Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Palin backs DADT repeal? (A little twitter gives us a dubious hint)
Hotair ^ | 01/04/2011 | Ed Morrissey

Posted on 01/04/2011 8:58:11 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Sarah Palin has remained silent on the issue of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which Congress passed in the lame-duck session — at least until now. ABC News’ Devin Dwyer has been on the Twitter beat and reports that Palin retweeted a message from radio host Tammy Bruce that supports the end of DADT:

But Monday night the former Alaska governor re-tweeted a post from conservative talk show host and blogger Tammy Bruce, who is lesbian, appearing to indirectly cast support for gays and an end to the ban on openly gay members of the U.S. military.

Bruce had been commenting on the controversy surrounding a U.S. Navy commander and a raunchy video when she turned to the issue of gays in the military.

“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,” Bruce tweeted, suggesting that virulent opposition to gays may reflect the individual has something to hide.

Soon after, Palin re-tweeted the message to her following of more than 350,000 followers.

It should be stressed that retweeting does not necessarily connote agreement. Dwyer’s colleague Jake Tapper has to repeatedly make that point when Tapper retweets and adds his own commentary. It does suggest a de facto endorsement when unaccompanied by a substantive response, however, and it’s fair for those who follow Palin’s Twitter feed to assume agreement in this sense, as Tammy did in her response. Nor does this specific message explicitly address DADT repeal, although that’s certainly the larger context in the issue of gays and the military.

There is some irony in this quiet positioning, if indeed that’s what this is. The opposition to repeal of DADT in the Senate was led by Palin’s former running mate, John McCain. Palin has courted the conservative base in the GOP that opposed the repeal (as did McCain himself in his re-election bid this year), but managed to avoid taking a stand either way on this issue, one of the few from which Palin has shied.

Palin hasn’t yet responded to requests for comment on the retweet, and that will probably require Palin to clarify her position for the record on DADT. If she backs repeal openly, does this open a rift between Palin and the conservative base? Or does it take the edge off of the dissatisfaction over the repeal on the Right?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ajmpissantpoop; dadt; dontaskdonttell; freepressforpalin; homosexualagenda; palin; repeal; sarahpalin; tammybruce; twitter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

1 posted on 01/04/2011 8:58:14 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why not just let the military create their own policy on this issue?


2 posted on 01/04/2011 8:59:35 AM PST by Weird Tolkienish Figure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The repeal of DADT is a travesty.


3 posted on 01/04/2011 9:01:52 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Uh,....The original tweet was in response to those attacking Palin by calling her anti-gay....its nothing more than that- trying to get a position out of that is silly


4 posted on 01/04/2011 9:02:53 AM PST by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure
They Have! Article 125 of the UCMJ

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall by punished as a court-martial may direct.”

5 posted on 01/04/2011 9:02:55 AM PST by KC_Lion (Lord help our Armed Service members that they not become pawns in Hussein's quest to destroy America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s entirely possible that Palin is just signaling that she’s tired of the discussion. I know I am.

The more the homosexual cause is debated in public, the more sobby stories about perceived “rights” and mistreatment, the more advances in their agenda.

I say quit talking about it.


6 posted on 01/04/2011 9:03:45 AM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This example of extreme “over analysis” indicates that SOMEONE has WAY too much time on their hands...


7 posted on 01/04/2011 9:04:04 AM PST by WayneS (Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. -- James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ll hold off on judgment of Palin until further (reliable) information comes forward.

Palin believes in God and His laws. That in itself makes her (in the eyes of homo loving liberals) a “homophobe”.


8 posted on 01/04/2011 9:04:30 AM PST by aSeattleConservative ("...the American Christian ... would rather die on his feet, than live on his knees!" G. Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

She supported cap and tax/trade in the 2010 campaign.

THAT will always give me caution about her, as well.


9 posted on 01/04/2011 9:05:17 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

Is that a new policy? JIDT. Just ignore, don’t talk.


10 posted on 01/04/2011 9:05:22 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

BS


11 posted on 01/04/2011 9:08:26 AM PST by BillM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Weird Tolkienish Figure
Why not just let the military create their own policy on this issue?

That's the way it was before DADT was imposed on them by the Clinton administration/congress.

12 posted on 01/04/2011 9:11:18 AM PST by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Palin better “clarify” soon.
If she supports sodomizing the military, that would be a killer for me.


13 posted on 01/04/2011 9:12:07 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Heck I support the repeal of DADT. But I want it replace with a much more stringint law that prohibits homosexuals from participating in any capacity


14 posted on 01/04/2011 9:13:23 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
She supported cap and tax/trade in the 2010 campaign.

I call bullsh!+ on that. She may have spewed what McCain needed her to spew back in 2008, but she certainly didn't support the scam in 2010, and she doesn't support it now.

15 posted on 01/04/2011 9:14:42 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

rino!


16 posted on 01/04/2011 9:14:50 AM PST by heiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Uh, no offense, but I’ve known and worked with and even lived with (as a renter) homosexuals my whole life. Like many Alaskans, Palin seems to be expressing what used to be a common idea - what you do on your own property and inside your own home is your business. Yeah, try to hit on me and I’ll tell you to get the hell away from me, but I’ve also told that to several women who were unsavory, too. Our so-called marijuana “legalization” up here in Alaska back in the day came from that same idea - if you want to grow a small amount of weed on your property, it’s not an important issue for the state. (Actually, dope was still against the law, but the Alaska Constitution’s privacy clause trumped the state’s interest in violating it to bust you for small amounts of pot.) Palin’s expressing typical Alaskan libertarianism.

I can also say, from personal experience, that many, many gays that I know have been sad, confused people. However, if you’ve got it together and want to fight and die for the United States, you’ve got my appreciation, and I don’t care if your sexual tastes tend towards Salma Hayek or Russel Crowe.

The same attitude about religion, politics, and ethnic pride allows us to live with each other pretty well up here. It’s not my business to tell you how to live, what to believe, and what you want to do on your property, unless those decisions directly harm others. I would also add that if you want to smoke weed all day and sit on your ass doing nothing, the rest of us are under no obligation to give you welfare, either. You reap what you sow. IMO.


17 posted on 01/04/2011 9:17:00 AM PST by redpoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

That’s a lie.....period!


18 posted on 01/04/2011 9:17:47 AM PST by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
the former Alaska governor re-tweeted a post from conservative talk show host and blogger Tammy Bruce, who is lesbian, appearing to indirectly cast support for gays and an end to the ban on openly gay members of the U.S. military.

I've got a novel idea. How about waiting till she actually comes out and makes a statement one way or another instead of reading the tea leaves of retweets (whatever that is). I doubt Sarah Palin would support DADT. More likely President Palin would find a way to do what's right for our troops.

19 posted on 01/04/2011 9:21:56 AM PST by McGruff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

None of this is about allowing gay people to serve, it is about allowing the gay activist crowd to drive an agenda.


20 posted on 01/04/2011 9:25:17 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I call bullsh!+ on that. She may have spewed what McCain needed her to spew back in 2008, but she certainly didn't support the scam in 2010, and she doesn't support it now.

You're right of course, but the people with PDS wouldn't concede on anything, no matter how clearly and succinctly she expresses it.

Some people are beyond hope, even when she is re-elected in 16.

21 posted on 01/04/2011 9:26:17 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (Overproduction, one of the top five worries of the American Farmer each and every year..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is why everyone is talking:

Palin’s supporters don’t know where she stands on this issue.


22 posted on 01/04/2011 9:28:28 AM PST by donna (Imagine...women who honor men enough not to tempt them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Sounds good to me.

There are things that are right and wrong according to God’s law that man’s law can never adequately control.

Ideally, a civil and honorable society controls misbehavior through its disapproval. Conversely, a decadent society encourages those things that our Judeo-Christian foundation would find appalling, for example the list Paul made in his second letter to Timothy:

“But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.”

Or to the Galatians:

“The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. “

Every one of us can read those passages and see a description, not only of the underbelly of our society, but of the role models which we emulate. Not only is sin tolerated, it is encouraged in modern-day America.

No longer does society disapprove of wrongdoing. We can’t pass laws to make people good. We can only pass laws that punish the results of egregious bad behavior, the tragedies that result when sin has done its dirty work.

The only way we’ll eliminate abortion is through changing minds. We see that happening already as a generation grows up seeing ultrasound images of fully-formed babies that are at risk of murder under the law.

You can never conquer sin, just try to keep it in its tawdry box. Laws can help with that, but public opinion is the stronger weapon.

And that’s the battle we’re losing now with all the pity-me stories from the “I was made this way” homosexual crowd, who have money and influence.

We must change the conversation to one of demanding integrity and honesty and character in all public dealings. If someone wants to live like a sleazeball in private, that’s between him and his Maker.

As for DADT, there are military regs that demand proper behavior, including forbidding public displays of affection. Enforce them for all, and let’s quit talking about it.


23 posted on 01/04/2011 9:33:50 AM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Has she really never taken a position on this? That would be surprising, since she’s such a bold, brave, conservative leader. Surely she’s on the record already, no?


24 posted on 01/04/2011 9:33:58 AM PST by Huck (Do talk radio hosts get paid extra when they use the word "impugn"? It sure seems like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
Well, no. It's an example of the fact that people often do NOT know where Palin stands on key issues. She said she favors border enforcement. Good. Where does she stand on "amnesty?" And if against, why did she support McLame?

What would be so tough about making a Facebook statement about Palin's position on homosexuals in the military?

And am I wrong but wasn't "DADT" a Clinton COMPROMISE with the previous hard line against homosexuals in the military? Why not go back to the old, er, position so to speak?

25 posted on 01/04/2011 9:34:17 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: donna

“Palin’s supporters don’t know where she stands on this issue.”

Right - but when ABC New posts a blog with the title “Sarah Palin Re-Tweets in Support of Gays” she can choose to either comment and clarify what her intentions and her views are, or she can leave it at that, and then we will all presume that ABC News has it correct. She’s never had a problem correcting the media when she feels misrepresented before.


26 posted on 01/04/2011 9:36:54 AM PST by Hawk720
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Palin doesn’t need to clarify soon, just if she chooses to run. However, too many people are jumping the gun.

Stop, think and look at her record.

Palin supports the repeal simply because she doesn’t believe the government should be sticking their nose into the military’s business. I will wager big money that she views this similar to state’s rights that the military should set their own rules that work best for them as long as it allows those who want to and are eligible to serve. Our Constitution prohibits discrimination and Palin is a Constitutionalist. DADT is not what violates the Constitution, it is what happens if someone is outed that is against the Constitution. Sexual preference, gay or straight, should be made a non-diclosed issue for all. Our military trains warriors not exhibitionists.

Honestly, this makes me like her more. I would prefer a blanket policy of DADT, what happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom for gay and straights. Sexuality has NO place in corporate America and it should have no place in the military. It should be irrelevant BUT sexual harassment will apply to anyone gay or straight, if they cross a line. That is something the gay community might not be prepared for.


27 posted on 01/04/2011 9:40:06 AM PST by firelight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Show your sources.


28 posted on 01/04/2011 9:47:49 AM PST by Outlaw Woman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: firelight

uh, the military is the government’s business.

You whole post is pure BS.

Post a link where Palin said what you think she said.

Right now, I will wait to see if she addresses this herself.


29 posted on 01/04/2011 9:51:46 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

Jedidah,

Exactly, God gives us free will, why won’t our government.

It doesn’t make immoral actions right, but God did not see fit to make it the 11th Commandment. Instead, he left it a moral issue, not a legal one, much like fornication.


30 posted on 01/04/2011 9:54:26 AM PST by firelight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: firelight

And Tammy thinks it’s funny.

From Twitter:

“HeyTammyBruce Tammy Bruce

Ooh, looks like I’m going to need more Smores ingredients today as I watch ongoing Palin RT analysis.
1 hour ago”

http://twitter.com/#!/HeyTammyBruce


31 posted on 01/04/2011 9:56:17 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

First, I’ve heard Tammy Bruce before and she is a bomb thrower of the first order. I don’t care for her.

Second, I have no issue with gays serving in the military. If they want to serve and die for their country, fine with me. If they harass other people there are laws on the books to deal with it.


32 posted on 01/04/2011 9:56:27 AM PST by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Cackle.
No, really, "cackle" means, "Mark for later read."
33 posted on 01/04/2011 9:56:29 AM PST by MyIndianNameIsSwimsWithSharks (There are no friends in politics.We are all sharks;circling,waiting for blood in the water.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If she’s for homosexualizing the military, she just lost my support.


34 posted on 01/04/2011 9:58:30 AM PST by Antoninus (Fair warning: If Romney's the GOP nominee in 2012, I'm looking for a new party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Has she really never taken a position on this?

Actually, she was asked about this on either Hannity or O'Reilly once (I'll never find it) and her answer was the issue is a distraction and should not be addressed during a time of war. She said she thought the Military had the right to set their own rules.

She did not make a definitive statement about being against repeal, only that she agreed with the military and thought the congress should not take up the issue. Alaskans do tend to have a more libertarian view of these types of things.

Apparently that's not good enough for some people, although it seems reasonable to me and mirrors my position almost exactly.

I understand if she doesn't come out guns a blazing against the homo's she will not be 'good enough' for the 'Holier than thou types' on here. But who is? They live to look down their noses at people. Heck, they've told me she isn't pro-life enough for them too.

35 posted on 01/04/2011 9:59:11 AM PST by t-dude (Sarah causes banal and vituperous evil snarks to shriek in horror!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: firelight

Horse manure.

The repeal of DADT was supported by the sodomy lobby as well as the pandering, America-hating rats. If Palin is on their side, I am not on Palin’s side. The point of the repeal was to tell the military that they better accept recruits who want to openly flaunt their mental and emotional disorders. Any normal soldier, sailor, or Marine who brawls with a homo in the barracks is automatically subject to “hate crime” prosecution, and any perceived sleights of homos by the military will lead to quotas for every rank. (Are there “enough” homo generals?)

So spin it all you want - - if Palin is for sodomizing the military, then she can get elected without my vote.

FRegards,
LH


36 posted on 01/04/2011 9:59:31 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Hey Indylindy,

Read the Constitution, look at the Founding Father’s beliefs on the military. You are very, very wrong.

We have 3 branches of Federal Government, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. The military was never supposed to be a permanent government entity much like the Federal Reserve or Post office (which is a private business). It receives funding but is actually a separate entity who ultimately answers to the Commander in Chief but takes an oath to uphold our Constitution, not our government or President.

Clearly you are not a Constitutionalist since your entire post is BS.


37 posted on 01/04/2011 10:05:11 AM PST by firelight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“and it’s fair for those who follow Palin’s Twitter feed to assume agreement in this sense, as Tammy did in her response.”

B.S.

Read Tammy’s ‘response’.

She doesn’t ‘agree’ with the retweet.

She’s making fun of it!

(check the link in my post above)


38 posted on 01/04/2011 10:05:21 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m content to let her offer her own clarification. But since she has opened the door on this discussion, she needs to clarify soon.

Support for someone rests on more than one issue. But this one is pretty important, in that I think the current administration is going to try to use the military to bring in gay marriage by manipulating the rules for military dependents. So its more than just who gets to wear the uniform.


39 posted on 01/04/2011 10:09:51 AM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I never saw where Palin stated she supports this specific repeal. There are a lot of people that believe it is the military’s business even if they disagree with the “lifestyle”.

You can strongly oppose a gay lifestyle and still support the repeal of DADT because you don’t believe that specific law is the right approach.

It is the same as the healthcare repeal. You can not accuse everyone who supports the repeal of wanting no healthcare reform. They just don’t want THAT reform.

Palin hasn’t said she is Pro-gay, she has said that to some degree it isn’t our business and now hinted that the DADT law might not be the best approach. Doesn’t mean she isn’t for another approach.

People like you don’t like her anyway so this just gives you more reason to grump.


40 posted on 01/04/2011 10:10:54 AM PST by firelight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: firelight

What is Constitutional about forcing the gay agenda on troops? What is Constitutional about soldiers having to sit down for lessons about embrace of the gay culture in their midsts? Forcing straight troops to shower with gays? You like that too?

DADT was a far more Constitutional approach than it’s repeal.

If you want to hide behind the Constitution for this, then I guess you are also for gay marriage too.


41 posted on 01/04/2011 10:11:05 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

Read my post Sherlock.

I clearly stated that DADT isn’t unconstitutional, it is the actual discriminatory law of the military that does not allow gays to serve that is unconstitutional.

There are parts of the DADT law that tread very closely to unconstitutional. It isn’t the spirit of DADT that is the problem. Any employer has a right to set the rules of engagement within an organization as long as they are not discriminating.

Employers have a DADT law regarding marriage, kids, religion, and political views being asked in the interview room.

Allow gays to serve in the military and place a blanket DADT rule (issued by the military and not government) on EVERYONE equally. Sexuality has no place in the work field anyway.

You are so bigoted you can’t see the forest for the trees. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that this law was headed for a discrimination lawsuit since is was applied to only one segment of the military population. Apply it is everyone and the issue is irrelevant.

and no I am not for gay marriage but again, I don’t think the government should have the right to tell people who they can and cannot marry. They can set an age limit since it is a legal contract but other than that, no it isn’t their business.

It is NOT the job of the government to regulate morality.


42 posted on 01/04/2011 10:28:56 AM PST by firelight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: All

looks like we have a few homosexual trolls on the thread.

(not to mention those with PDR)


43 posted on 01/04/2011 10:33:25 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firelight

no you can’t have it both ways.

Homosexuals have no place in the military.

This has been proven time and time again.

Most recently with the whole wikileaks fiasco.


44 posted on 01/04/2011 10:37:12 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

“That’s a lie.....period!”

Huh???

She said so in the debate!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGI2HFL1_bA

At 5:07 minutes.

Am I still a liar???


45 posted on 01/04/2011 10:38:10 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Bigtigermike

“That’s a lie.....period!”

Huh???

She said so in the debate!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGI2HFL1_bA

At 5:07 minutes.

Am I still a liar???


46 posted on 01/04/2011 10:38:19 AM PST by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: donna

“Palin’s supporters don’t know where she stands on this issue.”
______________

Not so. As of February of 2010, she was opposed to repeal of DADT.

http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2011/01/captain-ed-gets-one-wrong.html

- JP


47 posted on 01/04/2011 10:38:42 AM PST by Josh Painter ("May we always be happy, and may our enemies know it." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory; DJ MacWoW; wagglebee; little jeremiah; central_va; metmom; Jedidah

looks like we have a few homosexual trolls on the thread.

____________________________________

We sure do!

I can’t believe what I’m reading. Jedidah, are you really calling for conservatives to shut up and ignore the onslaught of homo’s in the military?


48 posted on 01/04/2011 10:45:59 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (Yes, as a matter of fact, what you do in your bedroom IS my business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: firelight

Marriage is a ceremony between a man and a woman.

That is what a marriage is. If gays want a civil union, fine.

I read your posts, scooter. I was not impressed. I am still not impressed with you fluff.


49 posted on 01/04/2011 10:46:39 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

Yes because you said 2010! Yes because you are being deceptive since all VP candidates must accept the platform of the Presidential candidate like Cheney and Bush Sr had to do to their respectful leaders even thought they disagree with policy.....btw i have never heard of someone who is a proponent of drilling on a massive stage across this country wanting cap n trade imposed on the very drilling companies! You ate a liar because you are deceptive


50 posted on 01/04/2011 10:46:39 AM PST by Bigtigermike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-180 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson