CrimsonWeltall

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 21, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) She's had him looking for wildfire in the books and show. What's the issue? Can you point me to where in the books or show that Cersei has ever asked Qyburn to look for wildfire? My issue isn't with Cersei pursuing that particular tactic, but with the idea that it's some big secret. Cersei would already know that Aerys had wildfire under the city and intended to ignite it. That's a primary reason Jaime killed him. Cersei herself worked with the alchemist's guild to tap into existing caches and generate more. They produced enough to burn down the entire city in short order, so why would she even need to depend on using street urchin children to find secret caches?

I still don't like the theory that the Qyburn "rumors" are wildfire from a writing perspective, but given that they mention cities being burned down EVERY EPISODE NOW, that's probably it.

I've got a handful of freebies, but cannot find a list of eligible events anywhere on here.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 06:44 PM) Do we honestly know that though? I mean, she was riding with them... Hard to say. They last met at Moletown. I don't know if he could reliably send a RSVP Yes raven to "encampment somewhere nearish Winterfell".

QUOTE (South Sider @ Jun 20, 2016 -> 04:41 PM) If Sansa delays the battle and Ramsay eventually becomes aware of the Vale army, he would instead stay in Winterfell and prepare for a siege. He was probably only so willing to meet in open battle because of his superior numbers. Sansa wanted to tell Jon about the Vale, but for some reason wanted Jon to naturally delay the battle instead of delaying because of the Vale. Perhaps it was because she didn't know if they were really coming, or maybe there really was strategy about it from Sansa's part. I hope we'll find out in the finale. Sansa also didn't know Baelish would actually show up. She sent a request for help; that's no guarantee it will arrive. She should have told Jon about the possibility though.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 06:15 AM) Personally I don't see how couples make it without combined faith. Being ethical doesn't require any faith.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 06:59 AM) Because, coworkers tried to turn the killer into HR and they'd have none of it at his work because of PC concerns. He could sue for harassment. Because neighbors can't turn guys into the police when they see something unusual cause they don't want to be labeled minority haters. What evidence is there that he wasn't fired due to "PC concerns"? How would getting fired from his job have prevented the attack?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 02:31 PM) Gendry's been in that rowboat for the last 4 seasons... I keep expecting him to pop up in Bravos or Meereen or something. He's gone to the place west of Westeros.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) I almost wondered if Cersei was going to admit the rumor that the King didn't really have any royal blood in him and that he was in fact the Kingslayers lovechild. Talk about a twist She doesn't need Qyburn to know those rumors are true. Someone find Gendry and put him on the throne.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 01:18 AM) Tyrion found a cache of it and ordered new stuff made, remember he met with the alchemists? Sending the spiders who know all the secret passages around KL and can move unnoticed and unfettered is exactly the kind of resource you'd use to ferret out the remaining caches. Aerys put that s*** all over the city. What information are they going to find about the HS? He already told Marge about his prior life as a sinner and would just use it as an example that everyone can be redeemed and reborn in the light of the seven. If the HS is actively sinning or being hypocritical, that would be a huge blow to his credibility. I just don't see how Wildfire is a "rumor" anymore. It was confirmed. Cersei could go straight to the Alchemists and request some if she wanted.

QUOTE (Nixon @ Jun 13, 2016 -> 04:16 PM) Qyburn and Cersei talking about rumors. In Bran's visions earlier in the season we see the pyromancers preparing the wildfire for Aerys II. Cersei asked Qyburn to check out the old caches of Wildfire said to have been buried around the city. The Wildfire caches aren't rumors; Tyrion used them to great effect already. Doesn't make much sense that Qyburn would be using child-spies to get that kind of information anyway.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jun 13, 2016 -> 08:09 PM) I didn't even have a bachelor party. We had the rehearsal dinner, then got married the next day. Strip clubs are so cliche'. I personally just never had an interest in looking at naked women the night before I was with my wife. It felt like a bit of a betrayal. Same here for all of this.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 9, 2016 -> 09:14 PM) I don't get it, is that tweet supposed to be funny? Same here...

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 07:30 PM) Limbaugh says Trump will win in a landslide. This is interesting talk. is it true? Is Donald Trump our next president? The wild thing is if that is true, Hillary still could run and win in four years. Trump almost certainly won't get re-elected and Hillary would definitely win in 2020. That would be the wildest scenario. I'm serious here. Please comment on my point. It truly would be EASY for Hillary in 2020 if the scenario happens that Trump wins. OK, provided he doesn't get impeached and runs again, nobody, not even most Republicans would vote for more of Trump. We'll be so sick of him in four years. Hillary, meanwhile, has no Bernie trying to annoy her. She is the hailed Democrat nominee, wins in a landslide and she makes history this time without even sweating. So either way ... Trump would just be delaying the inevitable for four years. If Hillary loses to Donald Trump, there's no way she'd get another shot in 2020.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 8, 2016 -> 07:30 PM) Limbaugh says Trump will win in a landslide. This is interesting talk. is it true? Is Donald Trump our next president? The wild thing is if that is true, Hillary still could run and win in four years. Trump almost certainly won't get re-elected and Hillary would definitely win in 2020. That would be the wildest scenario. Didn't he also call for Romney and McCain landslides? People who live in echo chambers aren't the best at predicting election outcomes.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jun 7, 2016 -> 09:59 PM) I think most reasonable can understand a father wanting to believe and defend his son. It was the way he chose to word everything that just made it come across so much worse. To actually say your kid has suffered enough because he doesnt enjoy steak and potato chips anymore is really a slap in the face to the victim. You can stand by your family without saying things so dumb and insulting. Very true.

The outrage over the light sentence is totally justified. He should have gotten far worse. The outrage over the father's letter seems overblown. The father believes that it was some kind of consensual sexual act between 2 drunk people. That makes him an idiot (or delusional), not someone who thinks rape deserves a slap on the wrist, which is what everyone is portraying him as.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 07:42 PM) But it appears Trump did or has done none of that. Instead he is whining and grandstanding. Of course he's not doing that. Do you think Trump's lawyers would be willing to file a motion to dismiss the judge because he's Mexican? I don't think the Bar would look too favorably on that. Whining is his only option, and it's effective. When he loses the case (which seems pretty obvious - those unsealed records are completely damning), all his followers will believe the result is bogus, and those damn Mexicans are victimizing people again.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 07:10 PM) That doesn't mean he doesn't have a bias. Sure, and you can't prove you're not secretly a cannibal. No one has provided any actual evidence he DOES have a bias, or that any of his decisions in the case have been unreasonable.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 03:29 AM) The judge also belongs to the LaRaza lawyers Group or something like that, loosly affiliated with LaRaza who is anti Trump, and the counsel he appointented to the defense has donated almost 1 mil to Hillary. I don't see how ther could even BE a possibility of him being biased here. Not one bit. The judge belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the California La Raza Lawyers Association, which happens to link to the National Council of La Raza (the objectionable group) at the bottom of their Links page that has a whole bunch of Latino-advocacy groups listed. So he's guilty by association of association of association. The council was appointed to the plaintiffs, not the defense. They're a famous San Diego class action lawsuit group, and one of two he appointed. Moreover, he picked them in 2014, BEFORE Trump was even a candidate and made all those anti-Mexican comments.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 04:15 PM) And in reality, Trump is dealing with a minority judge, which means you are assigning some level of reality to what he is saying. No, I'm not. One cannot apply aggregate statistics for a group to every individual within that group. And as I mentioned before, Trump isn't claiming that the judge is biased against white people. He's claiming that the judge is biased against him specifically (Trump) due to Trump's anti-Mexican stances.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 02:45 PM) If you honestly believe this, how do those things not work in reverse? That is the problem with this entire line of thought... it really isn't linear. Maybe they would in theory, but demographics prevent it. How likely is it that a white defendant is going to get a jury of 12 racial minorities?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 6, 2016 -> 01:02 AM) Only white people can be racist and biased as judges, juries, and police? This is the entire problem with this line of thinking. If only the same race can judge a race fairly, how is Trump wrong? I haven't heard anyone promote either of those positions - that only white people can be biased, or that people can only judge their own race fairly. But anyway, Trump isn't even claiming that the judge is racist against white people. He's claiming the judge is prejudiced against Trump specifically because of the judge's race (ethnicity actually), and the fact that Trump has made anti-Mexican comments. "Hey, this guy can't judge me fairly. I've been s***ting all over his heritage!" Next he'll get a female judge and claim she has a conflict of interest because he s***s on women. Then he'll get a Muslim judge and claim he has a conflict of interest because he s***s on Muslims. And so on.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 04:31 PM) What do you think the takeaway from her quote is? It's blaming Donald Trump. She's not dumb, that's how it will play in the media and headlines. It's naive to think otherwise. She can criticize Trump all she wants. In this particular instance, she should have condemned the San Diego violence. She blames Trump for it instead. That's not condemning it. Really, it just furthers the problem. The takeaway is that (a) violence at rallies is bad and should be stopped, and (b) Donald Trump's rhetoric contributed to the problem. You keep ignoring (a), when it's the MAIN IDEA of what she said. It just furthers the problem? Yeah, saying "don't do that" means "do that". I think Hillary is terrible, but your criticism here is complete nonsense.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 5, 2016 -> 05:20 PM) Right. And as I said to turn that into a Trump attack isn't condemning it. And that's nonsense. Why can't one condemn anti-Trump violence and also criticize Trump at the same time, when Trump has a history of supporting violence?