The Goverment gives grants to study penis size in the gay community. (WTF) ''NSFW''

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

HMFIC

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
11,193
Reaction score
8
Location
Tulsa
I'm still pretty sure that this is a study we can do without. It doesn't take too many $899,769 "chump change" studies to add up to some serious money. That is, if you don't already think $899,769 is real money already.

I wonder how many American taxpaying citizens could get some of the tax money that the government took from them if we didn't fund this study?

The point is that there are far too many of these types of things... Why on earth are we deficit spending ourselves to death, paying for things like this that we DON'T need & CAN'T afford and continuing to destroy our economy over the out of control government spending?

:anyone:


Curiosity got the better of me and I had to look up the real study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2874247/

From the abstract:



Since the money came from NIH, this is the kind of stuff they need to know since controlling the spread of STDs is their job.

Also, the Fox News article states:



Within the scope of academic research grants, $899,769 is chump change, and this went to fund "many" studies so the bulk of this probably went to paying graduate students.

Also from Fox News:



This probably means that grant money had been used to buy the computers and statistical software that they used to analyze the data.

This would be like the Brady people running a headline that reads, "GOVERNMENT ACADEMIC FUNDING USED TO BUY ASSAULT CLIPS," because I bought a 30rd PMAG with money that came from my stipend (which is paid by Federal research grants).
 

poopgiggle

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
I'm still pretty sure that this is a study we can do without. It doesn't take too many $899,769 "chump change" studies to add up to some serious money. That is, if you don't already think $899,769 is real money already.

Um this is probably funding a lab who's researching public health problems in general. This particular study was probably a few students taking a survey and handing out movie tickets.

I wonder how many American taxpaying citizens could get some of the tax money that the government took from them if we didn't fund this study?

For how much was spent on this study specifically, we could probably give a few hundred people a quarter back. Economic stimulus!

The point is that there are far too many of these types of things...

Source plz

Why on earth are we deficit spending ourselves to death, paying for things like this that we DON'T need

Um STDs are a major public health concern.

& CAN'T afford and continuing to destroy our economy over the out of control government spending?

Right we'll get the country right back up on the horse by defunding scientific research.
 

HMFIC

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
11,193
Reaction score
8
Location
Tulsa
Um this is probably funding a lab who's researching public health problems in general. This particular study was probably a few students taking a survey and handing out movie tickets.

"probably", "probably" source plz? Why defend it with speculation?


For how much was spent on this study specifically, we could probably give a few hundred people a quarter back. Economic stimulus!

A few hundered quarters is equal to $100, not $899,769.


Source plz

I need a source to make a statement that there is far too much government waste on silly programs that are uncessary? :anyone: I'll find you a source if you really need one. EDIT: Here ya go... http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste


Um STDs are a major public health concern.

Sure they are, but I don't need to pay $899,769 to determine that larger size can cause issues with condom breakage and slippage that leads to more spreading of disease. That's just common sense and not worthy of spending that kind of money.


Right we'll get the country right back up on the horse by defunding scientific research.

I'll repeat myself... The point is that there are far too many of these types of things... Why on earth are we deficit spending ourselves to death, paying for things like this that we DON'T need & CAN'T afford and continuing to destroy our economy over the out of control government spending?

I didn't say the road to prosperity is defunding scientific research. That's your interpretation of what I said.

We evidently disagree on what is necessary and what is discretionary and what should be cut in a time of crisis. For me, it's a pretty simple solution. The government need not be spending money of ours that we don't even have to fund things we don't absolutely need right now. If you'd like to donate your hard earned $ to fund penis research, then knock yourself out, but I've had it with the government being irresponsible with my money.

Why would you even defend this?
 
Last edited:

HMFIC

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
11,193
Reaction score
8
Location
Tulsa
Here's some examples for you...

The Heritage Foundation published a good article on Government waste spending back in 2009. I think it's worth a read.

In it you can find out how the governement spent $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.

You can also see about how the Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.

How about Congress giving Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737?

$1.8 million to help build a private golf course in Atlanta, Georgia?

On and on and on and on....

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/10/50-examples-of-government-waste
 

poopgiggle

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
0
Location
Tulsa
"probably", "probably" source plz? Why defend it with speculation?

OK! The authors on the paper are members of of the Center for HIV/AIDS Educational Studies and Training (CHEST), so yeah they PROBABLY do all kinds of research on STDs!

A few hundered quarters is equal to $100, not $899,769.

I meant this study specifically, not the grant which probably went mostly towards funding students and buying infrastructure like computers and lab supplies. I say "probably" because I'm familiar with how research grants are typically spent. If you had read what I posted before and understood it you wouldn't have needed to ask this question.


I need a source to make a statement that there is far too much government waste on silly programs that are uncessary?

You're begging the question, "is this stuff really unnecessary?" Scientific research typically doesn't have a point to it at the outset. Case in point, when an IBM researcher made the first microchip, one of his coworkers asked, "But what ... is it good for?" This study didn't give any groundbreaking insight, but then again most don't.

:anyone: I'll find you a source if you really need one.

Please do. Please show me how our extravagant spending on scientific research is crippling our economy.


Sure they are, but I don't need to pay $899,769 to determine that larger size can cause issues with condom breakage and slippage that leads to more spreading of disease. That's just common sense and not worthy of spending that kind of money.

I had a response to this, but it mostly boiled down to ENGLISH MOTHERFSCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT. This study cost nowhere near $899,000 by itself.

I'll repeat myself... The point is that there are far too many of these types of things... Why on earth are we deficit spending ourselves to death, paying for things like this that we DON'T need & CAN'T afford and continuing to destroy our economy over the out of control government spending?

I will also repeat myself: your comments are totally unsourced and unfounded. It's easy to spout platitudes like THERE IS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

I didn't say the road to prosperity is defunding scientific research. That's your interpretation of what I said.

Then what did you mean, sugar?

We evidently disagree on what is necessary and what is discretionary and what should be cut in a time of crisis. For me, it's a pretty simple solution. The government need not be spending money of ours that we don't even have to fund things we don't absolutely need right now. If you'd like to donate your hard earned $ to fund penis research, then knock yourself out, but I've had it with the government being irresponsible with my money.

The money was given to a CUNY program on STD research. They spent what appears to be A VERY SMALL FRACTION of that money on a couple afternoons of surveying gay people and handing out movie tickets. They were investigating a possible underlying factor that may have contributed to understanding of the spread of venereal diseases.

As a young man with an active lifestyle, I'm glad the government has got my back here.

Why would you even defend this?

Because I know how scientific research works.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom