The original tweet, from Tammy Bruce, was:
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
January 4, 2011
Everyone's all atwitter at the Sarah Palin re-tweet of a pro-gay tweet.
"I think @SarahPalinUSA RT my tweet is her first comment on DADT, treatment of gays & attempts to marginalize us–thank you Governor."
The original tweet, from Tammy Bruce, was:
The original tweet, from Tammy Bruce, was:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
42 comments:
Since it was passed on without comment and Miss Sarah hasn't said anything specific, I can only presume she's letting the press and pundits make idiots of themselves.
While we're on the subject, where's HD...?
palladian . . .?
Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
Something wrong.. (no, I'm not impersonating Henry Lee).. I'm just quoting the Tweeter page Althouse linked to..
Usually when you pass on a remark without comment it is because you agree with it.
Anyway, it wouldn't be surprising if Palin thought DADT was a dumb law. Most Republicans do.
As a Palin fan and DADT repeal fan.. I hope Sarah doesn't backtrack this.. don't take it back.
Its not like the GOP has gone out of their way for her.
It works for me (the link). I quoted the whole thing, so...
It does make sense politically.. I'm not saying she doesn't mean it.. whatever Sarah says or doesn't say Sarah means ;)
The enigmatic Sarah Palin.
I love that woman.
I dont Tweet.. maybe thats why.
Of course she's not anti-gay. She's a smart, young, politically-savy Republican.
What's most interesting about posts like this on places like CNN are the comments. Click on the link and scroll down. HERE is an example of an article about her daugher buying a house in Arizona.
There is way too much gay shit in this blog.
Can you please refrain and show some restraint?
This is ridiculous.
Let's talk more about tits please.
More evidence of Palin's ignorance, no?
I can see gay voters from my house.
Why does everyone continue to talk about DADT? The recent law, even though it was called the repeal DADT Act did nothing of the kind. It may, possibly, perhaps, at some point in the future repeal USC 10, Section 654 which outlaws homosexual ACTS.
Even that is not a given. There are enough certificationsand other requirements that I am willing to bet that this time next year homosexual activity will continue to be illegal in the military.
Note that I said activity. Homosexuality itself is not now and never has been (AFAIK) illegal in the military.
It is only acts that have ever been illegal.
You all really need to read the bill. It is less than 2 pages long, easy to understand.
John Henry
If it ever does repeal USC 10 S 654, it will render the DADT *policy* moot.
Not the same thing as repealng it.
Especially since the bill passed in December repeals nothing.
John Henry
And what's with the original tweet? Anti-gay people are really gay? But isn't being gay now a good thing? So the anti-gays are really the good guys?
How's Unemployed Meadsy Poo dealing with this?
The homo hater must be devastated.
Her record as governor on the issue speaks for itself, but for sime reason the Palin deranged media did not cover it. This retweet is consistent with her record
Sarah has a young family, including a veteran who served in Iraq. Those folks don't see why gays their age need to be put down, so Sarah will not go there just to please some legalistic Christians.The hard thing for Sarah will be when the Journolisters coordinate a shoving match to demand she come out in favor of being gay or else instead of just refusing to use the State to discriminate against gays as has been done by law in the past.
sime=some
Ann Althouse said...
"It works for me."
Of course it works for YOU!
Who is, OBTW, a mother of a gay son and teacher to untold numbers of future lawyers.
DADT will become our newest American "business model" for the successful exchange of greenbacks.
This is AMERICA!
We dare anyone to try to stop us from making a buck.
Everything old is new again. Why? That is, why all the reaction, as if this is a revelation?
Sarah Palin, when she was governing, separated personal beliefs from governing beliefs in some areas (specifically, not-core governing areas). This strikes me as more in line with her original concept of governance and its reach.
Of course I could be wrong. But I'm not so sure I am, in this instance.
Revenant said...
Usually when you pass on a remark without comment it is because you agree with it.
Anyway, it wouldn't be surprising if Palin thought DADT was a dumb law. Most Republicans do.
RINOs, maybe, not the rest of the party.
But that's what you get when you assume.
Among other things.
Usually when you pass on a remark without comment it is because you agree with it.
Not necessarily, I'd say, Revenant, and most especially with regard to Twitter (though I'd stand by that even with regard to blogging). Assume at your own peril, is more like it. Of course your experience might be entirely unlike mine. Of course! Equally, my experience might be entirely unlike yours.
Everyone, eh?
Retweeting sounds like the best way to turn 15 mins of fame into 20. This woman is a parrot. Polly want a cracker?
I could be completely wrong--100% wrong! 200% wrong! 1000% wrong!--but I suspect, *strongly* suspect, that Sarah Palin, personally, actually views homosexuality as primarily a religious, and therefore private-life [not government] issue (with gay *marriage*, as opposed to civil unions, obviously including partner benefits, as a separate issue). I suspect she'd vastly prefer it simply not be the pervading issue that it is for so many of her constituency (or, for that matter, that it is for the constituency of her opponents).
I'd bet serious money that, in her heart of hearts, Sarah really doesn't care all that much either way--that is, that if it were possible in her today's politics, she'd fall more into the live-and-let-live camp.
As I said, I could be, whatever, 10,000% wrong!!!--or, maybe not.
Comments at CNN are not complimentary of her and whether or not she even put the thought or initiative into publicizing the original chirp on her own. They believe it was spoon-fed to her, that she probably didn't even understand the original comment, and don't understand why anyone cares in the first place what she says. In the words of one of them:
She is two french fries short of a HAPPY MEAL.
lol.
They believe it was spoon-fed to her, that she probably didn't even understand the original comment, and don't understand why anyone cares in the first place what she says.
Well, then, they are fools, profoundly so, on every point, and it doesn't take a Palin-for-President fan (which I, admittedly, am not) to point that out.
She is two french fries short of a HAPPY MEAL.
Palin's prayer...
I thank you God for the haters.
Not anywhere near as foolish as the fans.
If your criticism of her and her fans was anywhere near as detailed as it is of them (or even existent), maybe there'd even be something worth reading.
With all due respect to Tammy Bruce, her original tweet is quite dopey. I expect better from her.
It may, possibly, perhaps, at some point in the future repeal USC 10, Section 654 which outlaws homosexual ACTS.
First of all, the sodomy ban is unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas.
Secondly, it also covers heterosexual oral and anal sex. So either:
(1): The military singles out homosexuals for prosecution, in which case gay soldiers get to retire on their nice, juice multi-million dollar discrimination suit settlements, or
(2): The military starts going after hetero soldiers who get blowjobs. Which is, to a first approximation, all of them.
RINOs, maybe, not the rest of the party.
74% of Republicans are RINOs? What a quaint way of looking at it.
Note that I said activity. Homosexuality itself is not now and never has been (AFAIK) illegal in the military.
DADT gave three causes for sacking a soldier, any one of which is sufficient:
(1): Homosexual acts
(2): Claiming to be homosexual or bisexual, unless a subsequent investigation establishes that you aren't really.
(3): Attempting to marry someone of the same gender.
So, no, it was not just about "homosexual activity".
Revenant,
Go read DADT.
Claiming to be homosexual is not grounds for discharge.
Claiming to have engaged in homosexual acts is.
As for homosexual marriage, that would seem to be prima facie evidence that one has engaged in homosexual acts.
Re Lawrence etc, perhaps you are right. So how come nobody has successfully claimed that this prevents enforcement of Section 654?
You may be right about unfairness of not going after heteros for blowjobs.
Doesn't change the fact at all that as of today 654 had not been repealed.
Nor does it change the fact that DADT has not been repealed either.
Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and going "neener, neener, neener" all day long will not change those facts.
Get over it.
Tell you what:
I've got $5 that says as of 1-5-2011 homosexual activity, will continue to be illegal in the military.
Care to cover?
Anyone else?
e-mail me at johnfajardohenry@gmail.com
John Henry
"...-the more someone complains about the homos the more we should look under their bed"
How does this work as criticism, except in saying gay sex is shameful?
Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. After all, she told Dr. Laura "Don't re-tweet, reload".
The notion that SP might *not* be virulently anti-gay is sure to make some of her opponents' heads explode. Fun!
Anyway, an RT of Tammy Bruce's comment would seem to constitute agreeance...
Ironic that all the comments on CNN accusing Palin of being "stupid" have such poor punctuation, spelling and grammar. But not surprising.
Palin's roommate throughout college was a lesbian, according to her autobiography. So I wouldn't be surprised if she supported repeal of DADT.
Go read DADT.
I did. You did not. The text is here.
Claiming to be homosexual is not grounds for discharge. Claiming to have engaged in homosexual acts is.
Wrong. Claiming to be homosexual is, unless a follow-up investigation finds that "the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts". "Homosexual act" is defined by the section as "any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires".
Any member of the armed forces who stated he was homosexual was subject to prosecution unless he was able to demonstrate that he had no inclination to touch another man in a sexual way. It doesn't matter if he ever HAD touched another man in such a way -- he had to demonstrate that he wasn't even inclined to.
Quite simply, he had to demonstrate that even though he'd said he was gay, he wasn't really gay.
As for homosexual marriage, that would seem to be prima facie evidence that one has engaged in homosexual acts.
Grounds for strong suspicion, yes. Evidence, no. In either case that section doesn't even consider homosexual acts -- even if you could prove you had never committed such an act, the attempt at marriage was sufficient for prosecution.
Re Lawrence etc, perhaps you are right. So how come nobody has successfully claimed that this prevents enforcement of Section 654?
Because Section 654 has been obsolete since 1993, which was about a decade prior to the Lawrence decision.
You may be right about unfairness of not going after heteros for blowjobs.
I didn't say anything about "unfairness". I just pointed out that if the military targets homosexuals for prosecution under 654 while ignoring the (orders of magnitude more common) heterosexual violations of it, the military is going to get taken to the cleaners in civil court. The court takes a dim view of government agencies who deny people equal protection under the law.
John,
I replied to you once, but the post appears to have disappeared.
Two points:
(1): I did read DADT, and you couldn't be more wrong. The article specifically cites "the propensity to engage in homosexual acts" as being sufficient for dismissal. No actual act was necessary; you were subject to prosecution for the mere inclination.
(2): I did not say it was "unfair" that homosexuals might be singled out, I just pointed out that the military will get taken to the cleaners in civil court if they try it.
So Revenant,
Does that mean you are not going to take my bet?
That is: That Section 654 and DADT will still not have been repealed a year from now?
That homosexual activity by military members will still be illegal a year from now?
Or do you think they will be repealed?
I've got $5 says they won't be and the law will remain the same as today.
Let me know.
John Henry
johnfajardohenry@gmail.com
Post a Comment