This seems to be the only way the DC press ever "challenges" Republicans anymore. Ask a simple question like "what policies will you enact if elected", press for an actual answer, and let the Repub flounder.

Good on Gregory for not letting him dodge, but it's an almost accidental thing -- Meet the Press is basically a second hour of Fox News Sunday under his stewardship.

But even Chris Wallace nails Republicans from time to time with this same "hard hitting" journalistic method. At least when someone like Chris Matthews does it, he really drives home the rank incompetence of the empty suit he's interviewing for being unable to answer the question.

*news

Certainly not up to the standards I was expecting (I've only heard their studio stuff previously). But you're right, it still shouldn't have to flounder at 9 votes.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'octopus, mimic' to 'octopus, mimic, indonesia, shape shifter, flounder, lion fish, sea snake' - edited by lucky760

19. “I must confess that my imagination refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea.” — HG Wells, British novelist, in 1901.

Jealous of Jules Verne much? (who in my opinion is a much better writer...and was very ahead of his time in predicting numerous of technological advancements)

What I do find hard to believe is the claim that mistreatment of prisoners played little or no role at all in enemy recruitment (and I note that you are not making that claim) and was this godsend providing the military and defense dept windfalls of life-saving information (none of which has ever been substantiated, nor will it ever in my opinion) as people like Cheney would have the American public believe.

Thank you for acknowledging that I never said, "little or no role". I deplore the environment of extremist, loaded, biased language in today's political debates. This exists on all sides, but is most particularly eggregious on the political left. In this specific debate, guys like the video doofus paint a totally black and white picture where torture is the ONLY reason there are terrorists. Bull. Cheney responds with language that implies torture images don't motivate terrorists at all. Also bull.

Do the torture allegations motivate terrorists? I'm sure it does for some of them. To claim it is the 'only' reason is a politically motivated exaggeration which simple common sense and logic proves false. As I said before, if America had done no more than put all the prisoners in jungle bungalows I still VERY much doubt that terrorists would be having a hard time finding their recruits. They certainly didn't have a problem finding them before the allegations were made...

The discussion has floundered in the world of political extremism. Extremist neo-libs want to prosecute Bush, so they frame the discussion is such a way as to make it sound as if Bush-era 'torture' was the worst thing in the history man's inhumanity to man. Extremist neo-cons respond with the position that Bush-era torture was like a gentle tickling.

stop floundering

You're the only one floundering here, trying to shove your loose interpretation of poorly spoken words down the throats of everyone with any sense who is explaining rather simply the actual meaning of an often wrongly worded phrase. The bottom line is, in almost every situation, people should say "I couldn't care less" when they actually say "I could care less."

Most people just don't care enough about the words they speak to analyze or understand their meaning. Then, of course, there's that rare 0.01% of wackos who do understand but still try to defend, pervert, and proliferate twisted words because they have a false sense of entitlement and a magnificently inflated ego. These are the nuts who'd probably also try to convince you that saying "I don't not care" is also a valid way to express your lack of interest in something. "Sure it am not not a double negative and sure the speaker are actually saying it cares, but hey that am okay. You can figuring it out what they could mean any ways, so we should encourage every people to speak those way! Hooray for bastardization of these Ynglish lang wedges!" Let's encourage everyone to exercise incorrect language because, hey, everyone else can figure out what they mean anyway, right? GMAFB.


It is never misinterpreted by the listener

This is not true at all. I forget the particular song, but on Green Day's American Idiot album, a line says something like "I could care less" and I've always wondered and will never know if he added stress to the phrase to make it clear he's speaking literally about actually caring or if that stress was just for the melody and he actually misspoke as most people do and he really does not care.


Whenever this phrase is used, it is a whimsical way of saying they're in danger of caring less than they already do.

When someone exclaims, "I could care less if we water board George W.," what they're really saying is, "I'm in danger of caring less than I already do if we water board Old Georgie. Everyone pay close attention to the needle on my caring gauge because I think it's about to drop a little bit!" Right. You just keep looking at your reflection in that diploma frame and telling yourself that, friendo.

Out of curiosity, what about when people say, "If I never see you again, it'll be too soon?" Is that a whimsical way of someone saying they actually hope to see you again and preferably sometime soon, or is it someone who suffers from bad word choice and is attempting to inform that they never want to see you again?

If you ever comment on this again, it'll be too soon, and if you do, I couldn't care less.

>> ^Bullwinkle
A common mistake and a big one. It also discredits your whole "English Major" trumpeting.

Humans make errors regardless of skill level, and frankly, that is an easier one for an advanced person to make than many others on first drafts. It doesn't discredit a damn thing any more than your capitalization of "Major" discredits you. What you've done is a logical fallacy in debate. Because you lacked a rebuttal, you tried to find something I was wrong about then used the associative property to say all else must then be wrong.

>> ^Bullwinkle
I doon't have to write a dissertation (or 100 formal papers) to make a point, though I clearly have to illustrate it again, since you boiled it down to your point instead of mine.
Grammar is about structure, not what is implied (or inferred). So, yes, the speaker may intend to say they couldn't care less when they say, "I could care less," but that is not what they're saying, even if the listener understood what they meant.

Grammar has nothing to do with this and I already admonished those who did, so stop floundering. Whenever this phrase is used, it is a whimsical way of saying they're in danger of caring less than they already do. It is never misinterpreted by the listener as the opposite and for good reason. You would never confess your capacity to care more or less, or fail to state a preference if you cared enough to give one. I can't even believe we're arguing about something so idiomatic. Idioms don't have to be literal, they simply to have to be interpreted for what they intend to convey.

hurray for the wheezing stoner enjoying success filming a floundering feline

Oh my she's floundering now... faced with facts she doesn't know what to do.

Oh, I know I'll move on to talking about bullshit 'he knows how to win a war'

Such crap

The defining moment of this debate is here:

HITCHENS: But let’s say that we take his word for it. It means that when he went—having said that he thought that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi motherland—to greet Saddam Hussein in 1994 in Iraq and to salute him for his courage and his indefatigability.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: That’s another lie. You’re lying again. Your nose is growing.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: He went—and to take his side again, it meant that he went in foot on his own evidence. He went in full knowledge of the fact that he was dealing with a murderer and a monster and a dictator. So the pit of exculpation that you attempt to dig, Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it.

And after this Galloway flounders and appears unusually taken aback. Enough so that he stumbles around with a point he already made and was refuted on earlier:
GALLOWAY: But you opposed the war in 1991 in the full knowledge of what had happened at Halabja just three years before. You’re the one who went on television denouncing President Bush for his plan to invade and destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And the reason for this is both men know of the existence of this video of Galloway's 1994 visit to Saddam. It is, verbatim:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. I can honestly tell you, that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself, who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt fraternal greetings and support."

And that is exactly what Hitchens was referring to by "Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it". Hitchens baited Galloway into trumpeting one of his favorite lies, and did it such that there can be no mistake that Galloway is knowingly and intentionally lying about his actual opinions of Saddam.

The defining moment of this debate is here:

HITCHENS: But let’s say that we take his word for it. It means that when he went—having said that he thought that Kuwait was part of the Iraqi motherland—to greet Saddam Hussein in 1994 in Iraq and to salute him for his courage and his indefatigability.

GEORGE GALLOWAY: That’s another lie. You’re lying again. Your nose is growing.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: He went—and to take his side again, it meant that he went in foot on his own evidence. He went in full knowledge of the fact that he was dealing with a murderer and a monster and a dictator. So the pit of exculpation that you attempt to dig, Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it.

And after this Galloway flounders and appears unusually taken aback. Enough so that he stumbles around with a point he already made and was refuted on earlier:
GALLOWAY: But you opposed the war in 1991 in the full knowledge of what had happened at Halabja just three years before. You’re the one who went on television denouncing President Bush for his plan to invade and destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And the reason for this is both men know of the existence of this video of Galloway's 1994 visit to Saddam. It is, verbatim:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. I can honestly tell you, that there was not a single person to whom I told I was coming to Iraq and hoping to meet with yourself, who did not wish me to convey their heartfelt fraternal greetings and support."

And that is exactly what Hitchens was referring to by "Mr. Galloway, has just swallowed you up and the record will show it". Hitchens baited Galloway into trumpeting one of his favorite lies, and did it such that there can be no mistake that Galloway is knowingly and intentionally lying about his actual opinions of Saddam.

In reply to this comment by sickio:
>> ^blahpook:
He clearly floundering here. He was under cun-trak-u-wal obligations to not admit to having been a diva so many years ago...


Thats what happens when you DO IT LIVE!

Oh man, this comment just about killed me when I read it. Had to send you a quick PM with props.

>> ^blahpook:
He clearly floundering here. He was under cun-trak-u-wal obligations to not admit to having been a diva so many years ago...


Thats what happens when you DO IT LIVE!

He clearly floundering here. He was under cun-trak-u-wal obligations to not admit to having been a diva so many years ago...

Me thinks flounder was talking with his friend Jack Daniels before the show.