It only makes no sense because you evidently know absolutely nothing about the military. It's a huge bureaucracy, keeping track of everything and everyone. From TRADOC to EO to barracks policy, every part of the military would have to get its rules changed, new classes, complete replacement of material, establishing new standards, training to those standards, applying those new standards, having people fail the new standards, punitive action, legal costs...

This is a massive overhaul of an enormous corporate entity directed at a group of people who will never make up more than .5% of the military.

Between 1994 and 2003, there were 9,682 discharges due to DADT. The cost of each one of those discharges is anywhere between $22,430 to $42,835 (depending on whether you listen to the Government Accountability Office or the Palm Center Blue Ribbon Commission). That means that the cost of DADT was between $217.2 million and $414.7 million. Using those same numbers (assuming they haven't increased), the 3,279 discharges from 2004 to 2008 cost us an additional $73.6 million to $140.5 million. This means that as of 2008 we've spent anywhere between $290.7 million to $555.2 million on what you believe for some reason is cheaper to keep.

That's from the Williams Institute (here's the .pdf).



How much will it cost to alter all this training and paper that are already going to take place just to take away the ability to discriminate? Regardless of DADT's existence, material will still be printed, training classes will still take place, rules will still exist and be modified, standards will still exist, be modified and new ones will be made, all of which will still have to be taught.



If the number of homosexuals is so small and insignificant, then, again, this shouldn't be a problem for you. And, of course, any rule or law that exists entails the possibility of its violation. Suggesting that such a possibility is the reason simpliciter to not have the rule means there should be no rules. The costs wouldn't be a problem had bigotry not been the rule to begin with. Any costs of changing the rules to something more moral is the fault of the immoral who supported the discrimination. Thanks for that.

I personally know of three (possibly four) of those, and only one of the dischargees was unquestionably gay. One took it as an easy way out. One got it for assaulting a gay civilian. One got it after being caught fellating another service member who was supposedly passed out drunk. The possible fourth was the service member who was "supposedly" passed out drunk.



Every discharge costs. How much does a natural Expiration of Term of Service cost? The ETS process starts six months before a service member gets out, and they go through quite a bit of stuff — classes for reintegration into civilian life, job placement assistance, housing assistance, etc. Unless the discharge is over criminal conduct, I do believe a lot of those services are still offered to people affected by DADT.



I agree that the previous "homos need not apply" policy was probably more cost effective.

The officers who have to spend hours, days, weeks and months going through endless meetings and mind-numbingly boring powerpoint presentations on learning new Equal Opportunity rules and regulations, then instructing and training NCOs to apply them to the soldiers in a way that will in no way help kill the enemy or break his stuff. The NCOs and Soldiers whose time is the most important thing; time that will be wasted in discussing gays in the military while we're fighting a war.

Remember the war? The thing you've been so anxious to distract from? There have been a couple of "isolated extremists" acting in the last week or so. Molly Norris is still hiding out for fear of her life. The US military is still engaged in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and other countries that did not attack us on 9/11.

But you'd rather talk about dudes who suck the cocks of other dudes and fuck them up the ass, with a uniform fetish thrown in. Because that's what interests you instead. No wonder the enemy calls us "decadent infidels."

We would stop discrimination, but jeez, it would be so boring.



I gotta hand it to you, Weemie. Most men, in the face of a flogging like you've gotten on this thread, would at the very least have the self-respect to stop throwing out that "isolated extremists" line.

Weemie, clearly, is not most men.



This is a spectacular thread.

On 9/11, and in the days following, the only categories of our business in the video store that did not take a severe hit were gay porn rental and gay porn sales. On the one hand, it could be decadence, even in the face of disaster. On the other, gays could just instinctively do what BushJr and Rudy Giuliani told everyone to do after 9/11, "go shopping more."

You have nothing to prove, Allen. We already know that not even an event like 9/11 could distract your eagle eye from the comings and goings of homosexuals.

Well, two things. First of all, the cash register software broke down all the day's transactions into categories, all you had to do was hit one button to bring that up. Second, I had already been ranting about the stupidity of millions of people willfully crammed into that small space since my one visit to NYC in 1994, and I don't know anyone who lives there, so 9/11 didn't really mean anything to me. My scenario was usually a cropduster full of Anthrax, so the letters in the following month were a second "I told you so" moment for me.

See? Now we’re getting somewhere. That’s what virtually all arguments come down to.



Ok, billions of people think you’re wrong.



Yeah, I had reached the “math” part of the novel I wrote in the last couple of months, and it shows in writing I did in other places. Neat.



Dude, we’re on a comic book message board, I get the appeal of infographics. But like statistics, they can be made to say whatever a person wants. Even when they’re telling me what I want to hear, I try to avoid them.



As far as I know, I’ve never claimed to be.

Well, sure: that is in fact exactly what constitutes an argument at heart. Then each side presents their case, and we see where the chips fall.

Example: let's say you took it upon yourself to take a tiny little sound-byte from an Obama speech in which he used the phrase "isolated extremist" in loose association with a bomb plot attempted by, seemingly, a single person, and somehow out of just that, tried to spin a rambling theory about Obama covertly trying to brainwash us all into thinking terrorism was not a real problem in the world because he is not a real patriot or whatever. But then, someone else inconveniently provides the actual context of the quote, at which time it becomes clear that you are being a loon, as nothing in the actual context of either the quote or the speech surrounding it supports your interpretation of the use of the phrase -- or, at the very least, not the projected motives behind it -- and further, illustrates that the only reason you know the extremist in question did have links to terrorist organizations was because of the very efforts of the administration ostensibly being criticized. I.e. Obama admitted they didn't yet know much about the history of the extremist in question; promptly investigated the matter; and provided you with the (now factual) link to the Middle East you were apparently pining for.

You respond by disingenuously accusing the person making the counterargument against you of "flying into a nit-picking rage" over two words -- the two you introduced to the discussion, on the presumption they had some sort of menacing secret import -- and proceed to whine about being compared to the prominent right-wing propagandists who had been trying to make the same idiotic pseudo-argument about the two words in question quite publicly on TV and talk radio.

Having little more to offer on the subject than diversions to other equally inane, slightly paranoid, and only tangentially related right-wing talking points, the chips at that time have fallen.

Finally, growing bored, you topic-shift back to hating gays, forcing Allen to reluctantly rub one out while envisioning you in uniform; and fun is had by all.



With the same zeal you apply to avoiding information you don't want to hear?

This philosophy would explain some things, but I can't say I buy it. You are clearly someone who hears only what they want to hear; so hell, why not at least have some illustrations to go with it? A picture is only worth a thousand words, so it'll take a few dozen to cover one of your typical editorials, but I still say it's better bang for the buck. E.g.



Personally, I think it's simplistic to declare that you can spin stats and pictures to say "anything" and thus they are useless. Hell, if you feel that strongly about it, why bother with information at all?

It really depends on the stat/picture in question, and the particular information fueling it. I.e., yes -- context matters. I understand "context" isn't something you have a very high regard for, but that's understandable, frequently as it is likely to contain information you don't want to hear.

K