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

Skip to comments.

'Don't Ask Don't Tell' Cost Taxpayers Nearly $400 Million, GAO Reports
ABC ^ | 1/20/11 | Devin Dwyer

Posted on 01/24/2011 7:44:22 PM PST by Slippery Jim

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 last
To: Slippery Jim

Why won’t the GAy-O tell us the cost of implementing open sodomy in our military? Even the costs so far?


41 posted on 01/25/2011 8:15:51 AM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Then, when the number of aids cases explode with the active duty gays and their serial sexual partners, it will cost about $100,000 per year for each identified aids case.

We'll never hear about this - ever.

Political correctness has truly come of age.

42 posted on 01/25/2011 8:17:45 AM PST by fwdude (Anita Bryant was right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Slippery Jim

Slippery? As in KY “personal lubricant”?


43 posted on 01/25/2011 8:20:33 AM PST by Fresh Wind (TOTUS knows how to give a speech. Obama knows how to read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slippery Jim
Unmentioned is what the cost would be to give medical treatment to HIV+ gay soldiers.

The expenses incurred by keeping gays in the military is likely to be at least an order of magnitude higher than the cost of discharging them. The solution would be to expend greater efforts to not recruit them in the first place.

44 posted on 01/25/2011 8:22:54 AM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slippery Jim

I was wondering when some troll would post this propaganda...


45 posted on 01/25/2011 12:34:43 PM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

God commanded them to be put to .....


46 posted on 01/25/2011 6:39:17 PM PST by Benchim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Slippery Jim

It will cost a lot more to repeal. Also I’m sure that these costs are inflated. If you do some searching you you will find that the GAO has been steadily increasing these costs also they don’t adjust for those troops that don’t require replacements which is bogus anyway since the armed forces is consistently training new recruits. If this is the standard for costs then why not give us the cost for discharging any and all troops for whatever reason? The reason they don’t is that discharges under DADT is a very small percentage of total discharges and the vast majority of discharges are a result not merely from discovering sexual orientation but in conjunction with unwanted advances etc. It is a red herring designed like a magician’s trick to get you to focus on one thing while ignoring the magician’s slight of hand. The cost to eject slightly overweight recruits I’m sure is much more expensive since homosexuals are such a small percentage of the military. Right now for example the air-force is in the process of cutting 6000 airmen so gay airmen caught having indiscriminate anal sex placing them and their fellow soldiers at risk of serious sexual disease plus placing tax payers at risk of financing long term care for the spectrum of sexual diseases including AIDs which such individuals are at a high risk of getting. It had been estimated that the long term potential cost to the military related to HIV & AIDs could be billions of dollars. I think that is what I dislike the most about these phony numbers games. If we are going to take estimates that inflate the costs of discharging homosexuals many of whom were discovered because of accosting their bunk-mates in the middle of the night or being found frequenting gay clubs taking part in high risk behavior then it should also be considered the costs related to dealing with the cost of open homosexuality in the military something which the media both conservative and otherwise are too cowardly to address.


47 posted on 01/27/2011 3:51:43 PM PST by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slippery Jim

About 60 percent of the new HIV infections in the military are from homosexual contact. The military up to this point had a lower incidence of HIV than the general population. I expect that to change as the lavender brigade takes over. The British experience is that the homos setup little butt bang clans which often includes the initiation of new recruits that they believe can be forced into submission. Lesbians have a history of being aggressive too often targeting straight girls. That’s our new military.

http://www.thebody.com/content/whatis/art18774.html


48 posted on 01/27/2011 4:07:07 PM PST by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

In a discussion of the end of DADT on our local newspaper web site, I mentioned that the military would now be freer to prosecute homosexual harassment, the way they did TAIL HOOK.

Someone responded with a story about a female friend who had been complaining about the harassment she was receiving in the military from a lesbian in her barrack. She said that the woman was threatening to rape her. She took her complaint to her CO and was told to deal with it herself because he didn’t want the problems that the complaint cause him.


49 posted on 01/27/2011 4:12:24 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: Eva

There’s a lot of that that goes on and people are naive to think it will get better with open homosexuality because just wait till these types are at the top of the food chain. The military is the only major area of the culture that has resisted liberalism. It is amazing how blind so many are they can’t even acknowledge reality.


51 posted on 01/27/2011 6:53:14 PM PST by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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