This video is a propaganda piece of crap and is not based on the truth. The Democratic Republican party was the Democrat Party of the time and responsible for most of the anti-Racist legislations in the south and the battle of the South to maintain White Supremacy. This party supported KKK and voted against every antiSlavery law. This is why American education is completely fucked because LIBERAL teachers teach this version of history that is not true at all!
@leasel7 Yes, the solid south of Democrats. Conservative Democrats. Not liberal democrats. The two parties switched to what we see them today around the 60s. I think you are a product of a faulty education system.
@leasel7 No, there was a geopolitical shift of the parties, they were not renamed. After Lyndon Johnson decided to be sensible and work for civil rights, instead of hoping the localities would solve the problems themselves.The conservatives of the Democratic party, which was pretty much the south, switched to the Republican party, and the democratic party then became more liberal, even though it is more mixed than the republican party is. Parties dont matter.
@Bencc94: You are wrong! You mean Lyndon B. Johnson? Democrat Republicans of 1833 referred to themselves as "Democrats", these are the idiots that ruled the South. By 1850, the newly established Democrat party ruled the South and did so for a hundred years. For instance in Alabama - look it up - Democrats party ruled that state until 1980, meaning the Democrats enforced racial laws. First Republican was elected in 1986, but when you go to school - Liberal teachers teach a different version.
@leasel7 You are too hung up on generalizations and over-simplifications.Just because a majority of the party changes does not mean there wont be stragglers.But there is no point in going on with this, because no matter what I say, you will denounce it any way possible, twisting history on your whim. Just like a stubborn conservative, cant see outside their bubble.I hate to say such things, but its hard not to when trying to reason with people like you. Well, whatever, have a nice day.
@Bencc94: Over generalization? A party that changed its name from Democrat Republican to Democrat party ... is that generalization or over-simplification? And how do you know that you are telling the truth? I just gave you the time period in which Democrats ruled Alabama and instead of rebutting you twisted every piece of crap making yourself the most intellectual piece of crap ever existed on this page? You are pathetic. Democrat party is the only party that redefined the word SEX, you sick!
All the racist States in the South were controlled by the Liberal Party - Democratic Republican, that Party was later renamed Democrat Party. Democrats today twisted this history and take credits only on the good things. When it comes to racism, the claimed that the south was controlled by Republicans therefore conservatives are racist. Really? Republican party took control of the South way later, Democrats did the Lynching and voted against every anti-slavery legislation. Know the truth!
Liberal/progressives are on the side of the great majority of working men and women. The New Deal is what made the "middle-class" the first in human history! No bubbles for 50 years until the Lie came back and tricked the masses! When we do well.. all do well and you have a much more safer society. Greed is evil.
Our founders were radical liberals! Against the Tories, the monarchy ie the ruling class.. Lincoln and the North reaffirmed it in 1865 with it's victory over the confederacy. FDR re-re affirmed it in 1932 and President Barrack Obama in 2008. CONservatives is a con! The wealthy trying to trick us that everything is just hunkadorie when there is much work to do. They don't want to be exposed for there maniacal thievery and underhandedness. Liberal/progressives are on the side of the people.
@jedi2rock It's good to have conservatives to keep liberals/progressives from changing things faster than we can handle them, but we no longer have true conservatives. The closest we have are libertarians, the people who actually want small government. Neo-conservatives want big government, but they want to shift from social safety to social prejudice, enforcing the values that belong only to their (usually traditional and extremist) religion.
In the 1960s, liberal and even moderate Republicans helped liberal Democrats pass legislation giving blacks, women and religious minorities equal access to jobs, housing, voting, and public accomodations.
Conservative Southern and Western Democrats stood in the way, and they, or in some cases their sons, became Republicans. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I have friends who are black and they tell me that welfare if anything has hurt black people from achieving their potential as it became a primary source of income
and discouraged people from developing their own skills and efforts to manage on their own.
Tell me who was pro welfare and who was against.
I'm not a liberal or a conservative and definitely not a libertarian.
I hate demagogues whether they are liberal or conservatives and I have never met a libertarian who wasn't one.
Too bad that was only TV folks. To see a politician show that much courage, determination and conviction, and not to be labeled as a "rouge" or just "bat shit crazy" would be astonishing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@milesthemelonator Fuck you. Medicare/SocialSecurity? U know that $14T debt problem we have? 3/4s of it came from both these bankrupt programs. Civil rights/end to segregation? How are blacks doing these days? I wouldn’t know; I segregated to the suburbs years ago to avoid being shot/robbed. Clean air act? Try the ‘move all manufacturing jobs overseas to countries that don’t have a clean air act.’ And it's Woman/Blacks who overwhelming vote for these Leftist, fuckhead disastrous agendas!
@mdstalla And just how did Women's Suffrage, the outlawing of segregation, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act ruin this country???
@GarrisonHat Well; let's see. Medicare/SocialSecurity? U know that $14T debt problem we have? 3/4s of it came from both these bankrupt programs. Civil rights/end to segregation? How are blacks doing these days? I wouldn’t know; I segregated to the suburbs years ago to avoid being shot/robbed. Clean air act? Try the ‘move all manufacturing jobs overseas to countries that don’t have a clean air act.’ And it's Woman/Blacks who overwhelming vote for these Leftist, fuckhead disastrous agendas!
Maybe this will clarify- I knew a state senator who was just hated, a minority party member he could use obscure rules or bare-knuckle toughness in debate to throw a wrench in the works, a real pain in the ass. He told me it's more important to stop bad bills than to pass the good ones. And while his state lurched to the right, he defended the needy and children and the mentally ill from draconian cuts. That beats having friends.
@m1ndfr34k117 sure, I get the concern and we all get tired of the fight, but some things are worth fighting for. When people are without decent healthcare, our schools are underfunded, our environment is severely threatened, so is a woman's right to choose and vital workers rights, it's far more important to fight for what's right and just than to "be nice" and lose these ideals. Way, way too important.
as far as party, from a sheer logistics standpoint a legislative body doesn't work without parties, it gives more power to the little guy, but mostly the people who say they vote the person not the party often respond to TV ads or the sign in his neighborhood, not issues. It's not just pettiness, there are reasons...education, environment, health care, choice, many more...I won't vote Republican.
First, the debt is absolutely NOT a major concern, it's a phony "crisis". Wars always increase debt, recession increases debt, and Bush's massive tax cut's making it explode. You said the left does nothing, Obama does too little, but he isn't the left. The "crisis" is part of the right's attack on the safety net, and political hot buttons like public radio and Planned Parenthood, doing nothing about the debt but giving the hard right something to love.
Liberals of BOTH parties supported the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Conservatives of BOTH parties opposed them. Then the conservative Republicans welcomed the segregationist Democrats and kicked the Northeastern guys like Rockefeller out. If Abraham Lincoln came back today, with the same ideas, they'd call him a Communist. How do we know? Because that's what they called Theodore Roosevelt when he ran in 1912, and he was more conservative than Lincoln.
While it makes for good TV (and the West Wing was very very good TV), the American electoral system is fundamentally flawed. It's therefore not surprising that the US is in such a mess right now - socially and economically. In fact it would be surprising if it wasn't.
This has to be based on former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme's defence of the word "socialist" in a 1982 debate. The similarities are to many to be accidental. Search for "Därför är jag demokratisk socialist" and you will find it, in Swedish naturally.
@draber12 And the first and foremost liberals were the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, radical revolutionaries who threw off the tyranny of the old conservative mold. The modern Tea Party is a bunch of whining babies who are a disgrace to everything America stands for. They are allowed to express their ignorant views only because of the radical liberalism that built this country. America progressed to greatness on liberal ideas and will only flourish if liberal ideas triumph.
@LMarcC I disagree; the liberals do not quite meant the same thing today. You see, liberals are always looking for change. We needed that back in the day, for civil rights, voting rights, independence, etc. However, sometimes things don't need to be changed. As the old saying goes, if it's not broke, don't fix it. You can hardly tell me liberals have been doing well for us lately. Something they oppose? Decreasing the deficit. Again, it was a good thing to be liberal. Was.
@m1ndfr34k117 If we are not moving forward we are moving backward. We always need to move forward. Liberals do no oppose decreasing the deficit. In fact, liberal policies are more robust than conservative policies in deficit reduction. As any business person knows you can't succeed only by cutting costs. Yes it is essential that we cut costs. But it is similarly critical to increase revenue. Decreasing the deficit will require cooperation and forward thinking, not just talking points.
@LMarcC Sure, but moving forward in what way? Moving in the wrong direction is just as bad as not moving at all. I agree; what we need is for the parties to come together. I personally wish there were no parties as it just encourages, indeed endorses team choosing instead of choosing the best leader depending on current issues. That being said, perhaps you haven't seen the proposed 2012 budget or heard of the stimulus package, on top of other outrageously expensive spending endeavors.
@m1ndfr34k117 See, I sharply disagree. The party is the ONLY mechanism in which common people have any say in what's happening. I don't have much money, make very few campaign contributions, but by being a very active member of my party I HAVE made a great deal of difference in helping candidates who shared more of my ideals than others. Nobody shares ALL, but us radicals have to take the best we can get.
The legislative branch also ONLY works with our 2-party system.
@PrisonerNumber9653 No it's not? Why can't the people vote for PEOPLE they like, instead of the PARTY they like, hmm? Our branch could easily work without parties. Find people who recognize that they all want the same end they just have different means of getting it and debate until a solution is reached. Why argue over petty 'party' problems? The problem with parties is it becomes team vs team instead of picking who's best.
@m1ndfr34k117 NOBODY is forced to vote for a person they don't want to. But having parties DOES give you a basic outline of where one's views generally run, obviously there's some crossover in the middle, although the Dems are far closer now. NO, the legislative branch absolutely would NOT work without parties. And we DON'T all want the same end. I want the right of health care to be recognized, the GOP wants profits to stand higher than people. I want public schools funded, GOP wants vouchers
@PrisonerNumber9653 I never said they were. Sure, they do, but you don't need a party to tell you what you believe and if you do, that's a problem. Yes, it would work without parties. We do want the same end; we all want this country and it's people to be the best and to be prosperous. You want healthcare; so do we, we just don't agree with how you dems want to pay for it. The GOP wants people to work hard and earn what they get and not rely on the government for it. People like to twist that...
@m1ndfr34k117 It's NOT team vs team, there's very, very, VERY few votes in which it's a straight party line, there are tons of moderate to conservative Democrats, and a few relatively moderate Republicans. There are Dems (unfortunately) who are anti-choice, who support the "lower taxes" mantra, and who are in the pockets of Big Oil (Looking at you, Congressman Boren) and there were Republicans who supported health care reform.
But it DOES give some general idea, and gives the little guy a say.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Also, it is team vs team. Although not the majority, there is a healthy percentage of people who vote for their party instead of who they believe in. What do you hear on the media? It's always Republicans do this, Democrats to this to counter, it's always Reps vs. Dems. Why not hear Congress works for new law to reduce drugs? Why not that? Because IT IS team vs. team.
The little guy would have a say party or no party and if you need a party to know what you believe in...wow
@m1ndfr34k117 how legislatures work without the system, look at nations with 3 or 4 or a dozen, and you have nobody in the majority, nobody directing things, nobody chairing committees, nothing gets done. So, what happens? They form coalitions. If we had two more parties, say, the Democrats caucus with the Green Party to form a coalition with a majority. And it would work fine for a while, then Dems weasel out on environmental protection, the Greens leave, and the government collapses.
@PrisonerNumber9653 No man, it wouldn't come to that. I'm saying why does it always have to be a 'defeat the other side' mentality? Why not work together and settle differences? No, it's let's see what dirty info we can scoop up on the other guy and focus on that instead of running the country well. It's freakin' insane.
By the way, it is broke and it needs to be fixed. Both sides of the equation. And there is nothing wrong with business and business success. But we need a cop on the beat to keep order. The financial crisis was undoubtedly furthered by programs reducing the supervision and regulation of financial institutions and the inadequacy of supervision by those regulators who remained. One cannot oppose the fix and then scream that things are not working. Creative cooperation is essential.
@m1ndfr34k117 Absolutely false. Not only do liberals NOT oppose reducing the deficit, the ONLY PEOPLE serious about doing so are on the left. The debt "crisis" is entirely manufactured, it's not a crisis at all, the right is only PRETENDING so they can slash the safety net all the more.
But there IS a plan to get rid of the deficit and get us surplus within 20 years, from the House Progressive Caucus.
You'll have to Google it, cause God know the so-called "liberal media" ain't talking about it.
@PrisonerNumber9653 Absolutely false. Perhaps you haven't seen Obama's proposed 2012 budget. It would TRIPLE the national debt in one year. TRIPLE IT! Republicans have cut more money from the deficit and that's a solid fact. Look it up. Even then, are you telling me that being so far in debt as we are is okay?! Jesus Christ, you are a liberal.
@LMarcC The other funny thing here? The first tea parties were protesting against the great power corporations (Namely the tea company) had achieved, while today's "tea party" is entirely corporate backed, and supports NOTHING but further help for the wealthy and big business.
@ohdancingshoesofmine: Iam proud to be a conservative and not a Wall street, public-pissing, defecating, weed-smoker, government blood sucker liberal like those at occupy-Wall street! I would rather join the Teaparty and go to the election polls and kick out those we dislike than occupying government buildings and intimidating politicians like the radical communist Obama sympathizers across the states. You idiots obviously don't see the nastiness and stupidity of the Liberal left!
@Cnd1867 actually Lincoln wouldnt be a conservative, the conservative political ideology is is by its very definition backward looking, anti-change and anti-progress, what Lincoln was a massive change to the status quo, so call him a classic liberal in the economic since and social since, but conservatism isnt classical liberalism its CONSERVATISM (pro-family, pro-status quo pro-hierarchy and pro big government who tells people who are naturally limited how to run lives)
Here in Australia the centre-right party is called the Liberal Party. I can confirm that America's spin of the word 'liberal' is in fact unique. The rest of the world understands that liberalism and socialism are not the same thing, its only Americans who assume all libs are socialists. Its like calling all conservatives fascists, pure idiological spin delivered by the mouth of a fool.
It is really sad how many people vote in this country that are stupid enough to believe stuff like this. LIncoln was a Republican, but wait...we'll call him a LIBERAL Republican. DEMOCRATS stood in the way of the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights movement...but we'll call them CONSERVATIVES because it fits our definitions.
Reality is the modern liberal is very socialist. If you don't believe that you are very misguided. Go read the socialist party platform and tell me it isn't familiar.
Actually, it was the Dixiecrat faction of the democrats that opposed the civil rights movement as well as the 19th amendment, and they've up my party since the sixties. Basically, in general, the south stood in the way of progress. There are also different kinds of liberals. The liberal republicans referred to here are the Rockefeller Republicans, which is what I am. We're still here. We've just been powerless ever since the whole Reagan revolution. Eisenhower was one of us.
What do conservatives do? They don't do anything but protect their own interests. They are incapable of empathy for anyone else. Middle and lower class Republicans don't even realize their leaders don't have their interests at heart, that they protect the very rich, the almost very rich, and very rich corporations.
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." ~ Abraham Lincoln.
Santos is TECHNICALLY right...but he neglects to mention that the term "liberal" has changed tragically over the years.
Wy back when, "liberal" meant "liberty". John Locke was a "classical" liberal.
Nowadays, "liberal" means the exact opposite. Vinick was right to challenge him on it. Santos basically sidestepped the issue by trying to link CLASSICAL liberalism with MODERN liberalism.
Lincoln was not a "modern liberal", by any stretch of the imagination.
@RushLimborg You could not be more wrong. The list of achievements of modern liberals goes against economic libertarianism--it takes away the liberties (the ability to do whatever you want) of people. In economic terms, this means taxing for government programs which provide for the public good. You are correct in saying that modern liberals seek to take away economic liberties, but modern liberals expand social liberties and expand the power of the power of the government, which Lincoln did.
@RushLimborg Lincoln NOT a modern liberal?? In Congress, he spoke out against the US-Mexican War. Under his Presidency, the first national income was enacted, the government assisted the railroads in acquiring land to construct the transcontinental railroad, the Morrill Act (proceeds from federal land sales to create agricultural colleges) was enacted, and the Department of Agriculture was established. He was endorsed for reelection in 1864 by Karl Marx! The very definition of a modern liberal
Abe also supported the Corwin Amendment which would of protected slavery, if the south would of stayed Abe lincoln would of made slavery part of the constitution. They left anyways.
Abe Lincoln father was a slave owner himself. Abe's wife and her family (who abe preferred over his own) were major slave owners. Abe himself blaimed slavery for forcing small time non-slave owners into bankruptcy. Had the slave states Maryland, (and more importantly his home) Kentucky joined the confederacy Lincoln was said he was much less likely to go to war. Missori and Rhode Island stayed Union also, but who cares about them :P.
Go there and look at the picture. Those were found regularly in NYC tap water. Keep drinking the tap water there after reading up on what a copepod is.
@Sunmasta What are you talking about? New York City has some of the cleanest tap water nationwide according to studies. Even Bloomberg is starting a campaign to encourage New Yorkers to drink it instead of bottled water:
The point is that he was drinking water in the first place Fiz... meaning, who does he have to thank for the ability to drink clean water when he is thirsty in the first place? The fact that is clean is what makes it irony, not solely the act of him drinking.
Not just tap water. ALL water in America that is distributed is regulated as a result of the Clean Water Act. The only way that water is not affected is if it were flown in from another country.
@Sunmasta "who does he have to thank for the ability to drink clean water when he is thirsty in the first place?"
Given that he's relatively well off it's reasonable to assume that if the provision of clean water took place in the context of a free market he would be able to afford it, so the answer to your question is... no one.
@cbhatt It's funny when liberals try to justify their idiotic accomplishments by using labels that don't apply. If I believed the morons on the left I would think that Conservatives wanted us living with no electricity, dirty water, no money, women that live as slaves, black people as slaves, and only white men could own property.
... and by my party, I mean Republicans. You post-Reagan republicans are simply usurpers of my party. It was Nixon(Megalomaniacal personality aside, he was an American centrist.) who began the EPA. We started corporate regulation. It was us under Eisenhower who built the interstate highway system. It was Eisenhower who began DARPA who later developed what would become the internet in the future. You common republican today are simply tools for religious and corporate interests.
I love conservatism and its principles, but its hard to support them (or restraint insults) when they are just corporate mouthpiece that Eisenhower warned us about.
@YoungSpotUBrock: really? you ever investigate Obama supporters? The billionaires like Soros and the CEOs of big corporations @ Walstreet and Holly Wood. You are so dumb no wonder you don't understand the real truth about the Class warfare of the left. Look at Solyndra who took $500 million of tax payers money under directives from Obama ... find out who benefits from that handout, Obama big-time financier! check how many Obama fundraiser benefited from the bailout.
@ETF1964 First: I would rather live in a country with a deficit than one where the elderly and poor are given no support.
Second: Republicans do not have a plan to do anything better. They want to cut taxes, but still keep full funding for the military and seniors... it makes no sense. That would create an even worse deficit.
Third: I don't see how Civil Rights and giving women the right to vote are bankrupting the country.
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act. The Voting Rights act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act (notice how Vinnick drinks water at this point)."
If Lincoln were around today, espousing the same policies, today's Republicans would call him a communist. They practically called Theodore Roosevelt that when he tried to regain the Presidency. The John Birch Society (the Tea Party of its day) called Eisenhower "an active agent of the communist conspiracy." Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, running on their records (negotiating with the Soviets by the former, pro-choice & pro-gay rights by the latter) couldn't get nominated in today's GOP.
I was racking my brain to figure out where I've seen the older gentleman before. I didn't recognize anything I immediately found online, but then it hit me. He is the guy that hosts those science documentaries. I think the last documentary he did was on dreams and the brain. He has a very distinct voice. I usually enjoy his documentaries. Glad I figured that one out before I went to bed.
@Americaisgreat123...like your site, and your post, but it made me chuckle. You must be young. The older gentlemen is Alan Alda. He is, in fact, the guy from the science documentaries. But he's famous for his movies and most of all as the lead on M*A*S*H, widely regarded as one of the best TV shows ever. Alda is a major TV star and award-winning actor, a great get for TWW.
@Americaisgreat123 That older gentleman is Alan Alda, an Emmy and Academy award winning actor/writer/director (and yes, host on the Science Channel). Oh, and he was Hawkeye for 11 seasons of the M*A*S*H television series. :)
What about democrats like Grover Cleveland and Martin Van Buren,they would be considered Libertarian and even Conservative by todays standards.
The Democrats have only being progressive since Woodrow Wilson,before that they were practically different.
JFK was not that ''Liberal'' or progressive either,he cut taxes for example he lowered the marginal tax rates down from 90 to 70 per cent and believed in a strong military
@LeighMet Im aware,all im saying is that JfK probably would not be a Democrat today.He would most likely be a moderate republican.
LBJ was good on civil rights which was wierd considering he was from Texas,but there is still debate as to whether LBJs ''great society' programs actually helped the poor or not,Libertarian economist Walter Williams doesn think so.
@LeighMet Really? Well would a Democrat today cut the marginal tax rate,spend up big on defence by creating a strong military,JFK understood free markets and believed that tax cuts create revenue and prosperity for everyone.
he wouldnt be a hard core conservative just a Moderate type of conservative
@fenderboy88 Absolute hogwash. The marginal tax rate is VASTLY lower...LOWER...now than the rates JFK put into place, and were he to raise them to the point he lowered them to, he'd be savaged as a "job-killing socialist" by right wing hate radio. "Tax cuts create prosperity" has always been crap, it was crap then and it's crap now. It's hilarious how moderate Democrats get turned conservative by GOP historical revisionism--Kennedy is no conservative, nor is Truman.
@withalittlehelpfrom okay. obama running for PRESIDENT happened after this season of west wing happened. the coincidence discussed revolves around their similarities and their running for president. I agree that the similarity exists, in fact I noticed it myself during obama's campaign and watching reruns. but the santos story wasn't created in honor of obama.
@withalittlehelpfrom check this out .. search YTube for "Obama and the West Wing" .. if you look down the bottom of featured videos to your right you might actually see it in there. Eli Attie explains it.
If only Democrats in real life had the guts to call themselves 'liberal'. 'Progressive' is a fine term but I don't like the far right trying to make 'liberal' a bad word.
i like how you completely ignored how moderated debate works in the context of this video and then just added the same old things conservatives always say. did you write this comment because you thought it was clever?
When you try to hurl that word liberal at my feet as if it were something dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
Anywhere else on earth, Liberal means "free market capitalist with maybe some center-left social policies".
In America, it somehow means socialist, fascist, communist super-far-left nutjob.
I attribute it to Americans being scared shitless during the Cold War and thinking that communism is literally the worst thing ever. So then, all the right had to do was attribute anything that meant "leftist" to communist, and there you have it: liberal now means something in America it doesn't elsewhere.
"So when to try to hurl that label "liberal" at my feet like it's something to be ashamed of. Something dirty. Something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I'm gonna pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor."
Goddamn... that was one of the best West Wing speeches. Very powerful.
@AwfulVision i've been saying that for more than 3 years! go say you're a liberal in france and see if you get elected? No chance, whether you're from the right OR from the left!
Woman votes, black votes, social security, medicare--every one of these things ruined the country.
coleaddison 2 days ago
Meant to say "Racist Legislation" ...
leasel7 1 month ago
This video is a propaganda piece of crap and is not based on the truth. The Democratic Republican party was the Democrat Party of the time and responsible for most of the anti-Racist legislations in the south and the battle of the South to maintain White Supremacy. This party supported KKK and voted against every antiSlavery law. This is why American education is completely fucked because LIBERAL teachers teach this version of history that is not true at all!
leasel7 1 month ago
@leasel7 Yes, the solid south of Democrats. Conservative Democrats. Not liberal democrats. The two parties switched to what we see them today around the 60s. I think you are a product of a faulty education system.
Bencc94 1 month ago
@Bencc94:Oh really, that party was renamed "Democrat Party" by the same idiots.... you are flat out dumb! Good try though....
leasel7 1 month ago
@leasel7 No, there was a geopolitical shift of the parties, they were not renamed. After Lyndon Johnson decided to be sensible and work for civil rights, instead of hoping the localities would solve the problems themselves.The conservatives of the Democratic party, which was pretty much the south, switched to the Republican party, and the democratic party then became more liberal, even though it is more mixed than the republican party is. Parties dont matter.
Bencc94 1 month ago
@Bencc94: You are wrong! You mean Lyndon B. Johnson? Democrat Republicans of 1833 referred to themselves as "Democrats", these are the idiots that ruled the South. By 1850, the newly established Democrat party ruled the South and did so for a hundred years. For instance in Alabama - look it up - Democrats party ruled that state until 1980, meaning the Democrats enforced racial laws. First Republican was elected in 1986, but when you go to school - Liberal teachers teach a different version.
leasel7 1 month ago
@leasel7 You are too hung up on generalizations and over-simplifications.Just because a majority of the party changes does not mean there wont be stragglers.But there is no point in going on with this, because no matter what I say, you will denounce it any way possible, twisting history on your whim. Just like a stubborn conservative, cant see outside their bubble.I hate to say such things, but its hard not to when trying to reason with people like you. Well, whatever, have a nice day.
Bencc94 1 month ago
@Bencc94: Over generalization? A party that changed its name from Democrat Republican to Democrat party ... is that generalization or over-simplification? And how do you know that you are telling the truth? I just gave you the time period in which Democrats ruled Alabama and instead of rebutting you twisted every piece of crap making yourself the most intellectual piece of crap ever existed on this page? You are pathetic. Democrat party is the only party that redefined the word SEX, you sick!
leasel7 1 month ago
@leasel7
Can you not separate Liberalism from the Democratic party?
RellenMcDee 5 days ago
All the racist States in the South were controlled by the Liberal Party - Democratic Republican, that Party was later renamed Democrat Party. Democrats today twisted this history and take credits only on the good things. When it comes to racism, the claimed that the south was controlled by Republicans therefore conservatives are racist. Really? Republican party took control of the South way later, Democrats did the Lynching and voted against every anti-slavery legislation. Know the truth!
leasel7 1 month ago
@leasel7
There's no party called the "Democrat" party.
Can you really be that dumb?
RellenMcDee 5 days ago
I just noticed a slip up at 0:38. I guess that's what happens when it's played live.
mWongAero 1 month ago
@mWongAero The bad cut? Thanks for pointing that out. It's neat.
RellenMcDee 5 days ago
Liberal/progressives are on the side of the great majority of working men and women. The New Deal is what made the "middle-class" the first in human history! No bubbles for 50 years until the Lie came back and tricked the masses! When we do well.. all do well and you have a much more safer society. Greed is evil.
jedi2rock 1 month ago
Our founders were radical liberals! Against the Tories, the monarchy ie the ruling class.. Lincoln and the North reaffirmed it in 1865 with it's victory over the confederacy. FDR re-re affirmed it in 1932 and President Barrack Obama in 2008. CONservatives is a con! The wealthy trying to trick us that everything is just hunkadorie when there is much work to do. They don't want to be exposed for there maniacal thievery and underhandedness. Liberal/progressives are on the side of the people.
jedi2rock 1 month ago 2
@jedi2rock It's good to have conservatives to keep liberals/progressives from changing things faster than we can handle them, but we no longer have true conservatives. The closest we have are libertarians, the people who actually want small government. Neo-conservatives want big government, but they want to shift from social safety to social prejudice, enforcing the values that belong only to their (usually traditional and extremist) religion.
ZeDingoBlag 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the 1960s, liberal and even moderate Republicans helped liberal Democrats pass legislation giving blacks, women and religious minorities equal access to jobs, housing, voting, and public accomodations.
Conservative Southern and Western Democrats stood in the way, and they, or in some cases their sons, became Republicans. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
UncleMikeNJ 1 month ago
Comment removed
UncleMikeNJ 1 month ago
I have friends who are black and they tell me that welfare if anything has hurt black people from achieving their potential as it became a primary source of income
and discouraged people from developing their own skills and efforts to manage on their own.
Tell me who was pro welfare and who was against.
I'm not a liberal or a conservative and definitely not a libertarian.
I hate demagogues whether they are liberal or conservatives and I have never met a libertarian who wasn't one.
bornbillsmith 2 months ago
Comment removed
bornbillsmith 2 months ago
This is so stupid.
It wasn't liberals who freed the slaves.
It was done by people with moral convictions.
Liberals are not the only people who can say that.
Lets take a different issue like pornography.
There are women's groups who will tell you that because of pornagraphy
there are more women who are raped and abused.
Tell me is it liberals or conservatives who are against pornagaphy..
We live in a welfare state.
bornbillsmith 2 months ago
0:24 "A Republican President ended slavery".....A Republican prior to the New Deal era would be a democrat today.....
Even real politician's ignore this
scgilleland 2 months ago 5
BOO YA!!
AvalaDemson 2 months ago
At 0:38 Jimmy Smits makes a mistake (this was live). He says "Liberal" instead of "Republican".
asalmog 3 months ago
@asalmog I think he's just implying that the Republican Party was the "liberal party" at the time.
AWesome61696 3 months ago
Liberals hate blacks until they need their vote! You want to talk about racisits you vote democrat!
TheMerks1 3 months ago
Too bad that was only TV folks. To see a politician show that much courage, determination and conviction, and not to be labeled as a "rouge" or just "bat shit crazy" would be astonishing.
cmealy2011 3 months ago 3
Great video. Baggerism is an American disease on par with cancer. These clowns are killing this country with their dogmatic bullshit.
lvadpro 3 months ago
I loved that show.
scubawrestler 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Everything this guy said that Liberals did for this country helped ruin it.
mdstalla 6 months ago
@mdstalla how exactly, you racist piece of shit?
milesthemelonator 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@milesthemelonator Fuck you. Medicare/SocialSecurity? U know that $14T debt problem we have? 3/4s of it came from both these bankrupt programs. Civil rights/end to segregation? How are blacks doing these days? I wouldn’t know; I segregated to the suburbs years ago to avoid being shot/robbed. Clean air act? Try the ‘move all manufacturing jobs overseas to countries that don’t have a clean air act.’ And it's Woman/Blacks who overwhelming vote for these Leftist, fuckhead disastrous agendas!
mdstalla 5 months ago
@milesthemelonator <--------------- UNEDUCATED
RadarGuidedVermin 5 months ago
@mdstalla And just how did Women's Suffrage, the outlawing of segregation, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act ruin this country???
GarrisonHat 5 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@GarrisonHat Well; let's see. Medicare/SocialSecurity? U know that $14T debt problem we have? 3/4s of it came from both these bankrupt programs. Civil rights/end to segregation? How are blacks doing these days? I wouldn’t know; I segregated to the suburbs years ago to avoid being shot/robbed. Clean air act? Try the ‘move all manufacturing jobs overseas to countries that don’t have a clean air act.’ And it's Woman/Blacks who overwhelming vote for these Leftist, fuckhead disastrous agendas!
mdstalla 4 months ago
How would liberal be defined in this sentence? (How naive of him (anonymous) to think if you smoked pot once you'd instantly become a liberal).
PLEASE ANSWER BACK... Email is B00tseanyboi@yahoo.com
MrXxseanzyxX 6 months ago
Maybe this will clarify- I knew a state senator who was just hated, a minority party member he could use obscure rules or bare-knuckle toughness in debate to throw a wrench in the works, a real pain in the ass. He told me it's more important to stop bad bills than to pass the good ones. And while his state lurched to the right, he defended the needy and children and the mentally ill from draconian cuts. That beats having friends.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago 3
@m1ndfr34k117 sure, I get the concern and we all get tired of the fight, but some things are worth fighting for. When people are without decent healthcare, our schools are underfunded, our environment is severely threatened, so is a woman's right to choose and vital workers rights, it's far more important to fight for what's right and just than to "be nice" and lose these ideals. Way, way too important.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
as far as party, from a sheer logistics standpoint a legislative body doesn't work without parties, it gives more power to the little guy, but mostly the people who say they vote the person not the party often respond to TV ads or the sign in his neighborhood, not issues. It's not just pettiness, there are reasons...education, environment, health care, choice, many more...I won't vote Republican.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
First, the debt is absolutely NOT a major concern, it's a phony "crisis". Wars always increase debt, recession increases debt, and Bush's massive tax cut's making it explode. You said the left does nothing, Obama does too little, but he isn't the left. The "crisis" is part of the right's attack on the safety net, and political hot buttons like public radio and Planned Parenthood, doing nothing about the debt but giving the hard right something to love.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
fuck off miguel
PoisonedV 7 months ago
Jimmy Smits ran against Emperor Palpatine?
suburbanindie 7 months ago in playlist 00-Political 2
Liberals of BOTH parties supported the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Conservatives of BOTH parties opposed them. Then the conservative Republicans welcomed the segregationist Democrats and kicked the Northeastern guys like Rockefeller out. If Abraham Lincoln came back today, with the same ideas, they'd call him a Communist. How do we know? Because that's what they called Theodore Roosevelt when he ran in 1912, and he was more conservative than Lincoln.
UncleMikeNJ 8 months ago 3
While it makes for good TV (and the West Wing was very very good TV), the American electoral system is fundamentally flawed. It's therefore not surprising that the US is in such a mess right now - socially and economically. In fact it would be surprising if it wasn't.
TheSmithDorian 8 months ago
This has to be based on former Swedish prime minister Olof Palme's defence of the word "socialist" in a 1982 debate. The similarities are to many to be accidental. Search for "Därför är jag demokratisk socialist" and you will find it, in Swedish naturally.
KommandoKBJ 9 months ago
Hey it's the President who made us go to war with Canada!
HoppoLOL 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good thing this garbage is fiction. Tea Party for Life
draber12 9 months ago
@draber12 And the first and foremost liberals were the Founding Fathers of the United States of America, radical revolutionaries who threw off the tyranny of the old conservative mold. The modern Tea Party is a bunch of whining babies who are a disgrace to everything America stands for. They are allowed to express their ignorant views only because of the radical liberalism that built this country. America progressed to greatness on liberal ideas and will only flourish if liberal ideas triumph.
LMarcC 9 months ago
@LMarcC I disagree; the liberals do not quite meant the same thing today. You see, liberals are always looking for change. We needed that back in the day, for civil rights, voting rights, independence, etc. However, sometimes things don't need to be changed. As the old saying goes, if it's not broke, don't fix it. You can hardly tell me liberals have been doing well for us lately. Something they oppose? Decreasing the deficit. Again, it was a good thing to be liberal. Was.
m1ndfr34k117 8 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 If we are not moving forward we are moving backward. We always need to move forward. Liberals do no oppose decreasing the deficit. In fact, liberal policies are more robust than conservative policies in deficit reduction. As any business person knows you can't succeed only by cutting costs. Yes it is essential that we cut costs. But it is similarly critical to increase revenue. Decreasing the deficit will require cooperation and forward thinking, not just talking points.
LMarcC 8 months ago
@LMarcC Sure, but moving forward in what way? Moving in the wrong direction is just as bad as not moving at all. I agree; what we need is for the parties to come together. I personally wish there were no parties as it just encourages, indeed endorses team choosing instead of choosing the best leader depending on current issues. That being said, perhaps you haven't seen the proposed 2012 budget or heard of the stimulus package, on top of other outrageously expensive spending endeavors.
m1ndfr34k117 8 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 See, I sharply disagree. The party is the ONLY mechanism in which common people have any say in what's happening. I don't have much money, make very few campaign contributions, but by being a very active member of my party I HAVE made a great deal of difference in helping candidates who shared more of my ideals than others. Nobody shares ALL, but us radicals have to take the best we can get.
The legislative branch also ONLY works with our 2-party system.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 No it's not? Why can't the people vote for PEOPLE they like, instead of the PARTY they like, hmm? Our branch could easily work without parties. Find people who recognize that they all want the same end they just have different means of getting it and debate until a solution is reached. Why argue over petty 'party' problems? The problem with parties is it becomes team vs team instead of picking who's best.
m1ndfr34k117 7 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 NOBODY is forced to vote for a person they don't want to. But having parties DOES give you a basic outline of where one's views generally run, obviously there's some crossover in the middle, although the Dems are far closer now. NO, the legislative branch absolutely would NOT work without parties. And we DON'T all want the same end. I want the right of health care to be recognized, the GOP wants profits to stand higher than people. I want public schools funded, GOP wants vouchers
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 I never said they were. Sure, they do, but you don't need a party to tell you what you believe and if you do, that's a problem. Yes, it would work without parties. We do want the same end; we all want this country and it's people to be the best and to be prosperous. You want healthcare; so do we, we just don't agree with how you dems want to pay for it. The GOP wants people to work hard and earn what they get and not rely on the government for it. People like to twist that...
m1ndfr34k117 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 ...into profits are more important than the people, but that's simply not true and you know it.
m1ndfr34k117 7 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 It's NOT team vs team, there's very, very, VERY few votes in which it's a straight party line, there are tons of moderate to conservative Democrats, and a few relatively moderate Republicans. There are Dems (unfortunately) who are anti-choice, who support the "lower taxes" mantra, and who are in the pockets of Big Oil (Looking at you, Congressman Boren) and there were Republicans who supported health care reform.
But it DOES give some general idea, and gives the little guy a say.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Also, it is team vs team. Although not the majority, there is a healthy percentage of people who vote for their party instead of who they believe in. What do you hear on the media? It's always Republicans do this, Democrats to this to counter, it's always Reps vs. Dems. Why not hear Congress works for new law to reduce drugs? Why not that? Because IT IS team vs. team.
The little guy would have a say party or no party and if you need a party to know what you believe in...wow
m1ndfr34k117 7 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 how legislatures work without the system, look at nations with 3 or 4 or a dozen, and you have nobody in the majority, nobody directing things, nobody chairing committees, nothing gets done. So, what happens? They form coalitions. If we had two more parties, say, the Democrats caucus with the Green Party to form a coalition with a majority. And it would work fine for a while, then Dems weasel out on environmental protection, the Greens leave, and the government collapses.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 No man, it wouldn't come to that. I'm saying why does it always have to be a 'defeat the other side' mentality? Why not work together and settle differences? No, it's let's see what dirty info we can scoop up on the other guy and focus on that instead of running the country well. It's freakin' insane.
m1ndfr34k117 7 months ago
By the way, it is broke and it needs to be fixed. Both sides of the equation. And there is nothing wrong with business and business success. But we need a cop on the beat to keep order. The financial crisis was undoubtedly furthered by programs reducing the supervision and regulation of financial institutions and the inadequacy of supervision by those regulators who remained. One cannot oppose the fix and then scream that things are not working. Creative cooperation is essential.
LMarcC 8 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 Absolutely false. Not only do liberals NOT oppose reducing the deficit, the ONLY PEOPLE serious about doing so are on the left. The debt "crisis" is entirely manufactured, it's not a crisis at all, the right is only PRETENDING so they can slash the safety net all the more.
But there IS a plan to get rid of the deficit and get us surplus within 20 years, from the House Progressive Caucus.
You'll have to Google it, cause God know the so-called "liberal media" ain't talking about it.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Absolutely false. Perhaps you haven't seen Obama's proposed 2012 budget. It would TRIPLE the national debt in one year. TRIPLE IT! Republicans have cut more money from the deficit and that's a solid fact. Look it up. Even then, are you telling me that being so far in debt as we are is okay?! Jesus Christ, you are a liberal.
m1ndfr34k117 7 months ago
@LMarcC The other funny thing here? The first tea parties were protesting against the great power corporations (Namely the tea company) had achieved, while today's "tea party" is entirely corporate backed, and supports NOTHING but further help for the wealthy and big business.
PrisonerNumber9653 7 months ago
A...F---ING...MEN! Best scene ever.
ashxf 10 months ago
Good show west wing is awesome hope our government watch this
Sivitri77 10 months ago
i think hes on to something.. lol
IceC100 10 months ago
I'd rather be a liberal ANY DAY than what the conserva-teas are producing today.
ohdancingshoesofmine 1 year ago 35
@ohdancingshoesofmine: Iam proud to be a conservative and not a Wall street, public-pissing, defecating, weed-smoker, government blood sucker liberal like those at occupy-Wall street! I would rather join the Teaparty and go to the election polls and kick out those we dislike than occupying government buildings and intimidating politicians like the radical communist Obama sympathizers across the states. You idiots obviously don't see the nastiness and stupidity of the Liberal left!
leasel7 1 month ago
Awesome!!!
pezcrow 1 year ago
WELFARE liberals created all those things
ACTUAL CLASSICALLY DEFINED liberals are in favor of deregulation, free markets, lower taxes, are against things like medicare, social security
Ronald Reagan was a liberal
Richard Nixon was a liberal (economically at least)
Abraham Lincoln was a (classical) Liberal
Santos is a welfare liberal
Carter was a welfare liberal
FDR was a welfare liberal
Vinnick is a Liberal
Abraham Lincoln's liberalism would be considered conservatism nowadays
Cnd1867 1 year ago
@Cnd1867 yep, and in a hundred years supporting things such as homosexuality will be conservatism as well.
TheFreeThinkingMan 1 year ago
@TheFreeThinkingMan
How farther can you go then supporting homosexuality, other than becoming one yourself (speaking as one btw)
Cnd1867 1 year ago
@Cnd1867 actually Lincoln wouldnt be a conservative, the conservative political ideology is is by its very definition backward looking, anti-change and anti-progress, what Lincoln was a massive change to the status quo, so call him a classic liberal in the economic since and social since, but conservatism isnt classical liberalism its CONSERVATISM (pro-family, pro-status quo pro-hierarchy and pro big government who tells people who are naturally limited how to run lives)
vandexter101 1 year ago
Here in Australia the centre-right party is called the Liberal Party. I can confirm that America's spin of the word 'liberal' is in fact unique. The rest of the world understands that liberalism and socialism are not the same thing, its only Americans who assume all libs are socialists. Its like calling all conservatives fascists, pure idiological spin delivered by the mouth of a fool.
DogWed 1 year ago
It is really sad how many people vote in this country that are stupid enough to believe stuff like this. LIncoln was a Republican, but wait...we'll call him a LIBERAL Republican. DEMOCRATS stood in the way of the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights movement...but we'll call them CONSERVATIVES because it fits our definitions.
Reality is the modern liberal is very socialist. If you don't believe that you are very misguided. Go read the socialist party platform and tell me it isn't familiar.
krrussell88 1 year ago
@krrussell88
Actually, it was the Dixiecrat faction of the democrats that opposed the civil rights movement as well as the 19th amendment, and they've up my party since the sixties. Basically, in general, the south stood in the way of progress. There are also different kinds of liberals. The liberal republicans referred to here are the Rockefeller Republicans, which is what I am. We're still here. We've just been powerless ever since the whole Reagan revolution. Eisenhower was one of us.
7h3br1ckb4lls 1 year ago
What do conservatives do? They don't do anything but protect their own interests. They are incapable of empathy for anyone else. Middle and lower class Republicans don't even realize their leaders don't have their interests at heart, that they protect the very rich, the almost very rich, and very rich corporations.
keltoid 1 year ago
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts." ~ Abraham Lincoln.
zaidx24 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hahahahaha ... yeah, RIGHT
ohmerdesign 1 year ago
Santos is TECHNICALLY right...but he neglects to mention that the term "liberal" has changed tragically over the years.
Wy back when, "liberal" meant "liberty". John Locke was a "classical" liberal.
Nowadays, "liberal" means the exact opposite. Vinick was right to challenge him on it. Santos basically sidestepped the issue by trying to link CLASSICAL liberalism with MODERN liberalism.
Lincoln was not a "modern liberal", by any stretch of the imagination.
RushLimborg 1 year ago
@RushLimborg You could not be more wrong. The list of achievements of modern liberals goes against economic libertarianism--it takes away the liberties (the ability to do whatever you want) of people. In economic terms, this means taxing for government programs which provide for the public good. You are correct in saying that modern liberals seek to take away economic liberties, but modern liberals expand social liberties and expand the power of the power of the government, which Lincoln did.
WavesAndRocks 1 year ago
@RushLimborg Lincoln NOT a modern liberal?? In Congress, he spoke out against the US-Mexican War. Under his Presidency, the first national income was enacted, the government assisted the railroads in acquiring land to construct the transcontinental railroad, the Morrill Act (proceeds from federal land sales to create agricultural colleges) was enacted, and the Department of Agriculture was established. He was endorsed for reelection in 1864 by Karl Marx! The very definition of a modern liberal
ers586 1 year ago
Abe also supported the Corwin Amendment which would of protected slavery, if the south would of stayed Abe lincoln would of made slavery part of the constitution. They left anyways.
Fitzcard 1 year ago
Abe Lincoln father was a slave owner himself. Abe's wife and her family (who abe preferred over his own) were major slave owners. Abe himself blaimed slavery for forcing small time non-slave owners into bankruptcy. Had the slave states Maryland, (and more importantly his home) Kentucky joined the confederacy Lincoln was said he was much less likely to go to war. Missori and Rhode Island stayed Union also, but who cares about them :P.
Fitzcard 1 year ago
I think Matt Santos is a pretty cool guy eh wins elections and doesnt afraid of anything
niallthef 1 year ago 4
Anyone else waiting for that old generation to die so we can legalize marijuana, gay marriage and file sharing and just move on with our lives?
Awfulk555 1 year ago 90
@Awfulk555 I hear that.
oscarmanutdfan2 1 year ago
@Awfulk555
Many in that old generation agree with those progressive views. But politicians are bought.
patrickcorliss 6 months ago
owned
MrJesawyer 1 year ago
i like how he drinks clean water when Santos talks about the clean water act
IRONIC MUCH?
cbhatt 1 year ago 44
@cbhatt Did you expect him to drink dirty water? And no, that wouldn't be irony, that would be thirst.
FizATropaComOBaia 1 year ago 10
@FizATropaComOBaia ya that is ironic you moron
MrAisuru 1 year ago 14
@MrAisuru Sure it is. As if people don't drink water when they are thirsty. Clean water at that.
FizATropaComOBaia 1 year ago
@FizATropaComOBaia
NEVER drink tap water in New York or Nevada!
Sunmasta 1 year ago
@Sunmasta i drink NY tap water all the time. there's nothing wrong with it. it's regulated and clean.
Baronvonbadguy3 1 year ago
@Baronvonbadguy3
You really think so?
imgur_com/a/UF0j0/copepods_in_nyc_tap_water
Go there and look at the picture. Those were found regularly in NYC tap water. Keep drinking the tap water there after reading up on what a copepod is.
Sunmasta 1 year ago
@Sunmasta What are you talking about? New York City has some of the cleanest tap water nationwide according to studies. Even Bloomberg is starting a campaign to encourage New Yorkers to drink it instead of bottled water:
bit(.)ly/9A7T9g
mikepalomino 1 year ago
@FizATropaComOBaia In most parts of the world, drinking clean clear water is not an option. You read more books...
ImperatorDominus 1 year ago
@FizATropaComOBaia
The point is that he was drinking water in the first place Fiz... meaning, who does he have to thank for the ability to drink clean water when he is thirsty in the first place? The fact that is clean is what makes it irony, not solely the act of him drinking.
Sunmasta 1 year ago 20
@Sunmasta well, thats assuming it is tap water. But I get your perspective and interpretation.
FizATropaComOBaia 1 year ago
@FizATropaComOBaia
Not just tap water. ALL water in America that is distributed is regulated as a result of the Clean Water Act. The only way that water is not affected is if it were flown in from another country.
Sunmasta 1 year ago
@FizATropaComOBaia I think what was meant was how they planed for him to drink water at the moment Smitts mentions the clean water act
TheSarahWexler 1 year ago
@Sunmasta "who does he have to thank for the ability to drink clean water when he is thirsty in the first place?"
Given that he's relatively well off it's reasonable to assume that if the provision of clean water took place in the context of a free market he would be able to afford it, so the answer to your question is... no one.
studentofsmith 4 months ago
@cbhatt
not ironic, no not exactly
HaloGrndr 1 year ago
@cbhatt It's funny when liberals try to justify their idiotic accomplishments by using labels that don't apply. If I believed the morons on the left I would think that Conservatives wanted us living with no electricity, dirty water, no money, women that live as slaves, black people as slaves, and only white men could own property.
Do you people even listen to yourselves?
krrussell88 1 year ago
@krrussell88
... and by my party, I mean Republicans. You post-Reagan republicans are simply usurpers of my party. It was Nixon(Megalomaniacal personality aside, he was an American centrist.) who began the EPA. We started corporate regulation. It was us under Eisenhower who built the interstate highway system. It was Eisenhower who began DARPA who later developed what would become the internet in the future. You common republican today are simply tools for religious and corporate interests.
7h3br1ckb4lls 1 year ago
@7h3br1ckb4lls
You sir make us all proud.
Please take back the Republican party, please.
I love conservatism and its principles, but its hard to support them (or restraint insults) when they are just corporate mouthpiece that Eisenhower warned us about.
YoungSpotUBrock 1 year ago 10
@YoungSpotUBrock: really? you ever investigate Obama supporters? The billionaires like Soros and the CEOs of big corporations @ Walstreet and Holly Wood. You are so dumb no wonder you don't understand the real truth about the Class warfare of the left. Look at Solyndra who took $500 million of tax payers money under directives from Obama ... find out who benefits from that handout, Obama big-time financier! check how many Obama fundraiser benefited from the bailout.
leasel7 1 month ago
@cbhatt
Clean water existed before the Clean Water Act. Hell, people have been drinking bottled spring water for hundreds of years.
HeyBoyWhatsYoNameIs 4 months ago
This video made me giz a stream so strong that there is a hole in my wall behind my computer desk.
fr3d420 1 year ago 5
@fr3d420
*jizz
HaloGrndr 1 year ago
Wow I have never seen such ownge in my life.
LightJehuety 1 year ago
@LightJehuety Get back on reddit.
amara01addis 1 year ago
@amara01addis Well i feel stupid lol
LightJehuety 1 year ago
Holy shit, this just blew my mind.
Flargenyargen 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
damn, this shit is as bad as Fox news. you're all idiots.
masteruber12 1 year ago
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
--John Stuart Mill
Atanih771 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And all these programs are bankrupting our country.....
ETF1964 1 year ago
@ETF1964 no, these self proclaimed "experts" with "plans" are, on both sides
Tallyhallrun 1 year ago
@ETF1964 Yeah fuck that socialist invasion of Iraq and Afganistan costing at least 3 trillion dollars. Fucking liberals and their "war on terror".
joethepro36 1 year ago 2
@ETF1964 First: I would rather live in a country with a deficit than one where the elderly and poor are given no support.
Second: Republicans do not have a plan to do anything better. They want to cut taxes, but still keep full funding for the military and seniors... it makes no sense. That would create an even worse deficit.
Third: I don't see how Civil Rights and giving women the right to vote are bankrupting the country.
drweathercook 1 year ago 5
@ETF1964 Giving Women and African Americans the right to vote is bankrupting our country?
Goose555 1 year ago 5
@ETF1964
LOL! No.
Two wars costing 4 trillion dollars (TO DATE) is bankrupting our country.
walkingindec45 1 year ago 5
@ETF1964 Right, it has nothing to do with the over half a trillion dollars and climbing spent on the wars.
moogleii 1 year ago 2
"Liberals ended slavery."
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act. The Voting Rights act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act (notice how Vinnick drinks water at this point)."
MarineHawk117 1 year ago
It's nice to see a right geezer getting owned.
Zodiamaster 1 year ago
If Lincoln were around today, espousing the same policies, today's Republicans would call him a communist. They practically called Theodore Roosevelt that when he tried to regain the Presidency. The John Birch Society (the Tea Party of its day) called Eisenhower "an active agent of the communist conspiracy." Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, running on their records (negotiating with the Soviets by the former, pro-choice & pro-gay rights by the latter) couldn't get nominated in today's GOP.
UncleMikeNJ 1 year ago 6
I was racking my brain to figure out where I've seen the older gentleman before. I didn't recognize anything I immediately found online, but then it hit me. He is the guy that hosts those science documentaries. I think the last documentary he did was on dreams and the brain. He has a very distinct voice. I usually enjoy his documentaries. Glad I figured that one out before I went to bed.
Americaisgreat123 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123...like your site, and your post, but it made me chuckle. You must be young. The older gentlemen is Alan Alda. He is, in fact, the guy from the science documentaries. But he's famous for his movies and most of all as the lead on M*A*S*H, widely regarded as one of the best TV shows ever. Alda is a major TV star and award-winning actor, a great get for TWW.
ssarma98 1 year ago
@Americaisgreat123 That older gentleman is Alan Alda, an Emmy and Academy award winning actor/writer/director (and yes, host on the Science Channel). Oh, and he was Hawkeye for 11 seasons of the M*A*S*H television series. :)
msjennhill 1 year ago
What about democrats like Grover Cleveland and Martin Van Buren,they would be considered Libertarian and even Conservative by todays standards.
The Democrats have only being progressive since Woodrow Wilson,before that they were practically different.
JFK was not that ''Liberal'' or progressive either,he cut taxes for example he lowered the marginal tax rates down from 90 to 70 per cent and believed in a strong military
fenderboy88 1 year ago
@fenderboy88 HE just started the Peace Corp and started the Civil RIghts movement that LBJ continued.
LeighMet 1 year ago
@LeighMet Im aware,all im saying is that JfK probably would not be a Democrat today.He would most likely be a moderate republican.
LBJ was good on civil rights which was wierd considering he was from Texas,but there is still debate as to whether LBJs ''great society' programs actually helped the poor or not,Libertarian economist Walter Williams doesn think so.
fenderboy88 1 year ago
@fenderboy88 zzNo way JFK would ever be a republican
LeighMet 1 year ago
@LeighMet Really? Well would a Democrat today cut the marginal tax rate,spend up big on defence by creating a strong military,JFK understood free markets and believed that tax cuts create revenue and prosperity for everyone.
he wouldnt be a hard core conservative just a Moderate type of conservative
fenderboy88 1 year ago
@fenderboy88
You forget that when he did that their was a cold war going on≥
LeighMet 1 year ago
@fenderboy88 Absolute hogwash. The marginal tax rate is VASTLY lower...LOWER...now than the rates JFK put into place, and were he to raise them to the point he lowered them to, he'd be savaged as a "job-killing socialist" by right wing hate radio. "Tax cuts create prosperity" has always been crap, it was crap then and it's crap now. It's hilarious how moderate Democrats get turned conservative by GOP historical revisionism--Kennedy is no conservative, nor is Truman.
PrisonerNumber9653 1 year ago
@PrisonerNumber9653 Evidence?
fenderboy88 1 year ago
Open a dictionary. It won't hurt you, I swear. "Liberal" is defined as; "Free of prejudice and open to new ideas." How nasty is that?
Slope142 1 year ago 6
@withalittlehelpfrom Or worse, Obama is based on Santos. ;)
GoFeri 1 year ago
@GoFeri Actually it is the other way around with a possiblility of JOhn Kerry thrown in.
LeighMet 1 year ago
@withalittlehelpfrom okay. obama running for PRESIDENT happened after this season of west wing happened. the coincidence discussed revolves around their similarities and their running for president. I agree that the similarity exists, in fact I noticed it myself during obama's campaign and watching reruns. but the santos story wasn't created in honor of obama.
jaq074 1 year ago
@withalittlehelpfrom check this out .. search YTube for "Obama and the West Wing" .. if you look down the bottom of featured videos to your right you might actually see it in there. Eli Attie explains it.
TJNorton1 1 year ago
As of today, 3/21/10, we can add healthcare to the list...
josh99usa 1 year ago 6
santos happened WAYYYY before obama happened
jaq074 1 year ago
If only Democrats in real life had the guts to call themselves 'liberal'. 'Progressive' is a fine term but I don't like the far right trying to make 'liberal' a bad word.
MassLiberal1 1 year ago 3
hell yes dude. Makes me feel good to be a liberal!!!!!
TheRexMeteorite 1 year ago 3
That was so freaking awesome. If only it weren't a TV show, haha.
OonaCanute 1 year ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Liberals =
Slow into WW2, more killed
Massive deficits
Runaway inflation
Higher taxes
More government
Opposition to troop funding
MrConservativeTalk 2 years ago
i like how you completely ignored how moderated debate works in the context of this video and then just added the same old things conservatives always say. did you write this comment because you thought it was clever?
joewhittles 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I was speaking the truth. There are actual facts to back me up, not just left-wing propaganda.
MrConservativeTalk 1 year ago
@MrConservativeTalk im actually just gonna stop here, i feel you're gonna be more boring than you're worth
joewhittles 1 year ago
Sure, whatever...... I pwned i guess
MrConservativeTalk 1 year ago
@MrConservativeTalk unwillingness to be brought down to the same old rhetoric bottom-feeder conservatives say != winning an argument.
just pointing it out. try formulating your own argument for a change next time, ok?
joewhittles 1 year ago 3
Excellent! Why are there so few Democrats who are willing to say this? Take back the word!
mprat001 2 years ago 7
When you try to hurl that word liberal at my feet as if it were something dirty, something to run away from, something that I should be ashamed of, it wont work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.
Patrickn210 2 years ago 7
Daaaaaamn straight.
democrat10 2 years ago
I had no idea there were two different versions. How do they differ? (I downloaded this from a generic demonoid torrent)
FizATropaComOBaia 2 years ago
Yeh - the East Coast one isn't as good, primarily because it was the first version.
UptheDonsTV 2 years ago
@FizATropaComOBaia They did the debate live, once for the east coast and again for the west, so there are bound to be some differences :)
JasonvonEvil83 2 years ago
@FizATropaComOBaia THe show was done live TWICE that night - once for the 3 time Zones WEST of the Pacific - and once again for the West Coast.
And since it was ad-llibbed and not done from a preset scriupt, the two versions differ in the details. :D
PeterFormaini 1 year ago
@FizATropaComOBaia
It was performed live twice, once for the East coast audience, once for the West.
thatguyoverthere121 1 year ago
This is a different version to the one on the TV.
Try the West Coast one.
UptheDonsTV 2 years ago
If you take the world wide definition of 'liberal', the US consitution has many liberal principles!
humder 2 years ago 4
Anywhere else on earth, Liberal means "free market capitalist with maybe some center-left social policies".
In America, it somehow means socialist, fascist, communist super-far-left nutjob.
I attribute it to Americans being scared shitless during the Cold War and thinking that communism is literally the worst thing ever. So then, all the right had to do was attribute anything that meant "leftist" to communist, and there you have it: liberal now means something in America it doesn't elsewhere.
AwfulVision 2 years ago 152
This has been flagged as spam show
"I attribute it to Americans being scared shitless during the Cold War and thinking that communism is literally the worst thing ever."
Can you tell me one good thing that came out of communism practiced by the Soviet Union?
MikeJames6 2 years ago
Cont:
"So when to try to hurl that label "liberal" at my feet like it's something to be ashamed of. Something dirty. Something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I'm gonna pick up that label and wear it as a badge of honor."
Goddamn... that was one of the best West Wing speeches. Very powerful.
MarineHawk117 1 year ago 4
@AwfulVision i've been saying that for more than 3 years! go say you're a liberal in france and see if you get elected? No chance, whether you're from the right OR from the left!
alhabbo 1 year ago