>> ^HollywoodBob:

That has been standard procedure for the last ~30 years, the only time it has not happened, was 9/11.

Can you name one time where a commercial airliner in domestic airspace filled with passengers was shot down by US military?

Fixed again, but this time all the starting scene videos were shot down, so I used a trailer instead...

I know I've argued that this was snuff once before and was shot down, but in light of this clip being deemed snuff and not suitable for the sift, I see no reason at all why this should be allowed to stay. If anything, this has less value then the other one, and that was discarded -- so this should be discarded as well. I've always felt a bit queasy about this being on the sift, so I'm glad to have an excuse to put it back on the chopping block. *discuss

You're comparing apples and Granny Smith apples.

I don't recall any of the examples you've cited nor why they were allowed, but this video isn't any of those. It's a short clip of soldiers killing bad guys and there is no discussion to be had for such clips. It's been discussed many times before and the bottom line is they simply are not allowed.

Personally, I agree with you that it's nice to see what's going on in our wars, etc., but VideoSift does not agree. (A bigger issue is that I am glad VideoSift doesn't allow it for one reason: If we allow videos of our soldiers killing bad guys, then we'd have to allow videos of bad guys killing our soldiers, and I wouldn't enjoy that a bit. [I've seen a few on LiveLeak and never want to see them again, let alone on the Sift.])


In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
Well then what about the massive highway accident clip that I linked to? I argued that was snuff and was completely shot down. What makes that not snuff and this snuff? The only difference I see between the two videos is that at least this one has some value, since it's related to relevant current events.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Really? What more is there to discuss? It actually is extremely clear cut.

Several times videos near identical to the one in question have been declared snuff. (In fact, that was my very first submission.)

The rules on snuff allow for a very slight gray area, but this doesn't fit there. It's been well defined that military clips of soldiers killing bad guys is never permissible.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
I don't think this video is quite as clear-cut as you made it out to be. I know you're the one who discarded it, but... ummm.. can you help me put it back on the sift talk page? I think more discussion is in order.

Well then what about the massive highway accident clip that I linked to? I argued that was snuff and was completely shot down. What makes that not snuff and this snuff? The only difference I see between the two videos is that at least this one has some value, since it's related to relevant current events.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Really? What more is there to discuss? It actually is extremely clear cut.

Several times videos near identical to the one in question have been declared snuff. (In fact, that was my very first submission.)

The rules on snuff allow for a very slight gray area, but this doesn't fit there. It's been well defined that military clips of soldiers killing bad guys is never permissible.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
I don't think this video is quite as clear-cut as you made it out to be. I know you're the one who discarded it, but... ummm.. can you help me put it back on the sift talk page? I think more discussion is in order.

Look, I don't mean to stir up trouble, but... well... I see a big bowl of trouble that seems like it needs to be stirred. *discuss

I don't think this is "clearly snuff (by guidelines and precedent)". By guidelines it is ambiguous, it could go either way. But by precedent it seems pretty clear. This video was allowed to stay. So was this one. Those two didn't even have anything redeeming about them, they were simply death for the sake of death. At least this one is showing what's happening in Iraq, a war that -- as much as a lot of us would like to wish it wasn't -- is happening right now.

In the case of the latter clip I linked to, I actually argued against it and was shot down, and that had no value whatsoever, and was no more or less explicit in its depiction of death than this clip.

Glad to see this sifted! I tried ages ago only to get shot down with a THAT'S NOT FUNNY IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS TO WOMEN BAWL.

The funny thing is, Ayers was right, and there is no need to be ashamed of his acquaintance.

You want to talk about terrorism? Ask John McCain what he was doing when he was shot down in Vietnam. He was attacking a civilian power plant, which is a war crime.

The Pentagon was full of lying fuck-faces back in the sixties, even worse than today.

Hard to imagine, I know.

Yeah, I've thought about that before and I wouldn't call it meaningless. I think if you are talking on a national scale (which is highly fictional), the element of surprise used on Katrina victims would be gone after the first round of confiscations. Also, the amount of force the federal government would have to employ with fully complicit local agencies of all types to perform a nationwide confiscation is a serious deterrant to it ever happening. The risks and problems outweigh any rewards. Once it was known that weapons were being taken, you can bet the general reaction would be much more violent than during Katrina. It would be far easier and more realistic to achieve the same goals by slowly erroding gun rights over time and pushing for legal means to disarm.

Also, I don't see why someone who fears that the government *could* take weapons by force if they wanted to would think it was logical to support bans and unreasonable restrictions. I'm not saying you in particular since you didn't really mention specifics on your position, but it's something I've noticed having this conversation with others. It just seems incongruous to me since this argument of "you couldn't fight back anyway" comes up a lot. To me it is like saying, "I don't think I could stop them from illegally taking my guns if they wanted to, so I'll support laws that make it legal for them to do so." I think if private firearms are going to be taken en masse in this country it will be through slow and calculated legislation "for our own protection," not by force.

In reply to this comment by shuac:
Well, I'm glad for that. And while I'm normally anti-gun and having never once held a gun in all my 40 years, I watched all the footage of the Sheriffs taking people's guns away in sheer horror. The NRA had the chance to litigate this issue afterward only because the worst had not happened.

But imagine for a moment (taking the founding fathers' original intentions of the 2nd amendment and applying them to today's world, something I never thought we'd have to do), that if the time ever comes that we'd need an armed populace for the purpose of defending the Constitution, a job normally done by our elected officials...then the government has proven that all they need to do to prevent that from happening is to merely walk up to that armed populace and literally take their guns away.

It took a hurricane to demonstrate to the powers that be that the 2nd amendment is meaningless. After the "big moment" has passed us by and the population has been disarmed, there will be no court date.

Again, I'm normally anti-NRA so you can imagine my disappointment.

In reply to this comment by Lurch:
>> ^shuac:
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?


Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/

>> ^shuac:
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?


Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/

>> ^Januari:
Thats kind of a funny link... given the mass of comments behind it...
So I understand you correctly... there it is 'TRUTH' and a true free flowing of ideas... but here because people tend to lean the other way... It's lies... and propoganda...
This is the kind of hypocrisy that just kills me... and it's largely that... and or current president that made it impossible for me to take McCain or the Republicans seriously.


-and it's this sort of dismissal of any kind of contrary opinion that makes me believe your head is deeeeeeep in your ass.
if you want a civilized argument, return my points with points. don't fucking condescend me by labeling me stupid (which is how i am choosing to take this^)
MY POINT:
I will find you're "right wing propaganda " and post it. I'll even send you the link. It will be shot down as such, and "promptly ignored."

P.S.
I voted Ron Paul
I'm voting Barr
I HAVE THE ABILITY AND RIGHT TO CALL IT AS I SEE IT
what would be a credible source, if not nyp? nyt? ajc? cst?

Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI

Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?

Didn't Maverick get shot down in Top Gun?

Maybe the point of her comment is that in order to pay for such a bill ($700B), we have to do it with debt. We already have a large debt. The only reason to take on more debt would be to preserves jobs and growth, the lifeblood of the economy. Her words are unclear, but the point is sound. By no means is this bill as currently shot down guaranteed to make the taxpayers money, but that is not a reason not to do the bill. It should be done, but it should be done in such a way to provide incentives for economic growth (taxes and jobs very relevant when talking about growth). Anyone who wants to cherry-pick this as an opportunity to slander Palin should stick to attacking her on style and polish, not substance.

Obama's policies are nightmarish, particularly as they relate to the economy. The only way for this country to resurrect itself is through long-term growth, and tax and spend is the exact opposite way to go. If you care about your job and think you might barely be holding onto it right now, just wait until Obama raises taxes, someone please explain to me how THAT is going to stimulate the economy (it will not, and it will hurt the dollar as well). There is no current worse investor than the government, look no further than Fannie and Freddie. We need more disciplined spending, not more spending.

Maybe the point of her comment is that in order to pay for such a bill ($700B), we have to do it with debt. We already have a large debt. The only reason to take on more debt would be to preserves jobs and growth, the lifeblood of the economy. Her words are unclear, but the point is sound. By no means is this bill as currently shot down guaranteed to make the taxpayers money, but that is not a reason not to do the bill. It should be done, but it should be done in such a way to provide incentives for economic growth (taxes and jobs very relevant when talking about growth). Anyone who wants to cherry-pick this as an opportunity to slander Palin should stick to attacking her on style and polish, not substance.

Obama's policies are nightmarish, particularly as they relate to the economy. The only way for this country to resurrect itself is through long-term growth, and tax and spend is the exact opposite way to go. If you care about your job and think you might barely be holding onto it right now, just wait until Obama raises taxes, someone please explain to me how THAT is going to stimulate the economy. There is no current worse investor than the government, look no further than Fannie and Freddie.