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 57
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-12 07:45:14 AM
15 votes:
They are not fat because they are lesbians, they are lesbians because they are fat.  There is a difference.
2013-03-12 08:16:24 AM
10 votes:
Nobody would blink about an obesity study, which is what it is. Add in the word lesbian and it's pearl clutching time.
2013-03-12 08:17:19 AM
9 votes:
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.
2013-03-12 08:21:19 AM
7 votes:
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.
2013-03-12 08:29:41 AM
5 votes:
Aren't all NIH grants sequester proof once awarded? This passed the NIH approval process, the story is where?
2013-03-12 09:19:28 AM
3 votes:
Thread full of false dichotomies, false equivalencies, red herrings, and strawmen from the left.  And the right's premise - that Obama himself decided to give this grant to fat lesbians is absurd. Just another day at Fark.

It would be so nice if each side could admit that "their team" sometimes farks up.  I mean really, you've got thousands of politicians making decisions every day.  There's bound to be a bunch of stupid decisions made by jackasses.

The only thing worse than religion becoming politics is politics becoming religion.
2013-03-12 08:31:22 AM
3 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Nobody would blink about an obesity study, which is what it is. Add in the word lesbian and it's pearl clutching time.


Perhaps the problem is that there are already quite a few obesity studies and now we apparently MUST know how obesity is related to being a lesbian.  So much so that the program is protected.

Of course, that argument doesn't support your drama so carry on.  I'm sure it won't stop you.
2013-03-12 08:20:05 AM
3 votes:
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.
2013-03-12 09:12:17 AM
2 votes:

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Congress controls spending.


Except when Bush was in office.
2013-03-12 09:09:31 AM
2 votes:

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.
2013-03-12 08:49:16 AM
2 votes:
Because they're Americans?
2013-03-12 08:40:28 AM
2 votes:

Pants full of macaroni!!: DAMN YOU FARTB0NG0 AND YOUR ONE POINT FIVE MILLION DOLLAR DOLLAR FAT LESBIAN STUDY


"We must stamp out government waste wherever we find it."
"How about we stop some of the military programs that even the military finds to be wasteful and stupid and cost 1000s of times more?"
"ZOMG Murika will be attacked why you hate Murika!!!!"
2013-03-12 08:37:15 AM
2 votes:

Voiceofreason01: HotWingConspiracy: Nobody would blink about an obesity study, which is what it is. Add in the word lesbian and it's pearl clutching time.

most of the money is going to be used to pay a professor and a gaggle of grad students, why does subby and CNS News hate putting people to work?


Most of the money was spent 1-2 years ago. Why can't subby and CNS figure out how the fark time works?
2013-03-12 08:34:19 AM
2 votes:

BobDeluxe: HotWingConspiracy: Nobody would blink about an obesity study, which is what it is. Add in the word lesbian and it's pearl clutching time.

Perhaps the problem is that there are already quite a few obesity studies and now we apparently MUST know how obesity is related to being a lesbian.  So much so that the program is protected.

Of course, that argument doesn't support your drama so carry on.  I'm sure it won't stop you.


Protected? Half the money was awarded (and spent) in 2011. Most of the 2012 money is probably spent, too. The NIH has loads more money to give out, that is what would be sequestered if the NIH is to sequester. And it is: Link
2013-03-12 08:22:53 AM
2 votes:
...Is it because they eat out so much?

HEY-O!
2013-03-12 08:20:48 AM
2 votes:
1.5 Million over 5 years?  That would be like me loosing a penny.
2013-03-12 08:16:52 AM
2 votes:
I thought it was because they didn't feel the need to be attractive to men? Well, the joke's on them!

/chubby-chaser
2013-03-12 08:16:22 AM
2 votes:
Too much pie.
2013-03-12 08:14:24 AM
2 votes:
The lesbians on the Internet are slim and sexy.

LALALALALALALALALALA ICANTHEARYOU LALALALALALALALALALA
2013-03-13 12:15:34 AM
1 votes:
Seemingly, there are a lot of folks here who have been studying lesbians, obese and not-so-much, for years.

Now there appears to be funding.

Every day and in every way, we continue to progress.  Now we study things that we can all get behind...so to speak.

Almost no one here read the underlying grant proposals or foundation documents explaining the study goals and criteria, did they?  So uninformed spouting is really all that's going on, right?  Pretty much like the uncompensated lesbian studiers discussed above, then?

At least write up a grant proposal, ya whiners.
2013-03-12 04:35:06 PM
1 votes:

silvervial: Women aren't shallow (generally) and men are (generally). Where's my money?


Where's your research?
2013-03-12 01:40:25 PM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Obama and the dems are making cuts to inflict the most pain and media coverage.

Given a choice between cutting TSA agents, which would result in longer lines at airports or cutting studies on fat lesbians, they have chosen to cut the TSA agents.  They are playing politics with the cuts.  For this admin, it isn't about trimming pork or cutting the fat, no pun intended, it is about making republicans look bad.



Don't be ridiculous.  Obama doesn't have to lift a finger to make Republicans look bad.
2013-03-12 12:21:35 PM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: thurstonxhowell: Joe Blowme: Projector was for Edsel .... and by the pic i was saying he was projecting his hatred.

Edsel: Conservatives hate ... government spending

No..." Edsel: Conservatives hate science, government spending, gay people, and efforts to fight obesity. Man, this story really has it all as far as they're concerned.

Not just the spending part that yo.... wow, i just got trolled, bravo
[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 339x192]


So conservatives support government spending, science, gay people and don't have a problem with fighting obesity as shown by the frothing at Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign for kids?
2013-03-12 12:04:08 PM
1 votes:

Joe Blowme: thurstonxhowell: Joe Blowme: thurstonxhowell: Joe Blowme: Edsel: Conservatives hate science, government spending, gay people, and efforts to fight obesity. Man, this story really has it all as far as they're concerned.

[www.best-of-web.com image 91x100]

So you're saying that liberals are projecting their fears of government spending onto conservatives? That's an interesting point of view in that literally no one would agree with it.

Well then i guess its good i did not say that then huh?

Who was projecting what onto whom, then? You put a projector after a statement that conservatives hate government spending. That leads me to believe that you think liberals are projecting their own hatred of government spending onto conservatives. If that's not what you meant, that's fine, but it definitely looks like it's what you said.

Projector was for Edsel .... and by the pic i was saying he was projecting his hatred. Next time i will just post the word definition alongside the pic so you can better understand the point.


Projecting my hatred of... science, government spending, gay people, and efforts to fight obesity? Uh, OK. You caught me.
2013-03-12 11:29:07 AM
1 votes:

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.


LOL. Man, that is some shallow shiat. You need to re-evaluate how you view women. Are there women who find money, power, or agressiveness attractive? Sure there are. But your characterization of all women as idiots who are chasing a buck would be offensive if I were a woman. Hint: They aren't cum buckets who need you to judge and rate their worthiness to get a man based on how "hot" they are. They're human beings who have diverse interests, just as you do. I've dated women who wanted sex as much as I do and women who were as indifferent as you suggest they all are. How about growing up and looking at women as...people instead of potential conquests. Trust me, you'll do a lot better.
2013-03-12 11:27:17 AM
1 votes:
Conservatives hate science, government spending, gay people, and efforts to fight obesity. Man, this story really has it all as far as they're concerned.
2013-03-12 11:03:05 AM
1 votes:

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 10:53:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:44:54 AM
1 votes:
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 10:43:29 AM
1 votes:
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 10:41:57 AM
1 votes:
img836.imageshack.us
2013-03-12 10:36:07 AM
1 votes:

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 10:25:20 AM
1 votes:
And?
2013-03-12 10:17:27 AM
1 votes:

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 10:12:23 AM
1 votes:

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 10:07:23 AM
1 votes:

JackieRabbit: 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.


I just want to point out here that the NIH is NOT EXEMPT from the sequester.  Some previously allocated money can't be reallocated, but scientific funding, by the NIH, NSF, NOAA, NIST, etc. have all been hit with IMMENSE cuts.  $2.3 billion from NIH means around 2500 less grants this year, which means that salaries for  maybe tens of thousands of people are gone, plus basic research can't get done.

Yeah, hurr durr lesbian fatties, but this is actually a real problem.  Republicans probably scoffed at giving a couple million toward studying pond scum in hot springs, but that research allowed the discovery of Taq polymerase and the development of PCR, which has since allowed the creation of millions of dollars in industry, with uses everywhere from gene therapy to cancer research to criminal justice to paternity testing.

Funding of basic science, even when it doesn't seem to have any point, can lead to breakthroughs of tremendous importance down the road.  This is why we don't let politicians decide who gets grants.
2013-03-12 09:56:55 AM
1 votes:

vingamm: LMAO I find it incredibly interesting that if I do a google search on this article I cannot not find it being covered on Any major news site. Not NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC News, NY Time, NY Post, Fortune, WSJ, The Register, CSPAN or......drum roll....FOX News. I can only find it on rightwing nut job websites. Not saying it is not a credible story but my daddy use to tell me if sometime quacks like a duck............


Probably.  A lot of MSM news farms skim the blogowank, though.  Could be malarkey or just too fresh.  At the end of the day it's 90% propaganda, 7% haircuts, 2% piss poor sentence structure and 1% news.
2013-03-12 09:41:39 AM
1 votes:

Tman144: I heard this from a defendant on Judge Judy, its as true now as it ever was:

"Women fall in love with their ears, not their eyes."


I didn't know money was that loud.
2013-03-12 09:34:49 AM
1 votes:
I heard this from a defendant on Judge Judy, its as true now as it ever was:

"Women fall in love with their ears, not their eyes."

In other words, men have higher standards when it comes to physical appearance, gay or straight.
2013-03-12 09:18:41 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Britney Spear's Speculum: 1.5 million for a study that could help save billions in health care costs down the road

i love how every study related to health is going to save us billions in the future.  If even half the studies we have done saved us 1/10 the savings we expected from them, our health costs would be negative by now and we'd be getting paid to eat doughnuts by pharmaceutical companies.

This study, like the close door button in an elevator, will do nothing.


No kidding.

The way "studies" work is as follows:

1. If it supports my claim/lifestyle/agenda, then it's a valid study that I will constantly cite as the undeniable truth
2. If it does not support my claim/lifestyle/agenda, then I will vociferously declare it to be "nonsense" and openly mock anyone who deigns to cite it in support of their stupid argument
2013-03-12 09:16:11 AM
1 votes:
among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to homosexual males.

Liking women makes you fat.
2013-03-12 09:14:16 AM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: 1.5 million for a study that could help save billions in health care costs down the road


i love how every study related to health is going to save us billions in the future.  If even half the studies we have done saved us 1/10 the savings we expected from them, our health costs would be negative by now and we'd be getting paid to eat doughnuts by pharmaceutical companies.

This study, like the close door button in an elevator, will do nothing.
2013-03-12 09:08:41 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Given a choice between cutting TSA agents, which would result in longer lines at airports or cutting studies on fat lesbians, they have chosen to cut the TSA agents.


Do you realize how combustible human fat is. every lesbian is a walking time bomb that only needs an ignition source. Sheesh man, let one of those get on a plane and it crashes? Might as well just try to not let everything around it burn, and just let the crash site burn its way out. Their densities are such that they burn like kerosene but have the staying power of motor oil.
2013-03-12 09:08:06 AM
1 votes:
Congress controls spending.
2013-03-12 09:03:35 AM
1 votes:
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
2013-03-12 09:03:22 AM
1 votes:
This is an outrage! The government has no business conducting studies about public health.
2013-03-12 09:01:00 AM
1 votes:
Obama and the dems are making cuts to inflict the most pain and media coverage.

Given a choice between cutting TSA agents, which would result in longer lines at airports or cutting studies on fat lesbians, they have chosen to cut the TSA agents.  They are playing politics with the cuts.  For this admin, it isn't about trimming pork or cutting the fat, no pun intended, it is about making republicans look bad.

But this will backfire for Obama and the Dems.  Americans know the Republicans are bargaining hard and letting the sequester happen to get rid of government waste like this.  And Americans know the democrats are playing politics with the sequester.

Do so at your peril.
2013-03-12 09:00:47 AM
1 votes:
1.5 million for a study that could help save billions in health care costs down the road vs 400 million for helicopters that will likely kill a bunch of Muslim farmers that pose no threat to the US
2013-03-12 08:45:21 AM
1 votes:
My conservative friends all like to tout stories like this as signs of "waste".

"Oh man, they are spending 100k to study turtle migrations!  So much waste!"  What about the hundreds of billions we shovel at the military with no end in sight?  "Umm umm"
2013-03-12 08:44:18 AM
1 votes:

BobDeluxe: You don't actually expect me to RTFA, much less research the topic, do you?  I would never put that much effort into something for a fark discussion post.  I just come here to watch people act like a bunch of dumbasses and join in the fun.


So you aspire to be a science journalist then?

Freakin Rican: still no cure for cancer?


Obesity is linked to some cancers, soo...

/Also, if you think 1.5 million over two years is big money, you should look in to some of NIHs other awarded grants.


HMS_Blinkin: And good work CNS, you've found about 1/100th of a single F-35 worth of wasteful spending.  Congrats.


I don't even think it is wasteful.
2013-03-12 08:43:47 AM
1 votes:
Go fark yourself, submitter
2013-03-12 08:41:55 AM
1 votes:

SDRR: I_Am_Weasel: Too much pie.




too many clams


Too much eating at the Y.
2013-03-12 08:41:19 AM
1 votes:
I support this research as hardy anyone wants to watch fat lesbians on the Internet.

The sooner the problem is fixed the better.
2013-03-12 08:36:08 AM
1 votes:

HotWingConspiracy: Nobody would blink about an obesity study, which is what it is. Add in the word lesbian and it's pearl clutching time.


most of the money is going to be used to pay a professor and a gaggle of grad students, why does subby and CNS News hate putting people to work?
2013-03-12 08:34:06 AM
1 votes:
If this going to turn out like the "Obama pays grandma to play WoW" thing?
2013-03-12 08:20:31 AM
1 votes:
It's so they can fill out their overalls properly. Duh
2013-03-12 08:15:22 AM
1 votes:
Because they don't watch what they eat. Where's my 1.5 million?
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report