Why do you have a bias?

[Sean]

It's a simple question really, but it's also one that I'm curious to get some answers to.

Why do you agressively defend a certain political party?/Ideology

• Policy wise, what is this party doing that you agree with
• Historically, what has this party done that you agree with
• What is this party doing that you don't agree with?

Try to keep it fairly focused, and talk about the party/ideology you defend specifically.

[dave654]

I don't support a political party. My bias is towards individual freedom, personal responsibility and reaping the rewards of your efforts, property. Classical Liberalism as exemplified by the framers of the Constitution is still the best way to go. I don't believe the system of government established by the founders still exists today, nor does freedom as intended. Neither major political party works towards the goal of the founding fathers. I only support a party or politician when their goals coincide with mine. I vote for the candidate and party I consider the LEAST bad at the time. Which will undermine my freedom, and wallet, the least.

[Lightbearer]

One can have a preference without a bias. While I support freedom and its rewards, as dave descibes, I will give a reasoned hearing to the arguments of the various forms of statism, without a bias. A bias is a blind spot that does not allow for reason to take its proper role. A bias is to hold onto a belief in the face of all of the counter-evidence, much like faith.

Now as to political positions, since there exists no justification for the control of innocent others, there is no justification for any government at all. This is a necessarily true belief that I recognize and therefore support.

[Osborn F Enready]

For me it is quite simple. I am no parties loyalist, though I do tend to be represented more by the libertarian or constitutionalist party on average.

I believe in our original forefathers, and their noble intentions. They set forth to allow man a place to be recognized as equal, and competent enough individually to allow the root form of self government. They differed in many ways, though they accepted one anothers facts and opinions and set forth to allow a system that could allow for difference.

Religion, exists. Difference, exists. Conformity, exists. Rebellion, exists.

Whether or not you believe in evolution, I think most have to admit that societies only formed to acheive the goals of better life for the group, and to allow further more existential pursuits. They formed together, unified for a cause of a better life, though many had differing thoughts, and rational conceptions of what "they personally" believed.

Our forefathers had the goal of claiming independence, and setting forth the chance for all men to be seen as equal, by laying down the reigns of power to the masses by self rule, and a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It was radical at the time, and many still think today, but they laid the groundwork for the Utopia of minimal government, and maximum liberty, which is I think the best a societal based system could functionally offer. They made a near perfect attempt, to create a system which could endure the changes of time. If only the rate of growth could have been matched in the rate of intrest in government by the people, I feel by now, we would have long been the epitome of what society has to offer mankind overall.

Without liberty, life is a prison like no other. Without an avenue of rebellion, there will always be war. Without justice, corruption shall reign.


I have a lot more to say, but I feel I have already said too much...

[Autophage]

I tend to fall somewhere between a libertarian and a democrat. I feel that the only reason the government should interfere with one's life is to even out their starting ground - ie, affirmative action is a bad idea because it compensates too late in the game.

[Suburbanite]

I agree with Autophage on that one. I think I am a product of a Liberal/Libertarian belief structure. I think my desire for everyone to be happy sometimes gets in the way of doing the right thing. I tend to, like most Liberals, defend the underdog. When it comes to foriegn policy I find myself more moderate. I support a liberation of Iraq, I think Terrorists should be killed, things like that. Socially my liberalism comes out more, I enjoy gender studies and race studies, not to say I believe all of it, but they are topics of interest. I, like a libertarian am wary of government. I've never felt attached to any party though, they all fall short of my demands. Economically I think I am more of a realist, I see the bad and good in different actions and am able to present them, but I find it hard to choose a side. Often when I believe something instead of trying to prove it, I try and disprove it. If it can last through my rigorous mind then I think it makes me stronger when it comes to debating it, though sometimes I do fall short.
In terms of Bias I have a little philosophy that the only way to remove bias is to present all bias.

[Autophage]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Suburbanite,)

In terms of Bias I have a little philosophy that the only way to remove bias is to present all bias.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I like that...

[dotComa]

^I like it too, but good luck doing so. I suppose you could address the most common bias&#39;s that occur in a given topic.

In answer to the questions posed by the topic:

Why do you aggressively defend a certain political party?/Ideology

I firmly support the democratic party because they know that you can&#39;t cut taxes, and increase spending at the same time. Also, they are the lesser of two evils. I know allot of people would hate me for backing a party based on this, but I&#39;m a realist. This is a two party system, and only through rallying fellow democrats, can I get anything I want. In my honest opinion, third parties need to get bigger, but support one of the two parties-provided they become accountable to some of their demands.

Policy wise, what is this party doing that you agree with
Like I said, you can&#39;t cut taxes, increase spending, and expect a good economy for the middle class.

Also, socially, I relate more with the demands of the democratic party. In it&#39;s current form, the Republican party is far too religious+pro ceo for my liking.

Historically, what has this party done that you agree with

FDR is enough of an answer for this question, when describing historically why I support the democrats. To me, he was one of the first leaders in US government to show the advantages to some sort of economic net.

What is this party doing that you don&#39;t agree with?

They&#39;re becoming too much like the Republicans in my opinion. They need to unite behind their ideology, because as I&#39;ve probably made clear, I think it&#39;s the more-right one

[dotcoma]

Sure I&#39;m biased. I&#39;m biased agianst tyranny and elite-sponsored terrorism.

[Gorgo]

Republicans and Democrats are one party, the big business party. There really is no other party recognized in the U.S.

What ideology do I have. I think some level of democracy is a good idea. Democracy meaning that coming from the people as well as benefiting the people. I don&#39;t know what level of democracy, but certainly similar to the one we&#39;re trying to reach here in the U.S., but don&#39;t quite have.

Jim Hightower&#39;s daddy told him once that everyone is better off when everyone is better off. I have to agree with that. Mostly wealth is an arbitrary thing that has little to do with merit. People think the U.S. is a meritocracy, but of course it isn&#39;t.

Why do I aggressively defend my ideology? Because it&#39;s fun, I suppose.

[Suburbanite]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
^I like it too, but good luck doing so. I suppose you could address the most common bias&#39;s that occur in a given topic.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I had been working the last 6 months or so on my own political website (before everyone turned their back and left me high and dry with too much work and no support). The idea behind the news section was a system I have been working on for awhile that allows the reader to hear all sorts of biases on every issue, from main-stream liberal/conservative to communist and nazi press. It was good, perhaps you&#39;ll see it in action some day.

[mojo_the_migo]

I am almost a carbon coppy of Alec, accept for family. Both sides are hard lined Republicans. I was raised conservative, but was a liberal democrat until my first year of college. I have always considered myself a moderate, until a combination of September 11th, CONSTENT racial bating by the left at college, and some major deep thinking on economics/taxes. It all kinda pushed me more to the right.