Did Sarah Palin Just Tweet Her Position on 'Homos'?

Gawker ^ | 1/3/11 | Max Read

[pissant]

Former vice presidential candidate and reality television star Sarah Palin has remained quiet over the recent repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. But she may have just made a statement... by re-Tweeting a conservative lesbian's columnist's Tweet about 'homos.'

Around 10 p.m. Eastern time on Monday night, conservative pundit Tammy Bruce Tweeted about the recent repeal of the military's discriminatory Don't Ask Don't Tell policy:

But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already—the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed
Tue Jan 04 03:12:46 via web

The idea being, one imagines, that those who are most vocally anti-gay are the people who are most likely to be gay themselves, or at least to have, like, gay stuff "under their bed." Not the most original observation in the world, no—but look who apparently agrees with it!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Good time to bump her 2 hour season finale. This Sunday Evening folks. “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on TLC. Best show on Television.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don’t think so right now

"right now" was back in January. It's now December.

The problem with answering "right now", is that you have to keep updating your answer, in case the time has come. It does suggest that the time was coming some day, or else you'd just say "no", rather than "not right now".

When my kids ask if they can have a cookie, and I say "not right now", they know that later they will be able to have one.

I think we've all known that DADT was going to end some day. It wasn't a popular piece of knowledge, so a lot of people argued against it, and smeared those who predicted it's end by claiming they wanted it to end.

But someone saying "not right now" clearly was leaving open the idea that "later" would be OK.

I don't think this tweet is enough to say we know what Sarah's position on DADT is now. I presume she'll say something about it in the next couple of days. And if she says she is OK with the change in the law, I imagine a lot of people here at FR will stop talking about DADT. We already have Palin supporters embracing Tammy Bruce.

[jla]

To 4 - To be fair, which is my wont, pissant isn't on a "witch hunt" in regard to posting this. A "witch hunt" would imply dishonest, or false, attribution or manipulation of facts, which isn't the case here.
Mrs Palin did 'retweet' Tammy Bruce's original tweet, and I'd add that during an interview between Bruce and Palin the latter invited the former to Alaska.
Palin also mentions in her book Going Rogue a good friend in Alaska who happens to be a lesbian.
So, like it or not, Sarah Palin evidently doesn't share the same opinion of homosexuals that many at FR, including many of her FR supporters, have.

Aside: Mrs Palin is on record as opposing gay marriage. Also, to be fair, pissant has indeed submitted posts that are misrepresentations, even outright lies, about Mrs Palin. It just isn't so regarding this particular thread's topic. (I haven't read any posts past #4 as of yet)

[TXnMA]

I'm still partial to my version --

...when she was past the "familiarization" stage and had settled into trigger control -- with her left elbow solidly underneath the piece for stablity.

Gal knows what she's doing...

[trisham]

I don’t “tweet”, so I’m afraid that I have no idea what any of this means.

[trisham]

I don’t think that conclusion follows. At all.

[pissant]

Chris Wallace: Do you want to destroy the military by injecting queers and their agenda into our warrior culture?

Palin: I don't think so right now ....because there are other things to worry about.

effin WEAK crap, even by your and Palin's definition of conservatism.

[SaraJohnson]

This is an interesting insight about Palin.

The gay agenda (normalizing and promoting homosexual sex, it’s interaction and dominance over adults, children and families up to, and including it’s bathhouse lifestyle) is a fact of life in parts of the US in public schools and in all of the US, culturally and in Universities. Often it crosses the line of sexual harassment that no one wants to address. The gays sex activists just march along sexually harassing the kids in some school without consequence or boundries as if they get to rewrite the concept of sexual harassment. No one has the right to impose their sexuality on others - not verbally nor physicaly - in the workplace or in schools. It is against the law.

Now that they have legalized it in the military, gay activists will push an agenda of persecution towards anyone who is not “celebrating” (re-education), Christians are in serious jepardody. If homo activists have their way, soldiers will be given a choice of naming homosexual sex delightful and normal and betraying their faith or being persecuted for being honest and true to their faith.

One can be a faithful Christian and say “what you do in sin is between you and God”, for judgement is for God not Christians; but they can not say “what you are doing is not sin and you should promote that behavior to children and in society in general.” They can say “I don’t like the way you behave because it is sinful but I love you” and be true to the faith. Gay activists will not accept anything short of total affirmation and integration of their behavior and lifestyle - as they dictate it into every aspect of society including childhood. But sexual harassment laws should be used by Christians to contain gay sex activists and we have not done this as of yet because we were playing a one way street of DADT in life.

What gay activists are doing when they are “out of the closet” with their sex is called sexual harassment - imposing their sex behavior - verbally and/or physically - on the public in the classroom and workplace whether the employees and students want to be interacting with them sexually, or not. If the military imposes re-education that discusses gay sex with the troops, that is sexual harassment. If the military requires soldiers to tolerate gay sexual behavior and expression in their midst, that is sexual harassment. If they curtail free speech about homosexuality - impose political correctness - that will be less of an intrusion as long as they do not require verbal sexual affirmations from soldiers which would be sexual harassment and a violation of religious freedom.

We are going to have to deal with this - drawing lines - on what gays can do sexually (verbally and physically) around heterosexuals in the workplace and classrooms for them to avoid the charge of sexual harassment. So far they have gone legally unchallenged by conservatives.

Some Christians will try to rewrite the Bible to make homosexual sex lovely in God’s eyes as they have already done in abortion, sex outside of marriage and divorce. In the absense of any opposition this will become the norm. I have not altered the Bible’s sexual moral framework to accomodate any of the sexual freedom agenda and will not do so for gay sexuality either and if they harass me with their sex or about their sex, I will sue them because I would do the same with a heterosexual into porn bothering me with their sex problem. We need to use sexual harassment laws on the books to put gay sex expression in the closet at the workplace and in the classroom in the name of avoiding sexual harassment and respecting religious freedom. Gays are free to do as they want in their private life as the courts and elites impose on society, but they are not permitted to interact sexually with the classroom or workplace anymore than heterosexals are permitted to do. In private life people have the right to associate with or reject another’s sexual behavior and expression.

Gays hate this most of all: Hate the sin but love the sinner. That is the bottom line for faithful Christians whether gays like it or not. Divorcees or those who commit adultery don’t like it when Christians say divorce or adultery is a sin but some Christians say it and believe it anyway. In other words, liberals will march through the culture as they have always done and the (few) Chrsitains to stay true to Christian morality will do as they have always done.

We have to begin to keep these lines straight legally and we have to halt the “bullying” stragety and the “hate speech” efforts of the gays which are designed so that we can not legally object to their sexual harassment (out of the closet sexual impositions).

[trisham]

Let's see what Sarah Palin has to say about her retweet. I've never seen any indication that she supports the homosexual agenda, and for the record, I do not like her friendship with Tammy Bruce. Friendships like those, always lead to trouble. Homosexuals and lesbians always want *something* in return for their limited support that our side never needs.

**********************************

Agreed. This may very well mean nothing at all. How many times have many of us misspelled a word, or misinterpreted a post? I'm not going to assume anything at this point. We'll know soon enough what Sarah believes regarding this issue, I'm sure.

[dforest]

It was a noncommittal statement. It offers no information.

That is how I saw it.

[BykrBayb]

If sex is not allowed for hetro while in the military then I don’t see why homo should be allowed either

Military personnel do not take an oath of celibacy.

How do these idiots who know nothing about military life manage to find their way here?

[maine-iac7]

now now, xins, don't confuse pissant - mustn't interfere with her overreach in any attempt to denigrate Palin. She lives and breathes to put Palin down, and any who don't agree with her - ‘tis her reason for existence...

;o)

[jla]

To 6 - Tammy Bruce has oft commented very admirably of Duncan Hunter. Next time you and he speak ask him his opinion of her.
Also, those who wished DADT to remain, of which I am one, haven't argued their case with efficacy.

FTR: Tammy Bruce's books are very informative and well-written. She is, and remains, an asset to the Right. I'm never too thrilled to read her rants against the Roman-Catholic Church, (which in my opinion can be fallacious), and I disagree with her on issues such as DADT. Yet, I'd prefer her as a neighbor than a hell of a lot of (so-called) conservative folks I've met.

[pissant]

Holy smokes. clean that tint off your glasses.

[pissant]

She denigrated herself. I just reported it.

[pissant]

I like Tammy’s views on alot of things. Just as I like Huck’s or Rudy’s on certain topics. I’m sure she’s a fine neighbor as well. But anyone who sides with Bawney Fwank on this issue needs to be opposed vociferously.

[jla]

To 87 - Because a lot of them are finally learning that Palin isn't 'one of them'. As if any of 'them' jog, hunt, fish and tirelessly traverse the country advocating conservatism all the while maintaining her femininity, and figure, and even finding time to let folks know, come what may, she has her core beliefs and those beliefs aren't negotiable.
Compare this to some yenta or pot-bellied hick sitting at a PC 24/7.

[xzins]

I don’t know what you mean???

[pissant]

But they could have tried to overturn the DADT by legislation after they took over, and they did not.

Some did try. DUncan Hunter to be exact. The jelly fish leadership like Newt would not let it through.

[pissant]

Bruce's comments were directed at the "hypocrites" who are slamming the repeal of DADT. She is saying that those who are making the most noise about it, are most likely to have hidden gay sex. That is what she is saying in these consecutive posts:

I'm focused on economic issues, and you may have noticed I was being quiet about DADT because that's not our most pressing issue...
about 15 hours ago via web

But this hypocrisy is just truly too much. Enuf already--the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed
about 15 hours ago via web

And Tammy later tweeted THIS in response to Palin's BUMP on Sarah's own twitter page:

I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us--thank you Governor
about 14 hours ago via web

This in not Palin scolding TB or anyone else for "this lady’s threat to look under other people’s beds". It is her agreeing with TB's post. Just like when she bumped (RT'd in Twitter-speak) Tammy's endorsement of Christine Odonnell, as I have pointed out on this thread earlier.