When you lefties get done watching Maddow tonight, help me out.

[bodyman5001]

Does she normally belittle people like Chris Christie? Also, does she normally make fun of people for being morons while getting the "basic math" she was making fun of wrong herself?

I know you guys watched it, don't deny it.

I always knew she and Olbermann were just as phony as O'reilly and Hannity, I just thought she was more intelligent than the Fox news phonies. Olbermann is smart too, just unwatchable.

On a side note, I learned about some kickass pain ray the government has on Maddow when I was flipping the channels last night. I want to try it.

 

[Eastoff]

what?

 

[Eastoff]

I would have to watch these links to see what you're talking about. Rachel is usually pretty good, and chance are if she really got her math wrong, the next day or so she will retract her statement about it.

 

[julius]

I would have to watch these links to see what you're talking about. Rachel is usually pretty good, and chance are if she really got her math wrong, the next day or so she will retract her statement about it.

Since I didn't watch it, nor was there any links provided to show what the error in her math was, it could also mean that someone else got the math wrong (not related to her show)

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

I'm in love with a tall skinny lesbian.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

Here's the clip bodyman5001 was talking about:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#38858438

It's all Obama's fault.

 

[julius]

Does she normally belittle people like Chris Christie? Also, does she normally make fun of people for being morons while getting the "basic math" she was making fun of wrong herself? I know you guys watched it, don't deny it.

After watching the clip that I guess you're talking about, it lead me to one question. What basic math did she get wrong?

He said 2.2, she said 3. 440.8 - 437.8 is, by every account I can figure, 3.

Although I think as far as mistakes go, it's not a big one (saying 2.2 vs 3) and he's always paid enough for it (losing out on 400 million).

Was there another basic math mistake she made?

 

[bodyman5001]

After watching the clip that I guess you're talking about, it lead me to one question. What basic math did she get wrong?

He said 2.2, she said 3. 440.8 - 437.8 is, by every account I can figure, 3.

Although I think as far as mistakes go, it's not a big one (saying 2.2 vs 3) and he's always paid enough for it (losing out on 400 million).

Was there another basic math mistake she made?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I have the fucking clip on my DVR. From about 3 minutes and 15 seconds in she makes fun of him. Unfortunately, they showed a different version of what they actually aired at 6:30 pm pacific time.

THEY FUCKING REDID IT. awesome.

When I went to post this, they hadn't added the clip to their website yet.

In the version I WATCHED ON TV she got it wrong too. She said it was NOT 3.0 but 2.2 just like Christie had just wrongly stated in her clip of his interview.

They do know we have technology that can record video don't they?

I am not going to try and record it off of my DVR, but someone who cares will and you will see for yourselves.

 

[julius]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I have the fucking clip on my DVR. From about 3 minutes and 15 seconds in she makes fun of him. Unfortunately, they showed a different version of what they actually aired at 6:30 pm pacific time.

THEY FUCKING REDID IT. awesome.

When I went to post this, they hadn't added the clip to their website yet.

In the version I WATCHED ON TV she got it wrong too. She said it was NOT 3.0 but 2.2 just like Christie had just wrongly stated in her clip of his interview.

They do know we have technology that can record video don't they?

I am not going to try and record it off of my DVR, but someone who cares will and you will see for yourselves.

I think my response will probably be the same. the mistake of saying 2.2 vs 3 isn't really a big deal, and the guy who cost his state 400 million dollars deserves far more ridicule than the one who didn't cost a state 400 million.

btw, I'll take your word for it. I can easily see how 440.8 can be quickly thought of as 440 (which is what I initially did when I did it in my head).

Her mistake is funny. His mistake is expensive.

I would suggest, in the future, you give a little more description to the "error" (or something of a similar nature). I didn't watch the show, so i had no idea what the hell you were talking about until the link was provided by someone else.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I guess this is what I'm missing out on since I ditched cable ... sweet.

 

[bodyman5001]

I think my response will probably be the same. the mistake of saying 2.2 vs 3 isn't really a big deal, and the guy who cost his state 400 million dollars deserves far more ridicule than the one who didn't cost a state 400 million.

btw, I'll take your word for it. I can easily see how 440.8 can be quickly thought of as 440 (which is what I initially did when I did it in my head).

Her mistake is funny. His mistake is expensive.

I would suggest, in the future, you give a little more description to the "error" (or something of a similar nature). I didn't watch the show, so i had no idea what the hell you were talking about until the link was provided by someone else.

I could care less about his state not getting my tax money.

Here is the video if I can add it properly....


[URL=http://s292.photobucket.com/albums/mm29/bodyman5001/2010-08-25/?action=view&current=MOV00282.mp4][/URL]


You have to crank the sound up, my girlfriend was asleep.

 

[jlprk]

The governor of another state couldn't care less about you caring (actually not caring) less. Taxpayers in his state must cough up the $400 million to cover the loss.

 

[maxiep]

Rachel Maddow is obviously quite intelligent. I've always found her insightful and interesting. However, it must be difficult and frustrating for her and others of her political ilk to see their ideas so roundly opposed by the populace at large. She's undergone a real change of tone over the past year. She's now much more likely to lean on snark and to dismiss those who disagree with her politically as stupid, silly, ill-informed or bigoted than she is to legitimately address their concerns. That's what the weak-minded types like Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity do. She's better than that.

 

[Eastoff]

Rachel Maddow is obviously quite intelligent. I've always found her insightful and interesting. However, it must be difficult and frustrating for her and others of her political ilk to see their ideas so roundly opposed by the populace at large. She's undergone a real change of tone over the past year. She's now much more likely to lean on snark and to dismiss those who disagree with her politically as stupid, silly, ill-informed or bigoted than she is to legitimately address their concerns. That's what the weak-minded types like Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity do. She's better than that.

I don't know about all the details, but I agree with the sentiment that over time it is hard to stay true. Not to cave to the simple mud smearing and attacks of vagueness. I still think she's pretty good though. When Glenn Beck has people eating out of his hands with the stuff he does, can you blame anyone on the left for being annoyed?

 

[bodyman5001]

The governor of another state couldn't care less about you caring (actually not caring) less. Taxpayers in his state must cough up the $400 million to cover the loss.

I said what I meant. I could care less.

 

[bodyman5001]

I don't know about all the details, but I agree with the sentiment that over time it is hard to stay true. Not to cave to the simple mud smearing and attacks of vagueness. I still think she's pretty good though. When Glenn Beck has people eating out of his hands with the stuff he does, can you blame anyone on the left for being annoyed?

You just made it quite clear that you like her because you are more likely to agree with her spiel as opposed to Glenn Beck. I wish the world was the way Beck wants to portray it to be but it isn't. It also isn't like what Rachel Maddow wishes it were to be either.

The part that was funny to me and apparently nobody else was that she was calling Christie a moron for the most part while doing exactly what his state had done in their application. Making a simple mistake.

 

[julius]

You just made it quite clear that you like her because you are more likely to agree with her spiel as opposed to Glenn Beck. I wish the world was the way Beck wants to portray it to be but it isn't.

what is it about the way Beck wants to portray the world, that you like so much?

 

[Eastoff]

You just made it quite clear that you like her because you are more likely to agree with her spiel as opposed to Glenn Beck.

When the Blazers play the Lakers, do you like to listen to the Lakers announcers?

 

[Nikolokolus]

When the Blazers play the Lakers, do you like to listen to the Lakers announcers?

Honestly? Yes. Joel Myers runs circles around MB and Rice and is not only knowledgeable, but very complimentary of opposing players/coaches/etc.

 

[The Sebastian Express]

To be fair, 98% of the league is better than The Mikes.

 

[Ed O]

I said what I meant. I could care less.

If you could care less then that means that you care more than zero. If you could not care less that means you don't care.

Just so you know.

Ed O.

 

[bodyman5001]

If you could care less then that means that you care more than zero. If you could not care less that means you don't care.

Just so you know.

Ed O.

I do care more than zero. You should start the Ed O. show. You and Rachel can take turns making snide comments on tv.

I do care about the 400 million dollars because it is going to go to another state instead. I don't care if New Jersey gets it or if Ohio gets it or if Alaska gets it. I care because 400 million dollars is a lot of money to waste on public schools. I know that you can actually spend a lot more in California just to build a school, but that is another topic.

I literally use both figures of speech. If you people think that someone saying they could care less is stupid, good for them. I have heard a million people say it and I use it often. When I literally don't give a flying fuck about something, I say that I couldn't care less. If I am talking about something that interests me somewhat but doesn't affect me much I say I could care less.

 

[bodyman5001]

what is it about the way Beck wants to portray the world, that you like so much?

No blacks or messicans.

 

[bodyman5001]

When the Blazers play the Lakers, do you like to listen to the Lakers announcers?

How about this, when the Blazers play the Lakers and the Blazers get called for a foul, do you decide whether it is really a foul based on what Mike Rice thinks?

When Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann show videos of Republicans flip flopping on every issue known to man, I don't discount what I saw because I saw it on their shows.

I just don't stick my head in the sand and pretend that Democrats aren't just as dishonest, they are.

 

[jlprk]

Rachel Maddow is obviously quite intelligent. I've always found her insightful and interesting. However, it must be difficult and frustrating for her and others of her political ilk to see their ideas so roundly opposed by the populace at large. She's undergone a real change of tone over the past year. She's now much more likely to lean on snark and to dismiss those who disagree with her politically as stupid, silly, ill-informed or bigoted than she is to legitimately address their concerns. That's what the weak-minded types like Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity do. She's better than that.

Divide and conquer won't get you anywhere.

 

[Ed O]

I literally use both figures of speech. If you people think that someone saying they could care less is stupid, good for them. I have heard a million people say it and I use it often. When I literally don't give a flying fuck about something, I say that I couldn't care less. If I am talking about something that interests me somewhat but doesn't affect me much I say I could care less.

That's pretty stupid.

Why not just say you care?

If you care, then you could care less. If you could care less, then you care. There is no implication in the plain language or the common usage that indicate "I care" is "I care a lot" but "I could care less" means "I just care a little bit".

Saying "I care" is both shorter and more clear than "I could care less". If you say you could care less then it's ambiguous because so many people misuse the actual term ("I couldn't care less") by saying a term that there is actually no reason to use ("I could care less").

It's like saying that you use both "regardless" (meaning "independent of") and "irregardless" (meaning "dependent upon"). The latter is not really a word except for people that get confused and almost universally mean the opposite of what it strictly means.

Ed O.

 

[Eastoff]

How about this, when the Blazers play the Lakers and the Blazers get called for a foul, do you decide whether it is really a foul based on what Mike Rice thinks?

When Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann show videos of Republicans flip flopping on every issue known to man, I don't discount what I saw because I saw it on their shows.

I just don't stick my head in the sand and pretend that Democrats aren't just as dishonest, they are.

I agree with your general method there. They aren't going to point out their own viewpoint flaws readily, but they will with really bad ones. But they also are going to point out the other view point flaws quicker. It would be nice to see CNN actually pick up that moderate viewer market.

 

[bodyman5001]

That's pretty stupid.

Why not just say you care?

If you care, then you could care less. If you could care less, then you care. There is no implication in the plain language or the common usage that indicate "I care" is "I care a lot" but "I could care less" means "I just care a little bit".

Saying "I care" is both shorter and more clear than "I could care less". If you say you could care less then it's ambiguous because so many people misuse the actual term ("I couldn't care less") by saying a term that there is actually no reason to use ("I could care less").

It's like saying that you use both "regardless" (meaning "independent of") and "irregardless" (meaning "dependent upon"). The latter is not really a word except for people that get confused and almost universally mean the opposite of what it strictly means.

Ed O.

Hey, I had just read a Reader's Digest story online where someone who thinks that they are smarter than everyone else wrote that using the term HONE IN is incorrect and that HOME IN is the correct term. When something is a figure of speech, only grammar Nazis want to make sure that everyone conforms to the literal usage. The first example in this story was about the term I used. When I don't care about something completely I usually say "I don't give a flying fuck"

A good example would be when the world cup was happening a while back. I didn't and still don't give a fuck about soccer.

Another phrase the author said was improper was "begs the question." Then the author wrote that the proper phrase is "raises the question."
I don't think that I literally lift questions up in the air, but maybe I am crazy.


Back to could or couldn't.

Your assertion that I don't use it the way common usage would suggest conflicts with your assertion that I used it incorrectly. If the common usage is what matters then either sentence would be considered accurate.

See, I work on cars for a living and breathe isocyanates on a regular basis. The fact that I can read and write at the level I can at my age is pretty impressive in my opinion. I am sure that I didn't use proper grammar in many parts of my post, don't care.

When people regularly say things like "I borrowed him some money" we might have something to worry about.

I

 

[bodyman5001]

I agree with your general method there. They aren't going to point out their own viewpoint flaws readily, but they will with really bad ones. But they also are going to point out the other view point flaws quicker. It would be nice to see CNN actually pick up that moderate viewer market.

A show I would like to see is one starring me. I would have to get in better shape so I wouldn't get tired, but I could invite Hannity Olbermann and Maddow and O'Reilly on and slap the shit out of any or all of them whenever they start regurgitating their usual garbage. That would be fun.

Watch Tosh.O if you want to see a good show.