Oh no, they didn't just say that...

"...we belong to..."?

As Lincoln explained, the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.  The people do not BELONG to anything.

They just stepped in it again.

People, belong to as in are a part of; not belong to as in owned by.

There are too many things to be worried about in politics to make these kind of silly specious "OMG" arguments about one side or the other.  Argue the platform and the ideas not "how can I misconstrue words to make the other guy look bad".  That is just so a Democrat trick anyway.

As Tony pointed out we all know what they were trying to say, but it comes off very badly.  Especially considering the Democrat's history of wanting to make government larger.

Of course I'd still argue that we are not "part of" the government.  The government is "part of" us.  I think the relationship has flipped in the last 50 years.

I still think there are much more worthy things to argue about and that this is just more Sturm und Drang and clouds the real issues.  As long as you are arguing the words you cannot argue the ideas.  the context of the statement makes it pretty clear that we are a part of the government was the intended meaning.  We the individual pieces are a part of the whole the whole is not part of, but is made up of the pieces.

The real question is, how fast did they run their marathon? Can we confirm this? 

I agree.  But the politicians don't want to argue ideas and issues because that would mean they actually have them.  Furthermore a good portion of voters vote on words and 30 second ads and the people running for office know this.

And yes, the intent was was innocent enough.  But I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts the GOP runs with this.  And it'll be a waste of resources I agree.

Using this logic, no politician ever plans to say anything that will lose him/her even one vote, so we can discount anything that is said that we disagree with or don't like, since this is obviously not what the person meant to do, right?

The problem is that a large part of their job is presentation. Of idea's, concepts, meanings. Their whole job is to convince, either you the voter to vote for them, congress and senate to vote for what they want, and other countries to do as they wish. And if they mess up their "presentation", I would suggest that while issues are more important, this should not be discounted.

With the clinton example, it doesn't really matter how or what he said, it wouldn't have worked. So he could be the most convincing, or the least, same result.

I suppose it depends of the listener being willing to have an open mind.

Don't shoot the messenger.  

This one honestly wasn't anything near as bad as the "you didn't build that" and for that one all the context in the world doesn't help.  In fact, I think the full text of "you didn't build that" is actually worse than just the edited part.  

I know, we beat that horse to death.  Sorry

I was thinking the reporters all sound like they're taking shots at commercial breaks.  They all sound loopy.  Did they pump-in marijuana smoke to that arena or something?

Okay, I'm going to have to call you on this. Here is your own quote from the other thread.

Either both get credit or both get the blame. Really I don't think either one had anything to do with the credit.

Oh Yeah?

Well.....umh......umh..........

(....awkward silence....................)

You're right! Blame it is!!!

Newt's a jerk and he set us on a path that wrecked the economy.

And Bill did too.

How's that?

ETA.  My Credit mention was because before 1998, CDS' were non-existent.  Between 1998 and 2006, you saw an explosion in CDS'.  It was in those last 2 years of Clinton that they should've been caught but weren't and then Bush should've stopped them too but didn't.  Treasury, Congress, SEC, someone should've done something.

Oh I agree with you, I just happened to read both of those threads back to back. I think congress/president had little to nothing to do with the great economy we enjoyed. They both share a large portion of the blame for changing the regulations to allow the housing crisis to develop.

I'd say Congress has more say in it than the Prez. 

What committee is it that handles banks?  Finance? or is that a sub?  I can't recall.

I am so tired of the you-didn't-build-it shell game. I read the text, I heard the speech. I am intelligent enough to understand the point the President was making, but the Romney campaign and supporters seem to think I am stupid. Really stupid. Not going to get my vote that way.

Funny, when I hear Obama speak I get the feeling he thinks his supporters are stupid.