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.

From Teh Wikipedius Popularis: "Centuries, or Centuriae, means tribe or company. Theoretically, this word traces its roots to centum which is Latin for one hundred, but that connection is widely disputed or disregarded."

Basically, "lost in translation".

That is exactly what they do. The water enables them to feel things with more detail. They "wash" all their food and apparently everything else as a way to examine it.

"[This] aspect of raccoon behavior is so well known that it gives the animal part of its scientific name, Procyon lotor; "lotor" is neo-Latin for "washer"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon#Dousing

The Latin American countries have some other qualities in common with Greece, I agree they are a good example.

The thing is though that the humanitarian crisis caused by The Austerity has been either almost as bad, or as bad as these disorderly collapses.

Apart from that one point, I largely agree with you here.

As much as I would love to see Syriza pull off a miracle, even with the will of the people to end the culture of patronage I wonder how on earth they would manage it.

I don't actually think Tsipras or Varoufakis really understood how difficult Schäuble or Dijsselbloem would be to deal with, but based on their party platform they were quite compelled to act as they did, so I vote politics.

@oritteropo

There is a long history of Latin American currency crises which I would refer you to as examples of disorderly collapse. That Tsipras would break most of his electoral promises in his recent 4 month extension agreement should tell you that he knows how catastrophic it would be. You can't quantitatively approximate these kinds of events but qualitatively* (TYPO) the following is likely to occur:

1) Bank run - You saw significant withdrawals even leading up to the meeting with the Troika because of the possibility funding will abruptly stop. A stop to euro lending will see mass outflows with the expectation of bank collapse which will itself likely lead to the collapse of multiple banking institutions.

2) Foreign flows of currencies will dry up - Greek bond yields will spike, in effect no one will lend to the Greek government from overseas. Since like any economy, Greece needs to pay its public sector workers and requires foreign capital for imports, to preserve what it has, it will rapidly convert back to using the Drachma which it can issue and print/create. It is likely the banks will follow in turn and convert deposits to Drachma (another reason why people will withdraw money from banks as soon as they think euro support is over).

3) Drachma collapse - The Drachma will then depreciate rapidly. Again, the expectation of depreciation pretty much causes the depreciation. If people expect their currency to be worth less in the future, they will sell it, causing it to be worth less. Any existing savings accounts remaining will be decimated in value. Wages will fall drastically for everyone. Suddenly the cost of anything that relies on imported products (hint, a lot in any economy, especially Greece) will rise several-fold. This will lead to further job cuts, collapse of industries, which will precipitate further job loss, unemployment, output loss etc etc etc.

The tl;dr version of this is that government funding crises whether caused by debt or currency collapse in the first instance are self reinforcing and the consequences of an unmanaged collapse are all but guaranteed to be much worse than austerity but order. There is some evidence that countries who have a massive collapse and see their currency depreciate are then about to recover faster afterwards (a cheap currency boost exports, tourism etc) but the human toll is much more sudden and much more severe.

As far as IMF estimates being unrealistic, sure. All I'm arguing about is what is likely to happen and which outcome Greeks should prefer.

Sure Syriza has talked about the good kind of reform, but he's also promised the rest of what I talked about. None of which the Troika will let him do if he wants retain their funding. Anyone following this should have known he would not be allowed any of these promises he made in his election. Surely Tsipras himself knew this. It was either posturing/bluster or pure politics. Now the stability of his government is going to depend on how he can manage down his unrealistic expectations.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/alexis-tsipras-athens-lightning-speed-anti-austerity-policies

Contrary to what they would have you believe, this is NOT an academic group of scholars, but is actually a right wing political organization that has a home at George Mason University (but is not affiliated with or supported by Mason) dedicated to showing how a 'free market economy can solve any problem'.

From their web page: As the name implies, Mercatus (market in Latin) research focuses on how markets solve problems.

EDIT: Nice, I like the downvote for shining a light on your source with information from their own website. Keeping it classy!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Porcupine-vs-Lion

Go hystrix (latin name for porcupine)!

I'm guessing somewhere in Latin America from the Spanish and the general appearance of the passengers. Wherever it is, it's somewhere you don't [bleep] with bus drivers. Good on him for catching this twerp. Too bad his cohort got away.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'leth, perfect human, magic, von trier, italian, cigar, bed, dance, latin, havana, sensual' to 'leth, perfect human, von trier, italian, cigar, dance, latin, havana, sensual, dogme 95' - edited by Trancecoach

I don't particularly like O'Reilly's conservatism and warmongering, but about this, Colbert is simply ignorant or worse. "OMG, mercenaries going rogue!" Because, y'know, the state's armies never go "rogue" or cause any "mayhem." Nope! Not in WW 1. Not in WW 2. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. Not in Latin America. Not in Iraq. Not in Afghanistan, or anywhere else!. Nope. Not ever.

The American forces never goes rogue and Bradley/Chelsea Manning is not being locked up for exposing the never-rogue nature of the American forces.

I don't think Colbert is an idiot. So I'm inclined to think that Hoppe may be correct and Colbert is just part of the "intelligensia," paid to promote stupidity among the masses. (OMG, I'm beginning to sound like "OMG Bernays!")

The woman in the "experiment" is a total hypocrite. In fact, that little undercover experiment shot the credibility of everyone else's story, and the video in general.

She dressed in a way clearly meant to elicit reaction. heck she even said it was "provocative" hello, the word provocative literally means "voice call out forward" ... pro + vocare (latin for call, voice) Imagine a guy walking around with 100 bills taped all over his body, he'd be an idiot if he expected no one would look at him. If he was robbed, women would ask him .."huh why did you tape $100 bills all over you?"

The little BS hidden camera thing is clearly put on someone who's looking to find people to yell things out, for the purpose of "proving a point" and making a problem appear more serious than it is. If it happens to every day women constantly - then why not choose a woman that's dressed more "normally" ?

Obviously some of the more physical assault-like things are inexcusable, but anything else, verbal or otherwise, is just men doing what society (including women) have taught them to do: be aggressive, be bold.. why is it that...

good looking guy that calls out = man that is bold and goes after what he wants
ugly guy that calls out = creep that harasses.

And women go around wondering why "men don't understand and it's so hard to teach them..?" maybe try being a little honest and consistent for starters?

Is the fucking news to anyone? Do you guys read or even just watch the videos that are posted ON THIS SITE?!

http://videosift.com/video/Last-Week-Tonight-with-John-Oliver-FIFA-and-the-World-Cup

Or how about you look something up about this particular World Cup and the events surrounding it.

http://revolution-news.com/brazil-fifa-forces-evictions-for-world-cup-police-brutality-rages/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/fifa-world-cup-forces-homelessness-on-thousands-of-children/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-human-cost-of-the-fifa-world-cup/5390001

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-22992410

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/us-worldcup-brazil-idUSBREA3715H20140408

And it's all...ALL of it is for this. http://www.espnfc.com/story/1830732

Wikipedia: Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view. The word was coined from the Latin controversia, as a composite of controversus – "turned in an opposite direction," from contra – "against" – and vertere – to turn, or versus (see verse), hence, "to turn against."

Some people believe the science, some don't. They argue. That's controversy, the argument, not the facts or falsehoods or opinions or beliefs.

The only way to defeat controversy is to have consensus. Anything less than consensus is controversy.

For reference because this confuses the shit out of me.


Nonflammable -

non·flam·ma·ble
adjective \-ˈfla-mə-bəl\

: not burning or not burning easily : not easily set on fire
Full Definition of NONFLAMMABLE
: not flammable; specifically : not easily ignited and not burning rapidly if ignited

Flammable -



flam·ma·ble
[flam-uh-buhl] Show IPA
adjective
easily set on fire; combustible; inflammable.
Origin:
1805–15; < Latin flammā ( re ) to set on fire + -ble
inflammable -

in·flam·ma·ble
inˈflaməbəl/
adjective
adjective: inflammable

1.
easily set on fire.
"inflammable and poisonous gases"
synonyms: flammable, combustible, incendiary, ignitable;
volatile, unstable
"inflammable fabrics"
antonyms: fireproof


WHY NOTS THE ON FIRES OR NOT ON FIRES-ABLE ??

Wow.
That's super stupid, dude. I really don't want to insult you here BUT (yes, every asshole got one) what you wrote there is so much beyond silly or naive, there's no other word for it.
Let's cut the crap here, what you imply with "black youth" is gangmembers, right? We're talking gangs and gang violence. Well, these guys don't walk into a gun store and just buy their Glocks with a credit card. Most of them would probably buy them in illegal ways (because commiting crimes with guns licensed in your name is dumb) so gun legislation has not such an big impact on them anyways.
What the gun laws impact and what causes people to get upset and demanding more regulation is when "black youths" who are armed with skittles and ice tea get shot by scared "latin middleageds". It's when psychologically damaged, middleclass, white teens take their parents guns to school to each everyone a lesson, as seen in Columbine or Newtown. That's why people want regulation.
Criminals will always have access to guns, they don't have to rely on the NRA's uncanny ability to block all progress. Criminals is not who you have to worry here.
It's the dipshits and psychos. The schoolshoters, the parents that aren't able to keep their guns from their kids, the idiots who can't clean a gun while it's unloaded, people who have to stand their ground in the face of loud music, they're the problem. The so called responsible gun owners.

I don't care for your racism and even less for this weird and idiotic idea that black people with their violent music are the problematic aspect of american gun culture. Not everbody should have a gun, some people are simply not responsible enought for it and not all kinds of guns need to be available either. Or are you trying to tell me now that the Bushmaster .223 caliber XM15-E2S rifle is designed for hunting?