SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 14, 2006 As far as Stein goes, I could care less what he thinks. COULDN'T CARE LESS. I thought you were a teacher. Technically, his use of "could" is correct. If he couldn't care less, he probably wouldn't have posted on it at all. Oh, snap? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted March 16, 2006 My point was simply to point out that we're bombarded with negative images by the media every day...and that when we put this war in persepctive on just the casualty rate, its really not that poorly run on that figure. I read the washington post express this morning. Not a single positive story for 10 pages. Just saying... You never hear about the buildings that don't blow up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 16, 2006 IT'S NOT CORRECT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted March 16, 2006 It's like people who misuse literally. Just because it's used colloquially doesn't mean you aren't using the phrase/word in EXACTLY the wrong way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2006 Hey, if David Cross says you're a fucking idiot for misusing "literally," then you're a fucking idiot for misusing "literally." I'm not gonna doubt Grass Valley Greg. I use "couldn't care less" and "practically," so um, basically, yeah, I'm going to heaven and you're not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Special K 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2006 No, I'm on your side. Reread my post. Another way to say it would be, 'even though it's often used colloquially, it's still incorrect. People argue that since it's been misused so much that 'could care less' is fine. It's not. "Oh, man that was so funny, I literally shit my pants. ...That's terrible! What'd you do? No, I said I LITERALLY shit my pants, dude." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jingus 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2006 Yeesh, some of you are overreacting to this. So some guy is pissed off at his employer, what else is new? The idea that it is brave to stand up for gays in Hollywood, to stand up against Joe McCarthy in Hollywood (fifty years after his death), to say that rich white people are bad, that oil companies are evil -- this is nonsense. All of these are mainstream ideas in Hollywood, always have been, always will be. That part was very true. I've seen news stories and/or blurbs on TV that called the creative minds behind these movies "brave". Uh, no they weren't. Michael Moore making a movie which directly attacks the president for two hours: THAT'S brave. Any actor who willingly strips naked for the camera: THAT'S brave. Stuntmen who risk their lives on a daily basis for our entertainment: THAT'S brave. Writing/producing/directing a movie featuring ideas that have been commonly accepted for decades: NOT brave. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2006 Michael Moore making a movie which directly attacks the president for two hours: THAT'S brave. You've gotta have balls to think you can get away with pulling shit like screwing with chronological order for a "documentary." "It's just entertainment," my ass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted March 18, 2006 People saying Goodnight and Good Luck was made in order to "stand up against Joe McCarthy" are underestimating how relevant the film is to our current political climate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest InuYasha Report post Posted March 18, 2006 People saying Goodnight and Good Luck was made in order to "stand up against Joe McCarthy" are underestimating how relevant the film is to our current political climate. Just replace communist with terrorist, and we're right back where we started almost 40-50 years ago. The only question left to answer is who is going to be Bush's version of Joseph N. Welch? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted March 21, 2006 My point was simply to point out that we're bombarded with negative images by the media every day...and that when we put this war in persepctive on just the casualty rate, its really not that poorly run on that figure. I read the washington post express this morning. Not a single positive story for 10 pages. Just saying... Well at the same time, the coverage of the war is basically the equivelant to the reading off of box scores on ESPNnews. THe effect has been lost. Also, rarely does our media do any investigative reporting as to what the Iraqi perspective is, I mean it might not sound all that bad to Americans when you hear "one US Soldier dead, 29 Iraqis dead in a car bombing" And everyone seems all releaved that hey only one of our soldiers went down, but people don't stop to think of all the iraqis are dying in this War that they certainly didn't invite and/or ask for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spicy McHaggis 0 Report post Posted March 23, 2006 Yes, I'm sure those Iraqis would prefer the wood chipper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
