|
you don't want the answers i'm giving. that doesn't mean i'm ducking your questions or not trying to talk.
>>i don't think you are. are you really here to be informed? >>this is all easy to access information. > >this is a weird way to have a conversation. > >i ask a question > >you don't or half answer > >i restate the question > >you say "go find the answer yourself" and question if I really >wanna have a conversation? > >yeah, i *could* do that (in fact I did. see the conflicting >links re: obama above) > >then, since you chimed in I asked *YOU* > >mea culpa I guess > >*shrug*
i'm providing the info, even though, yes, i think you're being disingenuous. i'm not sourcing links because conversations aren't a series of links. you can verify what i'm saying, but i'm still providing background.
>>i addressed the things she's done that have voided good >things >>the past administrations have done. > >no. you really didn't
>>all those things she UNDID >>were DONE by the obama administration's education >department. >>they were good things. > >you said > >"i think previous administrations had people who were trying >to make things better," > >based on what?
based on what i just said. again.
>you said "even if they were misguided and forced by outside >pressures into limiting their visions in favor of 'reforms' >that are more about ego, efficiency and making money than >students. > >so them NOT makign things better is a win how now?
they did make things better. i explained. she undid those things while seeking measures that would create more inequality. you want to harp on their failures and ignore that they did have accomplishments and, worse, ignore that she's going to fail harder.
i don't know how that's productive. she's making things worse for families, right now, in ways that are worse than whatever the clinton administration would have done, but you're trying to (for some reason?) focus on past mistakes that we all agree on and can't change right now. talk about a red herring.
>you say: "devos is literally that outside force that cars more >about ego and making money than students. " > >okay... i (again) stated that she is more of the same old >thing > >YOU just proved it
she's not. she's worse.
> >>she's anti science because she funds groups that undermine >>climate science and medical research. > >as secretary of education or before?
both.
>SINCE she has been SOE, has she de-funded groups that push for >those things?
yes. privately. and as a willing participant in administration that continues to do those things through other branches of the executive.
>(is this where you tell me go look it up for myself?) > >>she made a statement about putting "America and American >>workers first," which has nothing to do with her job or her >>areas of expertise, and is only an area she cares about for >>reasons of $$$ and political posturing, after the president >>backed out of the Paris Climate Accords. > >so she is yammering abd blabbering the party line > >yes. > >"bad touch" indeed.
she made it a priority to say that ON THE DAY OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT, THROUGH OFFICIAL CHANNELS, when she's chosen not to comment on other matters.
>but her saying that (by your own words) has nothing do do with >her job so it doesn't move the needle related to education, >does it?
she seems to think it's part of her job, which is why she released the statement through the department of education.
>>just think about that...she released an immediate (same >day!) >>press statement about that move. > >she is a puppet doing puppet things.
>why you mad son?
why aren't you mad? why are you invested in this line where she takes no blame and there's nothing we can do about her, but you seem to be mad all of us don't think it's productive to talk about 10 years ago?
>IF/WHEN she does something that is actually detrimental to >public education then get on her about it
if/when?
>but barking when the dog whistle blows makes you what >exactly?
huh?
>smarten up nas (c) Shawn c.
i'm trying to kick that shit you need to learn though.
>>she never released an >>official statement about WV's strike, and it took her 4 days >>to tweet about it (saying nothing of substance). > >so she took too long to give you something to be mad about? > > >what exactly could/should she have done about WV's strike in >your opinion?
her job.
>>she favors funding schools that don't teach evolution. > >%^&*( what she "favors" > >has she, from her seat as SOE funded any? >has she WITHDRAWN funding from schools that do?
i don't think you understand what her job is and her powers are.
>what has been lost? >
|