[Kevin]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Well, Christians also admit when they make mistakes because they are not perfect. Only God is perfect, right?

When has Bush made any sort of concession for error relating to the Iraq war?

Oh, he has admitted certain parts of the war he goofed up on.

I am sure you didn't hear it though.

Originally Posted by benign

I thought you quit that silliness.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh, he has admitted certain parts of the war he goofed up on.

I am sure you didn't hear it though.

Well, that clears it up/proves it.
(I'm not saying I disagree, but really; just because you say so doesn't make it true.)

[Kevin]

Of coruse not, nor would I try to pass it off as such. I guess if one was really curious, and not in a "I just want to flame Bush on a internet forum" mood, one would probably go to Google.

I know I've heard him admit problems. So I could REALLY CARE LESS.

[AKcrab]

Ahh.. So +2 for both of us.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh, he has admitted certain parts of the war he goofed up on.

I am sure you didn't hear it though.

No, and I didn't hear it either. Bush is a moron. I don't understand why so many Christians love and adore him just because he claims to be one of them. He's a complete idiot, and I see no reason to justify his stupidity and wrongdoings, even if I do agree with some of his morally infused policies.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by Kevin

So I could REALLY CARE LESS.

If you COULD care less, that means you obviously care somewhat. Perhaps you were trying to say you couldn't care less, which means that you care so little there is no possible way for you to care any less about something.

Whatever. Maybe praying will help you 'avaid' the grammar police.

[noreturn]

Originally Posted by bad_quote

If you COULD care less, that means you obviously care somewhat. Perhaps you were trying to say you couldn't care less, which means that you care so little there is no possible way for you to care any less about something.

Whatever. Maybe praying will help you 'avaid' the grammar police.

Congratulations, you tie with Kevin for the petulant award.

[Mastrap]

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm

Q] From Leland Woodbury, New York; related questions came from Marc Schoenfeld in San Francisco and many others.: “Your discussion of the contradictory interpretations of cheap at half the price reminds me of a similar conundrum that keeps flustering me in comparing the phrases I couldn’t care less and I could care less, each of which (at least here in America) is used to mean the same thing (which is basically I really don’t care), even though their syntax suggests that they should be opposites.”
[A] The form I could care less has provoked a vast amount of comment and criticism in the past thirty years or so. Few people have had a kind word for it, and many have been vehemently opposed to it (William and Mary Morris, for example, in the Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, back in 1975, called it “an ignorant debasement of language”, which seems much too powerful a condemnation). Writers are less inclined to abuse it these days, perhaps because Americans have had time to get used to it.
A bit of history first: the original expression, of course, was I couldn’t care less, meaning “it is impossible for me to have less interest or concern in this matter, since I am already utterly indifferent”. It is originally British. The first record of it in print I know of is in 1946, as the title of a book by Anthony Phelps, recording his experiences in Air Transport Auxiliary during World War II. By then it had clearly become sufficiently well known that he could rely on its being recognised. It seems to have reached the US some time in the 1950s and to have become popular in the latter part of that decade. The inverted form I could care less was coined in the US and is found only there. It may have begun to be used in the early 1960s, though it turns up in a written form only in 1966.
Why it lost its negative has been much discussed. It’s clear that the process is different from the shift in meaning that took place with cheap at half the price. In that case, the inversion was due to a mistaken interpretation of its meaning, as has happened, for example, with beg the question.
In these cases people have tried to apply logic, and it has failed them. Attempts to be logical about I could care less also fail. Taken literally, if one could care less, then one must care at least a little, which is obviously the opposite of what is meant. It is so clearly logical nonsense that to condemn it for being so (as some commentators have done) misses the point. The intent is obviously sarcastic—the speaker is really saying, “As if there was something in the world that I care less about”.
However, this doesn’t explain how it came about in the first place. Something caused the negative to vanish even while the original form of the expression was still very much in vogue and available for comparison. Stephen Pinker, in The Language Instinct, points out that the pattern of intonation in the two versions is very different.
There’s a close link between the stress pattern of I could care less and the kind that appears in certain sarcastic or self-deprecatory phrases that are associated with the Yiddish heritage and (especially) New York Jewish speech. Perhaps the best known is I should be so lucky!, in which the real sense is often “I have no hope of being so lucky”, a closely similar stress pattern with the same sarcastic inversion of meaning. There’s no evidence to suggest that I could care less came directly from Yiddish, but the similarity is suggestive. There are other American expressions that have a similar sarcastic inversion of apparent sense, such as Tell me about it!, which usually means “Don’t tell me about it, because I know all about it already”. These may come from similar sources.
So it’s actually a very interesting linguistic development. But it is still regarded as slangy, and also has some social class stigma attached. And because it is hard to be sarcastic in writing, it loses its force when put on paper and just ends up looking stupid. In such cases, the older form, while still rather colloquial, at least will communicate your meaning—at least to those who really could care less.

[bad_quote]

Originally Posted by noreturn

Congratulations, you tie with Kevin for the petulant award.

Congrats, you win the price for obviously trying to pick fights with me like crazy. Hi Budster.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Could you clarify this statement please? I am confused in your use of "we're" and "are" directly after each other.

And if you don't like the use of the word "sin" then I can make it easier. We are not perfect. God is perfect. We are made righteous in our Christianity. We cannot fellowship with God if we are not righteous.

I reworked the sentence a bit and actually could have left out the "'re" afterwards.

The problem you seem to have, is that you can't "objectively" describe the idea of "perfection" (or "God" for that matter), except in a tautological way.

How can a person be sinful (less than perfect), if "perfection" can't even be clearly defined?

Of course you are free to set for yourself any lofty (unattainable) goals you want, - I just don't see any reason for doing so myself.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Warung

The problem you seem to have, is that you can't

Ahhh... see, I have no problems at all. My faith is secure. You though, and your ilk, don't seem secure. I see that as a problem for you.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You though, and your ilk, don't seem secure.

How does that follow from what I wrote? And what does your faith being "secure" have to do with the concept of perfection?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by noreturn

No, and I didn't hear it either. Bush is a moron. I don't understand why so many Christians love and adore him just because he claims to be one of them. He's a complete idiot, and I see no reason to justify his stupidity and wrongdoings, even if I do agree with some of his morally infused policies.

Actually the way you posted this says more about you than Bush.

But you are entitled to your opinions

Originally Posted by bad_quote

If you COULD care less, that means you obviously care somewhat. Perhaps you were trying to say you couldn't care less, which means that you care so little there is no possible way for you to care any less about something.

Whatever. Maybe praying will help you 'avaid' the grammar police.

Rob, I know you haven't been on that much being banned and all, but said phrase is an on-going joke in the lounge. I KNOW it was wrong. Hence the reason I capitalized it.

Sorry that didn't work the way you wanted it to Rob.

[Demonhood]

not worth moving.