Head of DOJ Civil Rights Division refuses to answer simple question

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Quantum Windbag, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wwv9l6W8yc]High Ranking DOJ Official Refuses to Affirm 1st Amendment Rights - YouTube[/ame]
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,444
    Thanks Received:
    9,176
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,249
    Told you.

    This is all about removing our rights.
     
  3. Murf76
    Offline

    Murf76 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    Thanks Received:
    593
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +594
  4. Sinjorri
    Offline

    Sinjorri Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,037
    Thanks Received:
    267
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +267
    wow if anyone backs this doj please please please can you let me know why?
     
  5. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,444
    Thanks Received:
    9,176
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,249
    They won't. That's the leftist policy...they aren't going to admit they have an agenda to remove the liberty of the American people.

    But their agenda is just that.
     
  6. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    All the "liberals" on this board, and not one of them are saying how bad it is that the DOJ refuses to take a stance against a law that would restrict free speech.

    I wonder why.
     
  7. Salt Jones
    Offline

    Salt Jones BANNED

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    6,900
    Thanks Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +510
    Me.
     
  8. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56,105
    Thanks Received:
    9,340
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,578
    Does anyone have a link to the full exchange between these two men? Because the clip is clearly being taken out of context.

    .
     
  9. g5000
    Offline

    g5000 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56,105
    Thanks Received:
    9,340
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +24,578
    DOJ Official Won

    Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department | The Daily Caller

    Those two articles provide some context.

    The Congressman, Republican Trent Franks, began his exchange with DOJ official Tom Perez by referring to the Daily Caller article I linked above.

    The Daily Caller is a right wing publication with an obvious right wing bias.

    From that article:

    You can detect the neocon flavor in that article.

    So when Franks began grilling Perez about the article, Perez told Franks he had not seen the article.

    This is when the video clip in the OP starts. Franks is working on the assumption that Perez entertained the idea of outlawing criticism of Islam, even though Perez referred to the event as a debate. There is absolutely no evidence for Franks' assumption, but Franks thinks by repeating something it becomes true.

    Perez is wisely choosing not to respond to something, the context of which he is completely unfamiliar. Remember, he has not seen the Daily Caller that is the context of Franks' remarks.

    The aim of this clip is to get you to leap to the conclusion that Franks' assumption is true without telling you Franks is working off a biased article from a conservative web site which only he, and not Perez, has seen. He does not give Perez an opportunity to review the article and testify to its veracity or what his comments meant.

    You should be better than to fall for these cheap stunts.


    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2012
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    I love it when people claim that. Franks makes it clear that the question is entirely separate from anything that came before it. Feel free to did up the video that somehow justifies the refusal to take a stance for the Constitution of the United States. The interview occurred on 28 Jul 2012 and was between Trent Franks and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez.

    I won't hold my breath for you to come back and say he is wrong though.
     

Share This Page