If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Obama admin funds $1.5 million dollar study to find out why lesbians are fat. Fark: It's sequester-proof   (cnsnews.com) divider line 288
    More: Asinine, funds, human development, sexual minority, Children's Hospital Boston, fat, lesbians, Women's Hospital, teaching hospitals  
•       •       •

10174 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Mar 2013 at 8:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-12 10:07:58 AM

supayoda: FlashHarry: CNS news? let me guess... just like eric cantor's "obama's paying people to play WoW!!!!" claim, which was really a study of alzheimer's disease, there's a wee bit more to the story.

Came here to say this. Glad to see that someone else beat me to it.

/Not to mention, the WOW thing only cost $5k and was the study used (with no federal funds) as the pilot study to obtain the grant.
//Not surprising, it actually yielded positive results.


Have you heard about DHS purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition and 2717 MRAPs? Objective, observable reality literally doesn't farking matter any more.
 
2013-03-12 10:08:11 AM
I'm in Poe's Law Hell right now. Fark is a great example as to why we need a satire font.
 
2013-03-12 10:11:18 AM
My guess would be that sexual orientation is one of the factors being correlated out in a general demographic survey on obesity, and we're talking about one check-box that doesn't add anything to the cost of the study here.

It's CNS, though, so who knows if there even are any government-funded studies on obesity.
 
2013-03-12 10:11:53 AM

Day_Old_Dutchie: CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is  not funded by the government like PBS.

In other words, they are funded by tightass bigoted assholes.


People generally don't get offended that other people waste their own money.
People get offended when you take their money, tell them it is for their benefit, and then waste it.
 
2013-03-12 10:12:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: I think this is the actual grant request

To be honest, I don't know what they're hoping to learn here because we already know that fat flocks together. It's a social thing.


Seems like they "know" that but are trying to quantify it and tie it to any and all demographic cross sections.  This reads like a fact finding mission more than anything else.  "We need data and we don't really have much.  We have data about socio economics vs. obesity, education vs obesity, race vs obesity, gender and obesity and age vs obesity.  Sexual orientation is next.  Then maybe stuff about personal experiences?  There's already data about stress levels vs obesity, alcohol and drug abuse and obesity... etc etc.

/Just trying to 'flesh' out our data
//harrrrrrrrr
 
2013-03-12 10:12:50 AM

ph0rk: Aren't all NIH grants sequester proof once awarded? This passed the NIH approval process, the story is where?


Because, Obama! And didn't you see the word 'Lesbian' _
 
2013-03-12 10:17:27 AM

Chameleon: This is why we don't let politicians decide who gets grants.


And that's most likely self defeating because if there any two industries that have a vested interest in the "well, we don't have much just YET, but trust us, this is very important stuff you couldn't possibly understand, now please send out check" model, it's half of science and all of politics.  Hell, look what a handful of sketchy bankers did with it.
 
2013-03-12 10:19:00 AM

WhippingBoy: JollyMagistrate: Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Mass., has received two grants administered by NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to study the relationship between sexual orientation and obesity.

Oh, surprise surprise. A post on fark is needlessly hyperbolic and has little to do with the source material. I know it's been a slow devolution from silly headlines to mostly troll posts only, but when is enough enough?

Exactly! Oh when oh when is Fark going to start posting actual news. Most of the current posting are actually non-news, or "not news" as it were.


Login: WhippingBoy (Want to sponsor this Farker for TotalFark?) (What's TotalFark?)
Fark account number: 778245
Account created: 2012-04-24 11:25:58
 
2013-03-12 10:19:31 AM
Judging by what my fat lesbian neighbors put out in the garbage, I'd say it's what they're eating and drinking.

Stacks of pizza boxes, bulk containers of Bagel Bites, frozen White Castle Cheeseburger boxes, empty cubes of Pepsi and Mountain Dew on a weekly basis...but if that's what fuels their second string division-III linebacker physique into keeping our shared sidewalk shoveled, I'm ok with it.  Now if they could only pick up the dog shiat in their side of the yard.
 
2013-03-12 10:20:25 AM
Men like sex.
Male sexual arousal is closely tied with physical attractiveness.
Being a fit, gay man is rewarded by lots of attention and sex.
Lot's of rewards for being fit.
(This is why fewer hetero men than women exercise regularly - at least after men figure out it won't get them anything)

Women could care less about sex (but not much less).
Female sexual arousal is based on money, power and/or crazy bullshiat.
Being a fit, gay woman won't get you much.
No real rewards for being fit.

PM me for the address to send my 1.5 million dollars,
Thanks.
 
2013-03-12 10:22:22 AM
So, $85 billion is a tiny amount when it comes to the sequester, but $1.5 million is a HUGE boondoggle.

And your HURRRR of the day from TFA's comments:

Harry_A_Hopper  stevewozeniak • 43 minutes ago −
Perhaps they need regular "old fashioned" testosterone injections.


Homophobic and completely ignorant about how human reproduction actually works.
 
2013-03-12 10:23:22 AM

THX 1138: My theory:

A major factor in what attracts men is looks.  It's not the entire equation, but it's a large chunk of it.  While women's major attraction factor is how their partner makes them feel emotionally.  Not to say that men don't like the way women make them feel, or women don't like looks, but there's a preference within the sexes toward those two attributes.

Therefore:

If you're trying to attract a man, your looks will play a more are going to be more important than if you were trying to attract a woman.

/just a theory hypothesis


FTFY
 
2013-03-12 10:25:20 AM
And?
 
2013-03-12 10:26:32 AM

WhiskeySticks: Judging by what my fat lesbian neighbors put out in the garbage, I'd say it's what they're eating and drinking.

Stacks of pizza boxes, bulk containers of Bagel Bites, frozen White Castle Cheeseburger boxes, empty cubes of Pepsi and Mountain Dew on a weekly basis...but if that's what fuels their second string division-III linebacker physique into keeping our shared sidewalk shoveled, I'm ok with it.  Now if they could only pick up the dog shiat in their side of the yard.


They only pick up after pussy.

/low-hanging fruit?
//I hope not!
 
2013-03-12 10:27:53 AM
Hey, has anyone pointed out the stereotype that men care about looks more than women therefore lesbians can totes be fatties and furthermore send me $1.5 million like such as?
 
2013-03-12 10:28:39 AM

WhippingBoy: JollyMagistrate: Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Mass., has received two grants administered by NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to study the relationship between sexual orientation and obesity.

Oh, surprise surprise. A post on fark is needlessly hyperbolic and has little to do with the source material. I know it's been a slow devolution from silly headlines to mostly troll posts only, but when is enough enough?

Exactly! Oh when oh when is Fark going to start posting actual news. Most of the current posting are actually non-news, or "not news" as it were.


There is a difference between poking fun at "not news" articles and only having outright lies and personal editorial blogs greenlit. It used to be you could come here and see a decent smattering of interesting articles of varying degrees of relevance. These days it's just blogs, opinions pieces, and things that are about as truthful as calling the sky green.

I've own the book. I've trolled here for a lot longer than I've had an account. Considering that part of the purpose of the site was to point out how dumb these things were, the fact that the site has essentially become what it was designed to mock is sort of wonky to me. It makes me less inclined to use the site at all, which seems to be the case with a lot of farkers as half of every comment section are the same 4-10 paid trolls baiting the same dialog in here 9-5.

Tag me with "Old man shouts at cloud"
 
2013-03-12 10:32:02 AM
The geniuses who read CNSNews have it all figured out:

NIH could have ask Napolitano and saved $1.5 million.

It could be that they aren't fat because they're lesbians, they're lesbians because they're fat.

They're not fat because they're lesbian, they're lesbian because they're fat

They're fat because they eat out a lot.

case in point--- look at big sis---- hillary clinton--- need I say more ?????

The question is why do fat women choose to be dykes? Because they can't get a man!

Read the memoirs of Janet Nepalitano, Judge Kagen and Judge Sotomeyor...

George Washington and Patrick Henry would be so proud of what America has become!. NOT!

because they are ugly and can't get laid, so they compensate by stuffing their gullets.

Men simply don't want fat pigs, gay or straight.

Fat, ugly broads cannot interest men so they gravitate towards other fat, ugly broads and the lesbian union is born.

Because guys don't like fat chicks, and therefore the fat chicks are left with other fat chicks.

What we have here is a chicken and egg situation. Lesbians are not more likely to be fat, fat women are more likely to be
lesbian. Men aren't interested in them so they go play for the other team.

they are not fat because they are lesbians. they are lesbians because they are fat

They aren't fat because they're lesbians, they are lesbians because they are fat.

Can I get 1.5 million to research why they all have Janet Napolitano's hair style?

The major premise could be flawed.. they're not fat cause they're lesbian... maybe they're lesbian because they're fat !!

Duh. Men don't find fat women attractive. End of story.

Easy, they were fat to begin with and end up hating men who spurn them.
 
2013-03-12 10:36:07 AM

hitlersbrain: Female sexual arousal is based on money, power and/or crazy bullshiat.


Not really, but if believing that makes you feel better about being a virgin, then that's all that matters.
 
2013-03-12 10:41:44 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: hitlersbrain: Female sexual arousal is based on money, power and/or crazy bullshiat.

Not really, but if believing that makes you feel better about being a virgin, then that's all that matters.


Shhh, don't let everyone else know that women like sex as much as men. They apparently go through a LOT of trouble to keep that one under wraps. I think the Aliens and Bigfoots are helping them.
 
2013-03-12 10:41:57 AM
img836.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-12 10:43:29 AM
Jackson Herring:
Have you heard about DHS purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition and 2717 MRAPs? Objective, observable reality literally doesn't farking matter any more.

You're referring to this?

Yeah, for years now I tend to automatically assume that most "shocking" stories as b.s. until proven otherwise. Typically, once I've done a standard Google search I'm proven correct. It's sad that I have to have that sort of mentality when dealing with "news" in this country.
 
2013-03-12 10:44:54 AM
Sequester proof my ass. This project is up for renewal on an annual basis, although for the first five years on a non-competitive basis, ie funding is dependent on achieving aims and goals, as opposed to being compared to other projects.

Currently, almost all NIH projects, on their renewal are having 10% of their annual funding held back, in case the sequester isn't fixed. It's going to have a huge impact on medical research unless it's fixed.

In conclusion fark the derp media and their made up stories.
 
2013-03-12 10:46:09 AM
Because Bull Dykes aren't as shallow as lady-boys, and therefore dont place as much importance on physical appearance.
 
2013-03-12 10:49:26 AM

JollyMagistrate: WhippingBoy: JollyMagistrate: Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Mass., has received two grants administered by NIH's Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to study the relationship between sexual orientation and obesity.

Oh, surprise surprise. A post on fark is needlessly hyperbolic and has little to do with the source material. I know it's been a slow devolution from silly headlines to mostly troll posts only, but when is enough enough?

Exactly! Oh when oh when is Fark going to start posting actual news. Most of the current posting are actually non-news, or "not news" as it were.

There is a difference between poking fun at "not news" articles and only having outright lies and personal editorial blogs greenlit. It used to be you could come here and see a decent smattering of interesting articles of varying degrees of relevance. These days it's just blogs, opinions pieces, and things that are about as truthful as calling the sky green.

I've own the book. I've trolled here for a lot longer than I've had an account. Considering that part of the purpose of the site was to point out how dumb these things were, the fact that the site has essentially become what it was designed to mock is sort of wonky to me. It makes me less inclined to use the site at all, which seems to be the case with a lot of farkers as half of every comment section are the same 4-10 paid trolls baiting the same dialog in here 9-5.

Tag me with "Old man shouts at cloud"


No, I actually understand and agree with you (despite my original comment). On the plus side, Fark now has interesting "featured partner" links, so it must be getting better, right?

/Featured partner
 
2013-03-12 10:49:38 AM

LemSkroob: Because Bull Dykes aren't as shallow as lady-boys, and therefore dont place as much importance on physical appearance.



I don't know. The few that I know are extreme healthophiles. Gym 5/6 days a week, running ... all of it, really.Why are they fat? Because they eat so fu(king much. They are an appetitious lot. Also, they're overtraining and their bodies don't know wtf.
 
2013-03-12 10:49:47 AM

hasty ambush: Or maybe, just maybe, they are aking why we are using tax dollars to study why lesibans are fat? Is there a separate tax payer funded study about the metabolic rates, psychology and diet of asexuals (and if so why)? What makes lesbos so special they deserve their own fat study?


The study was about how sexual orientation and obesity might be linked.

So there was a study about asexuals, homosexual men, homosexual women, and heterosexuals have had data correlated to other factors for years now.

What makes you such a dickface?
 
2013-03-12 10:50:13 AM

ToughBobby: Sequester proof my ass. This project is up for renewal on an annual basis, although for the first five years on a non-competitive basis, ie funding is dependent on achieving aims and goals, as opposed to being compared to other projects.

Currently, almost all NIH projects, on their renewal are having 10% of their annual funding held back, in case the sequester isn't fixed. It's going to have a huge impact on medical research unless it's fixed.

In conclusion fark the derp media and their made up stories.


If department heads cant find 2.2% savings without screaming the sky is falling, they need fired.

2.2% WTF?
 
2013-03-12 10:51:45 AM
So, being fat and gay is a choice.

I see.
 
2013-03-12 10:51:46 AM
In all fairness, I'm in favor of lesbians who are in better shape.  I think we should expand this to include free gym memberships for lesbians.
 
2013-03-12 10:52:27 AM

Joe Blowme: ToughBobby: Sequester proof my ass. This project is up for renewal on an annual basis, although for the first five years on a non-competitive basis, ie funding is dependent on achieving aims and goals, as opposed to being compared to other projects.

Currently, almost all NIH projects, on their renewal are having 10% of their annual funding held back, in case the sequester isn't fixed. It's going to have a huge impact on medical research unless it's fixed.

In conclusion fark the derp media and their made up stories.

If department heads cant find 2.2% savings without screaming the sky is falling, they need fired.

2.2% WTF?


If they cut any more, they will have to scale back on landscaping, and start buying things on sale.
 
2013-03-12 10:53:33 AM

hitlersbrain: Men like sex.
Male sexual arousal is closely tied with physical attractiveness.
Being a fit, gay man is rewarded by lots of attention and sex.
Lot's of rewards for being fit.
(This is why fewer hetero men than women exercise regularly - at least after men figure out it won't get them anything)

Women could care less about sex (but not much less).
Female sexual arousal is based on money, power and/or crazy bullshiat.
Being a fit, gay woman won't get you much.
No real rewards for being fit.

PM me for the address to send my 1.5 million dollars,
Thanks.


That's why disgustingly fat guys get all the chicks, amirite?
 
2013-03-12 10:54:56 AM

WhippingBoy: "featured partner"


Yea, wtf is up with this "featured partner"
Im guessing paying for static page story placement?
 
2013-03-12 10:59:58 AM

Joe Blowme: ToughBobby: Sequester proof my ass. This project is up for renewal on an annual basis, although for the first five years on a non-competitive basis, ie funding is dependent on achieving aims and goals, as opposed to being compared to other projects.

Currently, almost all NIH projects, on their renewal are having 10% of their annual funding held back, in case the sequester isn't fixed. It's going to have a huge impact on medical research unless it's fixed.

In conclusion fark the derp media and their made up stories.

If department heads cant find 2.2% savings without screaming the sky is falling, they need fired.

2.2% WTF?


NIH is getting cut 5.1%, and they aren't saying the sky is falling. They are saying it will hurt scientific research. Which it will.
 
2013-03-12 11:00:43 AM
If I had to speculate, it might have some link to depression. Which gay people tend to suffer from more than not-gay people. The depression thing seems to happen more if they're raised by Christians and taught that gay is an awful, horrible thing. As for it impacting gay women more than gay men, probably has to do with women turning to food more when they're depressed than men.

That's all speculation of course, it could be something as shallow and silly as butch women trying too hard to be like straight men.
 
2013-03-12 11:01:16 AM
This entire thread, and not ONE of you has found an excuse to post pix of hot lesbian chicks?

Fark, I am disappoint.
 
2013-03-12 11:02:00 AM
Executive branch doesn't fund anything. Only the Legislative branch can fund.
 
2013-03-12 11:03:05 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: That's why disgustingly fat guys get all the chicks, amirite?


Right on! If you have the cash
www.threadbombing.com
 
2013-03-12 11:04:52 AM

thurstonxhowell: Joe Blowme: ToughBobby: Sequester proof my ass. This project is up for renewal on an annual basis, although for the first five years on a non-competitive basis, ie funding is dependent on achieving aims and goals, as opposed to being compared to other projects.

Currently, almost all NIH projects, on their renewal are having 10% of their annual funding held back, in case the sequester isn't fixed. It's going to have a huge impact on medical research unless it's fixed.

In conclusion fark the derp media and their made up stories.

If department heads cant find 2.2% savings without screaming the sky is falling, they need fired.

2.2% WTF?

NIH is getting cut 5.1%, and they aren't saying the sky is falling. They are saying it will hurt scientific research. Which it will.


If this is the research they do, then maybe we need to cut more from thier budget.
 
2013-03-12 11:07:01 AM
Paul Fussell's book Class has some good stuff about teh gheyz and how the men supposedly wanted to raise their class status and the women to lower it. Circa 1990 stereotypes...engage.

If social climbing, whether in actuality or in fantasy, is well understood, social sinking is not, although there's more of it going on than most people notice. Male homosexuals and lesbians, respectively, exemplify these two opposite maneuvers. Ambitious male homosexuals, at least in fantasy, aspire to rise, and from humble origins to ascend to the ownership of antique businesses, art galleries, and hair salons. The object is to end by frequenting the Great. They learn to affect elegant telephone voices and gravitate instinctively toward "style" and the grand. Lesbians, on the contrary, like to sink, dropping from middle-class status to become taxi drivers, police officers, and construction workers. The ultimate male-homosexual social dream is to sit at an elegant dinner table, complete with flowers and doilies and finger bowls, surrounded by rich, successful, superbly suited and gowned, witty, and cleverly immoral people. The ultimate lesbian social dream is to pack it in at some matey lunch counter with the heftier proles, wearing work clothes and doing a lot of shouting and kidding.
 
2013-03-12 11:08:29 AM
My point being that fatness is strongly associated with being a down-to-earth workingclass dude/chick.
 
2013-03-12 11:08:45 AM

Joe Blowme: If this is the research they do, then maybe we need to cut more from thier budget.


Yeah, how dare the National Institute of Health study health!
 
2013-03-12 11:09:57 AM

i upped my meds-up yours: My point being that fatness is strongly associated with being a down-to-earth workingclass dude/chick.


Yes, height weight proportionate people are all affected, posturing elitist swine.
 
2013-03-12 11:10:11 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: hitlersbrain:
...
That's why disgustingly fat guys get all the chicks, amirite?


No, that's why it does not matter if they are disgustingly fat. I can name LOTS of fat guys that have been considered 'sexy' by women,

Brief summary of how classes of guys do sexually with women.

1. Rich sociopaths. High level corporate executives and such. (Very Well)
2. Middle class guys. (Very Poor. A women will probably eventually settle for you though.)
3. Poor sociopaths. Violent criminals, drug dealers and such. (Very Well)

Nowhere in there will 'looks' improve a male's chances very much.
 
2013-03-12 11:10:39 AM

jso2897: JackieRabbit: jso2897: What part of "across the board" don't these retards understand? That's why letting this happen was a bad idea.
But, they stuck it to Obummer, and that's all that really matters.
2014, assholes. It's coming sooner than you think.

It appears that some people don't understand how NIH grants work. The money has already be allocated. The "across-the-board" part of the sequester is just political bullshiat and many programs are exempt.

The Obama administration actually has nothing whatsoever to say about who or for what the independent committee that makes these grant determinations fund. They are prohibited from doing so by law, so that scientific research will not be politicized. And, $1.5M is a very small NIH grant.

I think you may have misunderstood the thrust and meaning of my remark, and at whom it is directed. Read it again (if you care), and think carefully.


Oh, I get it. I just don't see how it has anything to do with the NIH grant process. Once federal funds have been obligated, they must be spent. The sequestration doesn't go into effect until March 27th, when the government's spending authority ends. So the NIH can continue to obligate itself.

You have to understand the GOP's strategy here. It isn't as moronic as it appears. They know that their hardline status is currently hurting them. They know that their positions on so many things and their obstructionism is going to continue to hurt them. But ultimately, it will hurt Obama and the Democrats more. They will take a hit in 2014, but by 2016 they will be in a position to say "See, the Democrats cannot govern! America deserves better! We need a change!" They've done this several times before and they know it works.
 
2013-03-12 11:14:50 AM

ph0rk: Aren't all NIH grants sequester proof once awarded? This passed the NIH approval process, the story is where?


The story is when people politicize science they don't understand or they feel has an agenda because someone they don't like is involved.
 
2013-03-12 11:15:16 AM

hitlersbrain: Brief summary of how classes of guys do sexually with women.

1. Rich sociopaths. High level corporate executives and such. (Very Well)
2. Middle class guys. (Very Poor. A women will probably eventually settle for you though if you promise her to form babby.)
3. Poor sociopaths. Violent criminals, drug dealers and such. (Very Well)

 
2013-03-12 11:16:34 AM
Cooking is still, overall, considered a woman's job.  Lesbos don't want to be feminine.  Gay men do.  So - lesbos eat fast food and homos cook fru-fru food.  Lesbos are fat, homos are thin.  Where's my $1.5M?  (Just kidding - don't flame me).
 
2013-03-12 11:17:28 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Joe Blowme: If this is the research they do, then maybe we need to cut more from thier budget.

Yeah, how dare the National Institute of Health study health!


not what i said but dont let that stop you from hearing what you want to hear and knowing only what you heard.
 
2013-03-12 11:17:40 AM
Well I like this thread ... A few of the leftie stalwarts coming accross as pompous, humourless twits makes a nice change from Apocolypso-Caligula-Repubicano


/pompous leftie
//trying not to be humourless
///it's the magic number
 
2013-03-12 11:17:57 AM

hitlersbrain: DROxINxTHExWIND: hitlersbrain:
...
That's why disgustingly fat guys get all the chicks, amirite?

No, that's why it does not matter if they are disgustingly fat. I can name LOTS of fat guys that have been considered 'sexy' by women,

Brief summary of how classes of guys do sexually with women.

1. Rich sociopaths. High level corporate executives and such. (Very Well)
2. Middle class guys. (Very Poor. A women will probably eventually settle for you though.)
3. Poor sociopaths. Violent criminals, drug dealers and such. (Very Well)

Nowhere in there will 'looks' improve a male's chances very much.


You sound fat and ugly.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report