Allow me to illustrate.
Quote:
Pains in my ass
- Skycrasher is the king.
- Joxur, but I still like him.
- Tarot talks too much.
It's as petty and/or foolish to claim that the language from the Obama website doesn't have a limiting descriptor as it is to claim that I want to have Joxur's babies or that Skycrasher wears a crown and people should bow to him.
Now, if the only part you've read or heard is, "Skycrasher is the king," you have every expectation to take that at face value. If/When you find out that it's part of a larger outline and there's a limiting descriptor, i.e. Skycrasher is the king (of the pains in my ass), it's understandable that you may be momentarily confused or upset.
However, hurt feelings don't change the intent of the original message. Nor can the original author be completely responsible for quotations taken out of context (sure, each point should be as clear as possible, but it's completely impossible to remove all opportunities for corruption).
So, for those of you following along at home, here's the secret meaning of the above list:
Quote:
- Skycrasher is the king (of the pains in my ass).
- Joxur (is a pain in my ass), but I still like him.
- Tarot (is a pain in my ass when she) talks too much.
If you caught on to the subtle differences in use, very good! The first example, "Skycrasher is the king of the pains in my ass," shows categorization. The second example, "Joxur is a pain in my ass, but I still like him," shows competing ideas. And the last example, "Tarot is a pain in my ass when she talks too much," shows timeliness.
The Obama quote is an example of categorization.
Once you practice a bit, you'll find there's really nothing to it!