PDA

View Full Version : Feds Spent $412,930 to Apply Feminist Theories to Study of Glaciers



boogietillyapuke
30th November 2016, 10:14 AM
(CNSNews.com) – Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) released his second “Federal Fumbles” report (https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Federal_Fumbles_2016.pdf)on Monday, citing 100 examples of the misuse of taxpayer dollars through government spending and regulation.
One example: The National Science Foundation (NSF), the report said, spent $412,930 to fund a study that argued "that scientists should use femnist theories and a feminist point of view to sudy glaciers and the relationship between glaciers and humans."
Other examples include a regulation that requires convenience stores that accept food stamps to increase their offerings of "healthy" foods (such as "tofu" and "catfish"), more than $3 million spent for a soap opera to raise awareness about AIDS, and a university spending taxpayer dollars for custom snuggies.
“The American people have signaled a bold new direction for Washington with the election of President-elect Donald Trump,” said Sen. Lankford upon the report’s release. “Although the federal debt wasn’t a major focus during the presidential campaign, it remains a serious impending crisis that must be addressed.”

full document........https://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Federal_Fumbles_2016.pdf

Twisted Titan
30th November 2016, 10:26 AM
Its only patriachal mysogynists who have problems with this bonifide study.

Spectrism
30th November 2016, 11:54 AM
Whoever approved these should be forced to pay for them.

cheka.
30th November 2016, 11:54 AM
when one views these grants in the same mind that sees the VA medical operate....what is one to conclude?

cheka.
30th November 2016, 11:55 AM
Whoever approved these should be forced to pay for them.

yup. and if can't, call in dr without borders to part them out for sale on black market

crimethink
30th November 2016, 12:44 PM
Whoever approved these should be forced to pay for them.

You did, when you voted. Doesn't matter if "your" candidate didn't win. Your vote was your consent.

cheka.
30th November 2016, 12:49 PM
You did, when you voted. Doesn't matter if "your" candidate didn't win. Your vote was your consent.

adhesion is so very sticky

crimethink
30th November 2016, 12:54 PM
adhesion is so very sticky

The System wants everyone to register and then vote. It's in-your-face, everywhere you turn. Why is this? Is it because they "care" about what you think?

Nope. It's because voting is consent. Doesn't matter if "your" candidate doesn't win. You vote, you lose, but participate anyway - and the occult "moral authority" is derived.

The only way to say NO is to refuse to participate.

Spectrism
30th November 2016, 01:54 PM
You did, when you voted. Doesn't matter if "your" candidate didn't win. Your vote was your consent.


Not when they violated the law. Theft on the job or negligence of duty is not something any employer, voter or endorser is responsible for unless they are party to the action or lack thereof which is in violation of the law.