Fair point.

Also, I'm not really talking about conservative views in the sense of fiscal conservatives or libertarians. I don't necessarily agree with those positions, but they are genuinely a "difference of opinion" as outlined in the video.

I just don't agree with the general position that social conservatives are entitled to their opinion on gay rights, climate change, etc. any more than the democrats were entitled to their opinion on slavery.

Sometimes you're just on the wrong side of history.

@Jinx
@enoch
@VoodooV

Fair point on acceptance, I guess seeing people on TV smoke it and continue to be productive members of society has its benefits in dispelling the fear around it. Not the best comparison but kind of like how the Cosby Show, Eddie Murphy in 48 Hrs helped bridge racial tolerance in the 80s by exposing whites to black people on TV and in movies.

Totally with you guys on the hypocrisy of policy, and the libertarian argument.

I don't know how much pharmaceuticals actually care about pot legalization. I mean at this point the likes of Pfizer don't do that much actual research. They buy up other drug companies (Allergan is the recent big example) as well as benefiting from government funded basic research.

If anything what they've become specialized in is getting the drugs approved and adhering to regulation (which they probably helped draft and make complicated to keep their advantage). So if anything they should be well placed to be the first to sell pot based drugs in scale when they get fully legalized.

Prisons and law enforcement is a different issue, they do lose out a lot.

@bobknight33
you know bob,i owe you an apology.
i shouldnt have told you "fuck you" when my problem was with the video,and i wrongly conflated you with this video.

that being said,i still stand by my feelings of "fuck this video".

i struggle with people who have this binary view of politics.
just because i criticized the lies and deception of the republican party does not automatically translate me to promoting or defending democratic practices,because BOTH parties manipulate the body politic while at the very same fuck them over.

the two party duopoly are just different faces of the same coin.both have been purchased to serve the interests of:wall street,big business,bankers and the military.

i have never subscribed to either party.i judge on individual merit and a case by case basis.so when you call me a liberal i dont know what the fuck you are talking about.

do i hold some liberal views? yes.
do i hold some conservative? yep.

but so dont you bob,we ALL do.
of course that is not the dynamic that is shoved down our throat every goddamn day.that somehow our politics can be reduced down to this over-simplified,and overly basic dichotomy.

but nobody has such a simpleton,and almost childish politics.as humans we are pretty complex is our understandings,feelings and desires.it is those complexities that influences our politics and how we feel things should be as a society.

i am a libertarian socialist (anrcho-syndacalist).
which is why you may see me post videos that address the corruption in politics,in our economy,in our foreign policy.the hypocrisy of politicians espousing that "feel your pain" language,while they funnel public funds to their criminal friends on wall street...and point to the food stamp recipient,or immigrant and state..with zero sense of irony..THERE,that is your problem.

my politics is the reason why i may post video criticizing and ridiculing ultra-right wing politicians attempting to legislate "proper" and "moral" behavior,because they pretend they have some relationship with god,and god spoke to them.

but also why i will post videos criticizing and ridiculing the extreme left.who seek to legislate "harmful" or "offensive" speech,because they seek to control language.as if THEY are the true moral arbiters of human interaction.

so i do not necessarily disagree with you when you point to the democrats hypocrisy in regards to poor folk.that they use the language of empathy and compassion,and then enact legislation that is entirely bereft of compassion and empathy,but BOTH parties do this!

bill clinton was incredibly detrimental to the poor and working poor and made the job of digging out of poverty damn near impossible.

you may identify with republican ideology,and that is not a bad thing.republican base ideology may be a tad more pro-business,but it also recognizes that the governments job is to protect the people from fraud and over-reach from those businesses.original republican ideology was for limited government,and fiscal responsibility.which USED to translate to anti-war and dismissing the military when it was no longer needed.

i could go on.

i could also point out that democrats USED to be more hawkish and far more involved in addressing the concerns of the working man.

but look at the political landscape of today.
both of these parties are nothing even close to representing their original ideals.they are solely and totally beholden to big monied interests.

our republic has become a plutocracy,run by the plutocrats and oligarchs.

so when you delineate the argument by republican/democrat i simply do not see this play out in reality.

we might as well be arguing who is the better fottball team,because thats what american politics has become.bread and circuses and cheerleading for our "team".

it is the height of absurdity.american politics has become absurd.

as for you not seeing this for being racist.
i dont know what i can say to remove your blinders.
this video is textbook racist.
we have "black face"
we have over-generalizations.
we have ridicule and assumption based solely on skin color.

calling this video racist is a non-controversial assertion.

and you cant promote it out of discard.
the sift has spoken.you can disagree,but that wont change the fact that this video is in the discard bin.

anyways,sorry for telling you to fuck off.
i just found this video offensive,but i dont find YOU offensive.confusing at times,but not offensive.

seriously dude?
that is a serious statement?
and why should i consider ANY criticism you offer with having any weight?

considering that on another video i posted you claimed the speaker was a nutter.thats it..no actual rebuttal or opinion..just "nutter",and when i asked for your actual reasons for your opinion.you admitted never having watched the video.

so let me guess.
ezra levant is maybe somebody you disagree?
(nevermind that it is lauren southern that has been following this case closely).
maybe he is right wing?libertarian?

maybe he is,i have no idea,but just by your knee-jerk and ill-thought out comment and your OBVIOUS bias.i think it is safe to assume that is the metric on how you judge the information you consume.

so let me ask you.
what information being presented here is false?untrue?fabricated? hell,even biased?

hmmmm?

you have done what you always do.
you do a drive by comment that attacks the speaker,poster or lecturer without examining the evidence and/or information.

and in THIS case you insult ME.
that somehow because i post a video from someone you happen to disagree,dislike or despise automatically translates to me becoming a bobknight wanna-be who worships at the altar of limbaugh.

so you dont like ezra levant.
who cares?
does that make ANY of the information in this video any less true? or pertinent?

nope.

so if you do not have anything of value to offer except for petty insults.i ask that you kindly take this cookie and go play outside.this is an adult conversation.

My libertarian list of the greatest black films:

Ron Paul was not goofy, but he was a (partially) fringe candidate. The gold standard being his biggest kookiness. But as far as just being loved by libertarians, well, that's what the media sold and that's what some poor saps actually believe.

As more a liberal leaning guy I swapped parties to vote for Paul. His honesty was nice but would have been unverifiable. However, his willingness to buck those he could have been bought by and made president from amazed me. He wasn't a populist except insofar as that his message was against those in power.

But what is most funny is this. Paul didn't do bad in the polls for basically being a 3rd party candidate. In that he smashed Nader and most other 3rd party candidates. Even knowing his defeat, those still willing to show their vote to him was astonishing. Now some would argue that he technically wasn't third party since he ceremoniously went under the Republican brand...but that's about stupid logic there.

"if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul."

Except that Paul WAS a goofy, fringe candidate. He had no mainstream support from either side. Sure, the libertarians loved him, but the conservatives hated his stance on drugs and progressives hated his stance on, well, pretty much everything else.

Sanders probably has more actual support amoung his liberal base than Paul did amoung the conservatives, but there's a very real chance that he WOULD lose a presedential race against a moderate conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Sanders get in. Ironically, I think the only chance he has is if Trump gets the republican nod.

rarely have a found a conservative that i find entertaining,while making valid points,and this guy milo does just that.

i was put off by the breitbart affiliation,but i am glad i gave this guy a chance.

he is a self-proclaimed provocateur,conservative and cultural libertarian.he is also a gay christian,,which just seems like an oxymoron.

i may try later to introduce the sift to his distinctive brand of dialogue.

he is very smart and reminds me of a mix of hitchens and gore vidal,but a conservative.

Is that a refinery or a well? Doesn't seem built up enough for a refinery and the explosion/jet of flame after looks more like a wellhead.

Don't you know, @newtboy the industry will regulate itself if government would just leave them alone! Ask any Libertarian.

@newtboy

I'll give you my brother's phone number. He went from secular to devout for a reason. You don't like the word "need"? Then pick another one and stop with the pedantic nit picking.

People choose to be religious all the time. There is a different word. They choose religion.

Why?

I have heard people say they "need" it.

I suspect that you have never had a respectful conversation with someone who chose religion. It takes time to get to motive. If you are lecturing them about how they are wrong, you aren't going to hear them.

So, I have a limit to how much time I am willing to spend talking to judgmental zealots who want to dictate how other people should live and think. I've reached it now.

(I hope you noticed that I in no way have defended religion from its excesses and crimes. I have stayed focused on individuals making individual decisions about their own lives. Rather Libertarian of me, isn't it?)

Uber is a conservative idea, not a libertarian idea. Big difference, even though it is nuanced. For example, under corporate protections, loopholes, hedge fund / stock market finagling and so forth, Wal-mart has grown (more) than it could have ever imagined.

Still, the free market by itself doesn't work. However, just noting the hybrid system we have is almost worse in a way.

Can we admit it now?

Uber, and pretty much everything like it that seeks to lower prices for a commodity/service simply for the sake of lowering prices to drive customers is wrong. Wal-Mart, whatever. People are cows and will always move to the cheapest available product, government needs to intervene to ensure safe working conditions and fair wages for all. Cases like Uber are just proof of how flawed Libertarian ideas really are.

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.

Upvoted for the shameless dig at libertarianism!

Consumer printers seem like the lightbulb cartel of the computer industry. They know we need them and they know how to make them last, but those two two things are somewhat incompatible when profit is the only measure of success.

Of course this is all the evil governments fault and could in no way be addressed by offering subsidies to companies which avoid such abusive practices....

......filthy filthy socialism.....!

I know you're dumb/purposefully ignorant juuust so you can make idiotic snarky comments like this..

But you and everyone else know that Police Brutality trumps All Privilege.

For example, that 17-year old white libertarian kid that got murdered by a cop for flashing his headlights.

White Privilege is simply all the perks that go with whiteness.