Skip to comments.
Why is the Fed. Gov't Paying Women to Watch Dirty Movies?
FNC - O'Reilly ^
| 1/20/03
| O'Reilly
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]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
*Shakes Head* The Federal Government is essentially running a $75k / year porn ring. People are watching straight, gay, lesbian, and animal porn. The whole works.
Who is running this asylum?
jriemer
1
posted on
01/20/2003 1:00:39 PM PST
by
jriemer
To: jriemer
More importantly, why aren't they paying
me to watch dirty movies?!
Sorry, couldn't resist..
2
posted on
01/20/2003 1:03:04 PM PST
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: jriemer
Who is running this asylum? 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.
3
posted on
01/20/2003 1:05:38 PM PST
by
unixfox
To: jriemer
Two-year study cost the American taxpayer $147,000. What a ripoff! I could have done it for half that.
To: jriemer
To see if there's a snowballs chance in hell that Hillary, and feminazis like her, could ever be sexually attracted to men?
;-)
To: Larry Lucido
LOL
6
posted on
01/20/2003 1:13:22 PM PST
by
yonif
To: unixfox
April 15th should be the wake up call EVERY single year but most people just ignore it.Hardly. Thanks to the (ahem) 'miracle' of withholding, "most people" regard April 15 as the day they get a gift from the government.
7
posted on
01/20/2003 1:14:22 PM PST
by
newgeezer
(All liberals may be stupid but, it's obvious not all of the stupid are liberals.)
To: jriemer
Ever notice how any story involving sex gets O'Reilly's attention?
To: jriemer
Someone "PING" me when they start paying men.
So9
9
posted on
01/20/2003 1:19:26 PM PST
by
Servant of the Nine
(We are the Hegemon. We can do anything we damned well please.)
To: jriemer
the control group was actually pornography of animals to make sure nobody got excited about that.I assume the man intends humor here, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
To: jriemer
Nice work if you can get it.
11
posted on
01/20/2003 1:26:46 PM PST
by
Oschisms
To: jriemer
I think this issue has been, ahem, aired before. Most of you probably don't want to know exactly how they measured the women's arousal.
To: secretagent
There was no humor intended and that's the reason why I placed the phrase in bold.
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
13
posted on
01/20/2003 1:38:00 PM PST
by
jriemer
To: Beelzebubba
As it should. It makes for good tv and good ratings.
14
posted on
01/20/2003 1:48:28 PM PST
by
College Repub
(http://www.collegehumor.com)
To: Oschisms
". . . . and you can get it, if you try."
15
posted on
01/20/2003 2:08:22 PM PST
by
savedbygrace
(Jesus is Lord)
To: jriemer
To: jriemer

Somebody pinged me to come over here and watch dirty movies.
WELL???????
17
posted on
01/20/2003 2:16:22 PM PST
by
upchuck
(I hope there's armpits. I just love neked armpits!)
To: newgeezer
Thanks to the (ahem) 'miracle' of withholding, "most people" regard April 15 as the day they get a gift from the government. 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.
To: Beelzebubba
Ever notice how any story involving sex gets O'Reilly's attention? 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.
19
posted on
01/20/2003 2:26:10 PM PST
by
Dan Day
To: jriemer
After the Kinsey revelations, animal porn shouldn't surprise me.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson