Why the GOP is "perceived" to be out of touch

[specific_name]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

Only a typical out of touch coastal wannabe radical would make this "argument". I guess you think anything short of Castro's Cuba is basically "rightwing" but almost nobody would agree with that.

Um, okay. I'm not entirely sure what my geographical location would have to do with my perspective; other than some silly attempt to go ad hominem on your part.

Most media produced and consumed in the United States is created by the private sector - newspapers, televisions stations etc are mostly owned by corporations hence my characterization of the American media as corporate. It seems fairly obvious and not terribly controversial.

The term corporate doesn't even denote a political ideology, as clearly "liberal" (in the American sense) stations such as MSNBC are still owned by major corporations. There's always going to be some bias in favor of the capitalist perspective when media is privately held; especially by major corporations. I can't believe this idea has provoked a reaction in anyone.

[afleitch]

I'd like to point out that the Democratic controlled Congress spent most of last December debating the Repeal of DADT (and the START Treaty) rather then passing a budget. Clearly, homosexual rights is just as important an issue to the left as it is to the right.

I would have thought that DADT and START were military/defence issues, no?

START was (it was also still a pointless waste of time in my opinion but that's neither here nor there). I just mentioned that because they spent a lot of time on it as well. You could call DADT a defense issue, but it is a defense issue about LGBT issues.

I think first and foremost DADT was a defence issue, as the effect of DADT putting aside rank and file, was significant in other fields, particulary in military strategy, interpreter positions etc. This was having a damaging effect on the armed forces.

[Paul Kemp]

I'd like to point out that the Democratic controlled Congress spent most of last December debating the Repeal of DADT (and the START Treaty) rather then passing a budget. Clearly, homosexual rights is just as important an issue to the left as it is to the right.

I would have thought that DADT and START were military/defence issues, no?

START was (it was also still a pointless waste of time in my opinion but that's neither here nor there). I just mentioned that because they spent a lot of time on it as well. You could call DADT a defense issue, but it is a defense issue about LGBT issues.

Damn Harry Truman pushing his liberal agenda on the military.

[CJK]

Liberals talk just about their radical positions gay marriage and abortion as much as Republicans do.  Its just that Democrats are not hounded by the liberal media. 

I think you mean corporate media, so I'll bold your mistake. I would love to hear from an advocate of this asinine phrase, "liberal media," to give me a convincing argument in favor of their position. Why would the media be left of center when it's financed by the wealthiest corporations the world has ever known. I would ask for some common sense, but that's perhaps too much from the party of paranoia and demagoguery.

Only a typical out of touch coastal wannabe radical would make this "argument". I guess you think anything short of Castro's Cuba is basically "rightwing" but almost nobody would agree with that.

Um, okay. I'm not entirely sure what my geographical location would have to do with my perspective; other than some silly attempt to go ad hominem on your part.

Most media produced and consumed in the United States is created by the private sector - newspapers, televisions stations etc are mostly owned by corporations hence my characterization of the American media as corporate. It seems fairly obvious and not terribly controversial.

The term corporate doesn't even denote a political ideology, as clearly "liberal" (in the American sense) stations such as MSNBC are still owned by major corporations. There's always going to be some bias in favor of the capitalist perspective when media is privately held; especially by major corporations. I can't believe this idea has provoked a reaction in anyone.

You said there there was no liberal media because it was "corporate" and I pointed out the idiocy of that statement. Liberalism and corporations are not incompatible, nor are liberalism and capitalism.