Supreme Courts Mandates and Lies

I only read as far as “According to a news media; Judge’s” before rolling my eyes and skipping to the comments.

I don’t if Tony is referring to Increase Mather or to Cotton Mather, but there is no historical evidence that either reverend gentleman fornicated outside wedlock: they were both pillars of the community in the Massachusetts Bay Colony – though they may have been a little over-zealous in persecuting witches.

how is babble formed?

You actually pronounce the word “whoore”, don’t you? Like Archie Bunker would.

Bastards, orphans, sons of whoores and Scotsmen…

Welcome to the Dope, Mrs. Palin!

I think it’s English. Kindasorta. Best guess is the OP stuffed a Merriam Webster Unabridged Dictionary into a giant food processor and set it to “mangle.”

Well, when a mommy bab and a daddy bab love each other very much …


I see he defined Whoor but not whoore. Is there a difference? Inquiring minds want to know.

Also, a friend of mine wants to know where I, um, I mean he, can meet some of these Whoor/whoore people.


Even Urban Dictionary was stumped.

Obvious troll parody from one of our resident trolls.

OK. I chuckled over that.

I’m wondering under what circumstances a judge would pronounce that a school system is not fully funded, let alone that “state school” are not fully funded. I haven’t heard of any lawsuits or criminal cases involving school funding, which I imagine would be a necessary precursor to judicial prounouncements.

Also, is “not fully funded” intended to mean underfunded? Or is it implying that the funds were collected and then not properly disbursed to the schools? I don’t think a judge would be that imprecise.

Possible. I am led to believe that The Beaver has been complicit in a great number of out-of-wedlock births.

Ward, you were a little hard on The Beaver last night.

Der Trihs, altering someone else’s text inside a quote box is against the rules. Please avoid this in the future.

No warning issued.

I’m too lazy to look it up, but I believe there’s been a case ongoing for nearly 30 years in Missouri that asserts that the way the state provides school funding has a disproportionately negative impact on poor school districts. I heard something on the radio about the state legislature being poised to tell the judge, who seems to be ruling that the state ought to fix this somehow, that he should go pound sand.

I’ll let you guess which party is standing up for the right not to provide more money to poorer school districts.

Thank you Ravenman. You were much less lazy than I was. So there is a Judge pronouncing, or getting ready to pronounce, but only in Missouri and only addressing the procedures for disbursal of State funds to schools (or possibly to school districts).

I’m guessing this would not affect County-level property tax disbursals, assuming those are occurring.

Sorry, could not penetrate that OP. My brain refused.

It’s a constant issue of litigation in New York as well. The Court of Appeals (NY’s highest court) found that the existing legislative formula for disbursing state aid to school districts did not meet the requirements of the state constitution, and told the legislature to fix it. At issue now is whether or not the legislature’s new formula meets the requirements of the original judgment.

Right - it happens to states that themselves have specific state-statute, state-case-law or state-constitutional mandates about education funding.

Our communicationally hindered OP seems to be among those who, in the fog of ignorance, forget that there are such things as state laws, state courts, state taxes, state budgets and state constitutions, handling things not covered in the six big pieces of parchment in a case at the National Archive. He could move elsewhere if he doesn’t like school funding where he is, if he can find the way out of his room in his condition (alas, there are “whoores” and bastards everywhere, those he can’t get away from)(and Thank Og there are “whoores” everywhere).