# More proof our country is ran by idiots



## AlphaD (Mar 14, 2013)

*Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat*


----------



## mistah187 (Mar 14, 2013)

not suprising!


----------



## PFM (Mar 14, 2013)

AlphaD said:


> *Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat*



At least 1/2 lesbians are nasty unkept slobs. Lesbians are as controlling and jealous as they come, what better "partner" than another undesirable slob?


----------



## AlphaD (Mar 14, 2013)

PFM said:


> At least 1/2 lesbians are nasty unkept slobs. Lesbians are as controlling and jealous as they come, what better "partner" than another undesirable slob?



And we need $1.5 mil of taxpayers money to recognize this!


----------



## Bro Bundy (Mar 14, 2013)

more bullshit to keep the simple minded thinking about this crap instead of the real issue like life in this country is going to shit fast. Now u rich guys and im not poor myself may not feel this but it is everything around us is going to shit.The govt thinks the people are fucking idiots and alot of them are.I miss the old ways of things


----------



## airagee23 (Mar 14, 2013)

lesbos dont like dick but like dildos..... hmmm


----------



## PillarofBalance (Mar 14, 2013)

Because they eat more calories than they expend.  Thank you, please send checks made payable to POB.


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 14, 2013)

our country may be ran by idiots....

....but who put them there?


----------



## Tilltheend (Mar 14, 2013)

It serves a bigger purpose than the title. There could be a 100 reasons why they are doing that study. The Federal Government does not do things that hold no benefit for them.


----------



## PillarofBalance (Mar 14, 2013)

Tilltheend said:


> It serves a bigger purpose than the title. There could be a 100 reasons why they are doing that study. The Federal Government does not do things that hold no benefit for them.



yes they absolutely do till.... This serves no benefit to the federal government or the taxpayer. Its called PORK.  A fat dyke hit up her Congressman for money to find out why dykes are fat.  She has a whole network of dykes that will vote for him in the next election if the funds are allocated.

That is how special interests work.


----------



## AlphaD (Mar 14, 2013)

Times Roman said:


> our country may be ran by idiots....
> 
> ....but who put them there?



Hey I love my country, and respect the men and women who served, but my vote didn't go that way.


----------



## AlphaD (Mar 14, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> yes they absolutely do till.... This serves no benefit to the federal government or the taxpayer. Its called PORK.  A fat dyke hit up her Congressman for money to find out why dykes are fat.  She has a whole network of dykes that will vote for him in the next election if the funds are allocated.
> 
> That is how special interests work.



Agreed!  Probably Oprah.


----------



## Bro Bundy (Mar 14, 2013)

people gotta stop thinking the govt is dumb and doesnt know what they are doing because this is false.They know perfectly well what they are doing its a well laid out plan made hundreds of years ago.Nothing happens in govt for no reason u gotta be a fool to think that way.The people behind the scene are very smart rich and evil with every resource at their fingers.The American people are to busy playing on facebook or thinking how to pay for all the shit they really dont need to have.i may sound like a negative fuck but thats just cause i can smell bullshit real well


----------



## Times Roman (Mar 14, 2013)

Tilltheend said:


> It serves a bigger purpose than the title. There could be a 100 reasons why they are doing that study. The Federal Government does not do things that hold no benefit for them.



you are not being serious, are you?

in alaska, there is a bridge in the middle of nowhere, going nowhere, that cost the taxpayers millions.....


----------



## Tilltheend (Mar 14, 2013)

Times Roman said:


> you are not being serious, are you?
> 
> in alaska, there is a bridge in the middle of nowhere, going nowhere, that cost the taxpayers millions.....



They would study obese lesbians or a statistic they can use to help them with other tasks.


----------



## Dtownry (Mar 14, 2013)

Well it all goes back to the point that we do not have a true democracy in this Country anyway.  We have the electoral college and career politicians.  Our founding fathers never intended to have career politicians.

If we could make one slight change to the Constitution it should be this:  Not only term limits for office but TERM LIMITS on the entire length that you can serve in any office local state or federal.  Limits your ability to stay in politics for say 15 years total time in office of any kind.  This would solve the problem of career politicians, get rid of the pandering to just get re-elected, and also give the common educated man a chance at public office and get rid of those who only serve for personal gain and NOT to serve the public.  

Think about this...


----------



## grind4it (Mar 14, 2013)

Please tell me this is a joke



Tilltheend said:


> It serves a bigger purpose than the title. There could be a 100 reasons why they are doing that study. The Federal Government does not do things that hold no benefit for them.


----------



## trim (Mar 14, 2013)

Times Roman said:


> our country may be ran by idiots....
> 
> ....but who put them there?



Freemasons


----------



## 63Vette (Mar 14, 2013)

```

```



trim said:


> Freemasons



Not this one brother!

Respect,
Vette


----------



## PillarofBalance (Mar 14, 2013)

Dtownry said:


> Well it all goes back to the point that we do not have a true democracy in this Country anyway.  We have the electoral college and career politicians.  Our founding fathers never intended to have career politicians.
> 
> If we could make one slight change to the Constitution it should be this:  Not only term limits for office but TERM LIMITS on the entire length that you can serve in any office local state or federal.  Limits your ability to stay in politics for say 15 years total time in office of any kind.  This would solve the problem of career politicians, get rid of the pandering to just get re-elected, and also give the common educated man a chance at public office and get rid of those who only serve for personal gain and NOT to serve the public.
> 
> Think about this...



The thing is, the founder put term limits in place... They're called elections. What they didn't realize though is that with each generation we'd become more dumb and apathetic.  So many people fall for the promises... And in the last couple Presidential elections it was all about people who have never voted in their life that thought that if he won, they wouldn't have to "worry about payin no bills."

Serving in Congress used to be a chore, and a civic duty. Farmers would leave their families and their farms for two years and do their duty.  Then return home.  That was it.

I honestly think we need to make our Congress more like the legislative branch of Texas.  They meet for very brief periods... Full time legislators have nothing to do but make more laws which curb our freedoms.


----------



## Big Worm (Mar 14, 2013)

They are fat because they are unhappy with themselves.  Same reason they are Lesbos.


----------



## DF (Mar 14, 2013)

Hmmm, I'm all for making fat lezbos skinny & hot.  I'm not sure that this study will do that though.


----------



## dj920 (Mar 14, 2013)

AlphaD said:


> *Feds Spend $1.5 Million to Study Why Lesbians Are Fat*



I'm sorry, but y'all got trolled here a bit by this article.  It's incorrect to think that the study is focused on the health concerns of lesbians.  In fact, it's just as much about why straight men are fat.  (You can read the grant description here.)  The project is a fairly benign exercise in epidemiology.  They're taking a problem (obesity) and an observation (risk differs greatly across a demographic boundary) and are asking why, using a model affirming that obesity has social as well as biological determinants.  If you disagree with the last bit, then that's fine, but that position would be inconsistent with the vast majority of public health research.

And even if that weren't the case, if it's true that the NIH is spending less than 0.1% of their research budget ($1.5M over two years out of over $1.6B on obesity research in general) on a >1% segment of our population that is apparently at substantially higher risk of obesity, that would be an embarrassing oversight.  (Lesbians pay taxes too.)  But again, that's not even an issue because, as you can see from the description, the study is just as focused on figuring out why straight men can't seem to get their shit together compared to gay men.



PillarofBalance said:


> yes they absolutely do till.... This serves no benefit to the federal government or the taxpayer. Its called PORK.  A fat dyke hit up her Congressman for money to find out why dykes are fat.  She has a whole network of dykes that will vote for him in the next election if the funds are allocated.
> 
> That is how special interests work.



I'm not so sure about that.  We're all linked together in a web of public health costs through public insurance or more indirectly through private insurance prices and deductibles.  If there's a population more at risk of obesity, and therefore more frequent and expensive chronic health conditions, we all eventually end up bearing the cost in one way or another.  If this study gets at the psychosocial determinants of obesity in a way that helps public health organizations craft better obesity-prevention programs and messages, lesbians might not be the only ones better off in the long run.  Think of it as a research project in developing preventative medicine.

Besides, most of the funding for projects like this goes to the costs to administer the grant and conduct the actual surveys.  It's not like lesbians are collectively cashing a check.



Dtownry said:


> Well it all goes back to the point that we do not have a true democracy in this Country anyway.  We have the electoral college and career politicians.  Our founding fathers never intended to have career politicians.
> 
> If we could make one slight change to the Constitution it should be this:  Not only term limits for office but TERM LIMITS on the entire length that you can serve in any office local state or federal.  Limits your ability to stay in politics for say 15 years total time in office of any kind.  This would solve the problem of career politicians, get rid of the pandering to just get re-elected, and also give the common educated man a chance at public office and get rid of those who only serve for personal gain and NOT to serve the public.
> 
> Think about this...



Term limits were not generally popular with the founding fathers.  In fact, several signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote explicitly in opposition to their inclusion in the Articles of Confederation --- one, Benjamin Rush, proclaiming that "the custom of turning men out of power or office, as soon as they are qualified for it, has been found to be as absurd in practice, as it is virtuous in speculation" [link] --- and the fact that it was dropped in the Constitution is a testament to the fact that this sentiment prevailed in the ensuing debate.  "Career politician" has become a loaded term, but realistically the demands of public office beyond the local level in modern developed republics have grown far beyond what's practical for a citizen-statesman.  Many of the founding fathers were people who dedicated their lives (and sometimes their livelihoods) to their political thoughts and activities, and if that can't be understood as a "career politician", then we need to think of another term for it.


----------



## PFM (Mar 14, 2013)

Big Worm said:


> They are fat because they are unhappy with themselves.  Same reason they are Lesbos.



This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## bubbagump (Mar 14, 2013)

We aren't a Democracy.  We are a Constitutional Republic.  Always have been.  Either way, the bottom is getting ready to drop the fuck out. I just hope Ill have enough Test and ammo to make it through..


----------



## Jada (Mar 15, 2013)

That is fking retarted! 1.5million dollars!


----------



## fognozzle (Mar 15, 2013)

PillarofBalance said:


> yes they absolutely do till.... This serves no benefit to the federal government or the taxpayer. Its called PORK.  A fat dyke hit up her Congressman for money to find out why dykes are fat.  She has a whole network of dykes that will vote for him in the next election if the funds are allocated.
> 
> That is how special interests work.




You nut shelled that one right there!


----------



## fognozzle (Mar 15, 2013)

dj920 said:


> I'm sorry, but y'all got trolled here a bit by this article.  It's incorrect to think that the study is focused on the health concerns of lesbians.  In fact, it's just as much about why straight men are fat.  (You can read the grant description here.)  The project is a fairly benign exercise in epidemiology.  They're taking a problem (obesity) and an observation (risk differs greatly across a demographic boundary) and are asking why, using a model affirming that obesity has social as well as biological determinants.  If you disagree with the last bit, then that's fine, but that position would be inconsistent with the vast majority of public health research.
> 
> And even if that weren't the case, if it's true that the NIH is spending less than 0.1% of their research budget ($1.5M over two years out of over $1.6B on obesity research in general) on a >1% segment of our population that is apparently at substantially higher risk of obesity, that would be an embarrassing oversight.  (Lesbians pay taxes too.)  But again, that's not even an issue because, as you can see from the description, the study is just as focused on figuring out why straight men can't seem to get their shit together compared to gay men.
> 
> ...



With all due respect, this is an attempt to justify wasteful spending. I understand the idea behind better understanding the implication of socioeconomics with regard to public health. However, POB, in a much less winded approach, hit the nail on the head. If given enough time and resources, I can make a case for studying the effects of price fluctuation of Gallus domesticus ovas in Eastern Asia. Let's call it what it is. It is slimy pork intended to benefit a certain constituency.


----------



## Yaya (Mar 15, 2013)

stupid fat lesbians... cant stand them bull dykes


----------



## goodfella (Mar 15, 2013)

They gotta keep that budget flowing and growing one way or another.


----------



## oldskool954 (Mar 15, 2013)

dj920 said:


> I'm sorry, but y'all got trolled here a bit by this article.  It's incorrect to think that the study is focused on the health concerns of lesbians.  In fact, it's just as much about why straight men are fat.  (You can read the grant description here.)  The project is a fairly benign exercise in epidemiology.  They're taking a problem (obesity) and an observation (risk differs greatly across a demographic boundary) and are asking why, using a model affirming that obesity has social as well as biological determinants.  If you disagree with the last bit, then that's fine, but that position would be inconsistent with the vast majority of public health research.
> 
> And even if that weren't the case, if it's true that the NIH is spending less than 0.1% of their research budget ($1.5M over two years out of over $1.6B on obesity research in general) on a >1% segment of our population that is apparently at substantially higher risk of obesity, that would be an embarrassing oversight.  (Lesbians pay taxes too.)  But again, that's not even an issue because, as you can see from the description, the study is just as focused on figuring out why straight men can't seem to get their shit together compared to gay men.
> 
> ...



^ this is exactly what I was thinking!


----------



## Santaklaus (Mar 15, 2013)

I'm a lesbian


----------



## dj920 (Mar 15, 2013)

Santaklaus said:


> I'm a lesbian



Ha.

Well, insofar as I am a gay dude, I submit that any defense of the study is indisputably free of personal bias as my personal demographic stands to benefit not one iota.


----------



## Shane1974 (Mar 15, 2013)

Don't get me started. That's all I am going to say. Don't get me started.


----------



## PFM (Mar 15, 2013)

As stated by dj920 "the study is just as focused on figuring out why straight men can't seem to get their shit together compared to gay men"

How many guy junkies and male prostitutes inhabit big cities in their "safe zone"? Shall we address your well spoken, yet clearly bias defense attitude for sucking cock, no your already pissed that one away.

Unknowingly my ex wife and I landed in SF during the Gay Pride Parade. The mother in the car in front us was covering her probably 7 & 10 year old children eyes from you overachievers sucking cock in the streets.

If that's your claim to having your shit together I'd hate to see you fucking up.

BTW...........your vocabulary means shit............I know a POS that spent some years in the penitentiary and spoke eloquent as you do. He's also gay and seems to love prison, all the cock and balls he can take and three hot meals........shit together......yeah.


----------



## PFM (Mar 15, 2013)

oldskool954 said:


> ^ this is exactly what I was thinking!



Going to ask him out on a date?


----------



## oldskool954 (Mar 15, 2013)

PFM said:


> Going to ask him out on a date?



Ha ha no I was being facetious. I could never look that deeply into over weight lesbos and money spent to study them. Matter of fact I'm not sure I'm able to have a thought that large on any subject. I didn't even know he was gay. None the less I'm totally into ripped old farts like u pfm grrrra! Big boy


----------



## dj920 (Mar 16, 2013)

fognozzle said:


> With all due respect, this is an attempt to justify wasteful spending. I understand the idea behind better understanding the implication of socioeconomics with regard to public health. However, POB, in a much less winded approach, hit the nail on the head. If given enough time and resources, I can make a case for studying the effects of price fluctuation of Gallus domesticus ovas in Eastern Asia. Let's call it what it is. It is slimy pork intended to benefit a certain constituency.



I appreciate the respectful reply.  To be honest, I've conspicuously avoided checking this thread because I know my politics and political philosophy are quite at odds the majority (or at least the vocal majority) on this board, and that's a hard pill to swallow.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I'm sure I'm biased because I'm an academic and a social scientist.  Although this study couldn't benefit me personally, I've fully bought into the idea that we can formulate effective public policy through scientific study of human behavior, particularly when there's a clear socio-economic basis.  I recognize the size of that claim, and that it's not something everybody can hang their hat on.  That interacts with politics in both a philosophical and a practical way:  philosophically, is it the purpose of good government to (a) fund study of these phenomena for the greater good and (b) implement the policies that such study recommends; and practically, whether there is any realistic way to conduct such studies without public funding.  I think the answers are yes and no, respectively.  (I consider myself non-political, but that considered stance puts me in a broad bin with "big government" types.  I truly, deeply hate the divisive coarseness of our most recent iteration of American political categories.)

I don't think there's a realistic chance of overcoming vast political differences, doubtless justified on both sides by lived experiences.  There are really only two forces that oppose any particular government spending: that there is something better to spend the money on, or that the money should never have been spent in the first place.  If it's the former, that's fine and there's some kind of cost-benefit discussion to be had, but if it's the latter, then most likely we're down to a question of political philosophy and will probably need to agree to disagree.  Which is fine, because that's how we all go along to get along.  I'd just rather live in a world where there's a better reason for not doing a study than "somebody could argue for it and nobody could formulate a good argument against it", because that effectively cedes the ground to those who oppose most studies.  Trust me, it's very hard to get a research grant funded, and in my field (quantitative labor economics) you need to score in the 95-97th percentile to get a single dime from the federal government.  It's an understatement to say that the overwhelming majority of studies don't get funded.



PFM said:


> As stated by dj920 "the study is just as focused on figuring out why straight men can't seem to get their shit together compared to gay men"
> 
> How many guy junkies and male prostitutes inhabit big cities in their "safe zone"? Shall we address your well spoken, yet clearly bias defense attitude for sucking cock, no your already pissed that one away.
> 
> ...



Well, it's 6pm on St. Patty's day here in Chicago (I live a few blocks from Wrigley's Field), and in the three blocks walk back from my gym I saw a girl giving some dude head in an alley and had some chick almost vomit on me on the steps in front of my building.  So I don't think the gays exactly have a strangehold on public indecency.  Not that it matters (or is any of your business), but I'm actually quite the prude.

To be fair, we're talking about populations in aggregate and not individuals.  In no way do I think myself representative of the class of homosexual males (in fact I'm quite sure I'm not), or that anybody in particular is representative of the class of heterosexual males.  But it's stone cold fact that there's a suggestive differential across the gender/sexuality divide in terms of obesity (hetero substantially males more likely to be obese, hetero females substantially less likely).

I'm hesitant to get into direct discussion of rhetoric, but there's some seriously toxic shit going on here that needs to be addressed.  It's a mistake to hold somebody's writing style against them; first of all because it's a distracts participants from the ideas at play, and second of all because vocabulary frames ideas and strong-arming it places blinders on discussion.  I don't choose my words to make any point other than exactly what the words themselves mean.  Anybody can write in a persona --- artificially folksy, or artificially eloquent --- but I'm writing in the language that I think and speak, and if you can't respect someone using their authentic voice, then I really don't know what to say to that.  And for fuck's sake, I'm morally certain it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm gay.  The point of a discussion is ideas, not their advocates, so if you have something to say please refrain from ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Curiosity (Mar 16, 2013)

The bottom line to me is that the national debt is so fucking huge that the only way we're ever going to put a dent in it, or stop it from growing for that matter, is to drastically cut back government spending. This seems like a better place to start than social security or the military, although those may need to be addressed too. I, for one, think that given our country's debt situation my tax money should not be spent on this particular project, or on countless others like it. 

As far as it's potential merit is concerned, I truly believe that we need to stop allowing people to justify negative behaviors by referring to their race or sexual orientation or upbringing or whatever. By saying "OK, 75% of lesbians are fat, lets do a bunch of research to find out why", we are in some sense saying that it isn't their fault, that maybe once we do all this research we'll find out what's causing it and SOMEONE ELSE can fix the problem for them. 

To me this stinks of yet another example of people abandoning personal responsibility in our society. Yes I am a white heterosexual male, but I am also an individual, and that's the most important thing. What I do, my decisions, my choices do not have to have anything to do with what the "average" white heterosexual male is like or does. We need to start teaching people that they are responsible as individuals, not helpless as a member of a group that predetermines their life for them.


----------



## TR90125 (Mar 18, 2013)

Curiosity said:


> The bottom line to me is that the national debt is so fucking huge that the only way we're ever going to put a dent in it, or stop it from growing for that matter, is to drastically cut back government spending. This seems like a better place to start than social security or the military, although those may need to be addressed too. I, for one, think that given our country's debt situation my tax money should not be spent on this particular project, or on countless others like it.
> 
> As far as it's potential merit is concerned, I truly believe that we need to stop allowing people to justify negative behaviors by referring to their race or sexual orientation or upbringing or whatever. By saying "OK, 75% of lesbians are fat, lets do a bunch of research to find out why", we are in some sense saying that it isn't their fault, that maybe once we do all this research we'll find out what's causing it and SOMEONE ELSE can fix the problem for them.
> 
> To me this stinks of yet another example of people abandoning personal responsibility in our society. Yes I am a white heterosexual male, but I am also an individual, and that's the most important thing. What I do, my decisions, my choices do not have to have anything to do with what the "average" white heterosexual male is like or does. We need to start teaching people that they are responsible as individuals, not helpless as a member of a group that predetermines their life for them.




Very hard to argue with that.


----------



## fognozzle (Mar 24, 2013)

Curiosity said:


> The bottom line to me is that the national debt is so fucking huge that the only way we're ever going to put a dent in it, or stop it from growing for that matter, is to drastically cut back government spending. This seems like a better place to start than social security or the military, although those may need to be addressed too. I, for one, think that given our country's debt situation my tax money should not be spent on this particular project, or on countless others like it.
> 
> As far as it's potential merit is concerned, I truly believe that we need to stop allowing people to justify negative behaviors by referring to their race or sexual orientation or upbringing or whatever. By saying "OK, 75% of lesbians are fat, lets do a bunch of research to find out why", we are in some sense saying that it isn't their fault, that maybe once we do all this research we'll find out what's causing it and SOMEONE ELSE can fix the problem for them.
> 
> To me this stinks of yet another example of people abandoning personal responsibility in our society. Yes I am a white heterosexual male, but I am also an individual, and that's the most important thing. What I do, my decisions, my choices do not have to have anything to do with what the "average" white heterosexual male is like or does. We need to start teaching people that they are responsible as individuals, not helpless as a member of a group that predetermines their life for them.



This is spot on!


----------



## fognozzle (Mar 24, 2013)

dj920 said:


> That interacts with politics in both a philosophical and a practical way:  philosophically, is it *the purpose of good government to (a) fund study of these phenomena for the greater good* and (b) implement the policies that such study recommends; and practically, whether there is any realistic way to conduct such studies without public funding.  I think the answers are yes and no, respectively.  (I consider myself non-political, but that considered stance puts me in a broad bin with "big government" types.  I truly, deeply hate the divisive coarseness of our most recent iteration of American political categories.)
> 
> *I don't think there's a realistic chance of overcoming vast political differences, doubtless justified on both sides by lived experiences.*  There are really only two forces that oppose any particular government spending: that there is something better to spend the money on, or that the money should never have been spent in the first place.  If it's the former, that's fine and there's some kind of cost-benefit discussion to be had, but if it's the latter, then most likely we're down to a question of political philosophy and will probably need to agree to disagree.  Which is fine, because that's how we all go along to get along.  I'd just rather live in a world where there's a better reason for not doing a study than "somebody could argue for it and nobody could formulate a good argument against it", because that effectively cedes the ground to those who oppose most studies.  Trust me, it's very hard to get a research grant funded, and in my field (quantitative labor economics) you need to score in the 95-97th percentile to get a single dime from the federal government.  It's an understatement to say that the overwhelming majority of studies don't get funded.
> 
> ...



Couple of thoughts here. It is obvious there is a philosophical divide based on your belief. I would submit that it is NOT the role of govt to fund studies for the good of the people. Our differences go back to the Constitution. I am sure you believe it is a living and breathing document that is meant to evolve and adapt. I however do not. The Founding fathers would roll over in their grave if they were to read your understanding of the role of govt. Also, you seem to promote the idea that the group is somehow more deserving or more important than the individual. This is the most flawed thinking of the progressive, which I won't hesitate to assume that you are...all stereotypes aside. I stand for individual rights over group rights. When you fall for the warm fuzzy, bleeding heart load of hooy, you offer yourself up to forfeiting personal liberties. When individual rights are eroded, so to are their responsibilities. It is proven that socioeconomic status is not a death sentence with regard to ones potential to succeed in life, whatever that means to the individual.


----------

