Leaderboard

Vive le Alberta libre

Two major TV shows have premiered in the past month. 1) House of the Dragon: HBO's prequel to the wildly popular popular Game of Thrones. And based on a 2018 Faux History text of the of the Targaryen family. 2) Rings of Power: Amazon's Series about the Second Age of Middle Earth. Based on some scant indexes from the Lord of the Rings Books. Both have been accused of "wokeness" by casting racialized minorities in prominent roles. https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2022/08/house-of-the-dragons-corlys-velaryon-speaks-out-about-racist-comments.html https://www.thewrap.com/lord-of-the-rings-amazon-racist-backlash-explained/ Medieval Fantasy "usually" revolves around feudalism the plight of Europeans in the middle ages, but with Magic inserted into it for lulz. In Game of Thrones lore, particularly the debates of feudal succession is the main narrative around all major storylines. But these aren't historic texts and HBO and Amazon are looking to reach a broad audience. So casting a Black dwarf, may initially seem weird, it allows for other groups to be represented in this wildly popular stories. It's kind of like adapting Romeo and Juliette into a tale of Italian and Puerto Rican gangs in the Westside Story. As Steve Toussaint points out in the first linked story. These are stories with Dragons, where is there a requirement for racial consistency? In the Lord of the Rings example. The whole premise of the story is to show groups of different "races" joining forces to defeat a common evil. But they all must be white because Tolkien grew up in the white-washed UK countryside which had very little racial diversity at the time? Tolkien was a staunch opponent of the racism of Hitler at the time. I circle back to how often white europeans are cast in roles that weren't historical made for them. They do this to appeal to the largely White North American crowd. If film-makers were being historically accurate, no depiction of Jesus would ever have him white, or speaking English.

Sure, I agree that it’s open to debate. It’s debated all the time. And it seems to be fine, currently, except for a few religious zealots. Acceptance of gay people is not “sex ed”. Agreed. But it’s very important that schools teach students to be accepting of kids who may not be like themselves, including kids with different skin colour, religions, gender or sexual preference.

Yep, that's his style alright. Wait until he tells you what you're thinking before you're even aware of it. WasteCanMan is pretty special that way.

If that happens, the Conservative party will not have a leader. What should Conservatives do if the CPC is taken over by the Reform/ Social Credit / Republican / Whigs. They represent the antithesis of Conservatism. Reform is the party of Lincoln, not MacDonald. I will always be a Conservative, but after next weekend, like millions of other Conservatives, we will not have a party to vote for if Mr. Poillieve wins. How soon Canadians have forgotten the record of W.A.C. Bennett and Bill Aberhart.

Make no mistake: the people who produce these things are motivated by return on investment, period. If it was profitable to have the heroes burning crosses, they would do so. As such, people who complain about "wokeness" are really just complaining that their worldview is ostracized and treated as abhorrent by the mushy middle. Which confuses me, because they usually LOVE to be shocking and edgy...

1. I don't actually have to have this discussion if you're going to call me a liar. Now I invested a good chunk of time reading that hysterical first link and couldn't find anything specific about "abnormal sexual practices .... be promoted and taught" If you want to have a grown-up conversation you have to be specific with your language and treat the other side with respect. I'll ask you again to give a specific example. If you want to post a page from an advocacy group that's fine but please point out the specific evidence to your claim. Thanks again.

all this hyperventilating about January 6th is beyond silly give it a rest already

This contest is a struggle between the Conservative party of Sir John A. and the Socialist Credit Party of Major Douglas and Bible Bill Aberhart. The Conservative party stands for Queen and Country and the Socreds stand for funny money and what is yours is theirs. When the Conservative party finally defeated the Liberal Government of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, it was a minority with the socialist creditistes holding the balance. When the Conservative government tried to privatize the government owned Metro Canada and tried to pay off the deficit left by the grits with a gas tax of about 3.5 cents a litre, it was the Socreds that voted against it to put Trudeau back in power. The Socreds stabbed the Conservative party in the back to put Pierre Trudeau back in power to drive up the deficit to new heights. Now, Pierre Poillieve is carrrying the banner of Socialist Credit, complete with promises of funny money (now called crypto-currency). If the Socreds win this, it doesn't mean the end of conservatism in Canada, but it will mean we won't have a party to vote for for a few years, unless the CPC formally splits again.

A judge actually said it. If you wanna split hairs and be angry that I paraphrased, so be it, but you still have to acknowledge that a judge said words TO THAT EXACT EFFECT. Bottom line is that my accusation against the FBI was 100% bang on. And you're trying to call out my integrity because I perfectly paraphrased someone but used quotation marks? FYI here's the conventional usage of quotation marks: So, if I used some of the judges original text in my quote, then quotation marks were necessary. The quote is almost 2 years old and I didn't remember the exact wording. I used quotes. Big deal. You could have taken umbrage if my quote didn't match hers in form and character but it did. What I did was more than just "fine" by internet forum standards because the content of my post was 100% accurate. There's not a leftist on this site that can hold a candle to my integrity.

Why would I be boasting? I didn't vote Liberal. I figured we had agreed the surplus was due to world economic conditions, just as Harper's repeated deficits were caused by global conditions. The sort of surplus just before he lost was the result of creative accounting. Much of the money spent over that last 2 years was the response to the ongoing deadly pandemic. Soon, hopefully, the government will finally begin spending money of trying to mitigate the climate catastrophe the world is facing. We can look forward to start making serious sacrifices to save future generations. Fasten your seat belts, it is going to be a bumpy and scorching ride.

I find you to be among the most erudite of this forum, even though you are conservative. I'm the "mushy middle", I think, being about as likely to vote Conservative as Liberal on any given election. Someone like me can learn a lot from someone like you.

In my defence, apart from a half dozen contributors to this forum, nobody is going to read what I say and even among those who do, nobody is going to change their mind by anything I say and on top of that, all the votes are in that are going to be submitted and the result is set. Nothing can change that. I do miss the old delegated conventions where we wore our Clark buttons and the Dave Crombie scarves. John Crosby had a blimp which some noted an unflattering symbolism. Brian Mulroney mad have had the most votes, but Joe Clark's campaign had the prettiest girls.? No matter what happens on Saturday, it is only politics. It is not whether you win or lose that counts, it is how we play the game. The organizational meeting of the "Dump Pierre" committee will be meeting on Monday at 7PM EDT online.?

Very loaded question by an obviously right wing group. Certainly not designed to elicit an objective response.

Marriage is ancient. It takes many forms because we are of many denominations and histories. And isn't it interesting that in a world of so many different and isolated denominations, that one of the static characteristics is...marriage.

Marriage is extremely ancient, probably as old as Homo sapiens if not Hominids and Neanderthal.

You think we have an instinct to get married? Why is marriage so recent then? And why does it take so many forms? In recent history, they have often been arranged, so there goes “instincts”.

Apparently, cops being attacked with flagpoles.and.people being beaten isn't violent enough for you.

No, that's TWO flagpoles. How many does it take to establish that lethal weapons were employed?

Meh. That’s more moral panic. Teaching kids that there can be families with 2 dads or two moms, a) isn’t sexualizing in any way, and b) simply reflects the reality that children see every day. Boring, non issue. The kids are alright.

Sexual curriculum or sexual anything, does not belong anywhere near elementary school.! I cannot be any more clear.

I think all those look great, on the face of it. What do you find objectionable (try not to be so vague)?

Make them, care for them, ensure that they have good values and examples. So why not grow babies in test tubes and take parents out of the equation? You don’t seem to think marriage means much. I don’t expect you to care about parenting either. As long as people can pleasure seek, take whatever drugs and surgeries they want, up to partial birth abortion and euthanasia, who cares if young kids are exposed to all forms of sexual behaviour, right? There’s a lot more to marriage and parenting than your positions appreciate. What we do with education is values driven, whether or not we pretend otherwise. We won’t get to a consensus as long as there’s an insistence on teaching about forms of sexual preference in primary classes. It should be left out of elementary school altogether.

I didn't see any evidence. You posted an entire article from an advocacy group. I read quite a bit before it started drifting into Trans youth treatments which isn't the same topic. When I asked you for examples, you came back with insults.

Ok - maybe you can take up the baton that Nationalist dropped and bring some specific relevant examples for us to look at. I'm sure I can look at these individually and work through some reasoning on it.

Really. To my mind the battle was over and they won...

Geriatrics are maintaining their marital behaviour, of which there’s no prohibition. Note however that sexual desire tends to decline with fertility, so you may find you can’t get it up as often without unnatural help when you hit old age.

No and no. Bringing Trans guys into class is though. Introducing such subjects to the curriculum is too. And so is flying that flag at elementary schools. There can be no denial of a school's intent with that and to me... That's sinister.

So, out of cogent arguments, just going on emotion now. Feelings are not facts.

You’re just an anything goes libertine to the extent of abortion up to the expected delivery date, euthanizing the mentally ill if a “medical expert” thinks it’s fine, and lifestyle choices that don’t support natural reproduction. I consider your views abhorrent.

I’m supposed to believe this cause you say so?

The Democrats must keep trying to hide the banana re: the Bidens lest the horrible truth re: kids and crack become undeniable to the general public. That would be...hard to explain.

Ah, so two wrongs make it right.But only when you do it. Definitely your style.

BLM attack Biden voters for being white...again age restricted.

What percentage of the Iranian population support the regime? Given what we’ve seen in the West of late, I suspect that a non-zero number of undereducated religious nationalists think that way over there.

1. Uh huh. Right... 2. My intention was to investigate your claims. If you get something specific, do reach out.

Thanks. I spent good time looking, as I said. Couldn't find anything specific, just general concerns...

Classic Trump vs ANTIFA...ANTIFA attacks hotel...ANTIFA gets beat the truck up. (Age Restricted due to ass kicking)

Preparing? Perhaps. Instigating. No. If libbies start the violence...the "Trumpees" will end it.

It's like these objectors are surprised by the fact of POC in the world. They deny systemic racism, then complain when their expected all-white cast has a few POC included.

1. They aren't, unless you have a counter example. 2. "Meritocracy" doesn't really apply to a situation where parents have to agree on a set of community values though. 3. Correct, and the vast majority are needed to form a consensus as to community values. Your assertions here are legitimate, as expressions of your opinion, but I would say it would be difficult to accept as input to deciding what the curriculum would be. As the government of Premier Ford has shown, politics still exists as long as we have participants who are willing to put the effort in to engage with those whose values differ. That's called politics.

Alberta does not pay the bills for everyone. That's a myth.

Of course you can always withdraw from the public system. As I have pointed out, that system accommodates parents who want to withdraw from sex education. I also believe that if people are participating in reviews and shaping the public curriculum, they must agree to participate responsibility and in good faith.

notorious Trump hater David Frum engages in a copious amount of wishful thinking quelle surprise Biden's speech turns off way more voters and Trump's endorsements are doing quite well 2022 will not be a referendum on Trump it will be a referendum on the sitting President as it always is

Agents do that all the time!

I'm going to post this one for you again Robo because you appear to have missed some real interesting points. This for instance... " The FBI is not an institution that deserves trust. They have violated our trust. They have violated our rights. They have violated us innumerable times in the past 5, 6, 7 years - really since their inception but we can save that all for a different day. These the same swamp creatures who were telling us right now to trust them about this photograph...same swamp creatures who peddled the Steele dossier. This is the same FBI that lied about Carter Page being a Russian spy when they knew he was not. This is the same deep state...and mainstream media according to the deep state that promoted headline after headline about these alleged Pee Tapes that President Trump was "part of," that were false from the beginning. This is the same FBI that won't release 14,000 hours of video around January 6. This is the same FBI that lied about the Hunter Biden laptop story and directed a private entity - Facebook - to censor this story in the leadup to the 2020 election because they knew it was true. They knew it would impact peoples' decisions whether or not to vote for Joe Biden. They wanted Joe Biden to be President and they silenced this story based on a lie, calling it Russian misinformation, when they knew it was true, because they had the laptop."

Rings something familiar... "national socialism"?

It's a lot more important to that republic to undermine and isolate Trump and the Trumpsters than to placate them for the sake of "unity". Trump and the Trumpster's fired the first shot on Jan. 6. You don't placate bullies and dictators, you stand up to them. Hopefully there's no civil war, but if there is the entire free world will only support one side and we know which one that is.

Sorry, that's not how you provide a cite. See, you said the judge said this: "So egregious that it cast a shroud of doubt over every FBI investigation ever conducted". But the judge did not say that. YOU are saying that lying is a terrible bad thing, and yet you have been deceitful here. So, let's pretend it's Christmas, and I'll give you a do-over... just say, "Opps, my bad, I mis-quoted the judge." And that will be fine with me, as long as you follow the one rule of apologizing: Do not ever use the word "but" in making an apology.

the folly is trying to run everything centrally from Ottawa this only causes the Confederation to tear itself apart Ontario robbing Alberta to bribe Quebec