Lyrics can often express an emotion or thought better than or perhaps more artistically than we could ourselves. Why would you get annoyed because someone chose to express themselves differently than yourself. I love sharing a nicely written piece of music with people...it doesn't bother me in the least that you choose not to, however.
Bingo. Plus, when you look at some of these lyrics sometimes, they hit the head right on the fucking head.
Lyrics can often express an emotion or thought better than or perhaps more artistically than we could ourselves. Why would you get annoyed because someone chose to express themselves differently than yourself. I love sharing a nicely written piece of music with people...it doesn't bother me in the least that you choose not to, however.
I dont really get annoyed. I take it back. I love lyrics too. I guess what annoys me is when they are used in a political way. I prefer lyrics like Release and Alive.
I dont really get annoyed. I take it back. I love lyrics too. I guess what annoys me is when they are used in a political way. I prefer lyrics like Release and Alive.
so do you promise to bite me back?
I bite hard.
Lyrics can mean different things to different people. And no one really knows but the song writer and most of them seem to prefer for you to take the song to mean whatever it does for you personally. It takes all the fun out of songs if it's meaning is already laid out for you. And blatant political lyrics are of course going to be used in a political way
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Don't start that shit. It's pretty obvious that's not even what he was using those lyrics for.
What did he post them for, then? The only reason my2hands would psot song lyrics instead of his own words is because he believes those lyrics have credibility and we should respect them.
I dont really get annoyed. I take it back. I love lyrics too. I guess what annoys me is when they are used in a political way. I prefer lyrics like Release and Alive.
Bingo. People like to use lyrics to express their political/social agenda... I don't know why. sometimes I think they can't formulate their own argument by themselves, but that's a little too condescending so I don't know what to think.
Bingo. People like to use lyrics to express their political/social agenda... I don't know why. sometimes I think they can't formulate their own argument by themselves, but that's a little too condescending so I don't know what to think.
Pssst....it's because they love music and lyrics and like to share them....nothing more, nothing less.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Bingo. Plus, when you look at some of these lyrics sometimes, they hit the head right on the fucking head.
By that you mean you read them the way you want to see them. You're (general you) looking for it to match exactly what you mean, even though it is not always the case.
I'm not speaking about anything specific in this thread here.
By that you mean you read them the way you want to see them. You're (general you) looking for it to match exactly what you mean, even though it is not always the case.
I'm not speaking about anything specific in this thread here.
Everybody does that. Who reads anything and interprets it the way they don't see it? Unless it's obvious, then it should always be up to the listener what they choose to take from it.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Everybody does that. Who reads anything and interprets it the way they don't see it? Unless it's obvious, then it should always be up to the listener what they choose to take from it.
Sure. So, when you post lyrics to answer a question or state how you feel, while you may think you are coming across a certain way, someone else may read it totally different or not see a connection.
Of course I guess that could happen with using your own words too...never mind me, I've been working way too much.
Sure. So, when you post lyrics to answer a question or state how you feel, while you may think you are coming across a certain way, someone else may read it totally different or not see a connection.
Of course I guess that could happen with using your own words too...never mind me, I've been working way too much.
Sure...it's all up for interpretation. But we are always hoping someone will get us.
Enough with the work already then...it's almost friday night!
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sure...it's all up for interpretation. But we are always hoping someone will get us.
Enough with the work already then...it's almost friday night!
No kidding. I'm filling 45 minutes or so before I have a meeting then I get to leave in about another 30 minutes!!!!! But I have come in tomorrow for an hour or 2. Been a crappy week. Here's song song lyrics for my mood....
No kidding. I'm filling 45 minutes or so before I have a meeting then I get to leave in about another 30 minutes!!!!! But I have come in tomorrow for an hour or 2. Been a crappy week. Here's song song lyrics for my mood....
What the hell am I doing here
I don't belong here
Yep...that fits well.
Just up and leave it. Go have some fun.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
The bottom line, kiddies...
you can have the best trainned soldiers with the best weapons at your disposal and the most advanced technology on the planet working for you...
BUT...
If you have a real Nimrod of a civilian piece of shit with no knowledge of what soldiering on means because his rich and influential daddy kept his C- average ass out of the Army's Regular forces and is now putting his frat brothers and former room mates and political ladder climbers in key positions as payback for political favors calling the shots... you are not going to be as effective as you could be.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
What did he post them for, then? The only reason my2hands would psot song lyrics instead of his own words is because he believes those lyrics have credibility and we should respect them.
That song has absolutely no connection to any foreign policy, any where. It's about LA. I don't know why my2hands posted them, but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do about foreign policy.
By the way, let's ask him. My2hands, what were you going for when posting AEnima.
The bottom line, kiddies...
you can have the best trainned soldiers with the best weapons at your disposal and the most advanced technology on the planet working for you...
BUT...
If you have a real Nimrod of a civilian piece of shit with no knowledge of what soldiering on means because his rich and influential daddy kept his C- average ass out of the Army's Regular forces and is now putting his frat brothers and former room mates and political ladder climbers in key positions as payback for political favors calling the shots... you are not going to be as effective as you could be.
That's putting it bluntly. Lol.
I'm digging the dawn of the information age, though.
What I would find bothering, appart from the fact that the US spends more than the next 10 countries combined (though I wouldn't believe that china hands out real numbers) is that so so much money is going into really questionable weapons :
enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy life and the planet as we know it a few hundred times
cluster bombs which obviously suck more for civilians than the enemy military if dropped anywhere but in a training camp
mines
biological weapons, because let's face it, we don't really master all that shit and no one can say if it won't do more harm than necessary.
What really bothers me is that a shitload of money (and for all countries, though the us spends more) goes to producing weapons designed to kill civilians and not destroy the enemy military. It's like the nuclear bombs in japan, I dislike the notion of killing civilians to pressure a government in admitting defeat. Civilians generally don't like war, want nothing to do with war and would just like everyone to calm down, have a beer (with or without alcohol depending where you are) and shut up.
enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy the planet a few hundred times
You can't actually destroy the planet, even with all the nukes detonated at once. Unless, by destruction, you mean making it inhospitable to life, then you might have an argument.
You can't actually destroy the planet, even with all the nukes detonated at once. Unless, by destruction, you mean making it inhospitable to life, then you might have an argument.
The planet itself would keep on truckin'!
Yes, I should edit that to "destroy the planet as we know it", because even after a nuclear war the planet would still harbour life and keep on tuckin'.
What I would find bothering, appart from the fact that the US spends more than the next 10 countries combined (though I wouldn't believe that china hands out real numbers) is that so so much money is going into really questionable weapons :
enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy life and the planet as we know it a few hundred times
cluster bombs which obviously suck more for civilians than the enemy military if dropped anywhere but in a training camp
mines
biological weapons, because let's face it, we don't really master all that shit and no one can say if it won't do more harm than necessary.
What really bothers me is that a shitload of money (and for all countries, though the us spends more) goes to producing weapons designed to kill civilians and not destroy the enemy military. It's like the nuclear bombs in japan, I dislike the notion of killing civilians to pressure a government in admitting defeat. Civilians generally don't like war, want nothing to do with war and would just like everyone to calm down, have a beer (with or without alcohol depending where you are) and shut up.
The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.
At the beginning of both of those wars our military was ill equipped and under manned. Soldiers got killed because of a weakened military.
After war you should cut some military spending after a war but not to the extent the US did and probably will do after this war.
Study US military history.
Why do i need to study us military history to understand the 2 World wars? I have a feeling studying any form of american history would be an eye-opening lesson in propoganda.
World war 1 they fought for maybe 1 1/2 yrs max at the end of 5 yr war. The rest of the time they didn't give a shit.
World war 2 they sat on their hands for 2 yrs before giving a shit. They went into the war in the middle of a great recession and came out the other end the richest country on the planet.
Work that into your sense of moral superiority.
Maybe you're saying that had america had the greatest army on the planet at the time then none of it would have happened. america were pretty much nothing at the time. Germany built the major military power of the time and used it to attempt World domination. They failed thru horrendously bad tactics.
Fast forward to today, america has built the major military power of these times (with money indirectly earned from their "friends" unfortunate situations in th late 30's to the mid-fifties) and is using it to attempt World domination. They will fail because of arrogance and lack of discipline.
There will always be war while there is a country willing to rationalise attempted domination. Generally, large parts of a country does not and will not lie down at the feet of bullies.
Using these wars to rationalise what you are is strenuous at best.
The rest of the western World learned a great lesson from these wars, america learned there was much to be gained from war it seems.
To suggest that the World hasnt moved on from any of this is to try only to rationalise your own "third person" blood lust.
The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.
america is the only "civilised" country not to agree to relent in the use of anti-personnel mines and scatterable mines. Not sure how much the "official stance" is worth, but having worked closely to the american army and seeing close hand their rules of engagement i would say it means sweet fuck all.
The term "destroy the World" is over used, but as far as humankind is concerned, its not too far off the mark.
i am being serious. everyone is always so proud of our military strength, so i want to know why. thats all.
to me, it seems to be to be a silly idea for humans to direct most of their wealth at developing/maintaining more effective ways of killing each other and destroying what they have built. and then to blindly pump their fist in pride, wothout really looking at the much larger picture and long term impact on the human species.
i recommend you rent a japanimation flick called "memories" there are three stories made by three japanese animators. if you've seen animatrix one of the directors of the animatrix is one of these directors from memories. and there is another japanimator... otomo is his last name... he directed akira (which i also recommend you watch) otomo has the last story on memories... it's about an entire city who's sole purpose is to create missiles and tanks aimed at destroying an unknown enemy... it's really cool... anyways, your post reminded me of it. go watch it.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
Why do i need to study us military history to understand the 2 World wars? I have a feeling studying any form of american history would be an eye-opening lesson in propoganda.
World war 1 they fought for maybe 1 1/2 yrs max at the end of 5 yr war. The rest of the time they didn't give a shit.
World war 2 they sat on their hands for 2 yrs before giving a shit. They went into the war in the middle of a great recession and came out the other end the richest country on the planet.
Work that into your sense of moral superiority.
Maybe you're saying that had america had the greatest army on the planet at the time then none of it would have happened. america were pretty much nothing at the time. Germany built the major military power of the time and used it to attempt World domination. They failed thru horrendously bad tactics.
Fast forward to today, america has built the major military power of these times (with money indirectly earned from their "friends" unfortunate situations in th late 30's to the mid-fifties) and is using it to attempt World domination. They will fail because of arrogance and lack of discipline.
There will always be war while there is a country willing to rationalise attempted domination. Generally, large parts of a country does not and will not lie down at the feet of bullies.
Using these wars to rationalise what you are is strenuous at best.
The rest of the western World learned a great lesson from these wars, america learned there was much to be gained from war it seems.
To suggest that the World hasnt moved on from any of this is to try only to rationalise your own "third person" blood lust.
What do you mean "third person" blood lust?
I am not talking about the reasoning for going into those wars or how long we took before deciding to go. I am simply talking about the state of our military and military funding at the beginning of both of those conflicts.
There is no propaganda in saying that compared to other nations at the time our military was fucked up. There is no propaganda in saying that after war military funding is cut and most of the time way to much, leaving our military fucked up and unprepared for the next war.
You need to study US history to understand the condition of our military at the beginning of both those and most all conflicts the US has been involved in.
I am saying that if our military had been better at the time less soldiers would have died when they went into battle.
I am trying to rationalize having a large well funded military because of future threats. I don't think we should gut the military much like we have done in the past after war and leave ourselves unprepared for the next threat. Do you not under stand this?
But you are probably one of those retards that thinks the US makes up threats for some "industrial military complex" to make profits for some secret organization of old fat white people. So I am probably wasting my time.
america is the only "civilised" country not to agree to relent in the use of anti-personnel mines and scatterable mines. Not sure how much the "official stance" is worth, but having worked closely to the american army and seeing close hand their rules of engagement i would say it means sweet fuck all.
This really has nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons.
If the official stance of the US was to not use anti-personal mines we would not use them.
The term "destroy the World" is over used, but as far as humankind is concerned, its not too far off the mark.
What do you mean "third person" blood lust?
I am not talking about the reasoning for going into those wars or how long we took before deciding to go. I am simply talking about the state of our military and military funding at the beginning of both of those conflicts.
There is no propaganda in saying that compared to other nations at the time our military was fucked up. There is no propaganda in saying that after war military funding is cut and most of the time way to much, leaving our military fucked up and unprepared for the next war.
You need to study US history to understand the condition of our military at the beginning of both those and most all conflicts the US has been involved in.
I am saying that if our military had been better at the time less soldiers would have died when they went into battle.
I am trying to rationalize having a large well funded military because of future threats. I don't think we should gut the military much like we have done in the past after war and leave ourselves unprepared for the next threat. Do you not under stand this?
But you are probably one of those retards that thinks the US makes up threats for some "industrial military complex" to make profits for some secret organization of old fat white people. So I am probably wasting my time.
This really has nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons.
If the official stance of the US was to not use anti-personal mines we would
not use them.
Wrong.
No i don't understand, you're using the 2 great wars that happened 80 and 70 yrs ago to justify a military in todays World, it has no relevance because the rest of the civilised World, barring Britain, has moved on and learned the lessons.
More than 20 million allied soldiers died in ww2 alone, so unless you are suggesting that a military in excess of this number is necessary then no, i don't understand.
Professional militaries have not fought the major wars, people stand up when need be.
The major threat that is antagonising people now is america. That is the next fight for the world, you want to hear that? you have few friends left and we don't like you that much.
Apart from america, there is China which has a billion people and has never looked far beyond its own borders to cause trouble, barring some horrendous
civil rights (in excess of 1 Billion people remember, not all going to be good) is a very wise place. Russia, well we'll see, we'll deal if we need to. A handful of radical countries that are riled at this point mainly by american arrogance, again if we have to fight them so be it.
Oh and of course i wouldnt want to leave out the Mexican drug lords that have been mentioned previously here, they reportedly have machine guns, maybe 2 each.
I don't believe for one minute that the us government is stupid enough to think that its actions are going to bring positivity to the World so, yes I believe there are other reasons, but i don't necessarily think they are all fat.
yes i am retarded if that means that i believe war serves normal people no benefit and therefore there are other reasons that are neither transparent nor benign.
War is inevitable, while there are people fearful enough to believe that its inevitable because of others and not themselves.
Comments
Bingo. Plus, when you look at some of these lyrics sometimes, they hit the head right on the fucking head.
I dont really get annoyed. I take it back. I love lyrics too. I guess what annoys me is when they are used in a political way. I prefer lyrics like Release and Alive.
so do you promise to bite me back?
I bite hard.
Lyrics can mean different things to different people. And no one really knows but the song writer and most of them seem to prefer for you to take the song to mean whatever it does for you personally. It takes all the fun out of songs if it's meaning is already laid out for you. And blatant political lyrics are of course going to be used in a political way
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
What did he post them for, then? The only reason my2hands would psot song lyrics instead of his own words is because he believes those lyrics have credibility and we should respect them.
Bingo. People like to use lyrics to express their political/social agenda... I don't know why. sometimes I think they can't formulate their own argument by themselves, but that's a little too condescending so I don't know what to think.
Pssst....it's because they love music and lyrics and like to share them....nothing more, nothing less.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Don't cry about the bite marks...
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You're cracking me up
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
By that you mean you read them the way you want to see them.
I'm not speaking about anything specific in this thread here.
Everybody does that. Who reads anything and interprets it the way they don't see it? Unless it's obvious, then it should always be up to the listener what they choose to take from it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Sure. So, when you post lyrics to answer a question or state how you feel, while you may think you are coming across a certain way, someone else may read it totally different or not see a connection.
Of course I guess that could happen with using your own words too...never mind me, I've been working way too much.
Sure...it's all up for interpretation. But we are always hoping someone will get us.
Enough with the work already then...it's almost friday night!
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
No kidding. I'm filling 45 minutes or so before I have a meeting then I get to leave in about another 30 minutes!!!!! But I have come in tomorrow for an hour or 2. Been a crappy week. Here's song song lyrics for my mood....
What the hell am I doing here
I don't belong here
Yep...that fits well.
Just up and leave it. Go have some fun.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
you can have the best trainned soldiers with the best weapons at your disposal and the most advanced technology on the planet working for you...
BUT...
If you have a real Nimrod of a civilian piece of shit with no knowledge of what soldiering on means because his rich and influential daddy kept his C- average ass out of the Army's Regular forces and is now putting his frat brothers and former room mates and political ladder climbers in key positions as payback for political favors calling the shots... you are not going to be as effective as you could be.
Hail, Hail!!!
That song has absolutely no connection to any foreign policy, any where. It's about LA. I don't know why my2hands posted them, but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do about foreign policy.
By the way, let's ask him. My2hands, what were you going for when posting AEnima.
That's putting it bluntly. Lol.
I'm digging the dawn of the information age, though.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
enough nukes to, like the threadstarter said, destroy life and the planet as we know it a few hundred times
cluster bombs which obviously suck more for civilians than the enemy military if dropped anywhere but in a training camp
mines
biological weapons, because let's face it, we don't really master all that shit and no one can say if it won't do more harm than necessary.
What really bothers me is that a shitload of money (and for all countries, though the us spends more) goes to producing weapons designed to kill civilians and not destroy the enemy military. It's like the nuclear bombs in japan, I dislike the notion of killing civilians to pressure a government in admitting defeat. Civilians generally don't like war, want nothing to do with war and would just like everyone to calm down, have a beer (with or without alcohol depending where you are) and shut up.
You can't actually destroy the planet, even with all the nukes detonated at once. Unless, by destruction, you mean making it inhospitable to life, then you might have an argument.
The planet itself would keep on truckin'!
Yes, I should edit that to "destroy the planet as we know it", because even after a nuclear war the planet would still harbour life and keep on tuckin'.
The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.
Why do i need to study us military history to understand the 2 World wars? I have a feeling studying any form of american history would be an eye-opening lesson in propoganda.
World war 1 they fought for maybe 1 1/2 yrs max at the end of 5 yr war. The rest of the time they didn't give a shit.
World war 2 they sat on their hands for 2 yrs before giving a shit. They went into the war in the middle of a great recession and came out the other end the richest country on the planet.
Work that into your sense of moral superiority.
Maybe you're saying that had america had the greatest army on the planet at the time then none of it would have happened. america were pretty much nothing at the time. Germany built the major military power of the time and used it to attempt World domination. They failed thru horrendously bad tactics.
Fast forward to today, america has built the major military power of these times (with money indirectly earned from their "friends" unfortunate situations in th late 30's to the mid-fifties) and is using it to attempt World domination. They will fail because of arrogance and lack of discipline.
There will always be war while there is a country willing to rationalise attempted domination. Generally, large parts of a country does not and will not lie down at the feet of bullies.
Using these wars to rationalise what you are is strenuous at best.
The rest of the western World learned a great lesson from these wars, america learned there was much to be gained from war it seems.
To suggest that the World hasnt moved on from any of this is to try only to rationalise your own "third person" blood lust.
america is the only "civilised" country not to agree to relent in the use of anti-personnel mines and scatterable mines. Not sure how much the "official stance" is worth, but having worked closely to the american army and seeing close hand their rules of engagement i would say it means sweet fuck all.
The term "destroy the World" is over used, but as far as humankind is concerned, its not too far off the mark.
Bring your nose down out the air.
maybe, cool word, when you're 13.
love tini wini
What do you mean "third person" blood lust?
I am not talking about the reasoning for going into those wars or how long we took before deciding to go. I am simply talking about the state of our military and military funding at the beginning of both of those conflicts.
There is no propaganda in saying that compared to other nations at the time our military was fucked up. There is no propaganda in saying that after war military funding is cut and most of the time way to much, leaving our military fucked up and unprepared for the next war.
You need to study US history to understand the condition of our military at the beginning of both those and most all conflicts the US has been involved in.
I am saying that if our military had been better at the time less soldiers would have died when they went into battle.
I am trying to rationalize having a large well funded military because of future threats. I don't think we should gut the military much like we have done in the past after war and leave ourselves unprepared for the next threat. Do you not under stand this?
But you are probably one of those retards that thinks the US makes up threats for some "industrial military complex" to make profits for some secret organization of old fat white people. So I am probably wasting my time.
This really has nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons.
If the official stance of the US was to not use anti-personal mines we would not use them.
Wrong.
No i don't understand, you're using the 2 great wars that happened 80 and 70 yrs ago to justify a military in todays World, it has no relevance because the rest of the civilised World, barring Britain, has moved on and learned the lessons.
More than 20 million allied soldiers died in ww2 alone, so unless you are suggesting that a military in excess of this number is necessary then no, i don't understand.
Professional militaries have not fought the major wars, people stand up when need be.
The major threat that is antagonising people now is america. That is the next fight for the world, you want to hear that? you have few friends left and we don't like you that much.
Apart from america, there is China which has a billion people and has never looked far beyond its own borders to cause trouble, barring some horrendous
civil rights (in excess of 1 Billion people remember, not all going to be good) is a very wise place. Russia, well we'll see, we'll deal if we need to. A handful of radical countries that are riled at this point mainly by american arrogance, again if we have to fight them so be it.
Oh and of course i wouldnt want to leave out the Mexican drug lords that have been mentioned previously here, they reportedly have machine guns, maybe 2 each.
I don't believe for one minute that the us government is stupid enough to think that its actions are going to bring positivity to the World so, yes I believe there are other reasons, but i don't necessarily think they are all fat.
yes i am retarded if that means that i believe war serves normal people no benefit and therefore there are other reasons that are neither transparent nor benign.
War is inevitable, while there are people fearful enough to believe that its inevitable because of others and not themselves.
War is inevitable because of you.
wrong about the nukes? enlighten me some more?