Not funny. You're a loser twat supporting a Manchurian candidate.

^^^ has a huge amygdala.

Huh?????? What does Robert Jeffress have to do with Mitt Romney? Jeffress isn't Romney's pastor. Jeffress isn't a mormon. He is some pastor in Texas that says Mormonism is a cult. What is his connection to Romney?

If this was a mistake then they definitely caught it in the following months and issued a correction. To think otherwise is naive.

If it's a mistake it's on record. Now the libtards have to find it. Riot will troll instead.

His long national reputation for hate speech (anti-Mormon, anti-gay, etc.) and then his huge endorsement of Romney. Jeffress is very well known nationally and the pastor of one of the biggest churches in Texas.

But again, some don't falsely attribute hate by mere association. Others do.

There is no association between Romney and Jeffers. Who cares if he's voting for him. I'm sure all the New Black Panthers are voting for Obama. I'm sure all the KKK members are voting for Romney. You can't help who supports you. Ninety percent of Americans are going to be pulling for either Romney or Obama. There will be murderers and rapists supporting both candidates. That's not an association. Obama and Rev. Wright had a true relationship.Wright was his pastor.

Rev Wright is old news. Stay focused on the economy and relevant missteps such as the fast and furious program and the use of a drone to kill an American teen in Yemen. Ignore the fools who would vote for a canned ham if it suited their agenda.

The article is typical propaganda in that the whole article is pretty much half-truths. Half-truths are not outright lies. They have some truth to them but they are very misleading because they take a lot of things out of context and they only give you half the story.

The most interesting part of the article was at the beginning: “There were images that caused fear and disgust -- a spider crawling on a person's face, maggots in an open wound -- but also images that made you feel happy: a smiling child, a bunny rabbit.” The researchers noted two differences between the groups. The researchers studied their subjects' reactions by tracking their eye movements and monitoring their “skin conductivity” – a measure of one's autonomic nervous system's reaction to stimuli.

Conservatives showed much stronger skin responses to negative images, compared with the positive ones. Liberals showed the opposite. And when the scientists turned to studying eye gaze or "attentional" patterns, they found that conservatives looked much more quickly at negative or threatening images, and [then] spent more time fixating on them."

It was very interesting to me in that I came to a totally different conclusion than the author. My conclusion is that the conservatives behaved like normal people. Who wouldn't have a huge negative reaction when they see something horrific? I guess the answer is liberals. Liberals live in denial. If they see something horrific, they just shrug it off like it never even happened. That's actually not a very good evolutionary trait or survival trait. I think natural selection would reward the people that vividly remember something that is horrific and/or threatening and are vigilant in avoiding such threats in the future.

In addition, a person who has a real heart and is compassionate is going to be very upset when they see something that is disturbing. I am like that. I am certainly not ashamed of that. At least I'm not like a liberal who could look at something horrific and then just shrug it off and have very little or no reaction to it. It is bizarre that the author thinks this is a good trait (to have little or no reaction to something horrific).

And they are dismissive of history and think it will never happen in their lifetime.

They are being conditioned for the slaughter.

All I want to know is this........
 

...When a person is writing a bio for someone who is the first African-American president of The Harvard Law Review, do they invent facts such as "born in Kenya" just for the hell of it?

I think Obama is a US citizen even if he was born in Kenya. The only question is the law about a President having to be a "naturalized" US citizen. I have heard arguments both ways on this. I'm not clear on what the law is. Some experts say that if Obama was born in Kenya that he would not be eligible to President. Other experts say that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he would still be eligible to be President. I haven't looked into that issue so I have no idea what the answer is.