OK, someone's had at the "nazi" part, so I'll have a go at the "grammar". Almost none of the things on here are grammar. Some are pronunciation, some are punctuation, but most are spelling, which is at the same time so trivial that it shouldn't annoy me ('cause it's so unrelated to intelligence, and for most of the history of English wasn't standardized), but so fix-able that it does.
I will point out that many of the actual grammar and pronunciation things on here -- seen, needs done, srimp, sangwich, different than/from, won't be beat, I went to the store Monday, jewel-uh-ry, since/because -- are actually okay in some or even most varieties of English, and most of them used to be more widespread. "Seen" is even part of a list of features the linguist Jack Chambers calls "angloversals", because they're so widespread. "Different from/than/to" varies even in highly formal writing and speech, depending on which (English-speaking) country you're in.
So <edit:for these features, it's> definitely not a matter of individual speakers "who should know better" screwing up through laziness or defiance. It's people speaking a variety of English that's different from (than?) yours. If someone from the eastern US got pissed off at me because I pronounce "cot" and "caught" the same, I'd be pissed off right back.
Sorry if I'm harrumphy about this, but at work I sometimes have to deal with idiot colleagues who give bad marks to papers written by students with different (usually regional) grammars. As a result, local dialect-speaking students get worse marks than people who sound like the prof, even if they know more about the actual subject.
That said, anyone over 12 who spells "lose" as "loose" should be struck about the head and neck with a ball peen hammer.
<edited for clarity of anaphor.>