Taking your ball and going home...

[Ian David]

[rbnyc]

1. Net recommendation: +2 votes (Your vote: +1)

I have been critical of President Obama, but I am happy to be the second to rec this post, and I certainly will not sit out the election.

[Ian David]

3. Someone un-rec'd it because they hate Freedom. n/t

[monmouth]

2. This is a great OP and needs to be posted every now and then..n/t

[ClassWarrior]

4. I think it's safe to assume that nearly everyone here who's not voting for Obama...

...is a troll. But thanks for lecturing people with strong Democratic values yet again.

:hi:

NGU.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. Define 'troll'. I'm not voting for Obama but I'd hardly call myself

a troll. (I'd call myself a Democratic Socialist, if labels mean anything anymore.)

[ClassWarrior]

25. For whom will you be voting?

NGU.

[coalition_unwilling]

26. Not sure what NGU stands for, but I'll either not waste my time

going to the polls or, if I do to vote for my Rep Karen Bass, I'll vote Dem Socialist at the top of the ticket. Yes, I confess, I'm a swing voter but I swing between Democratic and Democratic Socialist.

[thelordofhell]

37. Then you're voting republican

If you call yourself a Democratic Socialist and don't vote Democratic, then you're letting the opposition, the republican, get one more vote closer to winning......it's that simple.

[Ian David]

40. I don't think "Ignored" is a Democrat. n/t

[msanthrope]

59. Shall I define 'ratfucking' for you? nt

[FarLeftFist]

5. K&R!

[Le Taz Hot]

6. WTF is this? The new Booster Club chew toy?

Ring, ring, clue phone: PROGRESSIVES WILL NOT SIT OUT THIS ELECTION NOR ANY OTHER ELECTION. Not voting for the object of your affection does not equal "sitting out the election."

[annabanana]

7. A very scary thought for sure.

I wish Ms. Ginsberg was heartier... And shouldn't Fat Tony be having some health issues by now?

[A Simple Game]

8. Perhaps you should send a copy of this to President Obama.

Let him know he needs to pamper to his base as these people, and most of the Republicans in congress seem to be pampering to theirs.

I need a reason to vote for somebody, not a reason to vote against somebody.

By the way, how has that picking the lesser of two evils working for the last 30 years? Life is getting too short, no more lesser of two evils.

I will vote my conscience from now on. My conscience will also not accept blame if Obama can not earn enough votes to win, nor will threats or coercion work on me, I'm too old for that to work anymore.

And as far as a ball is concerned, I haven't gotten one the last three years, have you?

[gateley]

28. Voting against somebody to keep my future from becoming

an even worse nightmare is incentive enough for me.

[tomp]

44. wow, improved quality of nightmares!

now there's a campaign slogan!

[gateley]

57. Better than the alternative. Not ideal, far from it, but I'm not going

to do anything (or NOT do anything) to help the Republicans take over. If I think it's bad now, I can't even conceive of the horrors should they run the whole shebang.

[A Simple Game]

68. Taking a bad dream instead of a nightmare is not my idea

of moving in the right direction.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gives you evil, it's just a matter of degrees.

We'll fix it later though, except that later never seems to come, does it?

[Hoosier Daddy]

9. Excellent point

K&R

[xchrom]

10. George w esque in it's fear mongering.

Ext - you'll post a pic telling ever one to go shopping.

[Initech]

64. At least this fear-mongering is legit.

Picking the next three SCOTUS judges is essential to us gaining control of the court as its' been under Xtain - GOP rule for the last 30 years, if we finally get to tip the scales, we might actually begin to make the real changes we voted for in '08. George W.'s fear mongering was like "Oh noes!!! Teh evil gheys are going to get married!!!1!!!!"

[Ohio Joe]

11. K&R - nt

[whatchamacallit]

12. How 'bout hasn't been as liberal as Nixon

Corporate trojan horse or corporate batshit, aint much of a choice.

[Edweird]

13. It's like some sick relationship. You treat me like shit - but it's MY fault

the 'children' are harmed by my departure. Insane.

[coalition_unwilling]

14. Unrec. Presidents don't 'appoint' SC Justices. They are nominated

by the President, but must be approved by the Senate.

Since VP Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee that approved the nomination of Clarence Thomas, I fail to see how it could possibly matter one iota who is doing the nominating, Repuke crazies or this bunch of inept Dem clowns. Take your pick.

[Tx4obama]

30. Yes, presidents DO 'appoint' SC justices and other federal judges.

The word 'appoint' is accurate.

Appoint = To select or designate to fill an office or a position


The President appoints the nominee and the Senate confirms or rejects the nominee.

If you do a Google search for:
Clinton appoints supreme court justice
Bush appoints supreme court justice
Obama appoints supreme court justice

you will see that the word 'appoint' is the right one.

----------

Also...
from Wikipedia

Section 2 grants and limits the president's appointment powers:

The president may make treaties, with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two-thirds of the senators who are present agree.
With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President may appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise described in the Constitution.
Congress may give the power to appoint lower officers to the President alone, to the courts, or to the heads of departments.
The president may make any of these appointments during a congressional recess. Such a "recess appointment" expires at the end of the next session of Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Article_Two:_Executive_power

[coalition_unwilling]

33. We can play this game of semantics all night long, if you so desire. If

presidents 'appoint' SC justices the way the OP's cartoon would have us define the term, why then we'd have Robert Bork as a sitting USSC Justice today. (Perish the notion.) Fortunately, the President can only nominate, NOT APPOINT, and the Senate confirms or rejects the nomination.

[Tx4obama]

35. I will bow out of this agrument, because it seems that you are unable to realize that you're wrong

Goodnight.

[msanthrope]

60. You're too nice. I would have posted the section of the Constitution that says "appoint."

Of course, then there would be a debate over what "with the advise and consent of the Senators" means.

[Tx4obama]

62. And it should also be noted ....

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Appointments Clause :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

[Tx4obama]

32. And the Senate Judiciary Committee only votes to send the nominee to the full senate.

The full senate is who votes on the nomination and has the final say in the matter.

And it DOES matter who does the 'appointing', republican presidents do not appoint democratic judges.

If we had a democratic president at the time the seat that Thomas was appointed to was vacant he would NOT have been appointed by a dem president.

Do you think that a republican president would have ever appointed Kagan or Sotomayer? NO never!

[theaocp]

47. Indeed.

How many dems voted for Alito or our current Chief Justice? They could have made some ripples, but here we are. I'm tired of being made to feel afraid.

[Bluebear]

16. Equating disappointment with being childish. Lovely.

And I still have yet to see all these liberals who are going to "sit out" the election.

[Number23]

17. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Maybe Obama should try appealing to the left rather than pandering to the right to get votes.

It's his job as a candidate to convince people to vote for him. If he fails to do that, it's his fault not the people he failed to convince.

[Bluebear]

20. You're just a child with a ball.

We've moved on from the unicorn and pony slurs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Yep. A ball I'm supposed to give to anyone with a (D) after their name without question.

[thelordofhell]

38. The (D) was approved by the Democratic party, the party you're a member of

So yes

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Well, approved or not, they're still going to have earn my vore.

It's still my vote and not owed to the party.

[thelordofhell]

50. It is our party who picks the candidate

It is our responsibility to vote for our candidate. If you don't like the candidate, then participate more in your party.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. Well, I'm pushing for a primary challenge to Obama.

And, it's NOT my responsibility to vote for anyone I disagree with.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[thelordofhell]

54. Then enjoy your next republican president

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. We shouldn't work within the party to find better candidates?

Isn't that what primaries are for? Doesn't Obama have to earn our votes?

[thelordofhell]

58. And when President Obama wins the Democratic nomination

Will you vote for him? Every statement I'm reading from you says you won't.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. I'll vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the balllot.

I certainly won't waste it on a pro-war centrist.

[thelordofhell]

66. You keep dancing around it, so that means you're not voting for President Obama

So you're going to support the republican by not voting for the Democratic Party's choice for President. We all know, you can stop your little game now, it's getting tiresome.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. Time will tell.

Who knows? Maybe Obama will miraculously turn left and become the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

You could say that Obama is going to support the Republican by shunning the left and losing their votes.

[thelordofhell]

69. He's not shunning the left, he's center-left.......the most left mainstream candidate

Keep digging the hole dude

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. Yeah. How about that "center left" war in Afghanistan.

You know, the lost one that he escalated. Verrry Leftist.

[thelordofhell]

72. Enjoy your next republican president

Who will invade Iran and escalate North Korea to war again.

Once again, if you don't vote for the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate......who WILL be President Obama....., then you are letting the republicans get 1 step closer to regaining the presidency and finish destroying the country.

But go ahead and keep thinking that President Obama is a warlord and cut your nose off to spite your face.

I guarantee you that the republican candidate for President will NOT be a tea-bagger, and yet all the tea-baggers will vote for that person. Why is so hard for you to understand that any Democratic candidate, even ones who don't have %100 of your views, is better that any republican candidate?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

77. You haven't come up with a reason for a leftist to vote for centrist yet.

As for my vote electing a Republican. How does that work? I've voted in 23 federal elections. Never for a Republican. And, I guarantee you, that my vote, either for Democrats or 3rd Party, have yet to change the outcome of any federal election.

Has any of your votes ever changed the outcome of any federal election? Do you know anybody whose vote has changed the outcome of any federal election?

So, why shouldn't I, or you, or anyone not vote for the candidate who best reflects the ideas they believe in rather than "the lesser of two evils"?

[thelordofhell]

88. Because they're the Democratic nominee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll type slowly so you can understand what I've typed several times before.

if......you......don't......vote.......for......the......Democratic........nomineee......for.......President.......you.......are.......conceding........to......the......republican.......nominee

If you don't get this, there is nothing else I can do for you.......this thread is over.......goodbye.

[BzaDem]

91. If your vote was the deciding vote required to put the D over the R in the decisive state,

would you vote for the D? Or let the R win? Would you personally give the key to the oval office to the greater of two evils by voting for someone other than the D? Or not?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. Well, I guess I'll have to face that decision when it happens.

When somebody announces to me, "This is THE deciding vote." I'll vote and see what happens. Presumably, if that were to occur, everyone would know it was my vote that would decide the occupant of the White House and I'd have limos with candidates pulling up to offer me concessions, deals, compromises, to get my vote.

So, I'd have to see what they have to offer. Just like I do now.

[Ian David]

43. Is this that same "Ignored" you're arguing with as the one up-thread? n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. All of those people in the picture are searching for a heartbeat. No, no hearts in this crowd at all

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Is someone here REALLY not going to vote for Obama next year?

I find that hard to believe.

[JNelson6563]

23. Like "rosebud" to the frustrati

lolz

[unkachuck]

24. that's a frightening prospect....

....but not frightening enough....I'm waiting to hear what Troy Davis has to say about this....

[madokie]

27. How in the hell did they get eight stupid people on that one stage

I mean how did they get any one of them to stay there while they rounded up another. I'm surprised they didn't all fall off. Looking out over all those glassy eyes and thinking it was a reflections from a lake and then trying their walk on the water trick.

[Capitalocracy]

29. I'm a regular Obama basher, but...

it is a compelling argument, I will admit.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. Drive 'em to the polls out of fear:

Boogety-boogety-boogety. What else ya got? :smoke:

[SwampG8r]

34. false arguement

liberal judges will wait for liberal presidents
as will conservative judges wait for conservative presidents
this whole arguement is silly

[Tx4obama]

39. The justices that die while still on the bench do not get the option of waiting.

When it is their time 'to go' they are replaced by whichever president is in office at the time of the justice's death.

So, YES it is very important that we have a democratic president in the Oval Office in order to appoint democratic/liberal leaning Supreme Court Justices.

Edited to add:

Example - William Rehnquist died in 2005, while still on the bench, and was replaced by George W. Bush (Bush appointed John Roberts).
If we had a Democratic president at the time then Roberts would NOT now be Chief Justice!

[Ian David]

41. Dumbest argument ever. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. You know tweety reminded us not too long ago

That this was the strategy used by the Carter White House. Tell me how did his second term work out in your reality? In ours Reagan won...but now I know why them neutrinos were doing FTL. when two membranes come in contact...

[Hart2008]

42. Unrec for false dilemma. No rationale was given to renominate Obama. NT

[LWolf]

45. Bad analogy.

If I don't like a particular choice on the ballot, I don't take my vote and go home. I take my vote and find a better.

If there is no better choice, I write one in.

My vote is not a ball, and my rights and responsibilities are not a game I'm playing with you.

Speaking of responsibilities....

Anyone who is concerned about losing liberal votes might want to consider that possibility BEFORE putting a neo-liberal on the ballot.

If you want the votes, put someone on the ballot who can earn them.

Those who think they can use the fear card to bully me into feeling like I have no choice but to vote for a lesser evil are destined to fail.

Those who think they can deflect blame for losses onto those who wouldn't be bullied are welcome to meet me in person. I'm not going "home" or anywhere else. I'll shove their blame game right back down their throats.

You want votes for something or somebody? EARN them.

[Joe Fields]

48. The picture is ridiculous. None of them have a heart to place their hand over.

[Joe Fields]

49. Obama hasn't earned my support. Sorry...no sale...

but if it makes you feel better to make people like me the fall guy for his failure to lead on so many issues, then feel free.

[Zorra]

52. I'm thinking of selling lavender scented rainbow poll hankies

for liberals that will be holding their nose while voting for Obama.

To make the experience just bearable enough to actually do it.

Is there a big enough market?

I will be using the double strength myself.

[toddaa]

53. It's the old "lube or no lube" argument

Some people call it the lesser of two evils, but I'm a Zappa fan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly79mkffp7M

[City of Mills]

55. I'm still not afraid

My vote needs to be earned, scare tactics aren't going to work this time.

[GoneOffShore]

61. Haven't seen this much stupid in a thread in a long time.

[some guy]

63. ooh, emotional blackmail.

:rofl:

[hedgehog]

70. Too late to recommend, but here's a kick!

[Lucian]

73. Too late to unrec, but I would for fearmongering.

[Tx4obama]

80. It is not fearmongering, it is telling the truth! n/t

[Lucian]

82. No. It's not.

We don't have to vote for Obama or any of the Republican candidates. We can elect someone else if we don't like those in power. That's the great thing about a democracy.

[Rosco T.]

84. you're dreaming...

.. given the current political system, you either vote FOR Obama, or you give support to the 'thugs.

It's called "math"

[Lucian]

86. What a crappy argument.

[BzaDem]

90. Just because you find an argument "crappy" doesn't mean it isn't entirely true. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

74. Can't be any plainer. The WH will not sit empty after the 2012 election

just because some don't feel like showing up.

And the alternatives are pictured in the OP.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackDragna]

76. I'm tired of the infantile "us vs them" rah-rah meme.

I want politicians who defend actual reasonable, liberal positions, positions that weren't derided as lunatic fringe lefty-ism 30 years ago. I am not going to vote for people just because they claim to represent my views while further pushing this state into privation, poverty and despair.

[jtown1123]

78. +1

[CakeGrrl]

79. So don't. Just be aware of the alternative as pictured in the OP.

If that's fine by you, it is what it is.

[Avalux]

81. What you want isn't possible. Sorry. So what are you going to do? n/t

[JackDragna]

94. Vote for people who are not corporate sloths.

eom

[Rosco T.]

83. tough nookies, the truth is the truth...

remember that if you help the 'thugs take the WH in 2012

[JackDragna]

93. The "truth" is that the Dems and Republicans play on the same team.

...both taking money from the same corporate powers and both tailoring their policies to fit the agenda of said corporate powers. Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm tired of the mindless rah-rah mentality.

[AverageJoe90]

85. Right on! K & frickin' R. N/T

[NNN0LHI]

87. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[Union Scribe]

89. Well, at least this is a step up from threatening us with one bogeyman at a time.

It just saves time to shake them menacingly all at once.