Well, you might as well add Nabakov as well to these English language idiots who don’t know what “literally” means. When I hear people gripe about misuse of the word “literally”, I assume they can’t identify a figure of speech.
I have to put in a mention for Suave hair products, whose slogan is, “For less than the more expensive brands.”
Of course it’s going to be less than the more expensive brands. Anything will be less than something more expensive!
What? This is a discussion of usage and style focusing on a single much-abused word, man! Get back on topic!
Meijer (the one in Lexington, KY, anyway) actually has express lanes for people with twelve items or fewer. I wanted to find the person responsible and kiss him.
Not to mention that people in pregnancy test ads are always thrilled when it comes up positive. This is very much not my experience.
As was mentioned upthread, you have to sit up for 30 minutes or so after taking it. Also, a lot of people (mostly older people) make a huge three-ring production out of taking their meds, so it’s more trouble than just popping a pill.
What gets me about those commercials is Sally Field’s repeated use of the word “girlfriend”. “I was talking to MY GIRLFRIEND about my osteoporosis, and MY GIRLFRIEND told me about a new pill called Boniva.” I know she’s just referring to a female friend, but she sounds like she’s trying to make it clear to her parents that she’s a lesbian and they need to get over it.
Well there’s autoeroticism, and then there’s autoeroticism 
I’ll see your Tom Waits and raise you some Steve Goodman:
Not exactly the same jist, but I’ve gotta think they go together somehow.
Look up the meaning of “essential.” It’s simply the adjectival form of “essence.” Therefore you can legally describe concentrated vanilla essence as “essential vanilla.” Beware of advertising trying to sell you “essential oils”
And “vital” really means “alive.” Don’t you just love words.
I didn’t intend to insult you. I really (literally!) didn’t understand why people misuse words on purpose. You’ve answered my question for at least one person: you don’t consider it misuse because other people that you respect use it the way you’re using it.
If I understand you correctly, you feel that using “literally” to mean the same thing as “figuratively” in a phrase that’s already hyperbole simply intensifies the hyperbole. Okay. Whatever.
As for me, the word “literally” has a unique and very useful meaning as the antonym of “figuratively.” I tend to speak literally most of the time, and I’m not going to weaken the primary definition of the word by using it in a way that I consider wrong, no matter what Mark Twain says.
Yes, my point is that “literally” does not mean “figuratively” in these sentences. It means “literally.” The entire phrase is meant as a hyperbole, headed by “literally.” “Literally” is traditionally used to intensify literal statements, as in, “If I screw this report up, I’ll literally be out of a job.” The word “literally” is not necessary there. After all, how else can the statement be taken? But that’s how the word works. It’s an intensifier, among other things.
In the mid-19th century, the word began being used to intensify figures of speech, such as hyperbolic statements. The way my brain parses it (and I believe most people who use the word “literally” know damn well what it means literally), “literally” followed by a ridiculous proposition (such as eating a horse), means “wow, he can’t literally mean he’s going to literally eat a horse, he’s being hyperbolic.” If I used “figuratively” in such a sentence, there would be a psychological distance created. It’s like the difference between a simile and a metaphor. “My love is like the burning sun” vs “My love is the burning sun.” The first is a weaker comparison. Yet, they both mean essentially the same thing, and readers are attuned to know when a comparison is literal and when it is figurative.
That said, I could see an objection to “literally” (and one which I may make) as being a superfluous word. It’s generally not needed in hyperbolic statements. Then again, it’s generally not needed in many literal statements either. But it functions like a linguistic bold faced font, so I could see why its used.
Anyhow, I think I’ve hijacked this thread enough.
My personal un-favourite:
Sale: prices up to 50%.
Which taken **literally **would mean that half price is the maximum.
Which is exactly the problem. Because occasionally, just occasionally, the ridiculous proposition is true, and when that happens, there’s no way to indicate that.
Context. Like I said, we make judgments in reading like that all the time.