11 song lyrics you probably won't understand if you're under 30 - BBC Music

11 song lyrics you probably won't understand if you're under 30 - BBC Music

Excerpt:

3. Morrissey - America Is Not the World

When Morrissey returned from seven years in the recording wilderness with album You Are the Quarry in 2004, fans must have been slightly disconcerted that the normally incisive poet's first lyric on the new record was "America, your head's too big". A verse in and Moz got to work repudiating the claim America is the land of the free, suggesting it could not be the case in a country where "the president is never black, female or gay". President Barack Obama invalidated a third of this assertion when he took office in 2008, while Hillary Clinton gets the chance to nullify another third if she becomes the first female president in 2016's United States presidential election.

 

[countthree]

But Morrissey has said in interviews that he doesn't believe Obama is black. He'll also probably start complaining that Hilary is a man if she wins.

In fact, I don't see her as a running with the wolves kind of woman. She is not femenine from the spiritual point of view. I mean, she doesn't seem to have what people call the femenine side of a person, being that person a man or a woman. There's a deep lack of warmth in her eyes.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually I got the two of you confused. I had thought tyronepowerbottom was the one haranguing me about the newsweek link. In a similar thread she made similar comments in a similar way, but clearly as tyronepowerbottowm, whereas your posts are "anonymous."
My mistake.

That's fine. I've always just been anon with no desire for an account. If I wanna say something I don't need a front and will just post like so

 

[Calamine Lotion]

your original posts seem all over the place then and not very clear if that's what you meant. You never mention torture but you do mention immunity being used to stop the truth, cause of course you know the truth, about bush and his pals.

Actually, I don't and the point is that Obama blocked the process that would have told us the truth. It is coming out now though. Prince Bandar is so close to the Bush family that his nickname in the press was "Bandar Bush." So close that he kissed the acting President of the United States on the mouth in public. But forget about that. The important thing is that his wife was known by the FBI to have provided funds to the wife of one of the hijackers. This information was suppressed by the Obama administration.
Now you want to say, "Oh $15,000 isn't that much money," but that was just one payment. The point is that the Saudis were funding the 9/11 hijackers.
9/11 is the biggest conspiracy of our time and now there is actually some real proof that the truth was covered up. However, the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the people who don't believe the official government version of the story have been so demonized that people don't even seem to want to read about this newly released information.
When you combine Saudi royal funding with the fact that Saudis were the only people allowed to leave the country the day after it starts to look like the Saudi connection is really important. When you add in the fact that we attacked the wrong country under false pretenses, and that the vice-president was connected to a company that made many billions of dollars off of this war, it's a very interesting story.
Now add on that Obama halted investigation and also managed to change the law so that no future investigations will happen, and we have a very interesting situation.

That's why I made my post when you were praising Obama. His role in all of this is being minimized and ignored. I'm a former Democrat with nowhere to go now really. Certainly not supporting racist blowhard Trump. It is because I once believed in the Democratic Party that I feel it is important not to just let everything slide.

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, I don't and the point is that Obama blocked the process that would have told us the truth. It is coming out now though. Prince Bandar is so close to the Bush family that his nickname in the press was "Bandar Bush." So close that he kissed the acting President of the United States on the mouth in public. But forget about that. The important thing is that his wife was known by the FBI to have provided funds to the wife of one of the hijackers. This information was suppressed by the Obama administration.
Now you want to say, "Oh $15,000 isn't that much money," but that was just one payment. The point is that the Saudis were funding the 9/11 hijackers.
9/11 is the biggest conspiracy of our time and now there is actually some real proof that the truth was covered up. However, the conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the people who don't believe the official government version of the story have been so demonized that people don't even seem to want to read about this newly released information.
When you combine Saudi royal funding with the fact that Saudis were the only people allowed to leave the country the day after it starts to look like the Saudi connection is really important. When you add in the fact that we attacked the wrong country under false pretenses, and that the vice-president was connected to a company that made many billions of dollars off of this war, it's a very interesting story.
Now add on that Obama halted investigation and also managed to change the law so that no future investigations will happen, and we have a very interesting situation.

That's why I made my post when you were praising Obama. His role in all of this is being minimized and ignored. I'm a former Democrat with nowhere to go now really. Certainly not supporting racist blowhard Trump. It is because I once believed in the Democratic Party that I feel it is important not to just let everything slide.

All you can say for sure is that a person who was close to bush who gave a bad person money. We don't know what for how they knew each other if she knew he was using it find hijackers or if he even did use that money for the hijacking. To say the Saudis are funding hijacking is an overstatement and still speculation. We do need the Saudi government as we don't have a lot of Middle East allies at all, especially not influential ones. Sad but true. Most of your critisim of Obama seems to revolve around him not going after bush and to be honest, as much as I would liek to see that adminisation go down for a lot of things like the misleading and warping of intelligence or Halliburton, the investigation would not imo have resulted if anything substantial. I think thats a political reality. also don't think that makes him a facist dictator who got away with murder. I think that was an overstatement as well. We were also in the middle of a serious economic issue, a serious security issue with a continued threat of terrorism and a country that did not feel safe, a continued military conflict in Iraq while Lybia and Syria were about to become disasters. I honestly think that if he did go after the previous administration as soon as he got into office he would have wasted all of his political capital on something that wouldn't have resulted in anything tangible and wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything on his agenda like the Aca which has made the number of uninsured people hit an all time low. No it's not perfect but that was a milestone accomplishment. It was a smart strategical move to not pursue as I think it would have been a damaging waste of time. Idealistically and morally that makes me sad to say but realistically I'm glad he did. I could be wrong, I don't think myself so knowledgable about the issue to say that he couldn't have done both for certain but I don't believe he could have. Anyway thanks for talking to me in a calmer way as it makes us, two people who probably have more in common politically than not, able to discuss an important issue reasonably and productively instead us just shouting back and forth. Our country could use more of that which is in part why I'm mad at some of these sanders die hardship and why some of the more unruly trump postings have made me sad

 

[Calamine Lotion]

All you can say for sure is that a person who was close to bush who gave a bad person money. We don't know what for how they knew each other if she knew he was using it find hijackers or if he even did use that money for the hijacking. To say the Saudis are funding hijacking is an overstatement and still speculation. We do need the Saudi government as we don't have a lot of Middle East allies at all, especially not influential ones. Sad but true. Most of your critisim of Obama seems to revolve around him not going after bush and to be honest, as much as I would liek to see that adminisation go down for a lot of things like the misleading and warping of intelligence or Halliburton, the investigation would not imo have resulted if anything substantial. I think thats a political reality. also don't think that makes him a facist dictator who got away with murder. I think that was an overstatement as well. We were also in the middle of a serious economic issue, a serious security issue with a continued threat of terrorism and a country that did not feel safe, a continued military conflict in Iraq while Lybia and Syria were about to become disasters. I honestly think that if he did go after the previous administration as soon as he got into office he would have wasted all of his political capital on something that wouldn't have resulted in anything tangible and wouldn't have been able to accomplish anything on his agenda like the Aca which has made the number of uninsured people hit an all time low. No it's not perfect but that was a milestone accomplishment. It was a smart strategical move to not pursue as I think it would have been a damaging waste of time. Idealistically and morally that makes me sad to say but realistically I'm glad he did. I could be wrong, I don't think myself so knowledgable about the issue to say that he couldn't have done both for certain but I don't believe he could have. Anyway thanks for talking to me in a calmer way as it makes us, two people who probably have more in common politically than not, able to discuss an important issue reasonably and productively instead us just shouting back and forth. Our country could use more of that which is in part why I'm mad at some of these sanders die hardship and why some of the more unruly trump postings have made me sad

I see, so maybe they had a good reason to fund the hijackers. Interesting.

You know what? I resent your judgment of me as "calmer" as much as I resent your earlier judgment of me as a lunatic who chases after conspiracy theories. Just because I said I used to support the Democratic Party you think we have something in common? How about if you just stick to the facts when talking about the issues? If I were to judge you I think you come off as barely literate, and that you're a fool that will believe anything as long as someone from your side says it. But I manage not to say that because it's not relevant. Your compliment means no more to me than your insult.

 

[Anonymous]

I see, so maybe they had a good reason to fund the hijackers. Interesting.

You know what? I resent your judgment of me as "calmer" as much as I resent your earlier judgment of me as a lunatic who chases after conspiracy theories. Just because I said I used to support the Democratic Party you think we have something in common? How about if you just stick to the facts when talking about the issues? If I were to judge you I think you come off as barely literate, and that you're a fool that will believe anything as long as someone from your side says it. But I manage not to say that because it's not relevant. Your compliment means no more to me than your insult.

Your over stating when you say fund. When you say fund you're saying the money is given for a certain purpose which you don't know. If I give a person money say for an old debt and he uses it to buy a gun and then robs a bank It doesnt mean I gave him the money to fund his robbery I could just associate with sketchy people. You don't know why money was given your just assuming a possibility is known fact. the u.s. can't, from anything I've read, say money was given for any specific purpose. Its circumstantial. I only know based on the info given that she gave money to a person who later turned out to be an extremist high jacker if. Even know that. Sorry to upset you by saying it seemed to me like the discussion was getting calmer which in my mind equates to better. What makes you think that I believe we have more in common solely based on you Democratic Party comment. It was based on what I know of you in general from seeing you post for like a half a year now or more. Again I think your making leaps and assumptions. Don't also think I'm a Democratic Party enthusiast or some kind of joiner, they just put forth the best candidate the last few elections and when politics are concerned I'm not an idealist. I choose the best option I see in front of me at the time of voting and this time it's Clinton while before it was Obama and I think he's accomplished a lot that will better the country while facing a lot of opposition. Political sacrifices need to be made to make nessesary gains and going after the bush administration would have hindered those gains and produced nothing of note other than to further discord in a time when we don't need more. I didn't believe sanders could deliver on anything he promised and wouldn't accomplish anything. He was to decisive which is great in a speech but not great when you need the other half of the country to make gains and he in his own words didn't impress me when he tried to explain how he his ideas would be brought about. I'm not voting for stein who won't even be on the ballot in all fifty states and I don't believe in the libertarian economic plans and neither of those candidates I only has what it takes to make our government function even a little bit. I'm for sure not voting trump nor am I staying home and voting for nobody (sorry morrissey). Also you claimed Obama got away with murder which even if everything you claim is true is not the case. he still didn't murder them or conspire to do so. You were wrong to claim that

 

[Calamine Lotion]

Your over stating when you say fund. When you say fund you're saying the money is given for a certain purpose which you don't know. If I give a person money say for an old debt and he uses it to buy a gun and then robs a bank It doesnt mean I gave him the money to fund his robbery I could just associate with sketchy people. You don't know why money was given your just assuming a possibility is known fact. the u.s. can't, from anything I've read, say money was given for any specific purpose. Its circumstantial. I only know based on the info given that she gave money to a person who later turned out to be an extremist high jacker if. Even know that. Sorry to upset you by saying it seemed to me like the discussion was getting calmer which in my mind equates to better. What makes you think that I believe we have more in common solely based on you Democratic Party comment. It was based on what I know of you in general from seeing you post for like a half a year now or more. Again I think your making leaps and assumptions. Don't also think I'm a Democratic Party enthusiast or some kind of joiner, they just put forth the best candidate the last few elections and when politics are concerned I'm not an idealist. I choose the best option I see in front of me at the time of voting and this time it's Clinton while before it was Obama and I think he's accomplished a lot that will better the country while facing a lot of opposition. Political sacrifices need to be made to make nessesary gains and going after the bush administration would have hindered those gains and produced nothing of note other than to further discord in a time when we don't need more. I didn't believe sanders could deliver on anything he promised and wouldn't accomplish anything. He was to decisive which is great in a speech but not great when you need the other half of the country to make gains and he in his own words didn't impress me when he tried to explain how he his ideas would be brought about. I'm not voting for stein who won't even be on the ballot in all fifty states and I don't believe in the libertarian economic plans and neither of those candidates I only has what it takes to make our government function even a little bit. I'm for sure not voting trump nor am I staying home and voting for nobody (sorry morrissey). Also you claimed Obama got away with murder which even if everything you claim is true is not the case. he still didn't murder them or conspire to do so. You were wrong to claim that

Well we can't ask the hijackers why the money was given to them. I wonder what would happen if we found out Saddam Hussein gave money to the hijackers? Oh wait, he was hanged during an illegal invasion of his country carried out under false pretenses.
And we can't ask the Saudi royals because they were all spirited out of the country the day after 9/11 for reasons that have never been made clear.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...s-citizens-killed-obama-drone-strikes-3-were/
Four U.S. citizens killed in Obama drone strikes, but 3 were not intended targets

but that's only one incident, and it's more well known since it involves Americans. See, it used to be illegal for the US government to murder US citizens without trial. Now we're supposed to believe that by putting the Constitution through the shredder we are fighting against terror. And what event made this change in attitude possible? And who appears to have funded it?

 

[Anonymous]

Well we can't ask the hijackers why the money was given to them. I wonder what would happen if we found out Saddam Hussein gave money to the hijackers? Oh wait, he was hanged during an illegal invasion of his country carried out under false pretenses.
And we can't ask the Saudi royals because they were all spirited out of the country the day after 9/11 for reasons that have never been made clear.

Four U.S. citizens killed in Obama drone strikes, but 3 were not intended targets

but that's only one incident, and it's more well known since it involves Americans. See, it used to be illegal for the US government to murder US citizens without trial. Now we're supposed to believe that by putting the Constitution through the shredder we are fighting against terror. And what event made this change in attitude possible? And who appears to have funded it?

You dont know anything and you're still trying to say things as fact. The invasion in Iraq wasn't illegal just carried out again under sketchy circumstances. You can't prove wrong intelligence was used intentionally and not believed out of stupidity and pigheadedness or even some mix of both. Proving that in a trial is important. Same as you can't prove anything about some guys wife funding 9/11. as to drone strikes. As to killing Americans I would say that if you start plotting terrorist attacks with groups who have declared war on America who are on foreign soil where you cant reasonably extract and arrest them then yes it's a good idea to name them enemy combatants and possible targets of strikes. It's better than the possible consequences of not striking and does pose a real security risk. I tell ya though you are all over the place talking about the Iraq war as something to attack Obama. If you want to attack Obama you should stick to actions he actually taken, which ar elite maybe half of you posts, and move on from bush? You don't address though how even if he had tried to prosecute the bush administration for whatever supposed crimes you've mentioned or will in your next post the reality that it wouldn't have produced any convictions and be a huge waste of time and political advantage hindering obamas ability to actually accomplish anything worthwhile in his term possible limiting him to one term and opening the door for another republican president. That's important

 

[Calamine Lotion]

If you want to attack Obama you should stick to actions he actually taken, which ar elite maybe half of you posts, and move on from bush?

In English, please?

You don't address though how even if he had tried to prosecute the bush administration for whatever supposed crimes you've mentioned or will in your next post the reality that it wouldn't have produced any convictions

How do you know the outcome of an investigation that never happened?

and be a huge waste of time and political advantage hindering obamas ability to actually accomplish anything worthwhile in his term possible limiting him to one term and opening the door for another republican president. That's important

So you're saying we have to let the Republicans do whatever they want or we might wind up with Republicans in charge. Hillary voted for war and against marriage equality and has deep ties to Walmart and won't even let the contents of her speeches to her Wall Street cronies be made public.
You're a great example of why I do not support that crooked party anymore. I'm going to try to ignore you from now on.
Apologies to the site and the people that had to read this crap.

 

[Anonymous]

In English, please?


How do you know the outcome of an investigation that never happened?



So you're saying we have to let the Republicans do whatever they want or we might wind up with Republicans in charge. Hillary voted for war and against marriage equality and has deep ties to Walmart and won't even let the contents of her speeches to her Wall Street cronies be made public.
You're a great example of why I do not support that crooked party anymore. I'm going to try to ignore you from now on.
Apologies to the site and the people that had to read this crap.

No we don't let them do whatever they want, we kick them out of office and pursuer charges that we think will produce results (attorneys focus there resources on winnable cases all the time. It's not a new idea) but I don't think we could have proven any crime and I do think it would've been a waste of time money political capital and focus at a critical time. Just my opinion. I wonder, do you think you can win over anyone with this approach to politics. To put the people you want into offic you as there supporter need to be able to convince people and honestly, telling them that they're stupid and just approve of Obama because he's black probably isn't the way to go. Also for the record I don't have a problem with Wall Street or financial institutions or think them evil conspirators in general anymore than I have a problem with the police in general. I also don't think Clinton needs to show the content of her speeches anymore than Obama needed to show his birth cirtificate or his Harvard records. Sanders still hasn't even shown his tax records yet and is on like his third extension but I guess it doesn't matter since he lost. Wasn't he also the man who paid his wife ninety thousand in campaigne money to be a consultant and hired his daughter as well for like seventy. Money for the revolution given to himself and his family. Well at least he can go back to accomplishing nothing of note in congress until he retires. Please ignore me as itll save me a headache