Comments on: The DOJ’s buddies – Part I http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/27/30087 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Fri, 24 May 2013 02:17:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Timothy Kincaid http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/27/30087/comment-page-1#comment-88027 Timothy Kincaid Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:21:01 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30087#comment-88027 Ryan, Did you read the commentary before you began objecting? Hint: read it again and this time don't skim over "mortified". Also consider the possibility of sarcasem and the fact that "amicus" is a "friend of the court". Also, most readers know that every single amicus who filed vehemntly HATES the president (and I'm sure the feeling is mutual). Hence the irony. And where are you getting that I implied that the DOJ invited their contibution? I'm sure they would prefer that there were no amici who filed; who wants to be linked to these loons? But I'm not above a little jab at the DOJ. "Yeah, yeah, you say you have to defend this crap... but look who is on your side!" Ryan,

Did you read the commentary before you began objecting?

Hint: read it again and this time don’t skim over “mortified”. Also consider the possibility of sarcasem and the fact that “amicus” is a “friend of the court”.

Also, most readers know that every single amicus who filed vehemntly HATES the president (and I’m sure the feeling is mutual). Hence the irony. And where are you getting that I implied that the DOJ invited their contibution? I’m sure they would prefer that there were no amici who filed; who wants to be linked to these loons?

But I’m not above a little jab at the DOJ. “Yeah, yeah, you say you have to defend this crap… but look who is on your side!”

]]> By: Ryan http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/27/30087/comment-page-1#comment-88007 Ryan Fri, 28 Jan 2011 08:43:21 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30087#comment-88007 Why are you calling these groups "friends" of the administration? That's clearly not the case. Why are you implying that the DOJ solicited their involvement, so that they could say the things the administration could not? Again, an absurd notion. This is an incredibly dishonest post. Why are you calling these groups “friends” of the administration? That’s clearly not the case. Why are you implying that the DOJ solicited their involvement, so that they could say the things the administration could not? Again, an absurd notion. This is an incredibly dishonest post.

]]> By: Bernie http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2011/01/27/30087/comment-page-1#comment-87964 Bernie Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:39:21 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=30087#comment-87964 I started to read the brief from NARTH, and I swear my stomach started to churn. Which reminds me, I have to send them another letter and ask them how George is doing? I started to read the brief from NARTH, and I swear my stomach started to churn.

Which reminds me, I have to send them another letter and ask them how George is doing?

]]>