Lord Bronn Stokeworth

Members
  • Content count

    1,996
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lord Bronn Stokeworth

  • Rank
    I Went to Dorne, and All I Got Was Some Bad Pussy
  • Birthday 10/11/1984

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  1. He was so awesome. His twenty good men were all ninjaing Stannis. He had touching moments with his dad who loves him despite being distant. He kept the woman he loved despite being forced to marry another. He was all badass stomping Stannis's army. That fucker was evil. He burned his own daughter. Sure, he raped and tortured, but boys will be boys. But seriously, he was defintely the protagonist even if "hero" is questionable. But I actually think D&D want us to root for him. Thus, I refer to him as the hero of the story.
  2. Not at all. Ramsay is the hero of the Winterfell story while Joffery was always the antagonist. Shireen's burning highlights this. It had one simple reason. To make Stannis the bad guy. To make the audience cheer when he got curb-stomped by Ramsay. He's not to replace Joffery. If anything, he's to replace Jon. He is the *authors' avatar. They may kill him, but it will an epic bad-ass death and/or **tragic. *Authors being the show creators of course, not GRRM. **They will try to make it tragic at least. Of course, they probably thought their Dornish plot was good. So, who knows, it'll probably be unintentionally hilarious. Though they will be gushing how great Ramsay was and how sad it was to see him go.
  3. Which would mean the "she was just there to be raped" theory correct. Just like Mel left the Wall so Stannis could be turned into Satannis in time to be beat by the awesomest character in the story Ramsay and die in the name of the (only one who can't actually claim to be the) rightful king.
  4. Which makes it worse. She does not need to be there if Stannis won. If the Boltons won, well, why does she want to give legitimacy to the Boltons?
  5. Or she could get married again since being already married doesn't matter in the show. Oh. I read the opposite. They want the money maker to last.
  6. I had a bit more, but the computer ate my response. So, here's the Cliff Notes version: In response to those who say Sansa's Season 5 storyline was necessary for her empowerment, how was she empowered? The last episode had Sansa try to get someone to save her, accept death is better than current situation, and finally get saved by someone else. How is any of that empowerment? That's she's actively trying to get people to save her? In response to bad shit happening to other characters, so? This is a Sansa Thread. I, and I suspect others, are pretty pissed about the other changes (it was Shireen's burning that brought me back). But this is a Sansa Thread. Talking about the shitty thing done to X doesn't mean there can be no empathy for Y. In response to Sansa being free from LF, how? Seriously, being on the run without supplies and having armies looking for you is not freedom. It's being on the run.
  7. I put this in the Rants section because I noticed it while I was writing up my rants. Meryn Trant sexually abused Sansa. The girls he was beating did look a bit like her. His new inclinations retcon the whole "abuse Sansa because ordered" to "getting his rocks off while abusing Sansa." I mean, I dunno. In some ways, it feels even worse than the rape. There was some sort of logical progression (I use logical extremely losely). But this just feels gratuitous. Unlike the rape scene, it doesn't even have shock value since people aren't going to realize it right away. It's purely to punish Sansa sexually.
  8. Why you shouldn't be celebrating [No Book Spoilers]

    Unfortunately, most of what I have to say is spoilers (though careful watchers might have a big clue):
  9. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    It's questionable because they are loaning money. They will lose money no matter what if they back multiple people. Notice Stannis agreed to pay back for Joffery's previous debts, not any debts the Lannisters incurred from then on. No one would agree to that. Also, reputation. The Iron Bank has a fearsome reputation because whoever they back tends to win. It wouldn't be fearsome if they backed any and everybody. It would be "duh, they back everybody." If Stannis nor Shireen nor any other possible heir to his claim take the Throne, then the Iron Bank will have to find another way to get their money. This could very well be going to Dany and offering the same deal if the war is still going on.
  10. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    1. OK? I am not arguing that. In fact, I have specifically said I am not arguing that. What I'm actually arguing (besides that I apparently enjoy masochism) is...... 2. No. What's ridiculous is to consider her some great anti-slavery crusader when the only constant to her view of slavery is what suits her best at the time. Gotta sell slaves so your husband can lead his Dothraki army to Westeros for your son's Throne? It sucks, but that's what you gotta do. Need an army after everyone deserted you? Go to Astapor to buy a slave army. Don't want to pay for the slave army? Decide slavery is bad and punish those who just sold you an army. It went well? Continue on to pillage the next couple of cities. Things are going shitty? Legalize slavery and make concessions to slavers. Like you said before, just because someone says they're something doesn't mean they are. Just because Dany says she's anti-slavery crusader doesn't mean she is. If she was, she wouldn't have legalized slavery under any condition. She would keep searching for ways to get poor people fed without reinstituting the very thing she used as an excuse to war upon Slaver's Bay.
  11. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    1. This is an entirely different situation. This law you made up to end starvation is stupid. It is a bad law. Forbidding slavery is not. Many places do it. More to the point, when the goal is ending slavery, people do not relegalize it because the situation sucks. When the American Civil War ended, the North did not allow Sourthern states to keep slavery in any form even if the former slaves were willing to sell themselves back into it. And ending slavery was just a bonus for them, not the cause. 2. I am American. Affordable Care Act is not going to fail so badly people literally riot in the streets. But again, it is a terrible comparison. The ACA is creating something, not ending a horrible practice (well, it did end some horrible practices). It can be taken away and replaced with a better law if it fails. But how does that compare to ending slavery? She can't repeal no slavery with a better no slavery. I have already said that depending on what she does in the future, things can change. If she goes and reverses her earlier decisions (legalizing slavery, allowing the slave market), the anti-slavery hardliners very well may push to join her. I am strictly speaking of the current situation at the end of of ADWD.
  12. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    1. Please read and respond to what I actually say. I never said anything about ending slavery all over Essos. I was specifically talking about a city she had absolute control over. And yes. Legalizing slavery hurts her anti-slavery credibility. 2. Nor did Dany. Slavery exists in all three cities. Though in fairness, Astapor's slavery post-Dany is not her fault. 3. Please explain how legalizing slavery is anti-slavery. 4. Again, not even close to anything I wrote. I never suggested would create slavery in Westeros. No problem. :cheers:
  13. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    It doesn't matter her intentions. She legalized slavery. It is true. It's in the book. It doesn't matter how many slaves you free if you still allow or create new slavery. If you legalize slavery, you are not anti-slavery. You're whatever is most convenient for you to get what you want. The problem is she did stop slavery in less than one year. She ended slavery in Mereen. It worked. Then, she legalized it. She brought slavery back to Mereen which undercuts any anti-slavery cred she had. She didn't have to. It didn't solve the problem of people being too poor to eat. And the Braavosi will hear about that too. That kinda kills any momentum from the hardliners. I do want to point out since your post was a response to me that I personally have not said that they would oppose Dany for being a slaver or even having dragons. I just stated the opposite is also not true. They would see too many questionable things (such legalizing slavery or allowing the market) to get the hardliners to push Braavos into a war that they have no interest in joining. My opinion is that with the exception of the Iron Bank which has chosen to side with Stannis for now Braavos will be neutral. EDIT: I actually could see Braavos siding with Dany if she takes the war to Voltense. I just think it would more real politik than Dany getting support for being anti-slavery. Welcome to the board. Quick note, you do not have to give any spoiler warnings for the first five books. Any Winds of Winter spoiler chapters of course must be put into spoiler brackets.
  14. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    1. My bad. Rereading some, I see you are right about that. 2. Honestly, it seems like you're arguing both. Maybe you're not, but that's what it sounds like to me. 3. I'm not saying anything about that. I just decided to weigh in on the issue, and it was your post I replied to. For the record, I agree. If Dany agreed, I think she would pay back. I am not sure she would agree (and I wouldn't blame her). 4. I don't see it as ridiculous. She allows a slave market outside her city. She legalizes slavery. Let me repeat. She legalizes slavery. This puts her farther into the *slaver category more than most. It doesn't matter how limited it is. Legalizing slavery in any form destroys any anti-slavery cred you have. Nevermind "if you want to" is a loophole big enough drive a truck through. So, no. She is not the same as Stannis or anyone else who has not legalized slavery. *Somewhat inaccurately since legalizing slavery isn't technically the same as owning.
  15. Will Bravos be pro or anti Dany?

    I don't think you understand what we're saying. We're not saying Braavos will oppose Dany for being a slaver. We're saying they will not support her for being anti-slavery since they are unlikely to consider such (at least not yet). They will hear stories of how she fought against slavers. They will also hear stories of how she allows the slave market to continue as long as it is technically outside the city walls. Like danm_999 said, they'll probably see it more of a change of power than true change. Also, it's not fanboy technicality. It's looking at what the Braavosi will see. Nor would Stannis be seen the same as he has never allowed the purchase of slaves, nor legalized slavery in any form. Braavos does not allow slavery in any form. Mereen does. It allows slaves to be sold outside the city and people to sell themselves into slavery. They are not alike. Dany of course can change that. But for now, Braavos is probably not going to see Dany as the same as them. The funny thing is, unless she agrees to beforehand like Stannis did with the Lannisters, I see no reason Dany should pay for Robert's, Joffery's, and Stannis's debts. If she takes the Throne, then Viserys becomes the retroactive king. To acknowledge the debt would to be acknowledge the Bartheon's were the true kings of Westeros and destroy her claim. Of course, she can always order the Baratheons or the Lannisters (or their replacements) to take the debt since their Houses made it. Can she rid everything of Robert's rule? No. But neither should she accept everything. It feels like a sort of identity fraud, and I feel that Dany would be totally justified in not paying any debt obtained by her enemies unless she agrees to it. I want to point out this would apply to Stannis and Joffery's debt if he hadn't agreed to repay it I want to point that they only made the deal with Stannis after Cersei spurned them. They seem to support one side at a time. And from a business perspective, Dany is questionable. Her biggest business deal ended with her murdering the other side and taking both what she for and what she paid with. This makes her questionable at best from a business perspective. They are going to be wondering if it was just a cynical ploy or not.