Rushy used to bemoan it back in the 1990s.
Great job on that "symbolic" vote to repeal yesterday. I'll bet Rushy's proud of you.

yep nothing like doing something useful. How many hours did they waste in commitee and on the floor just to pass something that the Senate won't even look at, not even in commitee.

money well spent?

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

First of all, it was not a job killing health care bill.

The title, and everything about the repeal bill was grand standing. I expect little else from a party that is dead set NOT to work with the other party.

It was not a full and complete public option because the democrats TRIED to work with republicans. Maybe they even stopped a fillibuster. Democrats could have blocked this the same way. But the senate and presidential veto pen warming up will insure the same effect and allow the POSSIBILITY of meaningful legislation.

Can they do something useful now? for a change?

---

Janice

don't expect much from the party of "We think everything they propose is wrong/socialist/communists/ nazi etc" How about doing some good instead of no good.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Since they knew it would probably pass in the House (and did) but not in the Senate, it was a symbolic vote. Rush Limbaugh, most likely their biggest pundit in the early and mid 90s, frequently criticized Clinton and the Democrats of providing symbolism over substance. If you're against that, then "turnabout is fair play" is NOT the way to go. Republicans also engaging in symbolism or substance may indeed be 2012 election fodder, backfiring against them. As it is, I've recently heard reports that Obama's favorability ratings are rising significantly.

Now, here's an example of viewing the same facts, but interpreting them differently. Let me highlight some key words to emphasize them, in order to maybe clarify my perception.

Did anybody actually *watch* CSPAN in the first two years of the Obama administration? I guess not. If you had, you would have seen the Democrats *blatantly* ignore the republican's efforts to *try* to work with the democrats. And they did it with *smirks* on their faces.

There are *dozens* of examples of republicans attempting to add/subtract/modify bills that were *blocked* by house/senate rules and passed without a *single* republican vote.

Now, since the *fillibuster proof* democrat senate and a *majority of democrat* house could do what ever they wanted, and did on some occasions, why didn't they do *everything* they wanted?

I know the real answer to that question. And it's not because the republicans blocked them somehow. Let me stress again, "without a single republican vote."

Hmmmm, reality is perception... Why do I percieve these facts differently?

If by working with democrats you mean blatantly derail any meaningful legislation then yep read a whole lot about that. Again when your party runs on a platform of we are going to fight you on every bit of legislation no matter if we agree with it or not because we can, then we as a people can expect them again to blame the Dems for being partisan when it took their own partisanship to create the rift

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Now, here's an example of viewing the same facts, but interpreting them differently. Let me highlight some key words to emphasize them, in order to maybe clarify my perception.

Did anybody actually *watch* CSPAN in the first two years of the Obama administration? I guess not. If you had, you would have seen the Democrats *blatantly* ignore the republican's efforts to *try* to work with the democrats. And they did it with *smirks* on their faces.

There are *dozens* of examples of republicans attempting to add/subtract/modify bills that were *blocked* by house/senate rules and passed without a *single* republican vote.

Now, since the *fillibuster proof* democrat senate and a *majority of democrat* house could do what ever they wanted, and did on some occasions, why didn't they do *everything* they wanted?

I know the real answer to that question. And it's not because the republicans blocked them somehow. Let me stress again, "without a single republican vote."

Hmmmm, reality is perception... Why do I percieve these facts differently?

Side-note: no need to add the extra lines.
Now, as to perception, you apparently perceive you are among a small group like-minded ppl on these fora arguing against a much bigger group of liberal Democrats. Again I will remind you I am not a Democrat.
Further, your post indicates you perceive that I support that Obama said "You Republicans can come along for the ride, otherwise, step aside" or something to that effect, or the smirking by Democrats while they held a majority in The House. Again, you are simply flat wrong about that.
The topic here is, if it is not good for the gsnder, it's not good for the goose. (The contrapositive of the more commonly known version of the phrase.) More specifically, if you're against "symbolism over substance" in one setting, don't be a hypocrite and accept it in another situation. THAT is the topic of this thread.

189 Donkeys voted No.

That would make them the "Party of NO", correct?

189 Donkeys voted No.

That would make them the "Party of NO", correct?

actually no since the vote was a big NO to the health care reform that pretty much everyone seems to want except republicans in congress

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Parallel thread.

Since they knew it would probably pass in the House (and did) but not in the Senate, it was a symbolic vote. Rush Limbaugh, most likely their biggest pundit in the early and mid 90s, frequently criticized Clinton and the Democrats of providing symbolism over substance. If you're against that, then "turnabout is fair play" is NOT the way to go. Republicans also engaging in symbolism or substance may indeed be 2012 election fodder, backfiring against them. As it is, I've recently heard reports that Obama's favorability ratings are rising significantly.

You have to keep in mind that a great deal of the unfavorable rating of Obama is because he has not accomplished MORE.

---

Janice

I don't consider H.R. 2 "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" as symbolic as some of those listed above as this actually attempts to do something.

There's nothing about perception here. You just keep leaving out the fact that we all know it's most likely it will be defeated in The Senate. Thus, nothing is done in the end. That's symbolism.
P.S.-that was HARASS Michael Jackson, not HONOR him. :)
P.P.S.-as for the bolded part, please see my Forbes thread.

189 Donkeys voted No.

That would make them the "Party of NO", correct?

actually no since the vote was a big NO to the health care reform that pretty much everyone seems to want except republicans in congress

Pretty much everyone? Try again. Polls say otherwise.

Tell people what the plan really entails (little gems hidden in 3000 page bills) and less and less people like it.

BTW, can you explain to me why they confiscated 500 Billion from Medicare (something everyone pays into non-voluntarily through payroll deduction) and gave it to Obamacare, which is not something everyone pays into? Sounds like another Washington scam to me (or theft).

They specifically like having Ryan as the one person commitee that decides what is in and out. talk about undemocratic

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope