[Go Gordon]

Even if we allow “you didn’t build that” as out of context, it resonates because it still tells the fundamental truth of what he actually believes and practices.

Sorry, but he can't get away with an after the fact out-of-context claim. After talking about "roads and bridges" he then said if you own a business, you didn't build THAT. If he was referring to not building roads and bridges, he would have said: "If you own a business, you didn't build THEM" (referring to the roads and bridges). He didn't, he said you didn't built THAT (referring to the business)

[kevkrom]

Sorry, but he can't get away with an after the fact out-of-context claim.

Oh, I don't buy it for a second. I was just using a rhetorical device that says even if we accept the opposition's BS as truth, the underlying point is still valid.

That's not saying the the BS is true, it's just saying it doesn't matter with respect to the specific point, which is that the statement, in-context or not, provides an accurate window in the belief and practices of Obama and resonates with the general public accordingly.

[what's up]

That's what he's talking about when he says his syntax was wrong (he used "that" instead of "those"...should have used plural for "roads and bridges")

Problem is, his whole context (not just the pronouns used) is denigrating businesses and glorifying Gov't. That's not a syntax problem.

[Ronin]

He can blather all he wants, but it simply will not work. It’s on the Internet, he said it, anyone who has doubts can listen to it, and they can all hear what he said.

Every native speaker of English recognizes the syntax. Everyone knows what he meant. It’s not just the arrangement of the words, it’s tone, infliction, timing, etc.

His “who are you going to believe, me or your own lying ears” is pathetically laughable.