Sunday, November 23, 2008

UPDATED: Democrats ARE more tolerant of diversity than Republicans


I'm a conservative Democrat.

Which always leads to the question, "Why does a conservative stay a Democrat?"

The answer is obvious. Because Democrats value diversity, in thought, background and opinion, and Republicans don't.

Proof? I've tried to post on both Democratic (predominantly liberal) and conservative (predominantly Republican) sites. And, I've tried to post identical diaries on both, from a conservative Democratic perspective.

Well, today I was kicked off redstate (by Moe Lane) for posting the following:

"I'm conservative, but a Democrat. I can't stand Bush. Never have, never will. As a Democrat, I'll always believe Bush cheated in 2000, and stole in 2004, and screwed up everything in between. (Many Republicans and conservatives would now agree with at least my third point.) But, the Congressional Democrats let him. The Congressional Democrats could have gotten rid of Bush two years ago, constitutionally. It's called impeachment. Pelosi and Bush expressly decided not to try, and forbid impeachment hearings."

On mydd, that statement was dissed. But, on redstate, I was censored:

"We have no interest in interacting with people who think that we are complicit in election fraud. Peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Blam."

Hint to conservatives - - if you can't tolerate listening to diversity of opinion (or reality), you're doomed to permanent minority status.


craigfarmer said...

what world are you in?

I believe, like most democrats in traditional values, and am against the gay rights movement that refuses to be moderate but instead labels those who don't agree with them as bigots.

I'm pro-choice, but prolife democrats are routinely ignored except to get elected in red areas.

I believe in school choice as do most african americans and we are shunned by both political parties.

and so on...

I have been called a bigot because I (like most normal people) wouldn't want "2 married men" living next to me.

I'm a true liberal, what I call a newliberal, trying to do what's right on each issue.

My party is controlled by left-wingers who are really conservatives because they aren't open-minded on most issues.

The issues are endless:

1. smaller government--we as a party almost never propose to cut anything unless it's the military.

2. war-- we as a party are against every war for us, but support wars to help others.

My point is as democrats we should be tolerant of all viewpoints and fight it out in the world of ideas.
But we don't.

i won't list my blog, but i wish there were more indepedent thinking democrats not stuck on the interest group politcs.

Tony said...

I don't know if it's fair to make generalization based on one site.

The site I moderate, which is Republican-leaning, we do not kick people off for their viewpoint, as long as they're civil. Hell, we have self-declared communists posting there.

On the other hand, I know someone who was kicked off of Democrat Underground in 2004 for mildly suggesting that Kerry might not have been the best pick for nominee.

So basically, such policies are set by individuals and don't necessarily reflect the mindset of the 1/3 of the population that make up each party.

S said...

Can you back up the 04 claims? If not, they are conspiracy theories.

(and I know you can't)

FinFanJim said...

I agree with craig - what universe do you reside in? Oh yeah, east coast of Florida, lawyer-ville. An echo chamber of Libs who actually believe men like Al Gore have gravitas, because they tell each other that it is so.

It is silly to make broad generalizations based on two sites. Are RedState and MyDD literally mirrors of each other, in terms of philosophies on who they allow to post or not post? Plus, at least on the Lib site you are a registered Democrat - still one of "them" theoretically.

Also, you may not have been banned (yet) from the Lib site, but that says absolutely ZIP about "tolerance" or "diversity." I've read the comments. You are universally REVILED on that site and if you haven't been banned yet, it is most probably because they view you as a source of amusement. Something to scorn and laugh at, like the Chimps in the zoo. You said before, you're trying to "reach the silent majority" of your fellow dems who you HOPE read there. Newsflash - they all voted for Obama. Deal with it, Barry.

And saying "Bush" cheated in 00 or 04. First, links or proof please? And no citing to Miami Herald articles. Talking points from Howard Dean's fax machine reprinted in the NYTimes or the Miami Herald fails the credibilty test. Second, making the accusation that "Bush" cheated, is playing pretty free and loose with language isn't it (always a no-no for lawyers) - that is the same as saying "Obama" himself cheated, based on the activities of Acorn. Except of course, Obama is directly tied to Acorn - is Bush directly tied in any way, to any alleged groups who allegedly cheated on behalf of Repubs in 00 or 04? Names of groups? Evidence?

Or are you just repeating Miami-Dade lawyer water cooler talk?