I agree that Obama has used this situation before, but when he did it he used it to show a different perspective on how he believes. He didn't just chop and edit a speech to try to make it sound as though he meant one thing when clearly he meant another. That's exactly what is being done here with Obama's speech. It has been deliberately edited to appear to people as though it means something terribly bad when in contrast it actually doesn't. I just find it humorous that so many of these edits do NOT show the entire speech, especially where it states what his "point" actually is instead of the point they're trying so desperately to make.

The only ad I've seen plays the whole comment, not just the words played in red in the top video. It is very similar to the Joe the Plumber situation where President Obama simply has a different view of the role and impact of government than do people like me. His whole comment discusses me as does John Stewart.

Signed, Definitely not a Mitten

I don't like it. You're right. They've both done it. I just find this particular out of context hilarious because so many of the conservative pundits jumped on the bandwagon when they knew very well what he had actually said. I expect both to play this game, but journalists should know better.

I vote neutral because they both have done this. This campaign is dirty I am not a fan of either candidate. Really hard time for me to be a proud American.

I don't have to say a whole lot about this. Click on either picture above for video links. One is the Daily Show with John Stewart picking the speech apart vs. the edited "you didn't build that" speech that Romney's camp uses in order to build an entire campaign platform. Good luck Mittens. I'll also list the links below.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-july-25-2012-joseph-stiglitz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-ZO7XOpwa8

I do not want anyone to choose a side. There is no need to leave a comment if you do not feel it necessary. I have chosen neutral myself in an attempt to speak to TNinfidel as I cannot email him. This is personal and does not require participation.

TNinfidel, it is quite clear you and I do not see eye to eye, but I would like to ask you a favor. If you wish to vote my comments down then please leave a comment, argument, or reason why. I am not asking you to stop doing so. This is a free country and you have every right to do so, but I would only ask that you show me some sort of reasoning. Otherwise, it is simply childish. I have not voted your comments down and will not unless I give you a reason why. Often I have voted them up when we agreed, but that is just it, I have voted it up or down for a reason. I have not done so out of spite except to show the issue to the JB admins. I am not trying to upset you. This is not meant out of dislike or hate. I only ask out of fairness.

this is all vaguely familiar!

We recently discovered the tater chips at Zaxby's and OMG; they're flipping yummy.

We actually wouldn't have known about them if it wasn't for them accidentally giving us someone else's food in drive thru. I bet they were pissed.

I've stopped eating there. Many can't seem to understand my stance. I love their chicken and fully believe they have the right to be a business with Christian beliefs. But, as a gay man, why would I give them money to let them turn around and donate it to groups that expect me to be okay with being a second class citizen? I am not saying they are being bigoted. I am saying that their fighting to keep me from having equal rights is discrimination. I do not feel that they should be banned by the mayors of Boston and Chicago. Then that would be me believing that we should discriminate against them, which is what I am asking them to not do to me. I do appreciate those mayors wanting to stand up for equality for all but this is not how that is accomplished. And I also strongly believe that the Henson company pulling there toys, so as to no longer be affiliated with Chik-fil-a was a great move. But the restaurant stating the next day that the toys were dangerous is way more than a coincidence, so I believe they are not living up to their Christian values and are lying instead of truthfully saying it was because of the gay issue. That's my two cents. Other than stating that Mike and I have been together got 22 years and one day we will be allowed to marry, whether it's called marriage, civil union or best buds. And I don't care what it's called as long as we have the same rights and benefits!

I agree, honesty and communication are definitely two of the most important things in a relationship/marriage. I don't see anything wrong with adding past boyfriends/girlfriends so long as there are good intentions and honesty.

Never had to deal with this. I would like to think we would consult each other, but honestly my only real ex boyfriend is my ex husband. =)

Honesty is always the best policy. Anything that concerns an ex of any kind should always be discussed. Otherwise you're simply inviting an awkward moment and future argument.