Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Faux

  1. Faux

    E3 - 2012

    Because they didn't have enough time?
  2. Kovy looks more interested in winning than Parise. That is so weird to me.
  3. Faux

    E3 - 2012

    Wow is there anything more pointless than discussing which company "won"? At the end of the day 99% of the stuff they showed are complete crap. I wish Nintendo focused more on their online system. Wii online was a joke. They need something that can compare with Live. They already stole 360s controller, might as well copy their online too.
  4. Faux

    E3 - 2012

    Halo 4 looks impressive. Reach sucked IMO and this one looks on par with Halo 3. No idea why people like COD. BF3 is better in every way.
  5. Two American teams in the SCF and US ratings are lower than last year's (Vancouver-Boston). I wonder what the ratings are in Canada. It has to be pretty bad. NJ and LA has very little history against each other.
  6. Faux

    E3 - 2012

    Lol calm down. I'm just pointing out the obvious. The 360 has the most ergonomic controller. Nintendo picked the correct one to imitate.
  7. Faux

    E3 - 2012

    Nintendo ripped off 360s controller.
  8. You're talking about two completely different sums of money though. One is almost nothing, and one is ridiculousness. $1625 is almost nothing. Oh America.
  9. If your university says it will increase from 35k to 57k, you'd be fine with that?
  10. Let's use hard numbers then. Say last year it cost a grand total of $20,000 to educate a Canadian student for a year. This includes what the student paid, and what the taxpayers paid. Say the student paid $5,000 and the taxpayers paid $15,000. Let's suppose the cost of education increases from $20,000 per year last year to $30,000 per year this year. What's maintaining the status quo? Students paying 25% of the cost, or paying $5,000 total? Is it taxpayers paying $15,000 total? If you're arguing that students shouldn't have to pay for any ofthe rising costs, you're arguing that someone else should pay for it instead. You're also arguing that students should pay relatively less for their education. So no, I think your mentality that "we want to maintain the status quo" actually means, "we want to pay less than we already are." For one thing you can't call these hard numbers if they're made up. They're figurative. I'm not against increasing tuition. But to put it into a legit context, you say you're paying 35K every year. If the gov't says it will increase to 57k, you'd be fine with that?
  11. Assume Nothing seems to have skipped past this post. Just re-quoting it for his sake.
  12. Baseless assumption. This supports my argument.
  13. losing Lidstrom and maybe Brad Stuart. their playoff streak is at risk
  14. I understand that tuition in Quebec has to increase. But the way you word your argument is completely ignorant. Taxes already subsidize their education. Universities are already publicly funded. This is just trying to maintain status quo. They aren't going around "we want to pay less than we already are". Again, American mentality is clouding your judgment here. You have to realize Quebec already has the highest taxes in North America. I for one would rather see tax money go into education than the pockets of government officials. Students shouldn't suffer because of the idiocy of the current government. Another thing you need to realize is that the full effect of this law will barely affect these students. They're not only fighting for themselves, but for future university students. They'd be graduated by the time the price increase goes into full effect. Oh and just to make your blood boil, you do know there are European countries with free university education? Weird.
  15. One thing I noted about the typical "Internet" fashion style is being too effeminate. It's glaringly obvious in this thread too. why this over a pair of wayfarers?
  16. Which only supports my argument... why exactly does Robert have such a huge following? Or rather, why did they choose Robert to lead the rebellion despite Ned Stark or Jon Arryn having stronger share of their forces? Oh right, because he had the best claim to the throne. Another factor is Dorne. Dorne thinks they have the power to overthrow the Throne (and probably do, remember they were only subdued due to dragons but even then they weren't fully invaded). Why are they or their leader, at least, so hell bent on finding Daenerys (w/ zero knowledge of the dragons) first rather than just kill their way to the throne? Especially when they have reasons for revenge against the Lannisters? But yeah Langzor, there's no blood or lineage theme in the series at all. None.
  17. King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Castlerock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys). Saying blood isn't a theme in GoT is laughable. Just because his army was untouched doesn't mean it was the largest. Robert's army was more than prepared to take it from the Targaryens before Tywin and Jaime saved them that trouble. They would've taken it no matter who held it, the only difference being in the number of lives lost. This line of discussion is moot because Tywin wouldn't have thrown away the goodwill generated from his victory over King's Landing for a short time on the throne. He's more subtle than that. Dismissing all of Tywin's motivations to not take the throne because "blood is a theme", and doing the same with Daenerys' inclusion in the plot, is equally laughable. Yeah I don't think you understand how strong defensively King's Landing really is or Casterly Rock's wealth. If Tywin wanted to take the Throne, he would've. The later books focus a lot on mercenaries. Guess who is the wealthiest family (wealthier than the Throne) in Westeros? Yeah, the Lannisters. Considering how long the Rebellion took, that would've been enough for Tywin to purchase enough mercs on top of his already big army (Casterly Rock has the biggest familial army) to decimate Aerys and Robert. If you take away the blood theme, then a lot of the story doesn't make sense. I don't want to get into spoiling for TV watchers because just think about the importance of the purplehaired guy in the last book is, how his bloodline is relevant and how it changes the "game". I think you and everyone else bought into Cersei's schtick about power. But GRRM is weaving something a lot more complex than "durr they stronger they own throne" caveman mentality.
  18. Lol you gotta be more specific than that. I'm willing to read those chapters right now if you just post which ones. If it's Renly who says it, it's probably irrelevant considering he's already ignoring the line of succession. If it was Stannis, then I'd be interested.
  19. It's not a propaganda. Robert's grandmother (his father's mother) was a Targaryen. I didn't deny that, was just mentioning that in the books they admit that it really didn't matter. :razz: What book/chapter?
  20. I'm not sure if it was brought up in the series, but in the books one of the Baratheons mentions that their family having a claim was more or less propaganda: They did have a Targaryen relative, but Robert got the throne from his army more than that. It's not a propaganda. Robert's grandmother (his father's mother) was a Targaryen.
  21. King's Landing is near impossible to take if Tywin garrisoned it. His army is the only one untouched from the war (he basically sat in Casterly Rock during the entire war). The only reason why Robert got to sit down is because Tywin has no claim to the throne and supported him (where the choices were either Robert or Aerys). Saying blood isn't a theme in GoT is laughable.
  22. You're looking too far into the past to keep thinking this. The Targaryens did just use an army to establish their kingdom. But this war isn't about establishing a new kingdom. It's about controlling what already exists. That means playing with what the Targaryens established. What you're claiming is altogether irrelevant. If there were no "rights" or whatever you keep pining on, then GRRM wouldn't have placed so much focus on lineage in the story. Why do you think Tywin Lannister, the person with the greatest army and wealth in Westeros didn't just take the throne? Because he didn't have the right to it. That's it. He wouldn't have had to bow down to Robert Baratheon. He would've just sat on the throne. Or why even focus on the existing Targaryen(s)? Because blood is a significant theme. You keep saying that no one has the right to the Throne when the entire story focuses on people who have a claim to it.
  23. About.com is a blog site. Might as well link Wikipedia and get it over with. Anyway, it's obvious you got nothing else. This is probably my last post. Now I remember why I hate going into religious threads.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.