Originally posted by FMF
Where have I said anything remotely like this? $1.5 million on obesity research is not "unlimited spending". You're just making stuff up.

No, you agree with that spending. Is there any spending you agree with that you would not borrow for?

Originally posted by normbenign
No, you agree with that spending. Is there any spending you agree with that you would not borrow for?

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.

Originally posted by normbenign
No, you agree with that spending. Is there any spending you agree with that you would not borrow for?

In 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.

Originally posted by normbenign
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?

As 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.

Originally posted by normbenign
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.

The 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.

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 ThinkOfOne
The 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.

Thanks for pointing this out (again)!

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Literally every country in the world runs on deficits and has for many, many decades.

Literally every country? That's not even true for the US, let alone the countries that aren't running deficits right now.

Originally posted by normbenign
You of course are entitled to your opinion, but the US is broke.

It'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?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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?

Let'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.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Literally every country? That's not even true for the US, let alone the countries that aren't running deficits right now.

It helps losers who can't handle their spending to rationalize it by saying everyone does it.

Originally posted by Eladar
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?

Just 'cause a fat diesel dyke won't give you the time of day isn't any reason to be bitter, old bean.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Just 'cause a fat diesel dyke won't give you the time of day isn't any reason to be bitter, old bean.

I could care less about how people live their lives. I just don't want to see money we don't have spent needlessly. It is totally irresponsible.

Originally posted by Eladar
I could care less about how people live their lives. I just don't want to see money we don't have spent needlessly. It is totally irresponsible.

Not big on the concept of expected value, are you?

Originally posted by Soothfast
Not big on the concept of expected value, are you?

Not big on spending money I don't have.

If expected value is what has gotten the US into this mess (as well as much of Europe) then I'd say everyone should reject it.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
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.

What is your concept of warfighting? Throw your bullets at the bad guys? Harsh language? (Probably not...) Speaking to the enemy in a firm voice?

You're the most sensitive Ranger I've ever heard of.