What's funny is that you failed to prove your point. Instead you just provided baseless accusations and assumptions. Do you think that kind of crap would past muster in debate class?
Now try and cite specific evidence that proves your assertions.
"What's funny is that you failed to prove your point. Instead you just provided baseless accusations and assumptions. Do you think that kind of crap would past muster in debate class?
Now try and cite specific evidence that proves your assertions."
No I still think the funny part is where you ask for proof that damaging science will harm the country and are not satisfied that the areas that support our strength in the world all depend on science.
That link seems very obvious to me but I don't have a way to prove on paper that energy ,biochem, medicine, aerospace, computers, telecommunications, defense will be harmed if science education is harmed.
And I don't have a way to prove that our country's strength depends on energy ,biochem, medicine, aerospace, computers, telecommunications, defense.
So I guess I guess you win and its ok to cut research and tech non-science in science classes.