...oh dear Lord please tell me you do not really believe Al Sharpton ever uttered "wise words." It's a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke. Al Sharpton is beneath contempt and unintelligent, but some Shaprtonisms are worth repeating if you ignore the fact that they came from Sharpton, i.e. "resist we much".[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"]...the wise words of Al Sharpton...OrkHammer007
European Parliament President Martin Schulz and his Fourth Reich fantasy
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]They are both certainly statist. Right, which makes them both antithetical to the right-wing, hence, only fools and liars label fascism or Nazism as right-wing ideologies. But then, most of Gamespot's forum participants likely obtain their political education from Wikipedia. Can't blame them for regurgitating the same nonsense over and over.You can't just create your own definitions of words. Just because what is called "the American right" claims to be in favour of small government with regards to only economics (they are in favour of an expansive internal intelligence apparatus, spying, tracking, indefinite detentions for counter-terrorism, a huge military, socialism for the rich (bank bailouts, not prosecuting fraud in investment banks), prohibiting same-sex marriage, pot legalization, the list goes on. But even if I say that the American right is in favour of small government (which they aren't), that still doesn't address those considered "right" in Europe and what they're general beliefs entail. So please, provide some proof that the right/left paradigm can be simplified to a point where it is a battle between those in favour of small government or large government.[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"] Yes, I already laid out their differences. Still, by any reasonable definition, both Nazism and communism and left-wing ideologies. They share far more meaningful commonalities than differences, and there is virtually no meaningful relationship between Nazism/communism and the contemporary right-wing of western politics. The same can't be said for the commonalities shared between Nazism/communism and the contemporary left.PC_gamer4life
I'll admit that seeing people conflate the term "nation" with "state" bugs me a little, but colloquialisms happen. PCguy is getting hung up on terminology though, and, because of this, semantics is currently consuming this thread
Again, you have no grasp of terms that you throw around. It's obvious you don't know what a state or nation is, considering you stated earlier that they are synonyms (they are not).[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
first of all, lol.
second, a state is synonyms with any governing body of a geographic local. nation in common speech can also mean that.
i'm sure you are talking about nations as non sovereign groups(such as indian tribes), i do not acknowledge these groups as relevant to political debates such as we were having, which was vaguely about the EU and it's affect on states, not on the various principalities and irrelevant nations of Europe.
frannkzappa
they most certainly can be in casual conversation. and in the conversation we were having there was no reason to use a niche definition of nation which only describes irrelevant and obscure groups.
They're not synonyms in any conversation unless it's a moronic conversation. The only exception being nation-states. But of course, you wouldn't know what those are until you learned how to define both nation and state.I'll admit that seeing people conflate the term "nation" with "state" bugs me a little, but colloquialisms happen. PCguy is getting hung up on terminology though, and, because of this, semantics is currently consuming this thread
coolbeans90
not to mention he refuses to acknowledge that i in fact know the strict technical difference between the two and have stated as such.
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] They are both certainly statist.Right, which makes them both antithetical to the right-wing, hence, only fools and liars label fascism or Nazism as right-wing ideologies. But then, most of Gamespot's forum participants likely obtain their political education from Wikipedia. Can't blame them for regurgitating the same nonsense over and over.You can't just create your own definitions of words. Just because what is called "the American right" claims to be in favour of small government with regards to only economics (they are in favour of an expansive internal intelligence apparatus, spying, tracking, indefinite detentions for counter-terrorism, a huge military, socialism for the rich (bank bailouts, not prosecuting fraud in investment banks), prohibiting same-sex marriage, pot legalization, the list goes on. But even if I say that the American right is in favour of small government (which they aren't), that still doesn't address those considered "right" in Europe and what they're general beliefs entail. So please, provide some proof that the right/left paradigm can be simplified to a point where it is a battle between those in favour of small government or large government.BossPerson
This should sufficiently provoke him. Well done.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"] Again, you have no grasp of terms that you throw around. It's obvious you don't know what a state or nation is, considering you stated earlier that they are synonyms (they are not). PC_gamer4life
they most certainly can be in casual conversation. and in the conversation we were having there was no reason to use a niche definition of nation which only describes irrelevant and obscure groups.
They're not synonyms in any conversation unless it's a moronic conversation. The only exception being nation-states. But of course, you wouldn't know what those are until you learned how to define both nation and state.i don't want to stoop to your level.
and i'm sure this won't satisfy your insanity but here i go.
Country and State are synonymous terms that both apply to self-governing political entities while nations are a group of people who share the same culture but do not have sovereignty.
[QUOTE="OrkHammer007"]...oh dear Lord please tell me you do not really believe Al Sharpton ever uttered "wise words." It's a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke. Al Sharpton is beneath contempt and unintelligent, but some Shaprtonisms are worth repeating if you ignore the fact that they came from Sharpton, i.e. "resist we much". Be careful about stuff like that. The last time "wise" and "Sharpton" were used in the same sentence, Firefly was cancelled. The repercussions from that are still being felt (like the '08 recession and Syria's civil war). Next time, it could be canine/feline interbreeding... and that is a sign of the Apocalyse.[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"]...the wise words of Al Sharpton...PC_gamer4life
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] They are both certainly statist.BossPersonRight, which makes them both antithetical to the right-wing, hence, only fools and liars label fascism or Nazism as right-wing ideologies. But then, most of Gamespot's forum participants likely obtain their political education from Wikipedia. Can't blame them for regurgitating the same nonsense over and over.You can't just create your own definitions of words. Just because what is called "the American right" claims to be in favour of small government with regards to only economics (they are in favour of an expansive internal intelligence apparatus, spying, tracking, indefinite detentions for counter-terrorism, a huge military, socialism for the rich (bank bailouts, not prosecuting fraud in investment banks), prohibiting same-sex marriage, pot legalization, the list goes on. But even if I say that the American right is in favour of small government (which they aren't), that still doesn't address those considered "right" in Europe and what they're general beliefs entail. So please, provide some proof that the right/left paradigm can be simplified to a point where it is a battle between those in favour of small government or large government. That's nonsense. You're equating the Republican party with the American right, and by extension, the right-wing. The right wing of the ideological spectrum remains constant. It doesn't matter if Bush supported TARP or if Cameron supports expanding the NHS. The right wing, by definition, advocates for a highly restricted government. Nazism and fascism, conversely, dictate a massive and powerful (coercive) government apparatus. There is no relationship between Nazism/fascism and the right wing, despite attempts by leftists like yourself to say so in order to demonize your political detractors via false assertion of association..
[QUOTE="the_bi99man"]Do you have the same reaction to people who call the United States "America"?Dude should probably go back to elementary school. Doesn't seem to know the difference between a country and a continent.
Barbariser
Sometimes. Although that's still considerably more common, and widely accepted. How many people do you know from France who would go to another country and tell people "I'm from Europe" when asked? Or people from Germany who would do the same? Britain? Italy? Anyone?
They're not synonyms in any conversation unless it's a moronic conversation. The only exception being nation-states. But of course, you wouldn't know what those are until you learned how to define both nation and state.[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
they most certainly can be in casual conversation. and in the conversation we were having there was no reason to use a niche definition of nation which only describes irrelevant and obscure groups.
frannkzappa
i don't want to stoop to your level.
and i'm sure this won't satisfy your insanity but here i go.
Country and State are synonymous terms that both apply to self-governing political entities while nations are is a group of people who share the same culture but do not have sovereignty.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"] They're not synonyms in any conversation unless it's a moronic conversation. The only exception being nation-states. But of course, you wouldn't know what those are until you learned how to define both nation and state.PC_gamer4life
i don't want to stoop to your level.
and i'm sure this won't satisfy your insanity but here i go.
Country and State are synonymous terms that both apply to self-governing political entities while nations are is a group of people who share the same culture but do not have sovereignty.
i could say the same to you...
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"] That's nonsense. You're equating the Republican party with the American right, and by extension, the right-wing. The right wing of the ideological spectrum remains constant. It doesn't matter if Bush supported TARP or if Cameron supports expanding the NHS. The right wing, by definition, advocates for a highly restricted government. Nazism and fascism, conversely, dictate a massive and powerful (coercive) government apparatus. There is no relationship between Nazism/fascism and the right wing, despite attempts by leftists like yourself to say so in order to demonize your political detractors.PC_gamer4lifeyou say "by definition," show me the definition or at least example that support your general narrative If you don't understand that the left/right paradigm in its purest sense contrasts an all-encompassing government against a non-existent (or "barebones", if you will) government, then there's no point in continuing this conversation, is there? You'll just come at me with stupidity and then pull a Dude on me, "it's like, my OPINION, man!".
there it is again, the stunning "if you don't agree with me you are an idiot and a leftist"defence.
good show. maybe one day you'll have a proper polemic conversation.
And frankly you are correct that it's impossible to say that the Nazi's we're right wing (also impossible to say that they were left wing, they shared characteristics of both extremes), which is why I don't refer to myself as a "leftist" or "right-winger" and not even as a liberal or conservative, since I have both liberal and conservative views. And I am also not a "moderate" of anything because that is an empty term. BossPersonNazism is a left-wing ideology, whether or not you're willing or able to understand it. It's about a massive coercive state, which is antithetical to the values of the right wing. There is nothing conservative about Nazism. There is a lot of leftism in Nazism, though. Now, before you get all upset, understand that I am not equating contemporary leftists like yourself with Nazis. That is not my objective. I am hear to simply shed some light on a topic that is typically shrouded in darkness.
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]you say "by definition," show me the definition or at least example that support your general narrative BossPersonIf you don't understand that the left/right paradigm in its purest sense contrasts an all-encompassing government against a non-existent (or "barebones", if you will) government, then there's no point in continuing this conversation, is there? You'll just come at me with stupidity and then pull a Dude on me, "it's like, my OPINION, man!". In the style of Kraychik himself: Translation: you ain't got shit son and you gave up You can't honestly believe that you're in a position to correct me on this stuff. Everything I've said here is 100% true, whether you like it or not. I'd like to read more of your conflict with the other Mohamedans. It's fun seeing identity-crisis Western leftist Mohamedans like yourself arguing with puritanical keep-it-real Islamist Mohamedans.
These threads. :lol:
The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
here Frank Zappa http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29212675/islamisation-in-america.?msg_id=337389305 Enjoy BossPerson
oh dear god.
Steven King couldn't write scarier things than that.
Also, got to love the circular logic going on here.
"Everything I said is true"
Prove it.
"You are a leftist idiot, there's no point in talking to you."
You ain't got shit.
"Everything I said is true"
I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
coolbeans90
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]You can't just create your own definitions of words. Just because what is called "the American right" claims to be in favour of small government with regards to only economics (they are in favour of an expansive internal intelligence apparatus, spying, tracking, indefinite detentions for counter-terrorism, a huge military, socialism for the rich (bank bailouts, not prosecuting fraud in investment banks), prohibiting same-sex marriage, pot legalization, the list goes on. But even if I say that the American right is in favour of small government (which they aren't), that still doesn't address those considered "right" in Europe and what they're general beliefs entail. So please, provide some proof that the right/left paradigm can be simplified to a point where it is a battle between those in favour of small government or large government. BossPersonThat's nonsense. You're equating the Republican party with the American right, and by extension, the right-wing. The right wing of the ideological spectrum remains constant. It doesn't matter if Bush supported TARP or if Cameron supports expanding the NHS. The right wing, by definition, advocates for a highly restricted government. Nazism and fascism, conversely, dictate a massive and powerful (coercive) government apparatus. There is no relationship between Nazism/fascism and the right wing, despite attempts by leftists like yourself to say so in order to demonize your political detractors.you say "by definition," show me the definition or at least example that support your general narrative weftist.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
PC_gamer4life
your reading comprehension is terrible.
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]If it pleases you, I am not a "Mohammedan" and I have no misconceptions about what Islam is or isn't. BossPersonI see, you're a partially Islamified Christian. From Lebanon or Syria, perhaps? I would imagine that some of the Mohamedan narratives, hatred of Jews, America, hatred of freedom of expression, resistance towards free markets, etc, has seeped into you from your heritage. It makes sense. It's hard to not be influenced by the dominant culture when surrounded by them, right? And if it didn't affect you directly, it must've been indirect through your family. no, atheist. And you know I don't hate Jews, you have seen my posts from before. And as for free markets, lol.... Why are you acting like I know you? You're just a Mohamedan-ish socialist who exchanged God for Karl Marx.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.Then who defines the right? You are defining the right based on the aether dwelling Americans who are in favour of small government. You don't seem to think that Republicans fit this bill, so where are these imaginary heroes? Are they Libertarians, dare I say? Is Ron Paul a hero of the right-wing?The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
PC_gamer4life
[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"] You can't honestly believe that you're in a position to correct me on this stuff. Everything I've said here is 100% true, whether you like it or not. I'd like to read more of your conflict with the other Mohamedans. It's fun seeing identity-crisis Western leftist Mohamedans like yourself arguing with puritanical keep-it-real Islamist Mohamedans. PC_gamer4lifeIf it pleases you, I am not a "Mohammedan" and I have no misconceptions about what Islam is or isn't. I see, you're a partially Islamified Christian. From Lebanon or Syria, perhaps? I would imagine that some of the Mohamedan narratives, hatred of Jews, America, hatred of freedom of expression, resistance towards free markets, etc, has seeped into you from your heritage. It makes sense. It's hard to not be influenced by the dominant culture when surrounded by them, right? And if it didn't affect you directly, it must've been indirect through your family.
Dear god, who let you out of your padded cell.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
PC_gamer4life
The left/right paradigm has taken on various meanings. Their numerous conflicts with each other doesn't aid the paradigm's already roughly nonexistent utility, but I am pretty sure that government size isn't what bossperson had in mind when using the term.
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.Then who defines the right? You are defining the right based on the aether dwelling Americans who are in favour of small government. You don't seem to think that Republicans fit this bill, so where are these imaginary heroes? Are they Libertarians, dare I say? Is Ron Paul a hero of the right-wing? Saying we can't define the right wing because you're unfamiliar with contemporary right-wing personalities, or that there aren't enough right-wingers in America is like saying we can't define Nazism because we don't have enough of them around. The definitions of right and left remain static, and they are not owned by political parties who adjust their political platforms based on what they believe will secure them electoral victories. Just as communism, Nazism, socialism, and Nazism have static definitions, so does the right wing and so does American conservatism.The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
BossPerson
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]no, atheist. And you know I don't hate Jews, you have seen my posts from before. And as for free markets, lol....BossPersonWhy are you acting like I know you? You're just a Mohamedan-ish socialist who exchanged God for Karl Marx.lol, there's no pleasing this guy. Once you are born "mOhammedan" there's no leaving it. And where in the hell did I say I am a "follower" of Karl Marx? Sequis Mahomet aut sequis Carolum Marx?
I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
The left-right paradigm defined strictly by government size is not useful in terms of differentiating the political leanings of the two primary political parties in the U.S. Moreover, most mainstream movements choose their government interferences and abstentions. While on the aggregate level there will be some variation as a whole, it will not be especially substantial, and the other distinctions between them are lost entirely by that metric. It can effectively describe one abnormal trait of fringe movements - that's it. That metric pretty close to useless.
coolbeans90
The left/right paradigm has taken on various meanings, which considering their numerous conflicts with each other doesn't necessarily aid its already more or less nonexistent utility, but I am pretty sure that government size isn't what bossperson had in mind when using the term.
Your last comment is pretty much my point. We don't redefine the left and right because BossPerson feels like it. The purest definition of the paradigm is differentiating between the opposing sides' views of the appropriate size and scope of government, therefore, there's no way Nazism/fascism can be a right-wing ideology. Unfortunately, the left has been extremely successful in perpetuating this false narrative, and it's seeped into the minds of countless millions (like BossPerson).[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Then who defines the right? You are defining the right based on the aether dwelling Americans who are in favour of small government. You don't seem to think that Republicans fit this bill, so where are these imaginary heroes? Are they Libertarians, dare I say? Is Ron Paul a hero of the right-wing? BossPersonSaying we can't define the right wing because you're unfamiliar with contemporary right-wing personalities, or that there aren't enough right-wingers in America is like saying we can't define Nazism because we don't have enough of them around. The definitions of right and left remain static, and they are not owned by political parties who adjust their political platforms based on what they believe will secure them electoral victories. Just as communism, Nazism, socialism, and Nazism have static definitions, so does the right wing and so does American conservatism.And yet you still refuse to prove or back up these static definitions? Surely, if they are so exact and absolute, they would be easily "backable"
your obviously to dumb to understand and comprehend the working of his higher mind.:roll:
[QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]Then who defines the right? You are defining the right based on the aether dwelling Americans who are in favour of small government. You don't seem to think that Republicans fit this bill, so where are these imaginary heroes? Are they Libertarians, dare I say? Is Ron Paul a hero of the right-wing? BossPersonSaying we can't define the right wing because you're unfamiliar with contemporary right-wing personalities, or that there aren't enough right-wingers in America is like saying we can't define Nazism because we don't have enough of them around. The definitions of right and left remain static, and they are not owned by political parties who adjust their political platforms based on what they believe will secure them electoral victories. Just as communism, Nazism, socialism, and Nazism have static definitions, so does the right wing and so does American conservatism.And yet you still refuse to prove or back up these static definitions? Surely, if they are so exact and absolute, they would be easily "backable" Like I said, if you don't even understand the left/right paradigm, and you don't (even after I just did you the favour of explaining it), there's no point in going on with this. Allahu Akbhar!
You know... I almost forgot what I came in to say:
When he grows an ugly moustache and makes a mutual non-aggression pact with Putin, that's when you should start to worry,
Screw this, anyways, tell me Kraychik, who is the rightful king of Westeros? And what defines who has right to the throne? Is it like an heirloom to be passed on, or could one claim right to the throne by saying they would be most fit to rule it? BossPersonI don't know about Westeros (what is that anyway, King of Thrones?), but I do know that it takes more than a piece of Elvish glass and rabble that any brigand of the hills can assemble to make a king. I also know that an elf cloak, a dwarf coat, a blade from the downfallen West and a spy from the little rat land of the shire are the marks of a conspiracy!
I don't know about Westeros (what is that anyway, King of Thrones?), but I do know that it takes more than a piece of Elvish glass and rabble that any brigand of the hills can assemble to make a king. I also know that an elf cloak, a dwarf coat, a blade from the downfallen West and a spy from the little rat land of the shire are the marks of a conspiracy!brush your teeth[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Screw this, anyways, tell me Kraychik, who is the rightful king of Westeros? And what defines who has right to the throne? Is it like an heirloom to be passed on, or could one claim right to the throne by saying they would be most fit to rule it? whipassmt
Screw this, anyways, tell me Kraychik, who is the rightful king of Westeros? And what defines who has right to the throne? Is it like an heirloom to be passed on, or could one claim right to the throne by saying they would be most fit to rule it? BossPerson
the answer is tywin lannister with daenerys targaryen as a close second. if you fused the two together you would get a technocratic westeros which i would aprove of.
edit: oh you were asking kraychik
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="PC_gamer4life"] I'm not the one conflating the left/right paradigm with the Democrat/Republican paradigm in the USA. That stupidity came from BossPerson.PC_gamer4life
The left/right paradigm has taken on various meanings, which considering their numerous conflicts with each other doesn't necessarily aid its already more or less nonexistent utility, but I am pretty sure that government size isn't what bossperson had in mind when using the term.
Your last comment is pretty much my point. We don't redefine the left and right because BossPerson feels like it. The purest definition of the paradigm is differentiating between the opposing sides' views of the appropriate size and scope of government, therefore, there's no way Nazism/fascism can be a right-wing ideology. Unfortunately, the left has been extremely successful in perpetuating this false narrative, and it's seeped into the minds of countless millions (like BossPerson).What do you mean by "purest," precisely? There isn't a concretely established meaning to the paradigm in U.S. political circles or colloquialisms. Under the basis of government size, you would be correct in categorizing the Nazis on the same side of the spectrum as the U.S.S.R., but there were differences to an extent on things like having a market economy (yes, I know you couldn't rightly call Nazi Germany a free market, but it wasn't entirely socialist in practice, either). The distinction between capitalist and socialist economies has long been used as fundamental factor in distinguishing "left wing" from "right wing," perhaps to a greater extent than government size. WWII and the Cold War surely had a role in this, but using said factor WRT the paradigm is commonplace, and it isn't remotely redefining the paradigm because bossperson feels like it.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]I don't know about Westeros (what is that anyway, King of Thrones?), but I do know that it takes more than a piece of Elvish glass and rabble that any brigand of the hills can assemble to make a king. I also know that an elf cloak, a dwarf coat, a blade from the downfallen West and a spy from the little rat land of the shire are the marks of a conspiracy!brush your teeth I don't have time. I have to parley with a stupid invading rabble at the gate (my boss wants to attack them, I think we should just keep the gate closed and let them camp out a bit, but I'm just a messenger), then there are some spies in our land that we are trying to get, but don't tell the greybeard about that, I'm going tell him that we already caught his spies.[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Screw this, anyways, tell me Kraychik, who is the rightful king of Westeros? And what defines who has right to the throne? Is it like an heirloom to be passed on, or could one claim right to the throne by saying they would be most fit to rule it? BossPerson
Gandalf should dye his beard.
I can't vouch for who is the "rightful" king of Westeros from a legal standpoint, but it is pretty clear that Tywin Lannister is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. However, a few dragons could pretty easily knock over the board at any point.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment