apparently, they will set up as a mortgage company and will avail themselves of the margins that banks can get, which is usually 10-1 (money lent to money actually in hand) for regular banks and up as high as 30-1 for investment banks (after glass-steaggal act was killed).

i don't really get it yet, but i understand the strategy of playing their game, and availing themselves of the ridiculously loose regulations and insider advantages that the industry enjoys.

For anyone interested in this stuff - how basic training inoculates people to prepare them for mental stress - I would highly recommend Col. Dave Grossman's "On Killing".

It's mainly about the psychological effects of killing, but it spends some time on how militaries prepare soldiers for the act of killing. Very fascinating.

As I've been a little misunderstood and quoted out of context, I'll quote myself:

In general, videos that depict a person being killed just for the horror factor are not exempt from our snuff guidelines. Furthermore, there is no discussion or debate to be had; the video just says "watch this guy murder this cop!"

If this exact video was the reverse, where the cop in the firefight survived by killing the driver of the truck, it would still be considered snuff. This would just be no more than "watch this cop defend himself and kill this guy to death!" However, if it was a case of an officer abusing his power to the point that a life is lost, it has greater potential to elevate the video's significance beyond the sole act of killing.

It is typically easier for a video to fall outside our snuff guidelines when an officer is unlawfully inflicting rather than unlawfully receiving the fatality because such events are by nature more likely to be worthy of discussion/debate. (Criminals are supposed to commit crimes; cops are not.) Think "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog."

1. First no death at all was allowed. People protested that videos like JFK's assassination should be allowed. We relented, allowing historic events.
2. People protested that a news story covering a gay couple being executed in a Muslim country should be allowed. We relented, allowing "newsworthy" videos and "brief parts of lengthy news broadcasts."
3. People protested that the world needs to see police officers abusing their power and murdering innocent people. These videos are often allowed.
4. Now you're protesting that we should allow videos of civilians killing police officers because we allow police officers murdering civilians. If we allowed that, the next member would protest that we're hypocrites because we allow civilians murdering police but not civilians murdering civilians. And the slippery slope continues...

Just stating my own opinion, but to me this video did bring discussion to the front; especially since other sifters and I had already discussed some of these debating points. A-Assault rifles are killing Americans, B-Psychological instability, C-The violence of our culture, D-The culture we are creating in law enforcement that makes them timid and fearful to pull a gun, least not certain sifters be there with a camera, E-The fact that nobody cares when a cop does the right thing.

Yes, the clip itself does not talk about these things, but then neither does any of the other videos--at all. They talk about useless crap like "law enforcement sucks" or "I'd sue the shit out of the office." That isn't discussion, that's a diatribe.

I won't gainsay what you have done because I am a man who follows rules and laws--but I will be like Socrates and defend my position while the hemlock is placed into this video. I just find it ghastly that this video being implied as "just for the horror factor" when it's far from it.

Perhaps I will take Sagemind's advice and use the Sift Talk as an outlet for these points.

>> ^lucky760:
In general, videos that depict a person being killed just for the horror factor are not exempt from our snuff guidelines. Furthermore, there is no discussion or debate to be had; the video just says "watch this guy murder this cop!"
If this exact video was the reverse, where the cop in the firefight survived by killing the driver of the truck, it would still be considered snuff. This would just be no more than "watch this cop defend himself and kill this guy to death!" However, if it was a case of an officer abusing his power to the point that a life is lost, it has greater potential to elevate the video's significance beyond the sole act of killing.
It is typically easier for a video to fall outside our snuff guidelines when an officer is unlawfully inflicting rather than unlawfully receiving the fatality because such events are by nature more likely to be worthy of discussion/debate. (Criminals are supposed to commit crimes; cops are not.) Think "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog."

In general, videos that depict a person being killed just for the horror factor are not exempt from our snuff guidelines. Furthermore, there is no discussion or debate to be had; the video just says "watch this guy murder this cop!"

If this exact video was the reverse, where the cop in the firefight survived by killing the driver of the truck, it would still be considered snuff. This would just be no more than "watch this cop defend himself and kill this guy to death!" However, if it was a case of an officer abusing his power to the point that a life is lost, it has greater potential to elevate the video's significance beyond the sole act of killing.

It is typically easier for a video to fall outside our snuff guidelines when an officer is unlawfully inflicting rather than unlawfully receiving the fatality because such events are by nature more likely to be worthy of discussion/debate. (Criminals are supposed to commit crimes; cops are not.) Think "dog bites man" versus "man bites dog."

Crappy camera work to make it look real.

Crappy acting skills kill the illusion.

This man ends a life that he feels is of less worth than a momentary adrenaline rush.

The lack of empathy is staggering.

Not saying hunting is wrong or evil if done out of need but the act of killing for pleasure makes me a bit queasy, to say the least.

Definitely agree that this "truth in recruiting" stuff is beyond redundant. Anyone who thinks they can join an army at war and not see combat is probably too stupid to make it through training, likewise with anyone who thinks that seeing combat doesn't hold the distinct possibility of getting killed.

With regards to supporting the troops I agree that it's stupid but for very different reasons. Mainly that saying "I support the troops" has absolutely no meaning or impact on anything. It mostly just seems to be a way for people to avoid the guilt of not having to share the danger and sacrifice of being a soldier, or having a family member who is a soldier.

With regard to your reasons I wanted to make a couple of comments. First off, you emphasize that soldiers are killers, certainly true, which seems to imply that you find the act of killing repugnant in all situations. This in turn would imply that you believe the most important thing a person has is his or her life. Is it though? Couldn't a persons dignity or virtue of conduct be more important than more time in a life that is eventually going to end anyway? What I'm getting at is that there are lives that arn't worth living. Hitler is a prime example. Lets ignore all of the evils he was responsible for and just focus on him. Do you think Hitler lived a good life? Do you think he was happy? By all accounts he was a pretty unhappy and miserable man, perhaps he himself (nevermind the world) would have been better off had he died young. My point with all of this isn't that killing is necessarily right, but there are things more imporant to a person than his or her life and therefore a premature death is not always morally wrong.

With that established lets look at the profession of arms. All societies need security in order to function, without it life devolves into a Hobbesian state of nature (although not exactly an issue of security look at what happened in New Orleans for an example of how quickly society breaks down). This is frequently hard to believe for most Americans and Europeans simply because life for us has always been really good. That society could ever be seriously threatened for without or fall apart from within, does not seem to cross most Westerners mind. Therefore the need for security frequently seems superfluous, and the institutions that provide security a relic of an older time. Is security superfluous though? I hate to bring it up simply because it's so overused by politicians I have little respect for and has been used to justify things that it does not justify, but I would think 9/11 demonstrates that security is capable of breaking down and when it does life is all the more terrifying and unpleasant. There may be a day where the world community comes together and the need for a true army will disappear. The need for security will not however, and therefore law enforcement institutions will continue to exist. Since weapons cannot be uninvented it will always be necessary for security forces to possess weapons. Otherwise how would they provide security from a threat that possesses weapons? Given how essential security is to a functioning society, having a group of trained killers as you put it to provide security is at the very least the lesser of evils if not in some ways a good thing.

The fact that private security contractors seem to be able to act, and kill, with impunity is hardly irrelevant. I like the note of disbelief the laughter takes towards the end when the audience realise he isn't joking. Heaven help us!