FORUMula1.com

[darwin dali]

another example of truth being stranger than fiction, the pastor's name is actually Gaylard.

And the announcer's name is Anna-Lysa Gayle

[What's Burning?]

ReverbPress It’s often been said that instead of being a reputable source for news, Fox News instead comes closer to emulating a televised version of The Onion, the well-known satire news source.

Fox more than lived up to that billing on Tuesday morning’s episode of Fox & Friends when the hosts of the program apparently cited a conservative satire news outlet as the basis for their bizarre choice of topic, lowering the collective IQ of their viewers even further.

It all started when Fox & Friends host Clayton Morris warned the audience that they would have to “say goodbye to your favorite sprinkled doughnut.”

Morris held up a plate of palatable doughnuts and said, “They’re getting rid of doughnuts like these. Doesn’t the FDA have more important things to do than regulate sprinkles?”

It’s Sprinkle-ghazi! The newest Fox News conspiracy theory!

The problem is there is arguably even less of a basis for this conspiracy theory than any of Fox’s other manufactured crises. It seems that the The Arizona Conservative, a blog that seems completely legit at first glance, published an article on December 28th with the headline, GOP to Become Party of ‘Yes’.

Scroll down a little ways in the article, and we see a sub-headline, “FDA to Announce Ban on Sprinkles”. Here is the article:

“Though the amount of trans fats in the sprinkles that are used to adorn donuts and ice cream cones is extremely low, the Food and Drug Administration is determined to eliminate these items from the food chain.

There is no good reason why anyone should consume these non-nutritional pollutants in our food supply,” said FDA nutrition expert Harley Sain. “The donuts and ice cream cones where sprinkles are usually found are bad enough on their own without this worthless addition.”

Sain admitted that “if it were totally up to me, we’d be banning the donuts and ice cream, too. No one needs to eat these to survive. The world would be healthier without them. Removing them from the diet is more of a long-term goal. We need to move in increments that won’t stir up too much opposition. As people gradually become more accustomed to greater government control over what they are allowed eat we can take larger strides toward a perfectly calibrated diet for all.”

In the meantime, “if the lack of sprinkles deters only one person from consuming a donut or ice cream cone, well, that’s a fringe benefit that no one could reasonably oppose,” Sain added.

Most critical thinking folks would quickly deduce that this must be satire. If the name “Harley Sain” didn’t give it away, maybe the part where it says, “A Satirical Look at Recent News” at the top of the article just below the headline would offer a pretty solid clue that the article is satire. The only author on the page, John Semmons, writes nothing but satire, in fact.

The satire article was picked up by conservative cesspools Free Republic and Got News Wire, and inevitably was passed around as truth, since so many of President Obama’s detractors really do believe that he goes to bed at night thinking about how to deprive the rest of us from eating doughnut sprinkles.

Now, we’re not saying that Morris and co-idiot Jason Lusk read the article themselves, but somehow they picked up on the false story and actually went on the air with it. They certain ran with the story, playing into the “Obama is a petty dictator who wants to control every aspect of our lives” narrative that so many Fox News viewers fall for.

[What's Burning?]

Studies suggests that the amount you spend on your wedding day correlate to the duration of the marriage.

ZY Yet until Emory University economics professors Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon decided to organize a study last year, no one had paused to question whether this out-of-control spending was having an impact on, well, the actual marriage. Spoiler alert, it does. And it’s not a positive one. Francis and Mialon surveyed more than 3,000 people — all of whom have been married just once — and found that across income levels the more you dish out on the Big Day, the shorter the marriage. Now, that’s a raw deal.

Guys, investing between $2,000 and $4,000 on an engagement ring means you’re 1.3 times more likely to get divorced compared with the more frugal fellows who only allocate between $500 and $2,000.

For both sexes, spending more than $20,000 on the wedding ups the odds of divorce by 3.5 times compared with couples who keep it between $5,000 and $10,000.

For the best odds, though, keep the festivities to less than $1,000.

[stonemonkey]

Studies suggests that the amount you spend on your wedding day correlate to the duration of the marriage.

ZY Yet until Emory University economics professors Andrew Francis and Hugo Mialon decided to organize a study last year, no one had paused to question whether this out-of-control spending was having an impact on, well, the actual marriage. Spoiler alert, it does. And it’s not a positive one. Francis and Mialon surveyed more than 3,000 people — all of whom have been married just once — and found that across income levels the more you dish out on the Big Day, the shorter the marriage. Now, that’s a raw deal.

Guys, investing between $2,000 and $4,000 on an engagement ring means you’re 1.3 times more likely to get divorced compared with the more frugal fellows who only allocate between $500 and $2,000.

For both sexes, spending more than $20,000 on the wedding ups the odds of divorce by 3.5 times compared with couples who keep it between $5,000 and $10,000.

For the best odds, though, keep the festivities to less than $1,000.

Well duhh! If someone needs that much spent on them or if someone thinks they need to spend that much to keep their partner happy then something's wrong, unless you're really well off and that sort of money doesnt make much of a dent in your wealth.

[stonemonkey]

Russia says drivers must not have 'umpalumpa disorders

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30735673" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Russia has listed transsexual and transgender people among those who will no longer qualify for driving licences.
Fetishism, exhibitionism and voyeurism are also included as "mental disorders" now barring people from driving.

I doubt this is going to solve their traffic accident problems.

[Hammer278]

Brent Crude Oil now below $49!!!!!!

I bet THE WB couldn't have made this up just a couple of months back. If I'm not mistaken, you guys in the US have floating rates (gas prices change by the day) right?

[CookinFlat6]

Just get ready to load up $65 call options once certain countries and cartels have been effectively wiped out

[sagi58]

Brent Crude Oil now below $49!!!!!!

I bet THE WB couldn't have made this up just a couple of months back. If I'm not mistaken, you guys in the US have floating rates (gas prices change by the day) right?

Same thing, in Canada! Sometimes it feels like they change by the minute.

I can't believe I filled up the other day at $0.849/L, whereas the average
has been hovering around $1.30 ish, the past year or so.

[CigarGuy]

Brent Crude Oil now below $49!!!!!!

I bet THE WB couldn't have made this up just a couple of months back. If I'm not mistaken, you guys in the US have floating rates (gas prices change by the day) right?

Daily. Can't do the conversion in my head but they are down to close to $2 a gallon.
And we get that Canadian pipeline going, they'll be down to, well, close to $2 a gallon.....
BUT, we will lessen out dependency on Middle East oil and replace it with that sweet, SWEET Canadian stuff!

[stonemonkey]

2$ a gallon! We're down to £1.09/L is that about $7 a gallon or something?

[sagi58]

So... If I'm paying 84.9 cents / Liter here, I'd be paying $3.21 CDN for a US gallon, compared to your $2.00 US.
Too bad we can't be paying 52.8 cents CDN for a L!!

Remind me, why do we want that pipeline?




((based on 84.9 CDN cents/L converts to 71.6 US cents /L and 1 US Gallon is the equivalent of 3.78541L))

[sagi58]

2$ a gallon! We're down to £1.09/L is that about $7 a gallon or something?

£1.09/L = $1.65 US/L

For the US gallon, you'd be paying £4.12.

[stonemonkey]

Was forgetting US gallon is smaller, but still

1.65x3.785=$6.25 US per US gallon

[darwin dali]

So... If I'm paying 84.9 cents / Liter here, I'd be paying $3.21 CDN for a US gallon, compared to your $2.00 US.
Too bad we can't be paying 52.8 cents CDN for a L!!

Remind me, why do we want that pipeline?




((based on 84.9 CDN cents/L converts to 71.6 US cents /L and 1 US Gallon is the equivalent of 3.78541L))

I sure don't want the pipeline. It would be for the dirtiest fuel in the world

[sagi58]

Was forgetting US gallon is smaller, but still

1.65x3.785=$6.25 US per US gallon

The $1.65 is the US currency of your £1.09, so when you multiply that by 3.78541L (in a US gallon), you'd pay £4.12 for the gallon.