You did not do that!

[nathanm]

I thought that was only the case for states like Oregon that have a weight-mile tax. You pay your money at the pump, do some paperwork later and find out if you owe more or get a partial refund.

[Hoss]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/26/mitt-romney/putting-mitt-romneys-attacks-you-didnt-build-truth/

Verdict: false

Once again, the righties on here decide to ignore the context of the whole speech.  It's like conservative ADD.

Of course, I'm guessing our resident carnival barker will just put his fingers in his ears all the while going 'lalalalalala...I can't hear you....lalalalala'.   

[nathanm]

Once again, the righties on here decide to ignore the context of the whole speech.  It's like conservative ADD.

I think the most infuriating part is their insistence that we give Romney and other right wingers the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to believe out of context sound bites, at least be consistent about it!

[Red Arrow]

I think the most infuriating part is their insistence that we give Romney and other right wingers the benefit of the doubt. If you're going to believe out of context sound bites, at least be consistent about it!

Yawn, politics.  Spin that around to the other side.

[nathanm]

Yawn, politics.  Spin that around to the other side.

I would, if they were doing it with anything near the frequency or loudness.

[Red Arrow]

I would, if they were doing it with anything near the frequency or loudness.

That's a matter of opinion.

[Red Arrow]

Well, the "cool" actually - it's 51 right now - degrees F.

Enjoy the 51 deg.  It was about 105 here today.

I was going to say twice 51 but the scale is arbitrary and really 51 should be 51+459.67 = 510.67 deg R. 
105 F = 564.67 R
So, the ratio is really only 1.11:1

It's still hot.

[Conan71]

That's a matter of opinion.

Well timed.

So was politifart's "ruling" on the context of the speech.  I don't think it takes a hatred of Obama, nor even an allegiance to Romney or GOP ideals for someone to take Obama's remarks as condescending, smug, and belittling to job creators.  He's got a track record of saying the rich get too many breaks on the backs of the poor and need to be soaked because they don't do their fair share for the rest of us.  I don't think it's ever dawned on him who creates most of the jobs in this country- the wealthy.  Naw, they don't do near enough for the rest of us.

Our ruling

In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning.

The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses.

Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False.

[nathanm]

I don't think it takes a hatred of Obama, nor even an allegiance to Romney or GOP ideals for someone to take Obama's remarks as condescending, smug, and belittling to job creators.

It takes a pretty obstinate reading of "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." to think anything of the sort. Must the job creators be worshiped like gods to please you? Must no mention be made of the contributions of others lest we belittle the job creators' hard work and sacrifice by the mere mention of others?

I think you're joshing. I would take it more seriously if you weren't using a Luntz word.

[Conan71]

It takes a pretty obstinate reading of "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." to think anything of the sort. Must the job creators be worshiped like gods to please you? Must no mention be made of the contributions of others lest we belittle the job creators' hard work and sacrifice by the mere mention of others?

I think you're joshing. I would take it more seriously if you weren't using a Luntz word.

I don't follow Luntz, so not a clue which word you are referring to.  Why doesn't he simply come out and clarify it himself, instead of a media group grope trying to posit what he meant?  If close to 1/2 the people in this country interpreted it in a negative light, I'd think it a good idea to do some self-clarifying.

I never heard Clinton or Carter spew off such collectivism nonsense.  Of course, Clinton will probably be remembered for being one of the better Republican presidents ever.  

[nathanm]

Job creators. From his mouth to Roger Ailes' ear to the marching orders to the Fox News hosts, and on into your own ears.

It's no wonder 51% of Americans think that he said something wrong. Most of them heard this, at best:

Continue listening (posted as a bare URL because the forum kills the time code in youtube embeds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzf4yjphgf8#t=2064s

Listen to at least 35:00 (or preferably to 35:37 or more) and tell me with a straight face he's disparaging business owners or being divisive. "We're all in this together" is not divisive. Unfortunately, that's not the part they play on Fox News, despite it being less than 60 seconds removed in the speech and important to understand the context.

If you want to keep blatantly contorting his words to assign some secret meaning to them as if there was some 5 second slip of the tongue that shines a light so deep into his soul you can know what he was thinking, or you can not contort all logic and reason and accept that this is not actually evidence of Obama being some pinko commie who wants to nationalize all the businesseseses.

[Conan71]

Job creators. From his mouth to Roger Ailes' ear to the marching orders to the Fox News hosts, and on into your own ears.

It's no wonder 51% of Americans think that he said something wrong. Most of them heard this, at best:

Continue listening (posted as a bare URL because the forum kills the time code in youtube embeds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzf4yjphgf8#t=2064s

Listen to at least 35:00 (or preferably to 35:37 or more) and tell me with a straight face he's disparaging business owners or being divisive. "We're all in this together" is not divisive. Unfortunately, that's not the part they play on Fox News, despite it being less than 60 seconds removed in the speech and important to understand the context.

If you want to keep blatantly contorting his words to assign some secret meaning to them as if there was some 5 second slip of the tongue that shines a light so deep into his soul you can know what he was thinking, or you can not contort all logic and reason and accept that this is not actually evidence of Obama being some pinko commie who wants to nationalize all the businesseseses.

Except I don't listen to Fox.

Again, if he's so eloquent and so intelligent, why not simply issue a clarifying statement instead of leaving it up to media or individual interpretation?  It was clumsy at best and I don't understand why you can't simply admit it was clumsily stated.

[nathanm]

Except I don't listen to Fox.

Everyone cut it off after "you didn't build that."

Again, if he's so eloquent and so intelligent, why not simply issue a clarifying statement instead of leaving it up to media or individual interpretation?  It was clumsy at best and I don't understand why you can't simply admit it was clumsily stated.

He did. Not surprised you didn't hear about it. There was some unclear wording, but context the meaning of the language he was using quite plain. Personally, I think those who quoted him out of context should apologize to Obama. That's not really an ethical thing to do. It's not surprising, coming from our news media, but we should demand better. I think we both agree the election should be about the issues, not about ridiculous out of context quotes, even if we disagree on those issues.

If Obama thinks people who own a business didn't build it (or buy it, as the case may be), then Romney doesn't care about poor people. At all. They'll be fine. More likely, Obama doesn't think that people who own businesses built the roads and bridges and Romney thinks that our existing welfare systems are sufficient for poor people to get by on until we get the middle class back on its feet.

[Conan71]

Everyone cut it off after "you didn't build that."

He did. Not surprised you didn't hear about it. There was some unclear wording, but context the meaning of the language he was using quite plain. Personally, I think those who quoted him out of context should apologize to Obama. That's not really an ethical thing to do. It's not surprising, coming from our news media, but we should demand better. I think we both agree the election should be about the issues, not about ridiculous out of context quotes, even if we disagree on those issues.

If Obama thinks people who own a business didn't build it (or buy it, as the case may be), then Romney doesn't care about poor people. At all. They'll be fine. More likely, Obama doesn't think that people who own businesses built the roads and bridges and Romney thinks that our existing welfare systems are sufficient for poor people to get by on until we get the middle class back on its feet.

Romney doesn't care about poor people.  He hates dogs too.  It's a known fact.

[RecycleMichael]

Romney doesn't care about poor people.  He hates dogs too.  It's a known fact.

Please post this more often. You could even be like guido and use these phrases to start new threads.