Defense of Marriage Act Struck Down as Unconstitutional (5-4)

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Eyyyup, still waiting on that explanation.

THE_DRUGGIE

Basically it was non-stop propaganda that led to gay marriage being accepted. Now pedophilia and bestiality are next.

So what are your ideas for pro-pedophilia/beastiality propaganda?

The media right now is testing the waters.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Scientists are biased, just so you know.

AHUGECAT

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

Sorry, but as I'm a scientists and gone through the review process, I know how it works. You are completely wrong. Peer review in science is laregly absent any political bias. It's only when politicians interfere that it becomes biased in that way.

dave123321

[QUOTE="dave123321"] So I was right when I called you a troll when you first started posting frequently nomsayin

Yeah. While I wasn't the most clever, I definitely was hard to detect. In my prime, most thought I was real. Also, my rages were believeable. 

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Hence I said "peer review." So, again. What is your proof?jimkabrhel

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

Sorry, but as I'm a scientists and gone through the review process, I know how it works. You are completely wrong. Peer review in science is laregly absent any political bias. It's only when politicians interfere that it becomes biased in that way.

How can it have no political bias when 90%+ are liberals and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is not even looked at? "Free" of political bias? Just like the Soviet Union right?

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Man, y'all need to chill out.

AHUGECAT

I'm considering it, everyone is attacking me and my sources instead of my arguments. I think this is an important issue, and to be honest, I am not against gay marriage per se, but the way it's happening.

and your sources are from discredited bad sources.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Scientists are biased, just so you know.

AHUGECAT

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Basically it was non-stop propaganda that led to gay marriage being accepted. Now pedophilia and bestiality are next.

AHUGECAT

So what are your ideas for pro-pedophilia/beastiality propaganda?

The media right now is testing the waters.

Yeah yeah, but how?

Also, I'd just like to hear some of your ideas.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

AHUGECAT

Sorry, but as I'm a scientists and gone through the review process, I know how it works. You are completely wrong. Peer review in science is laregly absent any political bias. It's only when politicians interfere that it becomes biased in that way.

How can it have no political bias when 90%+ are liberals and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is not even looked at? "Free" of political bias? Just like the Soviet Union right?

Um, you're not making sense. I'm talking about science, not media or anything else.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Hence I said "peer review." So, again. What is your proof?princeofshapeir

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal."

Of course that adds up to 66%, but let's face it, an idea that is non-liberal will never make it to a "peer review" session, ever. If it doesn't have a pre-determined pro-liberal outcome, then it's thrown away. Prove me wrong. Universities are also known to be liberal havens.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

AHUGECAT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal."

Of course that adds up to 66%, but let's face it, an idea that is non-liberal will never make it to a "peer review" session, ever. If it doesn't have a pre-determined pro-liberal outcome, then it's thrown away. Prove me wrong. Universities are also known to be liberal havens.

So does that study ecienfitically prove bias based on politican affiliation? No.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Scientists are biased, just so you know.

AHUGECAT

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

So what are your ideas for pro-pedophilia/beastiality propaganda?

THE_DRUGGIE

The media right now is testing the waters.

Yeah yeah, but how?

Also, I'd just like to hear some of your ideas.

Sexualizing children:

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/09/02/social-engineers-continue-to-sexualize-children/

As Paul Sims writes for the Daily Mail, Aged just 12, Soya was posing provocatively in a bikini for pictures her mother later posted on the internet in the belief it would launch the youngsters modeling career.

Janis Keaveney also allowed her daughters photographs to be published in Closer magazine in 2008. Under the headline, My girls only 12 but shes already dieting, Soya posed in lacy underwear and a bikini.

Rossomando continues, B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APAs definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of minor-attracted persons as inaccurate and misleading because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

In a July 25, 2011 press release for B4U-ACT, science director and pedophile Howard Kline stated, It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding.

In case Kline might have forgotten, pedophilia itself is a crime. So someone who is engaged in pedophilia cannot be law abiding.

Also, it should be made clear that calling Kline a pedophile is not an ad-hominem attack. Thats what he is. As he stated in his press release, We can help them [the APA] because we are the people they are writing about.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Hence I said "peer review." So, again. What is your proof?lx_theo

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

Oh, it's not biased? Show me where a non-liberal viewpoint is accepted then.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

The media right now is testing the waters.

AHUGECAT

Yeah yeah, but how?

Also, I'd just like to hear some of your ideas.

Sexualizing children:

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/09/02/social-engineers-continue-to-sexualize-children/

As Paul Sims writes for the Daily Mail, Aged just 12, Soya was posing provocatively in a bikini for pictures her mother later posted on the internet in the belief it would launch the youngsters modeling career.

Janis Keaveney also allowed her daughters photographs to be published in Closer magazine in 2008. Under the headline, My girls only 12 but shes already dieting, Soya posed in lacy underwear and a bikini.

Rossomando continues, B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APAs definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of minor-attracted persons as inaccurate and misleading because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

In a July 25, 2011 press release for B4U-ACT, science director and pedophile Howard Kline stated, It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding.

In case Kline might have forgotten, pedophilia itself is a crime. So someone who is engaged in pedophilia cannot be law abiding.

Also, it should be made clear that calling Kline a pedophile is not an ad-hominem attack. Thats what he is. As he stated in his press release, We can help them [the APA] because we are the people they are writing about.

What are your thoughts on anime steadily becoming more popular in the US?

Also, what about beastiality?

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Yeah yeah, but how?

Also, I'd just like to hear some of your ideas.

THE_DRUGGIE

Sexualizing children:

http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/09/02/social-engineers-continue-to-sexualize-children/

As Paul Sims writes for the Daily Mail, Aged just 12, Soya was posing provocatively in a bikini for pictures her mother later posted on the internet in the belief it would launch the youngsters modeling career.

Janis Keaveney also allowed her daughters photographs to be published in Closer magazine in 2008. Under the headline, My girls only 12 but shes already dieting, Soya posed in lacy underwear and a bikini.

Rossomando continues, B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APAs definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of minor-attracted persons as inaccurate and misleading because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

In a July 25, 2011 press release for B4U-ACT, science director and pedophile Howard Kline stated, It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding.

In case Kline might have forgotten, pedophilia itself is a crime. So someone who is engaged in pedophilia cannot be law abiding.

Also, it should be made clear that calling Kline a pedophile is not an ad-hominem attack. Thats what he is. As he stated in his press release, We can help them [the APA] because we are the people they are writing about.

What are your thoughts on anime steadily becoming more popular in the US?

I don't know, hasn't it always been popular? I kinda grew out of anime, but when I was a kid, I was all into it. The Japanese culture is just so different from American.

To answer your second question, I do not believe bestiality should be legalized.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Basically it was non-stop propaganda that led to gay marriage being accepted. Now pedophilia and bestiality are next.

AHUGECAT

So what are your ideas for pro-pedophilia/beastiality propaganda?

The media right now is testing the waters.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

So what are your ideas for pro-pedophilia/beastiality propaganda?

trasherhead

The media right now is testing the waters.

Here's the answer: http://americansfortruth.com/2012/06/21/philadelphia-gay-pride-parade-and-festival-feature-lewd-acts-porn-booth-sadomasochists/#more-11937

(note: the site is kinda graphic, but PG compared to what else they do)

[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

AHUGECAT

Oh, it's not biased? Show me where a non-liberal viewpoint is accepted then.

support of the benefits of GMOs, and studys that show lack of harmful effects from consuming GMOs.  

I don't know, hasn't it always been popular? I kinda grew out of anime, but when I was a kid, I was all into it. The Japanese culture is just so different from American.

To answer your second question, I do not believe bestiality should be legalized.

AHUGECAT

Oh, I was just asking because some folks think that Japan has a pedophilic society and their influence would bleed into American culture that way.

On beastiality: Ok, good thing you don't like it. I was asking more about what your ideas for promoting it were.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lx_theo"] lol, you are so paranoid. No, scientific experiments that are successful in finding a solution must be subject to peer review. They must be capable of being replicated to the same results by anyone with the means to do the experiment. One doesn't have to be liberal to replicate the results. No science evidence is found out of methods that cannot be replicated. Scientific process is designed to find as objective results as possible. People like you are laughable, convincing yourself it must be biased out to get you because it contradicts the view of the world you want to believe.lostrib

Oh, it's not biased? Show me where a non-liberal viewpoint is accepted then.

support of the benefits of GMOs, and studys that show lack of harmful effects from consuming GMOs.  

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

So, the pictures in that thread coolbeans posted in were removed, but the other textual comments were not. Apparently, among the things in the PMs was this: Hitler tried to warn us but we didn't listen, instead we listened to their Jews and their little stories " Damn.PannicAtack

I told you guys that wasn't me. My paternal grandmother is Jewish.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

AHUGECAT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html

Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal."

Of course that adds up to 66%, but let's face it, an idea that is non-liberal will never make it to a "peer review" session, ever. If it doesn't have a pre-determined pro-liberal outcome, then it's thrown away. Prove me wrong. Universities are also known to be liberal havens.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Oh, it's not biased? Show me where a non-liberal viewpoint is accepted then.

AHUGECAT

support of the benefits of GMOs, and studys that show lack of harmful effects from consuming GMOs.  

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

support of the benefits of GMOs, and studys that show lack of harmful effects from consuming GMOs.  

lostrib

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

support of the benefits of GMOs, and studys that show lack of harmful effects from consuming GMOs.  

lostrib

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

AHUGECAT

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

You are truely stupid. Going full troll, I see

[QUOTE="dave123321"] So I was right when I called you a troll when you first started posting frequently nomsayin

Yeah. While I wasn't the most clever, I definitely was hard to detect. In my prime, most thought I was real. Also, my rages were believeable. 

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

AHUGECAT

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

lostrib

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

You are truely stupid. Going full troll, I see

How can you say you are against GMOs then vote for a guy that protects them? LOL, even AFTER he promised to support GMO labeling.

How do you think science gets money? Trees? Scientific experiments are always funded by something, thus, the biases.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

nomsayin

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

my bad, although some how i'm not surprised.

Mmmhm, still waiting on some of those beastiality promotion ideas.

[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

It's not "peer review" when: 90%+ of scientists are liberal, they get their funding from liberal sources, and anything that contradicts the liberal viewpoint is attacked relentlessly without a debate

AHUGECAT

Oh, it's not biased? Show me where a non-liberal viewpoint is accepted then.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

AHUGECAT

You are truely stupid. Going full troll, I see

How can you say you are against GMOs then vote for a guy that protects them? LOL, even AFTER he promised to support GMO labeling.

How do you think science gets money? Trees? Scientific experiments are always funded by something, thus, the biases.

it's not the monsanto protection act, you idiot.  Perhaps they voted for him because he promised to support GMO labeling, or perhaps they voted for more liberal candidates and not Obama at all.  

Yes and they have to state the source of funding as well as conflicts of interest.  

Mmmhm, still waiting on some of those beastiality promotion ideas.

THE_DRUGGIE

Movies are being made.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335789/I-Id-fall-love-like--I-marry-cat-I-says-Karl-Lagerfeld-Fashion-designers-pet-iPad-maids-dines-table.html

Then this.

Its baby steps. Remember in took over 50 years for homosexuality to be accepted.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lx_theo"] lol, you are so paranoid. No, scientific experiments that are successful in finding a solution must be subject to peer review. They must be capable of being replicated to the same results by anyone with the means to do the experiment. One doesn't have to be liberal to replicate the results. No science evidence is found out of methods that cannot be replicated. Scientific process is designed to find as objective results as possible. People like you are laughable, convincing yourself it must be biased out to get you because it contradicts the view of the world you want to believe.lx_theo

Oh, it's not biased? Show me where a non-liberal viewpoint is accepted then.

I think he's getting confused between things being expressed in the scientific community, and them actually being popularized by the media to the rest of society.  I mean you can get almost anything published if you go far enough down the impact score

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Supporting GMOs is a very liberal thing, after all, Obama signed the MONSANTA PROTECTION ACT

AHUGECAT

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

You are truely stupid. Going full troll, I see

lostrib

How can you say you are against GMOs then vote for a guy that protects them? LOL, even AFTER he promised to support GMO labeling.

How do you think science gets money? Trees? Scientific experiments are always funded by something, thus, the biases.

it's not the monsanto protection act, you idiot.  Perhaps they voted for him because he promised to support GMO labeling, or perhaps they voted for more liberal candidates and not Obama at all.  

Yes and they have to state the source of funding as well as conflicts of interest.  

Being against GMOs is NOT a liberal position. In fact, in California, when GMO labeling was being voted on, Democrats such as Manuel Perez, Alexandra Rooker, and Henry Perea were FOR GMO labeling. Even though the Democrats say they are supporting GMO labeling, their actions have been the complete opposite.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

lx_theo

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

Monsanto gives grants all the time.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

yeah, i'm sure that's why all those organic hippies are protesting GMOs.  are you stupid? I'm pretty sure Greenpeace and natural news are liberal crap

and it wasnt the Monsanto protection act, try actually reading the bill moron

lx_theo

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

even with the two party system, there are plenty of far left liberals voting for like the Green party

Someone keep a list of all the sources he links to. Conservapedia (by the way, this isn't laughable because it has a conservative slant, it's laughable because it's notorious for being editted by trolls) Daily Mail Americans for Truth about Homosexuality Narth Any others?PannicAtack

What do you disagree with them about? Did you even read them (actually, don't answer that)?

This is what I am talking about with biases. The scientific community doesn't read dissenting opinions, and neither do you.

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

How can you say you are against GMOs then vote for a guy that protects them? LOL, even AFTER he promised to support GMO labeling.

How do you think science gets money? Trees? Scientific experiments are always funded by something, thus, the biases.

AHUGECAT

it's not the monsanto protection act, you idiot.  Perhaps they voted for him because he promised to support GMO labeling, or perhaps they voted for more liberal candidates and not Obama at all.  

Yes and they have to state the source of funding as well as conflicts of interest.  

Being against GMOs is NOT a liberal position. In fact, in California, when GMO labeling was being voted on, Democrats such as Manuel Perez, Alexandra Rooker, and Henry Perea were FOR GMO labeling. Even though the Democrats say they are supporting GMO labeling, their actions have been the complete opposite.

wanting GMO labeling, is considered by some to be against GMOs.  So that would imply that the democrats/liberals are against GMOs

[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

AHUGECAT

Monsanto gives grants all the time.

so what? 

wanting GMO labeling, is considered by some to be against GMOs.  So that would imply that the democrats/liberals are against GMOs

lostrib

If they were, then they'd stop voting for Democrats, who tend to be against GMO labeling. As I said, being against GMO labeling is NOT a liberal position.

Being gay is normal just not easy life.

[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

Did those hippies vote for Obama? Yes, they did. Therefore they voted for protecting GMOs.

Remember, the scientific community has to get funding. Monsanto probably funded that research.

AHUGECAT

Monsanto gives grants all the time.

About time the rotten-scum bigots in this country got slapped across their faces.

Now, we just need to make it illegal in EVERY state to ban gay marriage and TRUE EQUALITY will be complete.

This DOMA nullifaction is now a Federal precendent, which will be used in the bigot-run states to overturn their discriminatory bans.

A great day.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="lx_theo"] Because its a two party system, and not every candidate (of just two) will agree with the candidate on every point. Its the big points that lead to people voting for a candidate over the other. Not to mention, Obama is very much to the middle of the spectrum over being liberal. So don't try to pull that stupid cop out. Also, that "Monsanto probably funded that research" is just mindless speculation born from your baseless paranoia.lx_theo

Monsanto gives grants all the time.

Show me a link to the study.