FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

Not really. I can vote against one of the 435 reps based on how he treats an issue that affects me and my family and still oppose Trump.

No more blank checks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the boundary review is getting scary for Reid:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/queen-reid-embattled-virginia-schools-boss-demands-personal-bodyguard-top-lavish-salary-perks.amp

Oh look, ASRA NOMANI came to DCUM and posted the latest story she wrote.

WE KNOW IT'S YOU PROMOTING YOUR OWN STUPIDITY ASRA!!!!!

I hope everyone else realizes what a prolific poster she and her nephew are on DCUM. It's soooo obvious when one of them posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

Not really. I can vote against one of the 435 reps based on how he treats an issue that affects me and my family and still oppose Trump.

No more blank checks.

DP. You really are an idiot if you think Walkinshaw’s opponent for Congress would not be another vote for Trump’s agenda if elected. Just own that you’ve let your anxiety about a local boundary change that likely hasn’t even been proposed has turned you into full MAGA.

[Anonymous]

God that ASRA article is such a joke. It reads like a jealous mommy gossiping and making things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

Not really. I can vote against one of the 435 reps based on how he treats an issue that affects me and my family and still oppose Trump.

No more blank checks.

DP. You really are an idiot if you think Walkinshaw’s opponent for Congress would not be another vote for Trump’s agenda if elected. Just own that you’ve let your anxiety about a local boundary change that likely hasn’t even been proposed has turned you into full MAGA.

I am just sharing information about the clear position Walkishaw publicly took. It is disqualifying for me.

I refuse to be held hostage by “a vote for anyone other than a democrat is a vote for Trump.” That does not make me MAGA.

My vote matters. If Walkinshaw does not get elected because of his stance on One Fairfax, that will have a real local effect. On the other hand, practically speaking, Walkinshaw getting elected will have no effect whatsoever on stopping Trump.

So, I will not vote for Walkinshaw. My kids are not equity pawns.

[Anonymous]

This thread has stopped being even remotely useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the school board shills babbling on about? Hard to keep track of what faux scandal you are trying to concoct to distract from the very real fact that the vast majority of Fairfax county doesn’t want boundary changes, and certainly not for their own kids.

If that was the message you wanted to emphasize then you should take issue with people trying to link boundary changes to James Walkinshaw running for Congress. It doesn’t get much more convoluted than that.

It’s not convoluted at all. People have been asking why we need boundary review and what is the meaning of “equitable access to programming”? Several posts have included long, detailed explanation of how we got from One Fairfax to where we are today.

James Walknishaw is running for Congress. His record in his current office is highly relevant. He strongly endorsed using One Fairfax as “a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make.” Many people on this thread disagree with that approach. It may inform their decision about the candidate. It is highly relevant.

Every time you post it’s like you are tossing me a softball.

Please. You’re playing T-ball at best. Meanwhile Walkinshaw, who hasn’t weighed in on FCPS boundary changes at all, is about to get called up to the major leagues.

Thank you for teeing it up one more time:

Walkinshaw unequivocally stated that One Fairfax should apply to EVERY policy and EVERY decision. That is an endorsement of how One Fairfax was used by the SB to create the current boundary review:

““… I think that shows the power of the broader One Fairfax policy. It's a tool we can apply to every policy and decision that we make."

https://www.fairfaxcounty...walkinshaw

A vote for Walkinshaw sends the message that you think that equity based boundary review is alright by you.

Ha! And….. a vote against walkinshaw sends the message you want more trump chumps in congress. You want less FEMA, lessMedicaid and social Safety net, less military and more ICE, more pedophiles and more billionaires.

Who do you think you are foooling?

Not really. I can vote against one of the 435 reps based on how he treats an issue that affects me and my family and still oppose Trump.

No more blank checks.

DP. You really are an idiot if you think Walkinshaw’s opponent for Congress would not be another vote for Trump’s agenda if elected. Just own that you’ve let your anxiety about a local boundary change that likely hasn’t even been proposed has turned you into full MAGA.

I am just sharing information about the clear position Walkishaw publicly took. It is disqualifying for me.

I refuse to be held hostage by “a vote for anyone other than a democrat is a vote for Trump.” That does not make me MAGA.

My vote matters. If Walkinshaw does not get elected because of his stance on One Fairfax, that will have a real local effect. On the other hand, practically speaking, Walkinshaw getting elected will have no effect whatsoever on stopping Trump.

So, I will not vote for Walkinshaw. My kids are not equity pawns.

MAGA is still MAGA even when it tries to pass itself off as MAGA Lite. And you aren’t even doing a very good job at that, since your obsession appears to be with “equity” - even though you can’t point to any specific boundary or other decision that’s harmed you.

Right out of the Christopher Rufo/Asra Nomani playbook.