For a second series that was just inching along prior, the final two episodes finally gained some momentum, IMO. I was stoked with the last two episodes.

But explain something to me (and forgive my lack of names - I'll try to describe them).

The red-head guy who took Winterfell - he made a speech, the guy from the Office clocked him on the head, and the next thing the whole place has burned down. How does that work? Why didn't the 500 Starks outside bust in and stop them? What happened to the red-head? They couldn't burn down Winterfell and then hand him over and just wander off, surely? They'd have them on spikes in no time.

Also, Sansa is told by the Dog that he'll take her to Winterfell at the end of ep.9 - then in the finale he's just gone and she's still around. What?

Apart from that, on the whole, my only criticism as a noob is general pace. Some story lines are left unprogressed for ages, while we watch Rob slowly fall in love with someone. There are so many people we're attached to on cliff-hangers, spending half an episode setting up a romance between Rob and his ladyfriend is just redundant.

Otherwise, it's no Breaking Bad but I like it.

She's like a little Arya Stark.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ned, cersei, lannister, sean bean, game of thrones' to 'eddard stark, ned stark, sean bean, game of thrones' - edited by xxovercastxx

I love Arya she's so uncannily quick witted it's amazing can't wait till she's just a bit older and really learns how to use that sword of hers.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

I just love Tyrion though. He's such a clever little imp!

Sometimes I just skip other peoples scenes in order to get to Tyrions. Tywin and Arya's scenes are awesome though, I love them together.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

I just love Tyrion though. He's such a clever little imp!


Sometimes I just skip other peoples scenes in order to get to Tyrions. Tywin and Arya's scenes are awesome though, I love them together.

Hmm guess I forgot that scene after five weeks heh

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

Thanks, luv!
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
*promote

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Auger8:
What episode is this I thought I saw them all?

Episode 1 of Season 2.
I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.


I just love Tyrion though. He's such a clever little imp!

>> ^Auger8:

What episode is this I thought I saw them all?


Episode 1 of Season 2.

I love the Robb vs Jaime episodes. Robb won't let Jaime bait him, he continues to show his smarts and tactical prowess. It's just nice to have someone to root for besides Tyrion and Arya in this series.

it = engage in war (when it should be clear that doing so will do little or nothing to improve the long term security of the US (and may in fact degrade that security)).
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.

Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

I spelled it out as clearly as I can three comments up, with three very specific examples. I'm not sure how else I can word it.
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^jonny:
That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.

Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.
To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.
You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

>> ^jonny:

That is basically in agreement with my original point:

Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability.

The larger point that I was making is that I believe both he and Romney to be equally capable of it. In fact, I will go further now and suggest that anyone who would not be willing to do so is probably unelectable, which makes for a sad commentary on the state of our culture and society.
>> ^direpickle:
Bringing up troop levels there was kind of exactly what I expected, since he (and many others) were saying that the Iraq war was drawing attention away from the war that mattered. He never spoke against war in Afghanistan, that I can recall.


Since you are repeatedly accusing me of mischaracterizing your words, please spell out what the bolded it refers to, and why you think it's a bad thing.

To give a simple recap of my response to your thesis, I say that temporarily increasing troops in Afghanistan is very different from launching an invasion on Iran without cause, and that Obama's willingness to do the former doesn't imply he's likely to do the latter.

You didn't really respond to that part of my comment, or say what it is you actually believe that contrasts so starkly with what I'd suggested you believed.

Agreed, with one small change.

It all depends on where you live, but even that's beside the next point I'll make. Families with one stay at home person are, in my opinion, at risk for a very high probability that they will have to continue working until death. No retirement.

The cost of college, owning a home, and miscellaneous bills sap any retirement savings that would be created if both parents work. In this day and age, both parents really need to work to secure a comfortable financial future for their kids and themselves.

>> ^Porksandwich:

Whole lot of logic disconnects throughout society. It's a modern miracle things just don't shut down because the disconnect is so hard to deal with sometimes.
You need a college education to get a job.
You need experience to get an entry level job, college usually does not count as experience.
Virtually no businesses are willing to train.
We have virtually no training or licensing for most jobs they want experience for, college does not even broach this subject.
Then you take all of the above stuff and you see the vast majority of jobs that pay a liveable wage (which is not minimum wage) end up being hires due to who you know instead of what you know. And it's in direct contrast to what we are often taught, recited to, and whatever else throughout school and college. You need an education to get a job, and you need to make the most of it. But we see people who are dumb as a brick get a job because they know someone ALL THE TIME. In fact this "know someone" probably decides what job you end up doing more than your skillset or education.
Then we have working families with both parents working. It's in stark contrast to the history of our species.
The fact that we went from the ability to have one parent able to provide to it being difficult to make it on two salaries means we've fucked up something. Your grandparents could do it, your parents MIGHT have been able to do it...maybe. But the likelihood of someone today able to support a household on one income is low. And your kids being able to once they are adults is probably close to zero, you'll be lucky if they don't have to live with you so you can all survive financially.

Whole lot of logic disconnects throughout society. It's a modern miracle things just don't shut down because the disconnect is so hard to deal with sometimes.

You need a college education to get a job.

You need experience to get an entry level job, college usually does not count as experience.

Virtually no businesses are willing to train.

We have virtually no training or licensing for most jobs they want experience for, college does not even broach this subject.

Then you take all of the above stuff and you see the vast majority of jobs that pay a liveable wage (which is not minimum wage) end up being hires due to who you know instead of what you know. And it's in direct contrast to what we are often taught, recited to, and whatever else throughout school and college. You need an education to get a job, and you need to make the most of it. But we see people who are dumb as a brick get a job because they know someone ALL THE TIME. In fact this "know someone" probably decides what job you end up doing more than your skillset or education.

Then we have working families with both parents working. It's in stark contrast to the history of our species.

The fact that we went from the ability to have one parent able to provide to it being difficult to make it on two salaries means we've fucked up something. Your grandparents could do it, your parents MIGHT have been able to do it...maybe. But the likelihood of someone today able to support a household on one income is low. And your kids being able to once they are adults is probably close to zero, you'll be lucky if they don't have to live with you so you can all survive financially.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.