#1 Re: Guns N' Roses » Sculpting axl rose » 2 weeks ago
Can't see how they can sell stadiums again just by rolling out the same shit! Casual fans that wanted to see Axl and Slash on stage again now have. Not sure how many of them will pony up good $$'s again for the same offering.
New music and/or AFD5 tour is the only way forward. That said, new music is no guarantee for success either. Their best shot at success would be with Izzy in the mix working on brand new songs, not tinkering over reheated Chi Dem stuff. Then tour behind that.
But I don't see that happening. They will just dial it in, count whatever dollars come in from more of the same. The cleaners will continue to put out more garbage swag to fatten their own pockets. Rinse and repeat.
I would have thought if they want to keep touring then they will need to do something to refresh the audience and keep them coming, otherwise I imagine numbers would slowly dwindle.
Releasing some new music then starting the whole tour cycle again seems logical. If they don't want to do that then I would suggest an AFD 5 lineup and tour would be an option that would allow them to tour and still keep strong crowd numbers.
That said if I was them I would leave the AFD 5 tour as the ace up my sleeve in the event the public goes cold on GNR again and/or new music flops. This would give them one last substantial bite of the cherry.
I still can’t believe this whole snippet game continues on. Just leak the whole song or fuck off.
This shit has been going on for 15 odd years. I know I’ve grown up and moved on during that time, have these muppets not had one ounce of emotional development during that period?
They’re songs recorded bloody years ago. Share it if u want and I’ll listen to it, but fucken grow up and stop playing games with short clips of songs for bragging or “I have this and you don’t” or whatever the fuck else they get out of it.
They must have pitiful lives.
#9 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 40 weeks ago
Perhaps there are more men bailing because when the woman doesnt want the baby and the responsibility she terminates it before it’s born, thus never needing to bail. The male doesnt get the chance to do that, they can only make the decision to bail after the fact if they can’t convince the woman not to have it.
Don’t get my wrong tho, I don’t think it’s right. if you have a baby then you have a responsibility to look after it in most instances and you should suck it up and do your best to raise and support it.
#10 Re: The Garden » US Politics Thread » 40 weeks ago
While I am philosophically pro-choice, the issue I always have with this debate is one nobody has ever been able to give a good answer to. I don't want to debate the right cares about the unborn until they are born and the left doesn't care about the unborn until they are born...those are ridiculous arguments.
What I would like to know is why in a marriage where the couple has consensual sex does the wife have the right to abort the child with no say so from the husband? Even outside a marriage if the sex is consensual...abortion should not be a form of birth control as there are many other ways to effectively do that.
I completely understand rape, incest, teens ruining their lives, etc. I get it whether I fully agree with it or not. I don't want to sit here and tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, but at the same time why does the father have no rights, especially in a marriage with consensual sex situation? At some point even if you're going to say the embryo/fetus/whatever doesn't have rights yet, certainly the father does assuming consensual marital sex, right? Or is that considered a man trying to tell a woman what to do?
I don't think abortion should be illegal, but I also don't think the rights of all of those involved are being protected either.
Ive often pondered this point too.
Why does the man not get some input also and have some type of rights? The eventual baby is essentially half made by him and certainly he will be financially jointly responsible too. I mean if the man feels he isn't going to be able to support the child and the mother adequately financially and emotionally etc and feels it's not best to bring a child into such a relationship, then why does he get no say? I know I know, if he feels like this then he should have used a condom in the first place but there are always exceptions (condom broke or she said she was on the pill but forgot to take it - or worse intentionally didn't take it). Then the reverse, what if the man wants to keep the child and raise it, he still doesn't get a say if the woman wants to abort it. You see plenty of women that decide they suddenly want a child and will have one with someone regardless of whether the partner wants it or consents to it, but a man can't. They can't even stop the wife aborting it even if they want to raise it themselves without any input (financial or otherwise) from the mother.
It's just odd that the man essentially has no right in what happens to his unborn child. I dare say in today's "women's rights" environment if the situation was reversed I'm damn sure there would be hysterical protests about changing this.