The Department of Boneheadedness.

[aretood2]

As far as I can tell from my real world exposure to them, which I admit is limited, that description fits 90% of the entire millennial generation.

But I wasn't talking about vegans specifically. I'm referring to spoiled little snotnosed brats that think they have the right to go through life without ever being offended by someone, and if they ever are, they go whining to the courts.

Nothing compared to God awful baby boomers. At least we aren't responsible for the mammoth national debt, the horrid conditions of Social Security, and the short sighted foreign policy that has left us enemies at every corner and the lack of foresight to ensure the proper upkeep of infrastructure.

This ought to do wonders for student performance in schools.

Never mind preparing them for the workplace. "Mental Health Days" ?? That's unheard of in the job market, outside of govt. offices, of course.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/22/74407...al-health-days

This nonsense is spreading, too; NY is looking at it as well as other states.

I've heard of 40 year olds taking such days too. Basically they take sick days when not actually sick and call it "mental health" days. It seems to be popular in various office jobs out there.

[Annoyed]

Nothing compared to God awful baby boomers. At least we aren't responsible for the mammoth national debt, the horrid conditions of Social Security, and the short sighted foreign policy that has left us enemies at every corner and the lack of foresight to ensure the proper upkeep of infrastructure.

Agree with you in regards to the decrepit state of the social security system and at least a good chunk of the debt. As well as many other problems the US has. But I've said before that I did not agree with many of the decisions my generation made.

I've heard of 40 year olds taking such days too. Basically they take sick days when not actually sick and call it "mental health" days. It seems to be popular in various office jobs out there.

Quite true.
But only in the bloated halls of government do you see it as an accepted, employer approved practice.

[Gatefan1976]

Agree with you in regards to the decrepit state of the social security system and at least a good chunk of the debt. As well as many other problems the US has. But I've said before that I did not agree with many of the decisions my generation made.

Doesn't matter, you blanket blame "millennials"
It's YOUR fault.

Quite true.
But only in the bloated halls of government do you see it as an accepted, employer approved practice.

You mean, the one full of baby boomers, and the one you hate a "kindergarter" getting involved in because they "just don't know enough"
That one?
The bloated halls of government you vote for?
The one you want to keep full of bloated government?
Or just bloated by the people you agree with?
Heaven forbid the "other side" acts like you.
I warned you, you did not listen.

[Annoyed]

Doesn't matter, you blanket blame "millennials"
It's YOUR fault.

You mean, the one full of baby boomers, and the one you hate a "kindergarter" getting involved in because they "just don't know enough"
That one?
The bloated halls of government you vote for?
The one you want to keep full of bloated government?
Or just bloated by the people you agree with?
Heaven forbid the "other side" acts like you.
I warned you, you did not listen.

Bloated governments and their overcompensated/overbenefitted govt. employees have been around and draining the system since before I was born.

[Gatefan1976]

Bloated governments and their overcompensated/overbenefitted govt. employees have been around and draining the system since before I was born.

Dodge fail, you rolled a 1, critical failure.

[jelgate]

Are we supposed to ignore how he just described his generation?

[Gatefan1976]

Are we supposed to ignore how he just described his generation?

Nope, go to town on it.

[jelgate]

I already have. He is in denial and then rages against "young people"

[Annoyed]

Nope. Still hasn't graduated from Kindergarten.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...green-new-deal

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez predicted that Miami will no longer exist in just a couple of years if the Green New Deal is not passed.

"When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis — because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years," the New York Democrat said Wednesday at an NAACP forum. "So we need to be realistic about the problem."

I wonder if she ever realized what using double negatives in a sentence does to the meaning of that sentence.

[jelgate]

That would mean more if you didn't ignore science or your idol wanted to nuke a hurricane.*eats GF's bacon*

[aretood2]

Nope. Still hasn't graduated from Kindergarten.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...green-new-deal


I wonder if she ever realized what using double negatives in a sentence does to the meaning of that sentence.

I don't see any issue there. Take out the negatives and you got "What's realistic is responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis." In this case the double negative is meant to negate itself. Same thing with Miami existing. There's better ways to speak but this is all rich coming from a supporter of a president who is well known for speaking in incomplete sentences...and simplistic sentences at that.

[Annoyed]

I don't see any issue there. Take out the negatives and you got "What's realistic is responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis." In this case the double negative is meant to negate itself. Same thing with Miami existing. There's better ways to speak but this is all rich coming from a supporter of a president who is well known for speaking in incomplete sentences...and simplistic sentences at that.

Problem is that what you say she said isn't what she said.

And what does it say about the educational system these days? First that a congresscritter has such a poor command of the English language, and that no one in the media (that I've seen so far) has caught her on it?

Kinda telling of the quality of education these days. I spotted that .02 seconds after reading the sentence. But, they actually taught me English in the public schools and repeated a lot of it in college back in the day. Not so much anymore, I take it.

[jelgate]

Your ageism rant would probably have more weight if you didn't show such a lack of comprehending elementary math and science. Not to mention tood's point of how you defend Trump's repeated grammar mistakes. Time to for more hypocrisy bacon GF

[aretood2]

Problem is that what you say she said isn't what she said.

And what does it say about the educational system these days? First that a congresscritter has such a poor command of the English language, and that no one in the media (that I've seen so far) has caught her on it?

Kinda telling of the quality of education these days. I spotted that .02 seconds after reading the sentence. But, they actually taught me English in the public schools and repeated a lot of it in college back in the day. Not so much anymore, I take it.

That's exactly what she said...I quoted her dialog word for word and then I just took out the negatives.

"When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis — because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years," the New York Democrat said Wednesday at an NAACP forum. "So we need to be realistic about the problem."

Keep in mind that this is transcribed speech, not a written statement and the speech given was not an actual formal speech but a response in a conversation with a subject already set up by another speaker. There should be a break between both clauses since AOC modified her speech mid sentence, the transcription failed to show that and the grammar has to be judged based on the speech and not the writing.

A double negative happens in the same subject predicate such as "He's not going nowhere" There is only one clear subject and one clear verb but two negatives. By saying that "They are not going" you are stating that the following detail is negated. "Nowhere" when negated, means "Somewhere". So that actual meaning of the sentence is "They are going somewhere" which is not what the speaker is trying to say, thus the grammar is wrong. "I didn't do nothing" means you did something because the negated form of "nothing" is "anything" and both negatives cancel each other out to mean "I did something".

However "Not Responding" and "Not Realistic" have no negated forms other than simply removing the negatives and leaving you with "Responding" and "Realistic", that is you can't logically arrive to a conclusion contrary to the idea being expressed. The idea she is expressing is that a realistic act is to respond with a solution on the scale of the crises. It means the same thing with or without both negatives. That's not the case in the double negative examples.

Phrases like "I didn't do nothing wrong" and "They are not going nowhere" change completely if you remove both negatives, unlike AOC's statement. If I take the negatives out of AOC's "what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis" I get something that makes sense, "what is realistic is responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis". I simply negated the negative and canceled them out just like in the previous examples.

"When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis — because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years," the New York Democrat said Wednesday at an NAACP forum. "So we need to be realistic about the problem."

This one is a bit more problematic, however you do have a detail here. There are two clauses in the sentence. In formal speech, yes it would be best so say "what's not realistic is Miami ceasing to exist in a few years" but in informal speech this is a valid construction. You have two subjects here. The second part "Miami not existing in a few years" is a subject that conjugates the verb "to be" in the first part. What is not being realistic is the phrase "Miami not existing in a few years". That means that the phrase "Miami not existing in a few years" is a subordinate clause. She is saying that a scenario is not realistic, and then identifies that scenario. The statement of said scenarios unrealism is a clause with one negative and the scenario is a clause subordinate to it. But beyond that, Just ask yourself, how else could she have constructed that sentence with good grammar while maintaining the meaning, impact and intent of the sentence? There's isn't any other way to construct it. Why? Because this is conversational English.

There are different forms of English such as written English, formal English, and conversational English. Conversational English, for example, is allowed to use participles at the end of sentences where it would be incorrect to do so in written and formal English. Here's a good link to read about this specific thing (Link).
"The idea that miami may not exist in a few years is unrealistic" sounds like a prepared speech or written statement. And when that's how you respond in conversation or a Q&A like the one AOC was in, it makes you seem artificial and fake and it makes the event seem staged because it would have to be in order to have that kind of construct in the spur of the moment. "What's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years" sounds much more personable and intimate and it's a realistic sentence that is common in spoken conversational English.

[Annoyed]

That's exactly what she said...I quoted her dialog word for word and then I just took out the negatives.

"When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis — because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years," the New York Democrat said Wednesday at an NAACP forum. "So we need to be realistic about the problem."

Keep in mind that this is transcribed speech, not a written statement and the speech given was not an actual formal speech but a response in a conversation with a subject already set up by another speaker. There should be a break between both clauses since AOC modified her speech mid sentence, the transcription failed to show that and the grammar has to be judged based on the speech and not the writing.

A double negative happens in the same subject predicate such as "He's not going nowhere" There is only one clear subject and one clear verb but two negatives. By saying that "They are not going" you are stating that the following detail is negated. "Nowhere" when negated, means "Somewhere". So that actual meaning of the sentence is "They are going somewhere" which is not what the speaker is trying to say, thus the grammar is wrong. "I didn't do nothing" means you did something because the negated form of "nothing" is "anything" and both negatives cancel each other out to mean "I did something".

However "Not Responding" and "Not Realistic" have no negated forms other than simply removing the negatives and leaving you with "Responding" and "Realistic", that is you can't logically arrive to a conclusion contrary to the idea being expressed. The idea she is expressing is that a realistic act is to respond with a solution on the scale of the crises. It means the same thing with or without both negatives. That's not the case in the double negative examples.

Phrases like "I didn't do nothing wrong" and "They are not going nowhere" change completely if you remove both negatives, unlike AOC's statement. If I take the negatives out of AOC's "what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis" I get something that makes sense, "what is realistic is responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis". I simply negated the negative and canceled them out just like in the previous examples.

"When it comes to climate change, what is not realistic is not responding with a solution on the scale of the crisis — because what's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years," the New York Democrat said Wednesday at an NAACP forum. "So we need to be realistic about the problem."

This one is a bit more problematic, however you do have a detail here. There are two clauses in the sentence. In formal speech, yes it would be best so say "what's not realistic is Miami ceasing to exist in a few years" but in informal speech this is a valid construction. You have two subjects here. The second part "Miami not existing in a few years" is a subject that conjugates the verb "to be" in the first part. What is not being realistic is the phrase "Miami not existing in a few years". That means that the phrase "Miami not existing in a few years" is a subordinate clause. She is saying that a scenario is not realistic, and then identifies that scenario. The statement of said scenarios unrealism is a clause with one negative and the scenario is a clause subordinate to it. But beyond that, Just ask yourself, how else could she have constructed that sentence with good grammar while maintaining the meaning, impact and intent of the sentence? There's isn't any other way to construct it. Why? Because this is conversational English.

There are different forms of English such as written English, formal English, and conversational English. Conversational English, for example, is allowed to use participles at the end of sentences where it would be incorrect to do so in written and formal English. Here's a good link to read about this specific thing (Link).
"The idea that miami may not exist in a few years is unrealistic" sounds like a prepared speech or written statement. And when that's how you respond in conversation or a Q&A like the one AOC was in, it makes you seem artificial and fake and it makes the event seem staged because it would have to be in order to have that kind of construct in the spur of the moment. "What's not realistic is Miami not existing in a few years" sounds much more personable and intimate and it's a realistic sentence that is common in spoken conversational English.

What is that supposed to be, a 500 word essay on why the Kindergartner can't screw up?