The latter.

Yes, he is being quoted on the internet a lot right now.
But if SP is following his advise, where is she headed next ?

When Emanuel said it on the WSJ Forum in 2008, he immediately added to it:

And that changes what?

Obama say's bring a gun to a knife fight....

So what's your point?

Right: firstly, I had misunderstood the 'mainstream' comment as being applied to the entire muslim diaspora, as opposed to their particular protest gathering.

Secondly, we were not just talking about constitutional rights, we were also talking about moral questions and the (admittedly very natural) tendency most of us (myself included) have to engage in a double standard when it comes to actions by our own people and actions by another people.

I'm not touching the rest of your comments in this thread with a ten foot fucking barge pole. If you cannot see the distinction between the 'blood libel' and the current dismay at particular politicians' highly questionable public activities, then we have nothing to talk about.

Do not attempt to draw conclusions between our Constitutional Rights and the muddled issues of the EU. There is no comparison. Apples and Oranges. Moral questions are answered by each individual country. Do Not try to drag our country into other countries issues on this subject if you are not willing to have the same critical assessments.

So take your ten foot pole and put it where it belongs........

I took your reply seriously because I have not figured out what Sarah Palin is all about.
If pushed, I would be dismissive of her.
But it appears the Republicans are going with her, not against her.
So as in my post above, I'd like a better idea of where she is headed.

The Rohm Emmanuel quote sounds quite cynical, albeit apropos right now... but only if it is limited to the first sentence.
When his next sentence is added, it is a much more of a constructive statement.
That is, many cliches include the idea that "problems are opportunities"
for those who are willing to accept them.

At the time of my post above, I had not seen the entire video clip of SP's remarks posted today.
I urge everyone to go to UTube and view the entire 7:43 minutes.

Early in her remarks, she says she has reflected for several days, asking for guidance.

This confirms to me that she knew (or should have known) what she is saying in this video.
My point is that she is not just making offhand remarks.
Instead, she is deliberately using the words and phrases in this video,
and so can and should be held responsible for them.

For now, I was largely disappointed in her messages in today's video.

Wtf have the 'muddled issues of the EU' got to do with anything? I was talking about protesters holding up signs calling for violent acts.


It wouldn't stretch all the way across the pond.

Just as an aside: I am honestly, genuinely shocked at some of the stuff American politicians say in public. Ours can be nasty, but the only time I recall hearing violent rhetoric like that from an active politician, it was from an undercover expose of the British National Party, and the calls for violent response were being made to a private audience.

Than do not try to draw comparisons between what people over there say in public and our folks say in public, as protected by our First Amendment rights as a comparison with radical Muslim extremists who killed a Cartoonist because he violated some BS line in the sand...

And I am shocked that you folks get the protection of the Secrets Act...

Well: I didn't make a comparison between what people say in public and the radical muslim extremists who killed a cartoonist. I was referring to the muslims who protested. Or are you saying they're all in it together and as such equally culpable for the violent end to that affair?

Oh for fuck's sake.

I know you are Merc, but what am I?

[W]olf is going to have to move this thread to the Relationships forum what with all this flirting going on.

This was an [eta]. but it turned into an essay so I am throwing it onto a different post :P

Right: this has started to get unpleasant. It is not always necessary to defend your country. You can throw what you like at me about ours, and if it seems a fair comment I'll agree with it. Is it shocking that we have the official secrets act? Damn right it is. Is it to be expected in a country like Britain? Alas, I think it's a fairly predictable lack of transparency. I personally don't find it shocking as such: it is how it has always been. That is what my country is like. Partially free. Partially in hoc to a born aristocracy who own all but a fraction of the land, and people the benches of both our political houses, and on both sides of the great political divide. Our governance, our intelligence services, our judicial system, law makers and law keepers, and most of the money sit with a small, but very powerful group of people and families. Despite our moves towards classlessness and social mobility, there is still a very authoritarian streak to our country, and I am not speaking of the socialist element of our politics. The authoritarian streak is much older, and much deeper than that. It also tends to sit more comfortably with the right of our political spectrum than the left: makes sense if you consider the origins of our political spectrum, as compared to your own.

We have a phrase in Britain, I don't know if it is ever used in America, but I have always thought of it as a British phrase: The men in grey suits. Say that phrase to any Brit and they'll know exactly what you mean. It is how our politics works. Unlike in the US, when the administration changes hands in an election, the civil servants who service the political machine remain in post. They provide the continuity.

When I say i am shocked by the violent rhetoric in American politics, I am talking about what appears to be a change in tone from the way it used to be, and from the way I expected it would be. I am not being flippant when I say I expected better. For all its flaws, the US political system has at its core a level of freedom that doesn't exist within ours. We still have Lords and Bishops sitting in our upper house. Some of the Lords are still in hereditary seats. The protection of that freedom is something that has often been a source of disagreement, misunderstanding, and cultural confusion amongst the various contingents of the Cellar. There are times whne that protection seems to lead to decisions that seem daft to an outsider like me. And there are times when it looks downright magnificent. But the one thing that seemed clear, was that freedom of expression, and the political freedom that implies, would always be defended, even ad absurdum (to an outsider:P)

To me, the introduction of this more violent edge to the political process in America seems a fundamental attack on those freedoms. More fundamental than any wiretapped phone, or hacked email account.

Do you really look at what is happening and not feel worry?

They think its a fucking revolution, Dana. They're gonna get all those stinking liberals out of the government and get rid of all those taxes-raising entitlements. They've got guns and know how to use them.

Koch would be so proud.