantastic cameo in Entourage. There are probably 1000s better bands around today though than them in my opinion.

Dawson, if there are 1000's of better bands, then why aren't any of them as big? This whole "if it's underground it's cool" fad is just complete bollox. There is a reason why they are underground and unknown to the mainstream: it's because they are either shyte, or they lack ambition. Simple as that.

Just my opinion mate, they aren't my thing. Name the last really good song they made?

Beautiful day in 2000?

For me they will always be late 80s, Joshua Tree, then back again with Achtung Baby, apart from that, not my cup of tea.

Beautiful Day was alright. Kite. City of Blinding Lights was better. Sometimes You Can't Make It got to #1. Although their new album has some of their best songs in almost 20 years. They haven't had a single bad album.

...In your opinion... which i respect.
But they are stadium rock now, boring, nothing new to offer.

Daws, they always were stadium rock. They wrote a lot of songs purely for that. Their new album is a departure from their last two. It's less commercial.

by **dawson99** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:40 pm

I'll give it a try then dude

by **Emerald Red** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:45 pm

dawson99 wrote:I'll give it a try then dude

You might not like it, though. However, you'll notice how different each song is compared to the next. For this reason alone, it's just a cracking album.

by **loopyliverpool** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 7:52 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
loopyliverpool wrote:Excellent to see there are some fellow U2 haters in the world, especially you Big Niall. I despise their music and everything they stand for. If there weren't greedy f**kers like Bono and his shat band there might be more wealth going around the world and perhaps more for the poor. Unfortunately this basic tenet is lost on St. Bono when he starts asking for money for the developing world etc... I would like him and all of those other celebrities who are worth hundreds of millions to stick their hands in their own pockets and say Iam worth £100m Iam goin to keep back £10m for myself (just in case you never know like) and give the rest to the starving people in Africa cos I care!!! Hypocritical Knobhead and his music is really sh*te!

You do realize you are talking utter shite, don't you? I'm not even going to bother pointing out why.

Yep! For me and many others though the underlying problem is 'The West' has far too many greedy f**ckers who have shed loads of money sitting in banks accumulating vast amounts of interest while it could be doing good for those who are dying and suffering in the developing world. How much money do people like Bono need before they have enough? I suggested £10m might be ok. We need to change our whole philosophy on money if we are ever truly going to 'make poverty history'. For me the man represents this desire to have untold wealth while trying to 'do the good thing' and be seen to help the poor. This is why I see him as a hypocrite and I really think his music is :censored:

!

by **Emerald Red** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:09 pm

loopyliverpool wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
loopyliverpool wrote:Excellent to see there are some fellow U2 haters in the world, especially you Big Niall. I despise their music and everything they stand for. If there weren't greedy f**kers like Bono and his shat band there might be more wealth going around the world and perhaps more for the poor. Unfortunately this basic tenet is lost on St. Bono when he starts asking for money for the developing world etc... I would like him and all of those other celebrities who are worth hundreds of millions to stick their hands in their own pockets and say Iam worth £100m Iam goin to keep back £10m for myself (just in case you never know like) and give the rest to the starving people in Africa cos I care!!! Hypocritical Knobhead and his music is really sh*te!

You do realize you are talking utter shite, don't you? I'm not even going to bother pointing out why.

Yep! For me and many others though the underlying problem is 'The West' has far too many greedy f**ckers who have shed loads of money sitting in banks accumulating vast amounts of interest while it could be doing good for those who are dying and suffering in the developing world. How much money do people like Bono need before they have enough? I suggested £10m might be ok. We need to change our whole philosophy on money if we are ever truly going to 'make poverty history'. For me the man represents this desire to have untold wealth while trying to 'do the good thing' and be seen to help the poor. This is why I see him as a hypocrite and I really think his music is !

Listen, you're almost as bad trying to turn Bono's so called riches into a political debate about whether or not he should or shouldn't donate his vast wealth to charity if he was so self-righteous. Fact of the matter is, even if he were to do that, it would make f*ck all of a difference. It would be a sticking plaster that would fall off in a matter of days, never mind weeks or years. It would be a drop in the ocean, and achieve nothing. The only thing that can help his chief causes is not money, but politics. Politics and awareness. You can throw the vast wealth of the west into poor developing nations all you want. At the end of the day, someone will only end up profiting from that, and it won't be the poor people. You want to make a difference to those countries and the people in it, then you literally have to "get on your boots" and do it yourself. Money doesn't change the state of things, but revolutions do.

by **bunglemark2** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:17 pm

`Bloody hell, what a wandering procrastination this thread is....Starts off with a "Bono is a hypocrite...." comment and then comes down to debating the merits of one album over another.
To get back to the topic, whay exactly is he a hypocrite ? He engages in tax avoidance, not evasion - big difference there, peeps. The former is fully legit, the latter is against the law.
Know what ? I'd do the same if I were him....
And another thing, if he's guilty of avoiding paying tax to the Irish authorities, then perhaps his own government is guilty as charged of doing the same, with the low rates of corporation tax made available to (mostly) US companies so they can save tax on the millions they make in profits every year. They're setting up shop here to avoid paying tax on the mega-profits in their own countries....
So Bono is doing exactly what they're doing...In saying that, I think he's full o' the brown stuff anyway, but hardly a hypocrite

by **dawson99** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:21 pm

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

he does neither, i just think hes a bit of a nob to be honest

by **Mikz** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:41 pm

Lee J wrote:surely he's not the first to put his money offshore? and he aint the first to make a mint off charity either, look at that scruffy tw@t faced Geldoff. He had one sh!t song in the charts with his band, Boomtown Tw@ts, and he's like one of the worlds richest people? hows that happen then? You dont make that kinda money off one song. Surely he didnt line his own pockets off the back of Band/Live Aid? you bet your ar$e he did. Feed the World? more like Feed Geldoff's Bank account. fking soap dodging sh!thead.

tell it like it is why dont ya lol

by **Bam** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:47 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Midge Ure did it as well. The difference is Midge Ure didn't live off of it for the next 25 years. He just got on with things...

U2 as a band arent my fave. they did some great songs, co wrote a great film and had a fantastic cameo in Entourage. There are probably 1000s better bands around today though than them in my opinion.

Dawson, if there are 1000's of better bands, then why aren't any of them as big? This whole "if it's underground it's cool" fad is just complete bollox. There is a reason why they are underground and unknown to the mainstream: it's because they are either shyte, or they lack ambition. Simple as that.

thats bollox and you know it.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:32 pm

Bam wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Midge Ure did it as well. The difference is Midge Ure didn't live off of it for the next 25 years. He just got on with things...

U2 as a band arent my fave. they did some great songs, co wrote a great film and had a fantastic cameo in Entourage. There are probably 1000s better bands around today though than them in my opinion.

Dawson, if there are 1000's of better bands, then why aren't any of them as big? This whole "if it's underground it's cool" fad is just complete bollox. There is a reason why they are underground and unknown to the mainstream: it's because they are either shyte, or they lack ambition. Simple as that.

thats bollox and you know it.

Present me with the evidence and I may consider it bollox. There are legendary musicians and bands through the decades and centuries. If you want to go into the bracket of rock music, then U2 are in the top 5 greatest bands of all time. End of. 32 years of producing music and counting. There's only three other bands that can get near that, and that's The Beatles and Rolling Stones. Only difference is, Rolling Stones album's declined with time, U2's have not. They are still relevant today as they were 30 years ago, and only one other band can say the same - The Beatles. Considering that Rock and Roll has only been in existence for a little over 60 years and U2 have been around for half of that time.

by **andy_g** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Emerald Red wrote:
Bam wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:thats bollox and you know it.

Present me with the evidence and I may consider it bollox. There are legendary musicians and bands through the decades and centuries. If you want to go into the bracket of rock music, then U2 are in the top 5 greatest bands of all time. End of. 32 years of producing music and counting. There's only three other bands that can get near that, and that's The Beatles and Rolling Stones. Only difference is, Rolling Stones album's declined with time, U2's have not. They are still relevant today as they were 30 years ago, and only one other band can say the same - The Beatles.

and the fall

i hadn't noticed that the beatles were still producing music either...

by **dawson99** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:37 pm

Cliff Richards been around longer, being around for a long time dont make you good.

Music makes you good.

Pixies, Sex Pistols, Stone Roses... a burning flame burns quickly if it burns hotter or something lol

by **Big Niall** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:21 pm

bunglemark2 wrote:`Bloody hell, what a wandering procrastination this thread is....Starts off with a "Bono is a hypocrite...." comment and then comes down to debating the merits of one album over another.
To get back to the topic, whay exactly is he a hypocrite ? He engages in tax avoidance, not evasion - big difference there, peeps. The former is fully legit, the latter is against the law.
Know what ? I'd do the same if I were him....
And another thing, if he's guilty of avoiding paying tax to the Irish authorities, then perhaps his own government is guilty as charged of doing the same, with the low rates of corporation tax made available to (mostly) US companies so they can save tax on the millions they make in profits every year. They're setting up shop here to avoid paying tax on the mega-profits in their own countries....
So Bono is doing exactly what they're doing...In saying that, I think he's full o' the brown stuff anyway, but hardly a hypocrite

the topic is not that U2 are hypocrites. i have no objection to the others putting their money is the most tax efficent away so i am consistent with irelands tax policy .

however, Bono is the one that goes to leaders and tells them what they should do with their revenue income.

Tax avoidance is okay, but doing that and then lecturing the government on what they should be doing with their tax income is hypocracy.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:29 pm

andy_g wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Bam wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:thats bollox and you know it.

Present me with the evidence and I may consider it bollox. There are legendary musicians and bands through the decades and centuries. If you want to go into the bracket of rock music, then U2 are in the top 5 greatest bands of all time. End of. 32 years of producing music and counting. There's only three other bands that can get near that, and that's The Beatles and Rolling Stones. Only difference is, Rolling Stones album's declined with time, U2's have not. They are still relevant today as they were 30 years ago, and only one other band can say the same - The Beatles.

and the fall

i hadn't noticed that the beatles were still producing music either...

Of course they f*cking aren't. Honestly, I don't get why someone trys to be a smart ar$e with statements like this. The Beatles were going for well over 20 years if you take into account their solo careers. Isn't Paul McCartney still making songs? As a band, they lasted what? Just over 10 years?

Liverpool FC Forum

Bono the hypocrite - At last somebody has the guts to say it

Who is online