Josh Hill wrote:
Apropos of political arguments, here's an article I came across in
Scientific American that goes far to demonstrate why I'm always right
and the conservatives are always wrong! ;-)
http://tinyurl.com/2zqk3b
OK.. I read it... I see the conflict. The gist is:
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain
normally engaged during reasoning," Westen is quoted as saying in an
Emory University press release. "What we saw instead was a network of
emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be
involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in
resolving conflicts." Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in
rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "
(FYI I am a conservative Republican)
The reality is, as is pointed out, the respective candidates were
discovered in heir follies, yet thir supporters maintained their
support. This apparent inconcruity is explained by a "hidden agenda"
aspect.
I want federal taxes reduced since I believe that I pay too much. Kerry
could never be counted on for even thinking to reduce my taxes, but
George Bush at least promises to do so, and may very well have done so
for me. He (George) being of that character keeps my faith in him, and I
will support him even through these and even through the Iraq
tribulations...
Now, those that did support Kerry likewise have a hidden agenda... It
might be more welfare, or gay rights, or pro-choice... something like
that. John, supporting such persuasions, will have maintained the
support of those democrat individuals. Makes perfect sense to me,
despite his own follies.
What I really want to see is a return to the original state of affairs
regarding the electorate.. that only owners of property have the right
to vote (male or female, gay or not, pro or anti- choice; ALL ok by me).
