Only until the Yankees (assuming that's who the opponent will be, since the Angels look like they're giving up on their series) score a run ... then you have to stop watching again!

You "fail to see the racism" in telling black voters in that town (since they make up the majority there) that they're too stupid to know for whom to vote unless there's a party affiliation stated along with each candidate? Wow.

Winx, that is a ridiculous assertion. We've had Presidents who have failed and survived. However, there are many who believe that if Obama succeeds at his agenda, the U.S. will fail. You're obviously not one of them, but don't just throw out statements that are logical fallacies.

It's not as if the photographers were donating their time. They were paid for their work by someone, more than likely the school district, who probably received funds from the state for specific expenses such as that.

Sooooooooo ... you're "The Fugitive"?

Venus

Now that you say that, that's very likely the way it was at my school, too. It's been so long that sometimes it can be tough to remember.

In my school, I believe the pictures were paid for by the school. [I'd have to check with my mom to be certain of this, if she even remembers, since it was some time ago.] My school also provided the "costumes" for each student to wear (tux jackets, bowties, and shirts with ridiculously large ruffles for the guys, gowns that could be worn on or off the shoulder for the ladies), so there wasn't much to do about that.

If the school pays but doesn't provide the items to wear, I think there certainly should still be some leeway. If the student's family pays for the pictures, there should be virtually no input whatsoever from the school (except to disallow anything that would break decency laws and the like).

Actually, Thomas, the GOP would require a change of approximately +40 in the House and +10 in the Senate to reach the break-even point. The current breakdown is:

House-
D - 256
R - 177
(2 current vacancies)

Senate-
D - 58
R - 40
I - 2 (both Independents caucus with the Democrats, giving them a 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority)


The reason Republicans lost so much ground on Capitol Hill over the last few cycles is that they abandoned the conservative principles that made people want to vote for them in the first place, choosing instead to use the Democrat method for holding on to power - give as many goodies as you can to as much of the populace as you can, making them dependent upon government (specifically the "representative" in question), and hope that there aren't very many that notice.




The problem for the Republicans that were engaging in these tactics is that we noticed.

Nice try, but the only way the modern version of liberalism has been winning in most sections of this country has been to run as conservatively as they possibly can without completely flipping out their left-wing kook base. Once they secure their election by playing the electorate for complete and utter fools, then they can safely return to their extreme liberalism, and rely on the various protections that incumbents enjoy, especially from their buddies in the allegedly "unbiased" media.

I guess I need to point this out yet again.

The "mid-term" congressional elections tend, with extremely rare exceptions, to go against the party in the White House. In 2002, the post-election coverage on two major cable networks told many of us just about everything we need to know about where they stand.

The Fox News coverage had that year's version of their now well-known tagline: "You Decided 2002"

The CNN coverage's tagline? "What Went Wrong?"

"What Went Wrong?" For whom? Hmmmmmmmm?






No, no bias there!

There is if the people there voted for it to be that way. Otherwise, you're telling them to just sit down and shut up and you'll let them know what's best for them.

Mirror, your ridiculous overuse of the icon does not have any effect on me. If the voters want to find out what a local politician stands for, they should do the WORK it takes to find out. There are a LOT of local elections around this country where the candidates do not have party affiliation listed. That isn't a problem for the people in those localities, so why should it be for this particular locality, especially since they VOTED to have it that way? What you're basically saying is, those voters are too stupid to know what's best for them, and they need the big nanny-state government to come in and tell them no.




Exactly. Again the will of the people is thwarted, and again it is by Democrats. Nothing shocking here.

Um, the Browns and Steelers could not possibly meet in the Super Bowl. The biggest game in which they could conceivably play each other is the AFC Championship Game. Now, in what decade will the Browns be going to that one?

We'll check back in with you in January ...

I'm very glad to be posting a couple of days later, but yeah, that was one of the picks that really messed me up. My Eagles didn't help losing to the flippin' Raiders (?!?!) , and the Jets losing to the Bills (who lost to the Browns the week before ... go figure! ) was awful, too.

I went 10-4 this week, but three of the losses were big-point games ... **ugh!**

No problem at all, Lewis ... I'm very glad someone took my explanation as a positive.

Oh, yes, the betting line is SOOOOOOOOOO relevant to real life. I don't put money on games, so I really don't give a rip what the point spread is ... and since that's the only thing a betting line is really good for, that makes it just as superfluous to me as the confidence points are to you. Good day ...

What a surprise!

At least you agree with me on that one!