Good news for all the people at the Traditional Values Coalition who spend most of their days Google-searching “huge gay dongs” through their tears: they accidentally also uncovered a 2009 study about gay men’s penis sizes published by the government-funded National Institute of Health. BUT THAT IS TAXPAYER MONIES?? Type type type go all the conservative news sites, who will now prove to everyone using the words “penis” and “anal insertion” 300 times a page that the government just wants to raise taxes so they can spend money on all sorts of gross things that scare and delight the Jesus people. And yes, that’s just a link to a Google search about the study, which yields pages and pages of right-wing blog entries. So there you have it everyone, gay schlong is now a conservative budget issue, as if you were ever expecting otherwise.
Did the government really spend millions of dollars measuring homo junk? No, of course not, but that is absolutely not going to get those millions of closeted fappers over the edge.
And here we are block-quoting the FoxNews.com story, because the libtard outlets have not bothered/ do not care (yet?) about this study from 2009 full of major scientific insights like “men with large penises are happy”:
“This country is broke and we cannot spend money on this kind of stuff,” said Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition which drew attention to the report as part of a six-month investigation into NIH grants for examples of “institutional waste.”
“We’re spending money on wacky stuff,” Lafferty said.
But one of the researchers involved with the report told FoxNews.com that NIH funding was only used to help “analyze and write up” data which had already been collected without the use of taxpayer funds.
“The data were not collected using taxpayer funds,” Jeffrey Parsons, a professor with Hunter College, said in an email. “NIH funds were not used to measure anyone’s penis size.”Beverly Hills surgeon explains at home fix for crepey skin around the arms, legs, and stomach.
He said part of the 2006 grant went toward the primary author’s post-survey analysis as part of his postdoctoral fellowship to “better inform sexual health promotion efforts.”