- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,099
- Reaction score
- 33,418
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Name a govt policy that gets implimented for free.What extra cost??
Name a govt policy that gets implimented for free.What extra cost??
Talk about propaganda.
Simply Google gay gene hoax and learn something.
Name a govt policy that gets implimented for free.
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years totaled at least $190.5 million. This amounts to roughly $20,000 per discharged service member.
Analysis of GAO’s methodology, however, shows that the $190 million figure may be wildly off the mark. A recent study by the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that GAO’s analysis total left out several important factors, such as the high cost of training officers—commissioned soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen with several years of service experience—who were discharged due to their sexual orientation. When these costs were factored in, the cost to the American taxpayer jumped to $363.8 million—$173.3 million, or 91 percent, more than originally reported by GAO.
Name a govt policy that gets implimented for free.
You don't know much about govt do you?considering homosexuality as normal
So your belief is that if they allow gay people in the military, gay people will make out in public and scream, "I'm GAY!" to the world? :shock:
james, I don't know about you, but it's very rare that I have a conversation with co-workers about whether I'm heterosexual, bisexual, or gay. It doesn't come up....at all! Does that mean we have a DADT where I work?
You don't know much about govt do you?
You don't know much about govt do you?
You mean like your two one-liners? What costs were quoted to me?Good job ignoring the existing costs just quoted to you.
What one-liner might we anticipate next?
Unless society is ready to face the fact that being a homosexual is nothing more that a life style choice and goes against nature and is perversion the whole subject is a waste of time and effort.
NAMBLA will be next to declare that it's not their fault they were born to molest little boys just like some Mormon Sect's believe it's okay to force 12 year old girls to marry dirty old men.
With enough pressure the Liberals will say we are haters and intolerant for saying no to all child molesters, because they can't help it because it's the result of some mystery gene that does not even exist, like the claims the homosexuals have falsely claimed in the past.
Huh? If men and women can serve together, what is the difference if gay people are serving? This business that heterosexuals believe that gay people are attracted to EVERY person of their same sex is so ludicrous. Gay people are just like us--they are attracted to some people, but not all. Do these stupid generals think, "Joey is gay. He must be staring at my ass. He must want to BF me." Oh brother. Talk about ignorant.
Remember when the libs bashed Bush about dismissing certain generals in 2002? Boy they couldn't get over how he just wasn't listening; and now here they are bashing the generals.Yea, those stupid generals. What do they know about the military?
How does someone's sexual orientation impact their ability to serve our country? Can you please explain this to me?
It doesn't, and no one has ever made the argument that it would. The problem is with increased unit friction and degraded cohesiveness. Not that you would know anything about it...
Remember when the libs bashed Bush about dismissing certain generals in 2002? Boy they couldn't get over how he just wasn't listening; and now here they are bashing the generals.
Nothing destoys my argument, but you can legally fantasize all you want. My argument is that it is a military matter, and shouldn't be political. You want argue as a non-stakeholder go ahead.Still nothing to say about post #53? That's surprising, because it's the post that destroys your arguments.
Nothing destoys my argument, but you can legally fantasize all you want. My argument is that it is a military matter, and shouldn't be political. You want argue as a non-stakeholder go ahead.
Okay, I getcha. So if we change the policy to open gay lifestyle all those cost will go away and it will be free. Thanks, I stand corrected. I'm glad we have these analysis available to show us the err of our ways.Exactly right. All the people pretending that this policy change will have no impact on the budget are being ridiculous.
I'm glad to see you're on the side of fiscal sanity, American.
Okay, I getcha. So if we change the policy to open gay lifestyle all those cost will go away and it will be free. Thanks, I stand corrected. I'm glad we have these analysis available to show us the err of our ways.
Why?My opinion of you has heightened. *sigh*
Talk about propaganda.
Simply Google gay gene hoax and learn something.
Why?
So the only way that unit friction and degraded cohesiveness is when we let gay people serve in the military?
Wow. I could see how I would know nothing about that kind of stuff. :roll:
As to your other comment about what generals know about the military, when a Brigadier General tells me that she believes gay people should be able to serve in the military, I think she has some knowledge about the military, don't you?
You read nothing that I wrote, you are so entrenched in your innaccuracies. Please post anywhere that I claimed there was a gay gene. Try to educate yourself.
CaptainCourtesy said:There is scientific proof that gay jeans exist.
Gay Blue Jeans Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia