I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

Untrue. He bashed Ron Paul for having odd convictions, he always applauded him for sticking to them. He did also compliment Ron for not taking special interest money back in the day. I never saw a single personal, petty attack against Ron, and I watch Bill regularly. You obviously don't, yet you are perfectly happy to make false claims about HIM...kind of what you're complaining about....so....

I liked Ron Paul but did not really know how to view his non interventionist views..

Then we got Obama and he lifted the American hand off the Middle East and Arab Spring sprang and a new age of terrorism came forth. Obama calls it leading from behind but is just the same as saying non interventionist.

Maher is a smug prick all the way. He bashed Ron Paul over and over for the man staying true to his convictions and then has the audacity to bash his son for not? By this I mean he never complimented the father at all for telling special interests to fuck off, fix what a lot of Republicans broke or just being an honorable man. Yeah Maher, you could hate Ron's policies, but you made the attacks personal and petty.

Maher is the type of piece of shit that causes this stuff to happen. Yeah, this bashing is on both political isles but to wonder how a party makes their candidates their bitches, he needs to look at his cum guzzling asshole first. He would complain about Rand if Rand was full blown to his convictions...

Sorry, Maher is a piece of shit at best here. Kind of like the woman who goes home with the asshole over the good guy, then wonders why she has herpes on her face the next day.

When you say .." I have consistently said Carter was my favorite recent president.." That all I need to know how lost you are with reality.

The president provides leadership for USA and for the world. The world looks to us for stability and he provider of help when others are in need.

I didn't know what to think of Ron Paul idea about being a non interventionist. Obama has lifted the hand of interventionism off Arab nations and now we have a shit storm of assassins and killers who desire to kill everyone. Everyone knows this But OBAMA who for what ever reason fails to see this world danger. Now it will take the world decades to fight is battle. Sure these might have had a shitty American backed leader but their peoples were not mass murdered on wholesale levels like ISIS is doing.

We had domestic terrorist attacks. Fort Hood shooting (13 killed) , Boston bombing, and the car bomb that was defused in NYC. Many more stopped. There will be more blood shed on our soil in the name of ALLAH. This is a world wide problem.

Obama is the worst because of this and on domestic side he is a failure because he is steadfast with my way or the highway approach. 6 years and still a shitty economy, real employment is hovering just below 10%, IF you lost you job today do you think you would be able to get another straight away at the same pay? I don't

Salaries have continued to stagnate over last 20 years but under this leadership salaries have lost 4K.

Democrats got a historic spanking this recent midterm and Obama still thinks he can do what ever he thinks. He is delusional.

Times did get better with Regan and Clinton, The Bushes sucked.



History will be the judge, we are just spectators.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ron paul, republican, election, primary, pbs' to 'ron paul, republican, election, primary, pbs, newshour' - edited by Grimm

So Monarchies are oppressive? Hmmm. Interesting. Got it.

But doesn't Norway also have a Monarchy? And in this comment, didn't you extoll the values of their nationalized and socialized industries? Would you not then also give a pass to Norway's people who might reject that form of government and feel the need to secede? Same for Denmark, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, the UK, and most of the civilized Western world for that matter?

Let the record show that after this interview, Glenn Beck was fired from CNN and Ron Paul supporters raised six million dollars at the next moneybomb.

I only ask this of those who insist that Lincoln went to war to "free the slaves" (which is what Stewart and Wilmore suggest in the video). Obviously if you dismiss that as nonsense, then sure, the answer is obvious, because he didn't care to, he just wanted to preserve the union. So, where's the contradiction?


"War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

Again, I understand what you are saying, I only mention the freeing of the slaves for those (like Jon Stewart and Larry Wilmore apparently) who insist that the war was about "freeing the slaves."

Tom Woods would agree with this. In fact, he's written about it: that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery."

You obviously haven't read him.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and many libertarians agree that it was (in your own words) a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". Get it? There is no disagreement there. Get it?

The issue of buying the slaves' freedom is only for those who say that the war was "necessary" to free the slaves. But it was not and it was not the main reason the war was fought. Get it?

So, about this you are in fact in agreement with Tom Woods and Andrew Napolitano and you are in disagreement with Jon Stewart. Get it?

Ron Paul 2012!

Inflation is a tax. @3:10 this is discussed by Ron Paul and Bernanke.

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-and-Ben-Bernanke-722-mins

MTV's Aimee Allen, Ron Paul Anthem Music Video


http://youtu.be/QiKh9Ko3mw4

I would love to see an alternate universe in which Ron Paul is in power.

Quite irrelevant. Those rebels are backed by the west (UK, France, USA) since the beginning, some reports even say its again one of those CIA induced overthrows. So Ron Paul is exactly right.

Your critical analysis is non-existent. They have already made up their mind, no matter who did it, and Ron Paul is just trying to talk sense.
Quite logical, when you take into account that they have supported the rebels since the start and dont even care, if they did that attack, or, as some reports say, got those weapons from the Saudis.

You Americans are once again making your own "terrorists". Ron Paul has learned this simple thing long ago and thats why what he says is absolutely true, and his side swaying is just an attempt to show people how it really is. Instead you bitch about it, since you dont know whats going on.

if someone uses chemical weapons in an urban environment that is certainly something to bitch about. The same way people should bitch about a number of other conflicts worldwide. It is called bringing attention to something that is obviously fucked up.

Ideally politicians should both sound smart and not talk bullshit. The fact that it is Ron Paul, someone videosift (me included) has a thing for deserves taking his response seriously and analyzing it critically.
That is also called debate and not just bitching.