Nuttin' but us chimps around here. :-D
Posted on 01/05/2006 8:32:55 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
January 05, 2006 Evaluating Political Pundits The Wall Street Journal reviews Expert Political Judgment by Philip Tetlock and finds "the prognostications of political pundits are about as accurate as a chimp throwing darts."
"From 1987 to 2003, Prof. Tetlock coaxed 284 political experts of all stripes -- academics, journalists and think-tankers from across the political spectrum -- to make specific, verifiable forecasts. He looked at more than 27,000 predictions in all... What he found is that people with expertise in explaining events that have happened aren't very successful at predicting what will happen."
I will do it in a heartbeat and I will tell him that I've been observing your prognostications for years and that you're pretty damn good. Say the word, I'll open his eyes.
Have you been saving them? I don't remember them all myself. I do remember my house predictions I must admit, and they ARE pretty good I must admit (although the Schmidt race was a shocker, and I gave her a considerably larger margin). Currently, the Pubbies are headed to lose about 10-12 seats in the House. But it is early yet. :)
FYI :)
Nuttin' but us chimps around here. :-D
At least I am the one in the middle.
And not only unconstitutional, but taxation without representation.
Their logic is stupid.
BY DEFINITION, once the funding goes to support a voucher to an alternative school, it makes that PART OF THE SYSTEM for educating the children.
It all depends on whether you focus on the word "system" or "public". My reading of english indicates that the system is the important word here, not public. By definition - once anything is included in this system it becomes part of the the "system of public education".
In other words, a "system for educating the public" - not "a system of public schools" which this absolutely does not say - yet they claim.
To make them look stupid - are buses part of the education system? Yes? But are buses public schools? No. They are part of the "system".
The rest is just liberal claptrap, which is why they don't even bother to state what part of the Constitution has anything to do with diversion of money.
It's unequal to allow some children to get a better education whose parents don't have the personal funds to do it, even if it saves the state money via a voucher with an amount less than the state cost, because that would be unfair, and unconsitutional under the Florida constitution. Surely you understand that. Enforced mediocrity at additional state expense for those who can't play to pay is what the constitution is all about. But then I don't like state constitutions. One rogue court is enough. 51 of them is simply too much. All things in moderation.
You, and they, are wrong.
The Constitution requires a "System of public education" - not "A system of public schools". Once the vouchers are defined as part of the "system of education" - they are by definition part of the "system of public education".
The intention of the wording in the Constitution is that the state is responsible for a system to educate the public. Not that the state is responsible for a system of public schools.
The word "public" refers to the people, not the school.
No where does it say that the schools can only be public. It says "through a system of public education". It does not say "through a system of public schools".
You are falling for their twisting the word public, originally meant to refer to "the public" into "public school" - which most certainly is not what the Constitution says.
The parents are free to send their kids anywhere. The state is responsible for an education system for the public. Not an education system of public schools.
Thanks for the ping!
Why would you be surprised at any ruling from a court that decided a conflict between the words, "may" and "shall" would be resolved by substituting the word, "can't?"
The same Fl. supreme court that said NO to Terri Schiavo. Of course they would deny school vouchers.....COMMUNISTS don't want parental influence over their own children it seems. Throw a black robe over a beast and voile....too many arse wholes with influence stealing our freedoms. Fight these slimebags hard.
My bet is that the sons and daughters of all these judges attend private school.
It should have thrown the amendment out, they do it all the time anyway. Its unconstitutional for government to create monopolies. IMO
That would be the ideal solution, but unfortunately there is not (yet) enough political will to do it.
If they do, the justices obviously don't expect the taxpayers to pay for those kids' private education. The parents provide it.
This would have to be the same Flori-duh Supremes that tried and tried to change the results of the national presidential election in '00, by just wanting recounts in counties of their choosing.
What a bunch of slimy d*uchebags.
The political vampires have struck again. Where is Van Helsing when we need him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.