Tom Flanagan- How much did he "rub-off" on Harper?


Cobalt_Kid
-2
#1
You can see in this video that former Harper adviser Tom Flanagan was on the mailing list of the National American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) and here he questions whether people who view child pornography should go to jail.

Considering his close association with PM Harper and his seeming support for homosexual child molestation, I was wondering how much he "rubbed-off" on Harper and whether or not Harper might have "rubbed-off" on him. These are things I think most Canadians would like to know.

Tom Flanagan okay with child pornography - YouTube



Flanagan is saying that viewing child pornography doesn't hurt anyone which is complete nonsense. Child pornography is made for people to watch, so viewers are only one step removed from one of the most disgusting offences in this country.

Much of Harper's government is based on the ideas of this "man".

Where is Tom Flanagan's good friend Stephen? | rabble.ca

Quote:

Stephen's government has been founded on Tom's logic. Expounded in his writings, whispered into the King's ear and commandeered in the marshalling of elections this logic has constructed the neocon alliance and given the self-interested and the crackpot theocratic extremists a license to run this country just the way they want. This is the unabashed, timeless logic of the colonist. The sad thing is that most hard working men and women in Canada didn't get it until Tom had a brainfart in front of an intelligent audience.

And this has opened the debate up so other controversial figure like Conrad Black have weighed in on something as fundamental as how much protection should we give children in our society.

Turning public discourse into a never-ending shriek of

Quote:

Without exception, in all other aspects of their personalities that I encountered (and prisoners live at close quarters with each other), these were perfectly sociable men. They were often quite cultured; one was a chef, one a French teacher, one an art teacher. They were interesting conversationalists and their conduct as prisoners gave no hint of aggression or deviance.

According to Black it shouldn't matter if you're indirectly contributing to one of the most heinous offences there is as long as you're good conversationalists.

So in part thanks to Harper and the kind of Canada he's worked so hard to create where we can open up debate on whether or not we're going to allow the continued exploitation and degradation of children in some of the most horrible ways imaginable. If you let people watch this crap then other people are going to keep making it.

We don't talk seriously about climate change or the democratic deficit in this nation, but now we are seriously discussing whether or not child pornography should be allowed if you didn't actually make it yourself.
 
CDNBear
+1
#2
We already have a thread on this...

Tom Flanagan Apologises for Child-Porn Comments
 
JamesBondo
+3
#3  Top Rated Post
besides, throwing flanagan's mud at harper in hopes that it sticks, is pretty low.
 
Walter
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondoView Post

besides, throwing flanagan's mud at harper in hopes that it sticks, is pretty low.

The lefties do the same thing with Rob Ford.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+1
#5
Walter get real please, I am more left than right although I am on either side depending on
the issue. I don't see where Harper had anything to do with this mans behaviour and he
likely had no idea what he might be involved in.
Until now most people didn't know he was registered in the man boy association either
so how would Harper know? This man is incredibly stupid, to be involved in something
like this while being in a high profile position.
As for asking the question itself, remember, he was in a public forum speaking on an
intellectual forum. he didn't say people should go to jail or not go to jail he asked
Should someone go to jail for watching it. Putting it into context he didn't actually condone
anything. Public reaction was swift however and his high profile status made him a target
for public outrage.
 
Liberalman
#6
Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve is a favorite saying of Mr. Ben Dover a true blue Conservative.
 
Cobalt_Kid
#7
Here's picture of Harper with his mentor back in 2001(scroll 2/3rds of the way down).

Tom Flanagan child pornography remarks condemned by conservatives | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

Quote:

The professor, a member of the so-called Calgary School of conservative professors at the University of Calgary, began working with Harper in the 1990s within the fledging Reform Party. He was Harper’s chief advisor until 2004, managing leadership campaigns in 2002 and 2004. Flanagan would return for the 2006 election that brought Harper to power as a senior advisor.

Flanagan wrote a tell-all book in 2007 about his experiences being Harper’s chief campaign organizer called “Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power.”

Flanagan was considered one of the most conservative members of the Reform Party under Preston Manning.

So what does it say about Canadian conservatism that one of its chief architects has turned out to be such an immoral creep?

At least our politicians here have condemned him.

Quote:

Alberta opposition leader Danielle Smith of the Wildrose Party cut all ties with Flanagan, their campaign manager in the 2012 election, in a damning statement Thursday.

“There is no language strong enough to condemn Dr. Flanagan’s comments. Child pornography is a despicable crime that seriously harms all those involved, including the viewer. The viewing of child pornography first requires the production of child pornography, which causes untold suffering and abuse towards children,” she said. “To be clear, Dr. Flanagan does not speak for me or the Wildrose caucus and he will have no role — formal or informal — with our organization going forward.”

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said she was disgusted by the comments and they “turned her stomach.”

Does this help explain the contempt that the current government seems to consistently show the majority of Canadians when it comes to protecting their basic interests?
 
CDNBear
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Cobalt_KidView Post

So what does it say about Canadian conservatism that one of its chief architects has turned out to be such an immoral creep?

Nothing, since there's no evidence that he's an immoral creep.

Quote:

At least our politicians here have condemned him.

I think thta says more about how they're lacking than anything else.

Quote:

Does this help explain the contempt that the current government seems to consistently show the majority of Canadians when it comes to protecting their basic interests?

You'd have to show the contempt to find an explanation.

All you've done is babble on nonsensically.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+2
#9
I think they should raise the minimum posts required before you can post a thread. In this case 20 K sounds reasonable.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I think they should raise the minimum posts required before you can post a thread. In this case 20 K sounds reasonable.

I think Bear might be the only one posting around here if that were the case!

You're almost 5K short yourself, lol.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I think Bear might be the only one posting around here if that were the case!

You're almost 5K short yourself, lol.

Nope- We are Grandfathered. Red Circled in the union speak. Untouchable excepting of course by................... and that is always verrry verrry gooood
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Nope- We are Grandfathered. Red Circled in the union speak. Untouchable excepting of course by................... and that is always verrry verrry gooood

Well that's good because I'm almost 9K short of the posting requirement myself. And really, what the hell would you guys do with yourselves if I wasn't around?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Well that's good because I'm almost 9K short of the posting requirement myself. And really, what the hell would you guys do with yourselves if I wasn't around?

11532 since Mar 2011. Me, 15347 since Jan 2009.
Now what does that tell you.
 
CDNBear
+3
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

11532 since Mar 2011. Me, 15347 since Jan 2009.
Now what does that tell you.

That she's chatty?
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

11532 since Mar 2011. Me, 15347 since Jan 2009.
Now what does that tell you.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

That she's chatty?

I AM the CC Queen! Ha ha ha!

I'm ready for my closeup Mr DeMille!

(Seriously though, that was a really nice way of putting it. I owe you one. )
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+3
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

I AM the CC Queen! Ha ha ha!

I'm ready for my closeup Mr DeMille!

(Seriously though, that was a really nice way of putting it. I owe you one. )

No you do not. You are lucky that you can post from work. I can but only occasionally. And I enjoy your posts as do many others.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+2
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

No you do not. You are lucky that you can post from work. I can but only occasionally. And I enjoy your posts as do many others.

Thank you Goober.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Thank you Goober.

Just Gods honest truth is all.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#19
Child molestation and much worse is the mark of the beast and the beast rules all high office in our democratic western family. Smell the stink of the British house of Lords and the BBC and the Belgian royal family and the Vatican slime. Psycopathic pedophiles rule the western world. And you don't think the aliens are already in power.
 
CDNBear
+3
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

And you don't think the aliens are already in power.

Ummm, ya.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ummm, ya.

That's what I was thinking.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#22
2. Wholly different in nature, foreign, adverse, inconsistent (with)
 
CDNBear
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

2. Wholly different in nature, foreign, adverse, inconsistent (with)

Ahhh, now I see. I thought you were going all David Icke on us.

So what do you suggest? Turf all you aliens and let us Injins take it all back?
Last edited by CDNBear; Mar 19th, 2013 at 04:30 PM..
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ahhh, no I see/ I thought you were going all David Icke on us.

So what do you suggest? Turf all you aliens and let us Injins take it all back?

No, I won't go Icke at anytime. We are not entirely alien to one another bear, not even close. The difference between you and I and them is a chasm.
 
CDNBear
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

No, I won't go Icke at anytime.

That's good to hear.

Quote:

We are not entirely alien to one another bear, not even close. The difference between you and I and them is a chasm.

That's only because you want there to be.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ahhh, no I see/ I thought you were going all David Icke on us.

So what do you suggest? Turf all you aliens and let us Injins take it all back?

Please don't make me move, all my stuff is here.
 
CDNBear
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

Please don't make me move, all my stuff is here.

There's lots of room for you in my wigwam.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

There's lots of room for you in my wigwam.

I can be the token white chick, lol.
 
no new posts