Originally posted by normbenignIn order to reduce the deficit? Of course. Don't be silly. I think there should be steps taken to reduce spending on the major entitlement programmes. But I don't think the necessary political courage is available among the current U.S. leadership.
No, you agree with that spending. Is there any spending you agree with that you would not borrow for?
Originally posted by normbenignAs a previous poster put it, "Previous research has shown a link between male homosexuality and non-obesity and female homosexuality and obesity. Researching this might find various factors which contribute or diminish obesity, in the long running saving millions of dollars on health-related spending. " A study that only costs $1.5 million is always going to be relatively narrowly crafted, by necessity.
If the object were to study obesity, why would the study be so narrowly crafted. Are there similar studies necessary for gay men, hetero men?
Originally posted by normbenignThe fact is that the study isn't "so narrowly crafted". What WAS "so narrowly crafted" was the thread title, the OP and the source cited in the OP.
If the object were to study obesity, why would the study be so narrowly crafted. Are there similar studies necessary for gay men, hetero men? On and on we go.
As I posted earlier:
It's important to remember that nearly half of straight women are obese, too, and that the study is also figuring out why straight men are more often overweight than gay men:
[quote]It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women. In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males. Despite clear evidence from descriptive epidemiologic research that sexual orientation and gender markedly pattern obesity disparities, there is almost no prospective, analytic epidemiologic research into the causes of these disparities.
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=8324507&icde=15499915
All of which is to say, these headlines would have been accurate as the inverse: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why straight men are fat." Or: "Obama administration spends $1.5 million to figure out why gay men have rocking bodies." Or perhaps: "America is overweight (except for gay men?) and scientists are trying to determine why."
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/03/nih-lesbian-fat-study/63007/
[/quote]
Originally posted by normbenignIt's a bit silly to call one of the richest countries in the world "broke". I think everyone agrees that wasteful spending, whether in the public or private sector, should be cut. Otherwise it wouldn't be wasteful, obviously. I'm rather baffled why one would single out this particular study into the #1 health problem in the US as a prime example of wasteful spending, though. Why not, for example, the $20 billion US taxpayers spend on subsidizing privately owned farms? Or a significant part of the $665 billion US taxpayers spend on the military?
You of course are entitled to your opinion, but the US is broke.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLet's see how many lesbian farmers there are, or how many lesbians the U.S. military has failed to kill, and then run the ideas past Eladar.
Why not, for example, the $20 billion US taxpayers spend on subsidizing privately owned farms? Or a significant part of the $665 billion US taxpayers spend on the military?
Originally posted by EladarJust 'cause a fat diesel dyke won't give you the time of day isn't any reason to be bitter, old bean.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/feds-spend-15-million-study-why-lesbians-are-fat
Stuff like this is why people don't want to raise taxes. Why give more money to people who waste it?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat is your concept of warfighting? Throw your bullets at the bad guys? Harsh language? (Probably not...) Speaking to the enemy in a firm voice?
It would be literally impossible to run a government where anyone everyone agrees with how every penny is spent. Aside from the fact that $1.5 million = 0.0000006% of US tax revenue for 2012, I don't mind the study. I can see why it would bother Conservatives, though. There might be biological reasons and we can't have that since being gay is a choice.
You're the most sensitive Ranger I've ever heard of.