Skip to Next Poll »
Obama Selects Kagan for Supreme Court good move? (Edited 10/13/10 03:07AM by Jess)
Read the Article: Obama Selects Kagan for Supreme Court

"Replacing Justice Stevens with Ms. Kagan presumably would not alter the broad ideological balance on the court, but her relative youth means that she could have an influence on the court for decades to come, underscoring the stakes involved." - New York Times

Do you think Elana Kagan is a good choice?
| Closed on 10/13/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
17 Fans 
35%a. yes because _____
24%b. no because ____
29%c. not sure
12%d. don't care

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#4 | 1563 days ago

I will reserve judgement until after congress tears into her.  We will see what is left.
not sure  
  
54 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1564 days ago

 Sounds good.  She's said to be open minded, an intellectual heavyweight, and she's only 50 so she could serve for a very long time.  I'm pretty happy.
#2 | 1563 days ago

Seeing as how the Supreme Court will probably hear the challenges to Obama's health care plan it looks like a good move for him.
#3 | 1563 days ago

I agree with Mike ... both Mikes, actually.  
Although this is all just alleged for now.  Apparently the announcement is supposed to come later on this morning and the Kagan nomination was leaked.  We shall see.
#4 | 1563 days ago

I will reserve judgement until after congress tears into her.  We will see what is left.
not sure  
#5 | 1563 days ago

No way! Too Liberal!
no because ____  
#6 | 1563 days ago

The first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.  This is the thing that bothers me the most, it is the Supreme Court..............I would prefer someone who has been a judge in their lifetime, not an administrator. 
not sure  
#7 | 1563 days ago

I think that she has been hand picked since law school, and there's a reason behind it. She fits in right under her old boss "Obama". I like two of her quotes though:

“I think a judge should try to the greatest extent possible to separate constitutional interpretation from his or her own values and beliefs."

 

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’”

Her feelings on warrantless wire taps:

During Ms. Kagan’s confirmation for solicitor general, she was asked whether the president has the authority to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court. She cited a three-part analysis established by the Supreme Court in a 1952 case, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, which struck down President Harry S. Truman’s authority to seize the nation’s steel mills in the name of national security. (The Justice Department cited the same analysis in 2006 in justifying President George W. Bush’s power to order the National Security Agency surveillance program, as did Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.) The analysis notes that “when the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress,” presidential “power is at its lowest ebb” and these circumstances should be rare.


#8 | 1563 days ago

http://moviesoddity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mr-garrison.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.moviesoddity.com/nine-coolest-movie-teachers&h=307&w=410&sz=17&tbnid=GQqFte_ZD1t9PM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmr%2Bgarrison&usg=__uqUkLklH9CkJ1i3b5LGzCkRT9wk=&ei=QvrnS66vOIP48Ab1ooS2BA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image&ved=0CDAQ9QEwBA">http://www.moviesoddity.com/nine-coolest-movie-teachers" border="1" alt="" align="middle" src="" width="104" height="78" style="padding-bottom: 1px; margin: 3px; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; padding-top: 1px" />             Freaky how she looks like Mr Garrisonhttp://media.mlive.com/news_impact/photo/kaganjpg-4c7b12e821d9a84a_large.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/05/is_elena_kagan_headed_to_the_s.html&usg=__jK6GadnfSBJ7r80hpzKHNbR45X4=&h=288&w=432&sz=18&hl=en&start=24&sig2=ozfo0Q4_7D6b-3i9hh-_3Q&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=daZnmaUzpOsS9M:&tbnh=84&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Delena%2Bkagan%26start%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=-vrnS5_sMcb_lgfb8fCKBA">http://media.mlive.com/news_impact/photo/kaganjpg-4c7b12e821d9a84a_large.jpg" width="126" height="84" style="border-bottom: #ccc 1px solid; border-left: #ccc 1px solid; padding-bottom: 1px; padding-left: 1px; padding-right: 1px; vertical-align: bottom; border-top: #ccc 1px solid; border-right: #ccc 1px solid; padding-top: 1px" alt="" />
#9 | 1563 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 I like her. She is a very intelligent woman, who has proven herself. I believe she will not allow anything or anyone to persuade her into thinking their way.  And her age is a plus. She is liberal but not to the point of allowing her beliefs to interfere with her job
yes because _____  
#10 | 1563 days ago
vindog (+)

She keeps the balance of the Supreme Court- even though the Court still slants to the Right somewhat. Good choice!
yes because _____  
#11 | 1563 days ago

chicken
#12 | 1563 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
After reading the Times article that was linked (and to use an old Letterman joke:  It took TWO people to write that article) I still can't really tell much about her.  Much more information needs to be revealed before a better opinion can be formed.  Right now she is coming across as a God-only-knows-how-she-might-rule wild card.  Which isn't necessarily a bad thing....  It's just a bit unnerving.
#13 | 1563 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
chicken
or just smarter than the rest of us?
#14 | 1563 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
or just smarter than the rest of us?
ya think?
#15 | 1563 days ago

(Edited by bearcub1)
Its a shame the way women have to spend their lives fighting for equality. She seems to be well qualified with the smarts for the job. We tend to read  a whole lot of everything (our own fears like what if) into the unknown just because we don't
 like the way they dress or the war they look or I don"t like that smile they always have. Hay look at the qualifications give a little credit to the persons smarts. We all look different walk different eat different and so on, that's why we are our one person. Man or women you don't know how they will preform until they are on the job. No matter who gets in it will still be a gamble so judge by qualifications (smarts) nothing else can help us.
not sure  
#16 | 1563 days ago
cubsgirl2 (+)

 I am keeping my eye on this poll. So dont be afraid. 
yes because _____  
#17 | 1563 days ago

bearcub1 wrote:
Its a shame the way women have to spend their lives fighting for equality. She seems to be well qualified with the smarts for the job. We tend to read  a whole lot of everything (our own fears like what if) into the unknown just because we don't
 like the way they dress or the war they look or I don"t like that smile they always have. Hay look at the qualifications give a little credit to the persons smarts. We all look different walk different eat different and so on, that's why we are our one person. Man or women you don't know how they will preform until they are on the job. No matter who gets in it will still be a gamble so judge by qualifications (smarts) nothing else can help us.
It is true that in the the history of court appointments there have been many who were appointed because it was assumed they would rule one way, but ended up ruling the other.
#18 | 1563 days ago

Sqweazel wrote:
The first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.  This is the thing that bothers me the most, it is the Supreme Court..............I would prefer someone who has been a judge in their lifetime, not an administrator. 
The first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.  This is the thing that bothers me the most, it is the Supreme Court..............I would prefer someone who has been a judge in their lifetime, not an administrator. 

Well, look at Obama!  No experience in anything but a "Public Organizer"  and we put him in the White House!  We'll enjoy his actions for many years to come.
no because ____  
#19 | 1563 days ago

mcataco wrote:
The first justice in nearly four decades without any prior judicial experience.  This is the thing that bothers me the most, it is the Supreme Court..............I would prefer someone who has been a judge in their lifetime, not an administrator. 

Well, look at Obama!  No experience in anything but a "Public Organizer"  and we put him in the White House!  We'll enjoy his actions for many years to come.
Obama had worked at city, state, and national levels before being President. Was/is he young? Very much so, but we can stop the inexperience nonsense.  He may not have had as much as some would like, but he had experience.

As for Kagan, she's been the Dean of the Harvard Law School, worked in law privately, been the Solicitor General, and has degrees from Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford.  She has familiarity with the law and the Constitution.  She may not have the "paper trail" of other nominees, but her knowledge of what is necessary for this job is certainly not lacking.
#20 | 1561 days ago

I just love how now they're saying she's a lesbian and needs to come out.
Their big "evidence"?  A picture of her years ago in frumpy sweats playing softball.  
I find this funny on SO many levels.  Yes, lesbians DO love softball (I've played for years so I know, trust me), but so do straight girls.  And what did they expect her to wear while playing?  Heels and a skirt?  Seriously.  Idiots.
#21 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

janet011685 wrote:
I just love how now they're saying she's a lesbian and needs to come out.
Their big "evidence"?  A picture of her years ago in frumpy sweats playing softball.  
I find this funny on SO many levels.  Yes, lesbians DO love softball (I've played for years so I know, trust me), but so do straight girls.  And what did they expect her to wear while playing?  Heels and a skirt?  Seriously.  Idiots.
I guess I feel like "Who Cares" if she IS a Lesbian? Can she do her job? Is she qualified for the position? WQill she uphold the Constitution of the United States? I say YES to all 3 of those questions...... I truly wonder if anybody remembers that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter IS a Lesbian and he IS AGAINST gay marriage- LOL! Some people just need to liberate their minds- because they are WAY TOO narrow-minded!   I really don't think (if she is a Lesbian) that her "sexual orientation" is going to affect her Supreme Court decisions at all.....  The Pope was a Nazi- does that make him anything less than the Pope?
yes because _____  
#22 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

Another funny thing about this is that the Republicans who are criticizing Kagan for her supposed "lack of Judicial Experience" were the SAME REPUBLICANS who cheered President G.W. Bush for nominating Herriet Myers for the Supreme Court because she had very limited Judicial Experience and wasn't a "lifetime bench sitter" - LOL!   The hypocrisy in the Republican Party is astounding to say the least!
yes because _____  
#23 | 1561 days ago

And the same DEMOCRATS who whined that Thomas wasn't qualified are the same ones who are claiming  Kagen IS for pretty much the same reasons.

There are plenty more examples to show that Republicans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.   Both sides do it.  Neither side is less guilty of playing politics than the other.

PS...  Who cares what Chaney thinks?  Just because his daughter is a lesbian means he has to change what he personally believes?  That means nothing.  Note, I'm not defending Chaney's views on the matter (which happen to be the same of our current president's btw) for anyone who might misinterpret it that way.
#24 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

More than 30% of the Supreme Court Justices TODAY had NO Judicial experience before taking the bench;  and 2 of the last 3 CHIEF Supreme Court Justices had NO Judicial experience either- that was my point!  
yes because _____  
#25 | 1561 days ago

If that was the point, then perhaps it should have been stuck to instead of ragging on Republicans for doing the exact same thing that Democrats do.
#26 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

ML31 wrote:
If that was the point, then perhaps it should have been stuck to instead of ragging on Republicans for doing the exact same thing that Democrats do.
Well considering that the last 6 or so "nominations" for the Supreme Court were done by the last two Presidents ( Bush and Obama) and Judge Thomas was confirmed roughly 2 decades ago (by a very narrow margin of 52-48 because of his "sexual harrassment saga) - and MOST of those Democrats aren't even in office anymore- it was pretty irrelevant to bring that up. But to make you feel "right" and that you WON another argument again- yes the Democrats in 1991 did declare that Thomas didn't have enough bench experience. But this is NOW- NOT 2 decades ago either. 
yes because _____  
#27 | 1561 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
vindog wrote:
Well considering that the last 6 or so "nominations" for the Supreme Court were done by the last two Presidents ( Bush and Obama) and Judge Thomas was confirmed roughly 2 decades ago (by a very narrow margin of 52-48 because of his "sexual harrassment saga) - and MOST of those Democrats aren't even in office anymore- it was pretty irrelevant to bring that up. But to make you feel "right" and that you WON another argument again- yes the Democrats in 1991 did declare that Thomas didn't have enough bench experience. But this is NOW- NOT 2 decades ago either. 
It wasn't relevant that you played the "evil republican" card to begin with.   I thought the thread was about what you felt of the nomination.  Not what the President's opposite party thinks.  No matter what party the President is from, the other side will try to derail the nomination.  It's called "politics".  Both sides do it.

It's not about winning an argument.  It's about trying to keep the thread on track.  As you yourself have complained of in the past....  But if you want to keep an argument score, knock yourself out.  I'm not.
#28 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

I gave you the respect because BOTH Parties DO play the "political card". But to keep things in perspective here, Judge Thomas wasn't "bashed" by Democrats over his inexperience so much as he was bashed over his "questionable ethics" when it came to female subordinates- so YES it was irrelevant to point that out. And by the HUGE turnover in Congress in 1994, MOST of those Democrats that did bash him are no longer in office- as I said before.

So yes, THIS TIME, it IS the "evil Republicans" who are being hypocrites- not those "evil Democrats"!
yes because _____  
#29 | 1561 days ago

vindog wrote:
I gave you the respect because BOTH Parties DO play the "political card". But to keep things in perspective here, Judge Thomas wasn't "bashed" by Democrats over his inexperience so much as he was bashed over his "questionable ethics" when it came to female subordinates- so YES it was irrelevant to point that out. And by the HUGE turnover in Congress in 1994, MOST of those Democrats that did bash him are no longer in office- as I said before.

So yes, THIS TIME, it IS the "evil Republicans" who are being hypocrites- not those "evil Democrats"!
It doesn't matter if it is now an entirely new group in Congress.  They all did it then and they do it now.  Do you want a list of the appointments Bush made that were met with opposing party opposition?  It happens to everyone.

So no.  It is not about one side being obstinate vs the other.  Unless you consider BOTH just as bad as the other.  Which, based on our posts, one of us doesn't.
#30 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

ML31 wrote:
It doesn't matter if it is now an entirely new group in Congress.  They all did it then and they do it now.  Do you want a list of the appointments Bush made that were met with opposing party opposition?  It happens to everyone.

So no.  It is not about one side being obstinate vs the other.  Unless you consider BOTH just as bad as the other.  Which, based on our posts, one of us doesn't.
Re-read my post # 29, I think I said in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE that BOTH Parties do it!  What are you arguing about? Just to argue as usual?
yes because _____  
#31 | 1561 days ago

vindog wrote:
Re-read my post # 29, I think I said in the VERY FIRST SENTENCE that BOTH Parties do it!  What are you arguing about? Just to argue as usual?
Sigh...  Wrong.  You are just looking for a fight it seems.  But I'm not biting... 

It's not just your post #29.  It is your entire body of work.  Your post #23 is more like it.  But let's hope you post more like #29 in the future.
#32 | 1561 days ago
vindog (+)

ML31 wrote:
Sigh...  Wrong.  You are just looking for a fight it seems.  But I'm not biting... 

It's not just your post #29.  It is your entire body of work.  Your post #23 is more like it.  But let's hope you post more like #29 in the future.
Whatever......
yes because _____  
#33 | 1560 days ago

The last 10-12 posts are a perfect example of why I try to avoid political polls around here, sheesh!
not sure  
#34 | 1559 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
Obama had worked at city, state, and national levels before being President. Was/is he young? Very much so, but we can stop the inexperience nonsense.  He may not have had as much as some would like, but he had experience.

As for Kagan, she's been the Dean of the Harvard Law School, worked in law privately, been the Solicitor General, and has degrees from Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford.  She has familiarity with the law and the Constitution.  She may not have the "paper trail" of other nominees, but her knowledge of what is necessary for this job is certainly not lacking.
You say we can stop the inexperience nonsense? Why is it nonsense? Did he sponsor or co-sponsor any bills during his SHORT term in congress? Prior to his hand picked position by the outgoing congresswoman, did he have any evperience? All I can see that is proof positive is a lofty degree from an Ivy Leage school and an author... Please correct me if I'm wrong?
no because ____  
#35 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
mcataco wrote:
You say we can stop the inexperience nonsense? Why is it nonsense? Did he sponsor or co-sponsor any bills during his SHORT term in congress? Prior to his hand picked position by the outgoing congresswoman, did he have any evperience? All I can see that is proof positive is a lofty degree from an Ivy Leage school and an author... Please correct me if I'm wrong?
President (then) Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 570 bills in the 109th and 110th Congress.

Senator Obama has sponsored or co-sponsored 15 bills that have become LAW since he joined the Senate in 2005.

Senator Obama has also introduced amendments to 50 bills, of which 16 were adopted by the Senate.

His record is in fact quite impressive for a junior Senator from Illinois.

Source(s):

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/21/164117/783/290/461422           The answer is YES he did!
yes because _____  
#36 | 1559 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
Obama couldn't have sponsored or co-sponsored any congressional legislation because he was never a member of the US Congress.

Further, in order to qualify for co-sponsoring any kind of bill, all one really needs to to is be in the room essentially.  Or just tell one of the other sponsors you are on board.  No real effort needs to be made.

The main point made I think was that his only governing experience was 8 years spent as an Illinois Senator and was hand picked for the US Senator spot as there was no competition running against him.

Personally, I don't consider his 11 years in political office prior to ascending to the Presidency as a negative, myself.  But I understand where others might.
I find his time before that as a "Community Organizer" (whatever the hell THAT means) as questionable.
#37 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
Obama couldn't have sponsored or co-sponsored any congressional legislation because he was never a member of the US Congress.

Further, in order to qualify for co-sponsoring any kind of bill, all one really needs to to is be in the room essentially.  Or just tell one of the other sponsors you are on board.  No real effort needs to be made.

The main point made I think was that his only governing experience was 8 years spent as an Illinois Senator and was hand picked for the US Senator spot as there was no competition running against him.

Personally, I don't consider his 11 years in political office prior to ascending to the Presidency as a negative, myself.  But I understand where others might.
I find his time before that as a "Community Organizer" (whatever the hell THAT means) as questionable.
"Obama couldn't have sponsored or co-sponsored any congressional legislation because he was never a member of the US Congress".

Really? Maybe you forgot but the United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of theSenate and the House of Representatives 

So President Obama was NEVER a Member of the US Congress? SENATORS don't count as Congressmen now? 
yes because _____  
#38 | 1559 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
vindog wrote:
"Obama couldn't have sponsored or co-sponsored any congressional legislation because he was never a member of the US Congress".

Really? Maybe you forgot but the United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States of America, consisting of theSenate and the House of Representatives 

So President Obama was NEVER a Member of the US Congress? SENATORS don't count as Congressmen now? 
No.  Senators are not Congressmen.  The United States Congress consists of the House of Representatives.  Both the Senate and the House consist of the Legislature.

Example...  The House is meeting the 111th Congress.
#39 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
No.  Senators are not Congressmen.  The United States Congress consists of the House of Representatives.  Both the Senate and the House consist of the Legislature.

Example...  The House is meeting the 111th Congress.

Lesson One

The Legislative Branch: Making Laws to Protect Us


 

The legislative branch of our government is represented by Congress, which includes two parts: the House of Representatives, whose 435 members are elected according to the population of each state, and the Senate, which consists of two members from each state. Congress meets in Washington, DC.
You were saying?

Here is a class in AMERICAN CIVICS for you: http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_civics_less1.html
 
yes because _____  
#40 | 1559 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
ya think?
Yeah, Positve and she's a lot better than you and I.
#41 | 1559 days ago

I believe it's a very good moveby Pres. Obama  on her appointment and she has to prove her worth before we can give an analysis/judgement on her output.   Let's give her time time to do her job and feed her to the lions den if she can survive or not that's the 64 Dollar Question?
#42 | 1559 days ago

vindog wrote:

Lesson One

The Legislative Branch: Making Laws to Protect Us


 

The legislative branch of our government is represented by Congress, which includes two parts: the House of Representatives, whose 435 members are elected according to the population of each state, and the Senate, which consists of two members from each state. Congress meets in Washington, DC.
You were saying?

Here is a class in AMERICAN CIVICS for you: http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_civics_less1.html
 
You are ignoring the link I put up.  But that is of no matter.  It was a link to the US House web site where they refer to themselves as the US Congress.  Your Congressman is NOT your Senator.  It is your Representative in the House.  When the House of Representatives meet, it is called a "Congress".  The Senate does not meet as a Congress.
When you do search for the US Congress, the very first link that comes up is the link to the US House of Representatives.

The Legislative branch consists of the Legislature which itself consists of both the Senate and the House.

I think you are getting your info from the same place you got your idea that all Senate matters require a 2/3 vote.
#43 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
You are ignoring the link I put up.  But that is of no matter.  It was a link to the US House web site where they refer to themselves as the US Congress.  Your Congressman is NOT your Senator.  It is your Representative in the House.  When the House of Representatives meet, it is called a "Congress".  The Senate does not meet as a Congress.
When you do search for the US Congress, the very first link that comes up is the link to the US House of Representatives.

The Legislative branch consists of the Legislature which itself consists of both the Senate and the House.

I think you are getting your info from the same place you got your idea that all Senate matters require a 2/3 vote.
Even a 3rd grader KNOWS that Congress is made of of the House and Senate! And I really can't believe that a person of your "supposed political intelligence" is even arguing this point. But whatever.....  CIVICS 101 brother- get a copy! I'm sick of arguing with someone who's SOLE PURPOSE in life is to argue over nothing!

The ONLY reason that House members are called Congressmen and Senators aren't (normally) called that is because Congressman is much easier to say than Representativeman is. They BOTH are MEMBERS of Congress- Jeez........(shakes his head in utter astonishment).

Where are the FanIQ School Teachers when you need them?  Becky? Jason? You there?........
yes because _____  
#44 | 1559 days ago

vindog wrote:
Even a 3rd grader KNOWS that Congress is made of of the House and Senate! And I really can't believe that a person of your "supposed political intelligence" is even arguing this point. But whatever.....  CIVICS 101 brother- get a copy! I'm sick of arguing with someone who's SOLE PURPOSE in life is to argue over nothing!

The ONLY reason that House members are called Congressmen and Senators aren't (normally) called that is because Congressman is much easier to say than Representativeman is. They BOTH are MEMBERS of Congress- Jeez........(shakes his head in utter astonishment).

Where are the FanIQ School Teachers when you need them?  Becky? Jason? You there?........
No, the LEGISLATURE consists of the House and the Senate.

The Congress is just the House.


But this is a common misconception.  People often confuse the Congress for the Senate.   No need to blow your top over it.
#45 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
ML31 wrote:
No, the LEGISLATURE consists of the House and the Senate.

The Congress is just the House.


But this is a common misconception.  People often confuse the Congress for the Senate.   No need to blow your top over it.
The United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as the "House," is the lower house of the bicameral United States Congress, the upper house being the United States Senate.

No "common misconception" here it's IN the U.S. Constitution!!!  
 I actually studied in my Civics class..... BTW I'm done with this silly argument- tired of beating my head on a brick wall over nothing!
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1           Here is a copy of the U.S. Constitution; Article I    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.    
 
yes because _____  
#46 | 1559 days ago

myrna_ventura wrote:
Yeah, Positve and she's a lot better than you and I.
speak for yourself
#47 | 1559 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
myrna_ventura wrote:
Yeah, Positve and she's a lot better than you and I.
You don't know what level of education I have completed or how I have lived my life.
#48 | 1559 days ago

vindog wrote:
The United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as the "House," is the lower house of the bicameral United States Congress, the upper house being the United States Senate.

No "common misconception" here it's IN the U.S. Constitution!!!  
 I actually studied in my Civics class..... BTW I'm done with this silly argument- tired of beating my head on a brick wall over nothing!
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1           Here is a copy of the U.S. Constitution; Article I    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.    
 
It is a common misconception. 
I provided plenty of info and a link to the House to prove it.  You persist in ignoring it.  Like you ignore anything that comes your way that you don't like to hear. 

Your history of misconceptions regarding how the government works suggests that you didn't study very hard in any civics class.

You have a huge problem admitting you make mistakes.  Even very small small ones like this that don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.   

Dang, Chief...  You think you are NEVER wrong....

But you are at least being consistent and predictable.  You are following your M.O. to the letter.
#49 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

ML31 wrote:
It is a common misconception. 
I provided plenty of info and a link to the House to prove it.  You persist in ignoring it.  Like you ignore anything that comes your way that you don't like to hear. 

Your history of misconceptions regarding how the government works suggests that you didn't study very hard in any civics class.

You have a huge problem admitting you make mistakes.  Even very small small ones like this that don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.   

Dang, Chief...  You think you are NEVER wrong....

But you are at least being consistent and predictable.  You are following your M.O. to the letter.
Dude, I provided a link to the U.S. Constitution- read it. You are truly incredible to say the least!  I think the U.S. Constitution PROVES what the FACT is.. I don't have to!
yes because _____  
#50 | 1559 days ago

vindog wrote:
Dude, I provided a link to the U.S. Constitution- read it. You are truly incredible to say the least!  I think the U.S. Constitution PROVES what the FACT is.. I don't have to!
Yep.  And I already knew what the Constitution says.
Further, I provided a link to the House of Representatives.

But, you are always right, aren't you?.  How dare anyone question the almighty you?
#51 | 1559 days ago
vindog (+)

ML31 wrote:
Yep.  And I already knew what the Constitution says.
Further, I provided a link to the House of Representatives.

But, you are always right, aren't you?.  How dare anyone question the almighty you?
Sorry Pal- I'm not letting you bait me- your not worth it!  Good Night Sir....
yes because _____  
#52 | 1559 days ago

vindog wrote:
Sorry Pal- I'm not letting you bait me- your not worth it!  Good Night Sir....
I wasn't aware that pointing out errors constitutes "baiting".

Someone seems a tad touchy....
#53 | 1557 days ago

Someone is the pot calling the kettle black around here...
not sure  
#54 | 1557 days ago

Gee...  Ya think?

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
F/E 8/15
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/15/14
11 opinions | 22 comments | Last by ankurnathmishra
To Filter Err or Not to Filter Err that is 8/19
Asked by The_Real_Stoney | Locker Room | 1 questions asked Yesterday
5 opinions | 11 comments | Last by ankurnathmishra
F/E 8/14
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/14/14
6 opinions | 20 comments | Last by JenX63
FanIQ Fantasy Football League 2014
Asked by Kenne | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/11/14
5 opinions | 3 comments | Last by woody050681
F/E 8/13
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 08/13/14
10 opinions | 30 comments | Last by Debi_L