Posted on 01/20/2003 1:00:39 PM PST by jriemer
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:24 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Why is the Fed. Gov't Paying Women to Watch Dirty Movies?
This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, January 16, 2003.
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Back of the Book segment tonight, a federal study funded by us at Northwestern University in Chicago. Women were paid as much as $75 each to watch dirty movies. Two-year study cost the American taxpayer $147,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Who is running this asylum?
jriemer
Sorry, couldn't resist..
Well it certainly isn't the American sheeple. When the good people of this country wake up and stop allowing this to happen then maybe we will get our country back. But until then expect more of the same. April 15th should be the wake up call EVERY single year but most people just ignore it.
What a ripoff! I could have done it for half that.
;-)
Hardly. Thanks to the (ahem) 'miracle' of withholding, "most people" regard April 15 as the day they get a gift from the government.
So9
I assume the man intends humor here, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
A safer bet is that the same research group will be petitioning for additional research funds next FY because they didn't expect someone in the control group to get wound up looking at animal porn. This threw off their baseline and affected their subsequent research. Never underestimate the lowest common denominator, human depravity or a university's lust for Federal research money. Northwestern hit the trifecta.
jriemer
Somebody pinged me to come over here and watch dirty movies. Sad but true. A few months ago I was getting a haircut and the hairdressers were discussing their shrewd decisions to increase their withholding amount so they would "get a bigger refund". I tried to explain the concepts of interest-bearing accounts and the time value of money, but that went nowhere.
He's not always real careful on his research, either.
During his TV special about the allegedly declining culture, he had a rant about porn sites that supposedly use keywords that kids would be likely to do websearches for (like "Nintendo", presumably).
The problem is that as he talked about this, he flashed on the screen the webpage, Porn Star or My Little Pony, which is *not* a "porn site".
It's actually a joke about how the names given to the My Little Pony dolls sound amusingly like the stage names adopted by porn stars (e.g. "Ruby Lips"). It quizzes the reader to decide which is which, much like the humorous "Al Gore or Unabomber" quiz.
The webpage wouldn't qualify as anything worse than PG-13, if even that. And it's worded euphemistically enough that kids who might have ended up at the site by accident wouldn't understand what the heck they were talking about.
Apparently O'Reilly just saw the name and presumed it was a "porn" site and used it on his special without bothering to check what it really was. Sloppy research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.