I can't believe these talentless hacks would even consider stealing from the greatest band of all time! But alas, it's true. The smelly old hippies in the Beatles ripped of Limp Bizkit on their pathetic excuse for a song, know as "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". I don't understand why these losers would even try to be anything close to as influential and brilliant as tha Bizkit. If it was for Limp Bizkit and their genius frontman, Fred Durt, the Beatles would be nowhere! They wouldn't even exist!
In fact, the Beatles were introduced to world by Limp Bizkit. One day while Fred was on TRL he shouted out these old stinky bozos as the worst band of all time. Oh so true. Limp Bizkit would crush them any day of the week, y'all. Ah well, it's not much of a deal, considering that everyone hates the Beatles and everyone adores Limp Bizkit for the heart-wrenching, epic, emotional masterpieces that they created over the years. It just strikes me as sad that the Beatles would even try to rip LB.
2006-10-10 15:49:25 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Anyways, discuss this tragedy folks. I know its sad... I'm tearing up just thinking of it. But try to pull yourself together.
2006-10-10 15:50:51 · update #1
You're weird.
2006-10-10 15:53:35 · answer #1 · answered by Abi 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The Beatles broke up before the members of Limp Bizkit were even born. Limp Bizkit sucks compared to The Beatles.
2006-10-10 22:55:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
One would think that if Limp Bizkit came out on the scene in the 1990s and John Lennon was shot in the 1980's, that it would be physically IMPOSSIBLE for the Beatles (as a whole group) to rip off Limp Bizkit. Read what you write and think about it before you post it. Thanks for a good laugh.
2006-10-10 23:41:59 · answer #3 · answered by musicfreak35 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
So let me see if I have this right... Limp Bizkit came before The Beatles and made them world famous for sucking at singing music (supposidly), then got mad at them for "ripping off Limp Bizkit", then discovered anti-ageing cream and made it where they were the only ones to know about it, made sure they never started to age until about the 90's, and were better than The Beatles? Uh huh... whatever drugs your on must be pretty good for you to think of that.
2006-10-10 23:19:09 · answer #4 · answered by [{<ChaoticPyroB^tch>} 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Beatles were famous long before Fred Durst was even born. If they were introduced to YOU by Limp Bizkit, you need to get out more.
Thanks for the points.
2006-10-10 22:59:51 · answer #5 · answered by badseamstress 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That was alot of work just to end up being unfunny.
By the way just for record, Limp Bizkit isnt worthy of breathing the same air as any of the Beatles.
2006-10-10 22:58:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Where should I start? Wait, this is a joke, right? The Beatles are... well they're just The Beatles, and Limp Bizkit is not. It's as simple as that! :)
2006-10-11 21:21:39 · answer #7 · answered by The_Girl_With_Kaleidoscope_Eyes 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Interesting theory. Especially since the Beatles came waaayyyyyy before Fred Durst started singing!
2006-10-10 22:53:19 · answer #8 · answered by snottynessa 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You do know the beattles were before limp bizkit don't you?
Well anyways. Yes that would be tragedy. I think limp bizkit is one of many good bands in the world today.
2006-10-10 23:07:51 · answer #9 · answered by Cameron 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Beatles came out in early 60s limp is a 90s band (I ain't sure)? But fred durst was probably in diapers or unborn then!
http://www.willyblues.com/
2006-10-10 22:54:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You're a sad man. It's Fred Durst, by the way; not Durt. Apparently you're a big fan, huh? :-)
2006-10-10 22:54:44 · answer #11 · answered by gpenz63 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋