Tom Flanagan is okay with child pornography

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

if he did then he shouldn't have anything to worry about.
I will say this if i was in his shoes i would invite the RCMP to search my laptop etc to erase any doubt that doubters may have.
I would do everything if it was me to tell the media the public i am not a person that views child pornography.

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to hide right.

God, you are a fascist.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

I don't validate your point comparing a non child pornographic photo innocent picture to being on the mailing list for as he said "a couple of years" of NAMBLA.
That is a grand canyon sized stretch you are making.

If my best friend my very best friend said to me child pornagraphy is ok to look at i would ask are you serious what do you mean by that?
To see if he was joking or not?
I would ask him so do you check it out?
If he said yes.
Even if he was my very best friend i would notify the police.
I would leave it up to the police on what they want to do with that information.
For crying out loud we are talking about child pornography not just pornography.
You tell me can you under Canadian law have on your laptop Adult porn male or female, can you have Child porn on your laptop?
Why is that i think you know exactly why one is allowed and one isn't.
Do you have a higher toleration for child pornography i make my stand against it crystal clear.

You don't validate it? What does that even mean? Honestly your posts are virtually incomprehensible but I'll do my best.

I don't think you have a clue what the argument against your stance is. You've somehow turned it into people having a higher tolerance for child pornography, which is not only completely inaccurate it's also disgusting. Nobody has said anything that could even be remotely considered to say that. What people have taken issue with is the idea that the authorities should have the ability to "tear someones life apart" on the basis of little to no evidence.

A statement that you were signed up for a mailing list is not sufficient grounds for a search. If I got a hold of your email address and signed you up, and you then posted about it here, your stance would make it perfectly acceptable to have your life torn apart. Do you not see how absolutely insane that is? Being on a mailing list is not illegal and not grounds for any type of search.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

if he did then he shouldn't have anything to worry about.
I will say this if i was in his shoes i would invite the RCMP to search my laptop etc to erase any doubt that doubters may have.
I would do everything if it was me to tell the media the public i am not a person that views child pornography.

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to hide right.

Originally Posted by peter12

God, you are a fascist.

Fascist lmao. I'm not saying Flanagan has to prove himself or you or Valo for that matter.
I'm saying if it was me (me personally) i would go out of my way to make a statement to say come and see for yourself and cast out any doubt that i did not delve into that kind of sickness.

Fascist that is not fascist. If i said i think you should be forced to open your browser history etc to the RCMP without out just legal reasons then yes that would be fascist.
As for Flanagan they are very unusual comments he made do you agree or disagree with that?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Fascist lmao. I'm not saying Flanagan has to prove himself or you or Valo for that matter.
I'm saying if it was me (me personally) i would go out of my way to make a statement to say come and see for yourself and cast out any doubt that i did not delve into that kind of sickness.

Fascist that is not fascist. If i said i think you should be forced to open your browser history etc to the RCMP without out just legal reasons then yes that would be fascist.
As for Flanagan they are very unusual comments he made do you agree or disagree with that?

Well, you did say that the RCMP should confiscate his property on the basis of a comment made out of context. So yes, you are a little extreme.

I have been acquainted with Flanagan for many years, and I know the man has an extremely irrational tendency to say things only to get a reaction.

As for his opinions... they have been debated in Canada's Supreme Court. There is nothing that controversial about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Sharpe

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by valo403

You don't validate it? What does that even mean? Honestly your posts are virtually incomprehensible but I'll do my best.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/validate

1
a : to make legally valid : ratify
b : to grant official sanction to by marking <validated her passport>
c : to confirm the validity of (an election); also : to declare (a person) elected

2
a : to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis <experiments designed to validate the hypothesis>
b : to recognize, establish, or illustrate the worthiness or legitimacy of <validate his concerns>

Simply Valo i do not support, corroborate nor recognize your statement of a friend seeing a innocent photo of a family member being at all the same as being on the NAMBLA mailing list for a couple of years. It is not remotelessly the same is it.

Originally Posted by valo403

Okay, so if someone sees an innocent picture of your niece or nephew on your laptop and decides it looks suspicious you'd be cool with having your entire personal life torn open?

Is that clear enough.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by vanisleflamesfan

BWA HA HA HA HA!!! This is the funniest thing I have EVER read on CP!!!

Flanagan's "academic" work is a pile of hot, steaming garbage so vile, reactionist, poorly researched and unsubstantiated that it actually makes me physically sad to realize that anyone would ever consider taking him seriously.

This is cute. His recent work, "Beyond the Indian Act," is excellent. Did you fail one or all of his classes offered at the UofC?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by First Lady

He was not a founding member and possibly not even a member.

He was hired as a co-campaign manager during the 2012 election.


And sure you can ask the question. But really 99.99% of people are going to side with the child victims and not Flanagan.

Our Premier said it best:

You are honestly so pathetic. I know, for a fact, that Wildrose was overjoyed to get an experienced campaigner like Flanagan in 2012.

As for the original issue, it can be debated. What makes me really sick is how fast the political rats flee the fire. I cannot stand anyone who belongs to a political party.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

Fascist lmao. I'm not saying Flanagan has to prove himself or you or Valo for that matter.
I'm saying if it was me (me personally) i would go out of my way to make a statement to say come and see for yourself and cast out any doubt that i did not delve into that kind of sickness.

Fascist that is not fascist. If i said i think you should be forced to open your browser history etc to the RCMP without out just legal reasons then yes that would be fascist.
As for Flanagan they are very unusual comments he made do you agree or disagree with that?

That's exactly what you said.

Flanagan's entire personal life should be torn open by the RCMP

On the basis of a statement that he was on a mailing list.

[Stay Golden]

^

Yes isn't amazing how the Wildrose party is doing their best spin on Flanagan's comments to point at the PC's and vise versa.

If Flanagan worked on the NDP's campaign the Libs would be casting stones.
Politics and the merry go round. It's pathetic really.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's exactly what you said.



On the basis of a statement that he was on a mailing list.

No i didn't!
I said Flanagan's should. Don't try to spin comments to your liking.

Yes he should be questioned by the RCMP due to his comments and they should determine from those interviews do they have enough legal suspicion based on his answers to be investigated.
If you Valo said publicly you thought child pornography was ok to view see what happens with your friendships your career and the law.
You know what you think your so damn slick I challenge you to publicly post it on you tube and in return i will post on you tube what my beliefs are about Child Pornography and what should be the allowable suspicion that the RCMP needs to obtain a search warrant of a private device.
Post on you tube your name and Simply that you are ok with Child Pornoagraphy as a simple experiment and lets just see if the RCMP pays you a visit eventually.
And leave it open for comments.
For the record do i think you Valo are ok with Child Pornography no you probably are not, but why you would argue with me about Flanagan saying this garbage is well personally i think just for the sake of arguing.
Enough bickering we couldn't further apart on this topic.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

No i didn't!
I said Flanagan's should. Don't try to spin comments to your liking.

Yes he should be questioned by the RCMP due to his comments and they should determine from those interviews do they have enough legal suspicion based on his answers to be investigated.
If you Valo said publicly you thought child pornography was ok to view see what happens with your friendships your career and the law.
You know what you think your so damn slick I challenge you to publicly post it on you tube and in return i will post on you tube what my beliefs are about Child Pornography and what should be the allowable suspicion that the RCMP needs to obtain a search warrant of a private device.
Post on you tube your name and Simply that you are ok with Child Pornoagraphy as a simple experiment and lets just see if the RCMP pays you a visit eventually.
And leave it open for comments.
For the record do i think you Valo are ok with Child Pornography no you probably are not, but why you would argue with me about Flanagan saying this garbage is well personally i think just for the sake of arguing.
Enough bickering we couldn't further apart on this topic.

That's great, but it doesn't open me up to a criminal investigation and it sure as hell doesn't allow the authorities to 'tear my life apart'.

And what exactly did I spin? I quoted you word for word.

"Flanagan's entire personal life should be torn open by the RCMP"

Those are your words. There's no need to spin them, they speak for themselves.

You continue to miss the point, which seems to be par for the course. You called for Flanagan's life to be torn apart without anything even resembling a sound legal basis. Peter12 hit the label for that position bang on.

As for your youtube challenge, are you demented? For the second time, nobody has condoned child pornography, the fact that you think I would even remotely consider your little challenge is disgusting. That you even remotely insinuate that there's a possibility that I'm okay with child pornography is absolutely sickening.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

^

Yes isn't amazing how the Wildrose party is doing their best spin on Flanagan's comments to point at the PC's and vise versa.

Where has anybody tried to use his comments against the PC's?

And who are you referring to as "Wildrose party"? valo403? photon? MarchHare? peter12?

I'm not 100% sure but have any of them ever expressed support for the Wildrose?

I still don't know how this has anything to do with any political party.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by peter12

You are honestly so pathetic. I know, for a fact, that Wildrose was overjoyed to get an experienced campaigner like Flanagan in 2012.

I don't recall anywhere that I remarked on the "mood" of the party at the time.

As for the original issue, it can be debated. What makes me really sick is how fast the political rats flee the fire.

Irony. "Lake of Fire" happens = "Party isn't running away fast enough".
"Flanagan" happens = "Political rats fleeing too fast"

I cannot stand anyone who belongs to a political party.

Lucky for you not too many people join parties.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Stay Golden

^

Yes isn't amazing how the Wildrose party is doing their best spin on Flanagan's comments to point at the PC's and vise versa.

Could you show me an example of this?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

Just curious. Have you read any of his books on aboriginals?

Can't say I have, but I do know he's a shill for the Fraser Institute, on par with other pot-stirring reactionaries such as Ted Morton and Barry "#### The Poor" Cooper.

I did however read his re-telling of the Louis Riel historical account for a class in University, which was interesting, but smacked of revisionism, which seems quite in character based on what I know about the man.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Can't say I have, but I do know he's a shill for the Fraser Institute, on par with other pot-stirring reactionaries such as Ted Morton and Barry "#### The Poor" Cooper.

I did however read his re-telling of the Louis Riel historical account for a class in University, which was interesting, but smacked of revisionism, which seems quite in character based on what I know about the man.

So you admit total ignorance.

[icecube]

Tom Flanagan was a joke amongst academics outside bigotville long before this debacle. It's a shame that it is only now that everyone realizes how clueless and offensive this guy is.

[Minnie]

Nuh-uh. Peter12 says so.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by icecube

Tom Flanagan was a joke amongst academics outside bigotville long before this debacle. It's a shame that it is only now that everyone realizes how clueless and offensive this guy is.

What does this mean?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Irony. "Lake of Fire" happens = "Party isn't running away fast enough".
"Flanagan" happens = "Political rats fleeing too fast"

Tom Flanagan's ideas, reprehensible as you may find them, have a far, far greater logical validity than Allan Hunsperger's.