You did not do that!

[RecycleMichael]

Either way, it is no shock that President Obama values collective effort and distributive achievement over individual initiative and success.  

If you get all that from one sentence taken out of context, then surely you must believe that Romney thinks that only cares about the rich when he said," I'm not concerned about the very poor."

What should the President care about?

Is it more important for the President to embrace the richest 1% or the collective masses?

Either way, it is no shock that you can't seem to write a single sentence about your candidate and spend day after day trying to explain what Obama really means when he says something. Somehow, your translation is always wrong.

[Red Arrow]

Well, in the case of the comment that started this thread, I think this should have cleared it up immediately:
That seems very much like respect, not disrespect.

One aw-crap wipes out 100 atta-boy. Therefore, one atta-boy does not wipe out many aw-craps.  If you cannot see an attitude of collectivism at the expense of individual effort, so be it.

[Red Arrow]

If you get all that from one sentence taken out of context, then surely you must believe that Romney thinks that only cares about the rich when he said," I'm not concerned about the very poor."

Which has been pretty much been part of the get Romney campaign.  Your use of it here is no different than the right's use of "You didn't do it".

[RecycleMichael]

I am guilty. But in fairness, I have also tried to portray Romney as a school bully and an animal abuser.

[Red Arrow]

I am guilty. But in fairness, I have also tried to portray Romney as a school bully and an animal abuser.

True, you try to leave no tern unstoned.

[Hoss]

True, you try to leave no tern unstoned.

If the shoe fits...

[AquaMan]

The President hasn't revealed any bizarre conspiracy.  He has only given us a clearer picture of his philosophy towards achievement, a philosophy that many on this forum are 100% in agreement with. Sure, we can accomplish great things together, but none of that is possible without the spectacular achievements of the individual that reach far above and beyond their collective responsibility.

What should the president of The United States promote?

Is it more important for Americans to embrace initiative and recognize individual achievement, or collective endeavor?

Is it important for a government saddled with skyrocketing entitlement expense to promote independence as a value, or to market the expansion of a dependent society?

Should our goal be to encourage people to acquire the tools they need to succeed and promote the courage to take risk, or provide security in exchange for unenterprising mediocrity?

It's been over two weeks of the minions continually attempting to redesign and qualify what the president said, but his message is clear, and he has not veered from it.  For some it is sharp and insulting, for others it is comforting.  Either way, it is no shock that President Obama values collective effort and distributive achievement over individual initiative and success.  It is what he is about, but it is not what this country is about.

The smallest and weakest minority is the individual, who's rights and freedoms must be protected.  Individual achievement must be recognized and promoted.  

Individuals provide role-models, groups only provide roles.

^Shadows as a young man. Better word control, same weak message.

[Red Arrow]

If the shoe fits...

The shoe fits RM just fine.

[Gaspar]

If you get all that from one sentence taken out of context, then surely you must believe that Romney thinks that only cares about the rich when he said," I'm not concerned about the very poor."

A few things. . .

I am taking the president's comments in context, as stated before including my previous posting of the president's entire off-prompter remarks.

What should the President care about?
His job, which is primarily executive decisions related to ensuring the integrity of the union.  At this time that should be a "laser like focus" on promoting policies that stimulate economic growth.

Is it more important for the President to embrace the richest 1% or the collective masses?
Neither.  It is most important that he promote policies that encourage economic growth (see above).  Without the opportunity of jobs, the "collective masses" will continue to suffer.  Engaging in additional class warfare activities may serve to strengthen his relationship with his voting base, but will do little to aid the economy.  That has been his primary stumbling block for the past three years.

Either way, it is no shock that you can't seem to write a single sentence about your candidate and spend day after day trying to explain what Obama really means when he says something. Somehow, your translation is always wrong.
I have written several.  I have done little to "explain what the president means."  He has done that himself.  It is his own sympathetic media that has spent (and continues to spend) the last couple of weeks attempting to soften or alter his message.

I have made no translation to what the president said.  In fact, I shall post it again in video so there is no confusion:

[nathanm]

Please keep arguing with the English language. It makes for very amusing reading. And yes, he did explain what he meant in that video you posted, yet you still take away something else from it because you just can't bring yourself to believe he's not some Kenyan muslim socialist. It's freakin' ridiculous.

[Hoss]

Please keep arguing with the English language. It makes for very amusing reading. And yes, he did explain what he meant in that video you posted, yet you still take away something else from it because you just can't bring yourself to believe he's not some Kenyan muslim socialist. It's freakin' ridiculous.

Actually, it's more hilarious.  He's like TNF's version of the carnival barker.

[Hoss]

As usual, Jon Stewart knocks it well out of the ballpark.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-25-2012/democalypse-2012---do-we-look-stupid--don-t-answer-that-edition---grammatical-gaffes

[heironymouspasparagus]

I remember seeing signs on big rigs that stated "This vehicle pays more than $X,XXX in taxes each year".  Frequently that number was something like $6,000 and that was 15 to 20 years ago when $6000 meant something.  I don't know if that included the fuel tax or was above and beyond fuel tax.

Heiron,
You've driven the big stuff.  What about the taxes?

Sorry so slow responding - VERY limited internet where I am and the cold is numbing my brain.  Well, the "cool" actually - it's 51 right now - degrees F.

Not sure - was only a company driver.  When I have talked to tax people about it, got the "it depends" scenario.  Tag for a box trailer - 53' - was reasonable here - can't remember exact numbers since it has been about 8 years since I asked about it.

Beyond just the truck, there is the IFTA fuel tax arrangement.  That is very strange setup that I'm glad I never had to deal with directly.  You buy fuel, with tax at the pump, then afterwards, resolve it to where you were, what the tax rates are and presto-change-o, you might owe more or less.

Cargo seems to change the amount, too.  Just one more barrier to entry....

[Red Arrow]

Beyond just the truck, there is the IFTA fuel tax arrangement.  That is very strange setup that I'm glad I never had to deal with directly.  You buy fuel, with tax at the pump, then afterwards, resolve it to where you were, what the tax rates are and presto-change-o, you might owe more or less.

So if you filled up in Joplin, MO, drove I-44 to I-40 to Shamrock, TX, would most of the fuel tax would be adjusted to Oklahoma rates?  Would Oklahoma get the money?

[heironymouspasparagus]

So if you filled up in Joplin, MO, drove I-44 to I-40 to Shamrock, TX, would most of the fuel tax would be adjusted to Oklahoma rates?  Would Oklahoma get the money?

That's my understanding.  Not sure it is quite that straightforward, but basically that is how it was explained to me.  I don't think many drivers understand it very well - they just let their accountant take care of it.