Personally, she's clearly walking the talk as a social conservative...that's indisputable. But she is a little more "live and let live" than some would like.
She has also stated the police have better things to do than worry about somebody smoking a joint in their living room and has never mentioned the WOD other than that.
Smells like a bunch of wishful thinking to me. She tweeted what she tweeted, and now people are trying to ‘interpret’ it to comfort themselves. LOL
So what if Palin isn’t a flame thrower on the whole issue of gays or DADT. Do people expect her to be PERFECT, or to be in 100% agreement with everyone on EVERYTHING?
Personally, I’m against homos serving in the military at all, but I wouldn’t allow that single issue to be a ‘deal breaker’.
This whole thing is a bunch of nothing. People should just let it go.
She would still get my vote either way(especially against Hussein).
Let the spin begin.... Once again I will show my screenshot of Sarah’s Twitter page...
http://oi52.tinypic.com/5tsw7q.jpg
“the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed”
Palin agrees with that statement.
That’s the problem.
Nothing to do with DADT. Palin is agreeing with the argument gays have been using for years. Anyone who criticizes gays is gay. Total BS. And Palin agrees with it. And not only that, Bruce seems to think that someone should be investigating critics of the gay agenda. And Palin agrees with that. That’s the problem.
There needs to be a correct interpretation of Sarah's tweetings. The focus of the statement is hypocrisy. Sarah is looking at those who would destroy the credibility of our stand against "homos." Our enemies on the Left are pushing for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. They will use any method of trickery to further their cause. One way would be for one of their operative to pretend they are a conservative. Such a person will pose as some right wing nut job and make all kinds of noise about homos. They will loudly behave as the stereotypical flaming homo haters and set up circumstances to be exposed for some manufactured scandalous hypocrisy. Casting a group with hypocrisy is the easiest way to kill the credibility of any group.
We have seen them operate at Tea Party rallies. They put on the face of the Tea Party members. However, they carry outrageous signs and make outrageous statements. They try to ferment violence to make the Tea Party look like morons and give the Tea Party movement a bad name. In just the same way, they will act like raving smucks in order to put a loony tune face on all conservatives who oppose same sex marriage and the homo agenda. We need to look under their bed to see if they are who they pretend to be.
This is the tactic of the Southern Poverty Law Center which draws out one person who has some nasty stuff under their bed. The SPLC exposes one person and uses it to cast a bad picture on the entire group. They have moved on to a new twist on that tactic. They infiltrate the group with one of their own operatives. Such a person will through outrageous behavior destroy the reputation of the entire group.
We are in for some real disgusting times as the Left tries every trick in the book to further their agenda.
LOL!
and here I thought we were entering the New Year of “no labels”
Meh, let’s see, last year I was called
racist for opposing Obama’s agenda,
teabagger for championing fiscal restraint,
Islamophobic for opposing the ground zero mosque,
Supporter of slavery for opposing the government takeover of healthcare
Racist (again) for supporting the AZ immigration law
Idiot for opposing the Start Treaty
Insensitive for wanting to fly the colors
But that was all last year. This year, the year of “no labels” I am not being called a Homophobe for opposing the repeal of DADT. Great start to a new year!
However, Palin is not agreeing with the repeal of it, she is agreeing with Tammy Bruce that this is all a distraction of epic proportions (that’s the way I read it).
Back in February, Palin did say that a rule such as DADT is needed in the military and that the military commanders should be setting the rules, not Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. She did point out that now is not the time to be taking this argument up. We are in time of war and there are bigger priorities ie... jobs, deficit, terrorism etc...
The tweet is much ado about nothing. If you are looking to hate on Palin, you will. If you support her, you still will.
The liberals can repeal all they want, Commanders will run their units how they see fit and safe and Sarah supports that.
Does the gay community really believe they should be “openly serving” while we are at war on Islamic soil?? Do they know what the Koran says about homosexuality and what should be done to people like that?
This is spin. She did what she did. Time to look for another candidate.
I have a relative, by marriage, who was homosexual. (Note past tense!)
This person was involved in a ‘marriage’ with a transgendered individual (companion actually endured a sex change operation), and there was a child (by AI) born into this relationship.
This relationship endured for about 15 years until said relative suddenly fell in love with member of the opposite sex! (This is not a joke - it actually happened,) This person walked away from own child and spouse to marry a member of opposite sex. (Relative changed sexual orientation to heterosexual.)
Relative said to be very satisfied with present marriage and has even re-established parent-child relationship with son originally spurned by new spouse.
I have talked with son — says, WOW! It was very confusing at first, but he’s adjusted. (He’s interested in girls! Yeah!!) Says his original Dad (the transgendered he/she, is managing the abandonment but still hurting.)
Note: I do not accept the idea that homosexuality is biological but rather a personality disorder.
These people have, by and large, been supportive of a young child and at no time have physically harmed him.
In no way do I believe homosexuality should be illegal or deemed immoral except when it involves the sexual or physical abuse of juveniles and/or minors. That would make it criminal.
>> “FWIW” [snort!!]
Ha!
“However, I think it’s a stretch to claim that she is a proponent of repealing DADT based on one re-tweet.”
Palin should just state where she stands, period.
What, is Sarah Palin not available to explain her own words, so they feel they have to do it for her?
This isn’t some guessing game, or some mystery to be solved, where you have to put the pieces together. Sarah Palin is a public figure, with a Facebook and Twitter outlet, and also a place on Fox News.
She knows exactly what she thinks, and is perfectly capable of saying what she thinks. So we don’t need a blog site trying to second-guess her.
I do happen to agree that we can’t be sure she was talking about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. What we CAN be sure of is what she actually put out on her twitter feed — a phrase suggesting that people who obsess about homosexuality are often closeted homosexuals.
But Tammy Bruce herself seemed to believe Sarah was supporting her view on DADT. And Tammy was defending Sarah at the time as someone who was not anti-gay.
And given that it is clear Sarah Palin follows Tammy Bruce’s tweets, and was paying attention to the actual conversation since she re-tweeted one of the tweets from it, it seems reasonable to believe that Sarah SAW Tammy Bruce’s subsequent tweet where Tammy said Sarah seemed to support DADT.
So if the conservatives4palin want to believe she wasn’t doing so, they have to explain why Sarah would let one of her close friends misrepresent what she was saying, and then stay quiet while multiple news outlets discussed it.
Now, it could be that it is a ploy by Sarah, to build up interest so she can make a major policy declaration about gay issues. But if that is coming, we still don’t need idle speculation by her blogger supporters trying to “discern” what she might have meant — Sarah will be able to explain it all when she decides to do so.
Meanwhile, any supporters who insists she has a particular belief will look silly if she comes out with a different statement than they expect.
Sorry Sarah! We’ve got enough of a mess to clean up without you supporting the ideas of the Liberal Progressives.
If this is true, no support from me. I haven’t quite made up my mind to support her anyway. This might be the deciding point for me.
