Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am happy for him. Maybe now Bono will move back
> and pay his taxes to his countrymen giving him
> this paltry honor. Maybe now he will stop lusting
> over the US tax revenues. Maybe pigs will fly.
>
> BTW, Bono the humanitarian and his investors just
> bought 40% of Forbes. His first act of business
> was to cut pension benefits and prevent new
> employees from joining. Helluva guy that Bono,
> once again screwing the working class for his own
> benefit.
>
> If there is a bigger, more hypocritical con man in
> the world please tell me who his is. It is simply
> amazing how many people are duped by this
> egomaniac.

Steven, Bono's Irish not English, so he doesn't have to pay us - the Brits - any taxes because we're not his countrymen. Rudi Giuliani got an honorary knighthood too, don't you know.

He bought 40% of Forbes? You know what happens when businesses get taken over, don't you? Lay-offs usually ensue. It's called business. He may do charitable work - and plenty of it - but his investment was a business decision, and therefore completely separate. You woudn't have batted an eye if Donald Trump had done the same thing ... while giving away $1m to keep a hospital wing going in a deprived neighbourhood.

And if you want to go on about inconsistencies, did you know that none other than Michael Moore was a Halliburton shareholder .... not to mention the very lucrative stock portfolio he holds.

But he's allowed to be personally wealthy and campaign for the poor and underpriviledged. Something he's done virtually as soon as he became famous (he was a big exponent of Greenpeace years before global warming became a byword). There's no inconsistency about him. He didn't suddenly sprout a social conscience after he made his first mil.

By the way - check my record - I'm not even a Bono fan.

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steven Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I am happy for him. Maybe now Bono will move
> back
> > and pay his taxes to his countrymen giving him
> > this paltry honor. Maybe now he will stop
> lusting
> > over the US tax revenues. Maybe pigs will fly.
> >
> > BTW, Bono the humanitarian and his investors
> just
> > bought 40% of Forbes. His first act of
> business
> > was to cut pension benefits and prevent new
> > employees from joining. Helluva guy that Bono,
> > once again screwing the working class for his
> own
> > benefit.
> >
> > If there is a bigger, more hypocritical con man
> in
> > the world please tell me who his is. It is
> simply
> > amazing how many people are duped by this
> > egomaniac.
>
> Steven, Bono's Irish not English, so he doesn't
> have to pay us - the Brits - any taxes because
> we're not his countrymen. Rudi Giuliani got an
> honorary knighthood too, don't you know.
>
> He bought 40% of Forbes? You know what happens
> when businesses get taken over, don't you?
> Lay-offs usually ensue. It's called business. He
> may do charitable work - and plenty of it - but
> his investment was a business decision, and
> therefore completely separate. You woudn't have
> batted an eye if Donald Trump had done the same
> thing ... while giving away $1m to keep a hospital
> wing going in a deprived neighbourhood.
>
> And if you want to go on about inconsistencies,
> did you know that none other than Michael Moore
> was a Halliburton shareholder .... not to mention
> the very lucrative stock portfolio he holds.
>
Bono's he's allowed to be personally wealthy and
> campaign for the poor and underpriviledged.
> Something he's done virtually as soon as he became
> famous (he was a big exponent of Greenpeace years
> before global warming became a byword). There's
> no inconsistency about him. He didn't suddenly
> sprout a social conscience after he made his first
> mil.
>
> By the way - check my record - I'm not even a Bono
> fan.

If it makes you feel better, I have less respect for Michael Moore than I do for Bono.

Funny how Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can pay their taxes while quietly giving billions to do humanitarian work while Bono dodges paying his fair share while lobbying to piss away a foriegn country's taxes revenues, all the while blowing his own horn and never missing a photo opportunity.

If someone knows of Bono using his own money for charitable endeavors I would like to know. Let's face it, he doesn't exactly hide his efforts. If he gave a penny he would promote it like he was spending millions.

It appears he is every bit as egotistical and greedy as Jagger. Nothing wrong with being a capitalist if you are honest about it. At least Mick makes no bones about it and doesn't pretend to a holy savior. The Stones did give to Katrina and the Robin Hood Foundation, while Bono used his to buy an investment magazine.

Bono is a greedy capitalist that likes to use others money for self aggrandizement. That what makes him a hypocrite.

Glimmer Twin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with Bono is that he takes his good
> causes with him on stage. In november of 2005 I
> saw U2 for the first (and last) time in my life. I
> paid a lot of money and expected to see a good
> show. What a disappointment it was, at least 1/4
> of the show was lost on Bono yabbing about this
> and that 'good cause'

1/4? Over half an hour?? Total exaggeration. And THATs a fact..But hey, why not - after all, Ive read on here some posts that suggest half the show was taken up by this.

Amazing how the evidence doesnt appear to be there on any of the recordings

Steven Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it makes you feel better, I have less respect
> for Michael Moore than I do for Bono.
>
> Funny how Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can pay
> their taxes while quietly giving billions to do
> humanitarian work while Bono dodges paying his
> fair share while lobbying to piss away a foriegn
> country's taxes revenues, all the while blowing
> his own horn and never missing a photo
> opportunity.
>
> If someone knows of Bono using his own money for
> charitable endeavors I would like to know. Let's
> face it, he doesn't exactly hide his efforts. If
> he gave a penny he would promote it like he was
> spending millions.
>
> It appears he is every bit as egotistical and
> greedy as Jagger. Nothing wrong with being a
> capitalist if you are honest about it. At least
> Mick makes no bones about it and doesn't pretend
> to a holy savior. The Stones did give to Katrina
> and the Robin Hood Foundation, while Bono used his
> to buy an investment magazine.
>
> Bono is a greedy capitalist that likes to use
> others money for self aggrandizement. That what
> makes him a hypocrite.



Wasn't Achtung Baby great though?

Every conservative politician in this planet, Gulfovitz (!) included, can easily "clean" his image just meeting Bono or ringing Bono. Pseudo- "socialists", like T. Blair, are bringing Bono to the congress of their parties in order to have political benefits. Bono is their "alibi". Actually they give nothing or some "crumbs". Crumbs they already had decided to give. What a game! They are cleaning their image and Bono is acting the "protector of the humanity". Sorry, but this game disgusts me.

PS: U2, as a band, is another story. I like their music, but not since 1992.

I like Bono.
I Iike U2.
I don't like it when guys like Bono talk about poverty and human rights when I wanna see them do "Zoo Station" or "Where The Streets Have No Name".
Always those pathetic words about Dr. King and the American Dream, shit.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Glass Slide Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > When has Mick come to a country that he did not
> > live in and tell them how to run it?
>
> Most recent album. Track 13.

'Sweet NeoCon' certainly offers *commentary* from Mick, but I'd say it stops short of telling anybody how to run their country. Bozo, on the other hand, spends a good deal of time on Capitol Hill twisting the arms of Senators and Congressmen, telling them how to spend American tax dollars. So these two different approaches aren't comparable at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-28 18:38 by Roscoe.