Green Eggs and Bam

I had hoped that Scott Brown’s election to the US Senate in Massachusetts would be a wake up call for President Obama and his Liberals in Congress, a call to slow down and reevaluate their approach to healthcare “reform.” At first I thought they might even listen to it since some of their key players seemed to get the broad hint that Americans were strongly opposed to ObamaCare.

But Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their ilk are too childish to understand such things when they’re told in anything vaguely resembling an adult manner. Perhaps the great teacher of children, Dr. Seuss, can succeed where so many others have failed.

I Do Not Like It, Bam-I-Am. I Do Not Like Your Healthcare Plan.

Many thanks to BulletPeople for this hilarious and yet hopefully useful video based upon Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs And Ham.

And yes, to make clear and in language best suited to President Obama’s and the bulk of Congress’ cognitive and maturity levels, I do not like it, Bam-I-Am. I do not like your healthcare plan!

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | |

9 Responses to “Green Eggs and Bam”

  1. Ryan Mason Says:

    They’re still the elected majority by a healthy margin. And they’re putting forth legislation that Obama campaigned heavily on. It’s ridiculous to think that the party running two branches of government should listen to what the minority thinks they should do. This is why the country was designed as a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. They’d be deaf if they weren’t listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who elected them to office over the past couple years.

    I understand that you don’t agree with the Senate bill, but you also didn’t vote for Obama or the Democratic majority in Congress (I’m assuming, so please correct me if I’m mistaken) so you will most certainly disagree with most of their policies. I just don’t know how that makes them childish or deaf unless simply not agreeing with your worldview is childish and deaf. To which I’d say you’re the one being childish. They’re just doing a job they were elected to do.

  2. jonolan Says:

    That’s an interesting position, Mason. I find it so because Obama’s approval rating is low and steadily falling across the board, even among Dems.

    The rating of ObamaCare is even lower, with only (as of today) 39.8% approving of it.

    And Congress? Their approval rating is only 18.1%!

    So, yes. They should be proper stewards of a representative democracy and listen to the people.

  3. Ryan Mason Says:

    But we don’t elect reps or presidents based on public opinion polls. And there is a wide discrepancy amongst these polls – as I’ve written many times – about why these polls show disapproval. You’re essentially saying that we live in a direct democracy and that these polls are equivalent to the public voting on these items. I’d think you of all people would know that’s not how – nor should it be how – our government works.

  4. jonolan Says:


    Firstly, look at the polling source I use. It is an aggregate of all the other polls out there and therefor normalizes for those polls’ biases.

    Secondly, I do not believe that we live in a direct democracy; nobody has since Athens fell. Yet, I do believe that our representatives’ actions should reflect the will of the people. ObamaCare obvious does not do that.

    You seem to believe that once a politician gets elected they get to do whatever they want as if it’s a single battle that determines the fate of the nation every few years.

    Tell me were you one of the ones saying, “not my president” about Bush and, if so, how would you feel if I said the same thing about Obama?

  5. Ryan Mason Says:

    I didn’t say that the poll you linked to was specifically biased. I’m saying that polls in general capture general feelings, but not all necessarily explain why people feel certain ways. There is a decent number of people who disagree with the HCR because it’s not progressive enough, for instance. They will still say they’re unhappy with the HCR even though it’s not because they don’t want reform.

    I don’t think that representatives should just do whatever they want when they get into office nor did I say anything like that. Obama won the election by a landslide through a campaign that had – yes, among other things like getting out of Iraq, closing Gitmo, fixing the economy, ending torture, etc. – a strong plan for sweeping health care reform that is currently in the Senate Bill almost exactly how he described it in 2008. This isn’t a case of the elected government doing something radically different from what the people want.

    I don’t recall ever saying that Bush wasn’t my president. True, I didn’t vote for him, but I did – like many others – rally behind him after 9/11 and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. From there on, he and I were rarely on the same wavelength.

    Americans are unhappy with the process, with the partisanship, with the lack of public option, with the Stupak Amendment, with the deals given to certain senators, with the total lack of leadership from the Democrats and the staunch opposition from the Republicans. There will be books written about this, I’m sure. But don’t misconstrue this as meaning that people don’t want reform. In fact, this poll show that over 60% still want comprehensive reform:

    Also – how passing legislation with a 59-41 majority is even remotely considered jamming it down the throats of dissenting Americans shows just how ridiculously partisan our political climate is today. Republicans make it sound like this would be such an egregious use of power to enact a bill that almost no Americans want. The Republicans lost. Their ideas lost. This time around, at least. You say that the party with a 59 vote majority shouldn’t push forward with legislation they were elected by a majority of American voters. Well, you say that now. What about when that party is the Republican Party? Should they just not do anything because the minority party doesn’t want them to?

    I know you don’t like the HCR bill. But it’s immature to just sit back and call Obama childish. I mean, how does that help the situation any? It just inflames it, doesn’t it? Simply disagreeing with your worldview doesn’t make someone stupid.

  6. jonolan Says:

    In point of fact ObamaCare has some points in it that are diametrically opposed to what Obama claimed to want during his 2008 campaign. Case in point – the insurance mandate that Obama attacked Hillary over wanting.

    Face it, Mason; for a variety of reasons the bulk of Americans do not want ObamaCare as it stands now. Why else would they need to do it under the guise of a budget reconciliation bill?

    But, as you said, this should not be misconstrued as meaning that people don’t want reform. We just differ in our beliefs as to how reform should be made and whether or not ObamaCare even constitutes healthcare reform.

    I do find it interesting, however, that in the course of your argument against partisanship that you cited only leftist, partisan points in your list of what Americans disagree with in ObamaCare.

  7. Ryan Mason Says:

    No. I won’t face it because it’s not true. When people are asked if they like specific parts of the bill on their own, they tend to like them. They like what makes up the bill but not the bill itself. Why do suppose that is? It could be because of the ridiculous propaganda spread about the bill, namely espoused by the GOP that it’s socialism.

    Again, I’m not saying it’s perfect. The broad strokes are still there from Obama’s campaign. I never said it was a perfect mirroring. But it surely isn’t some vastly different piece of legislation completely unrecognizable from what was advertised in 2008. Either way – the point of me bringing it up was as evidence that Obama isn’t just doing what he wants now that he’s in power; I think that while there are differences between the actual legislation and what Obama campaigned on, they’re similar enough to debunk the notion that he’s simply using his power to push some radical, surprising agenda.

    And I find it interesting that you should consider all of the issues I listed as liberal, partisan points. I think it’s safe to say that people on both sides of the divide find aspects of the Stupak Amendment, the messiness of the whole process, the Republicans staunch opposition, the Democrat leadership’s ineptitude, and the blatant money deals with senators for their support to be rather upsetting and unfavorable. Perhaps it’s you that’s seeing it through a strictly partisan lens.

  8. Alfie Says:

    Ryan I think you should take some of your own advice ie Simply disagreeing with your worldview doesn’t make someone stupid.I think everyone gets a little foggy when they look at polls and cherry pick talking points.

    If you ask people if they would like improvements to healthcare I’d imagine you’d get nearly 100% response. Bits of the bill sound good because some are. In total though when you start to realize potential rationing,the raping of Medicare and stuff like that you have to kill the bill.

    Kind of shows you how stupid Obama and Co. is. They could’ve done baby steps and built up momentum. They went for it all and shot their load.

  9. Ryan Mason Says:

    Alfie – I don’t recollect calling anyone stupid. Perhaps I missed it if I did. Please show me where I went astray.

    So you want to kill health care reform and all of its benefits because of potential rationing (still buying into that whole “death panel” scare, I see) and the raping of Medicare? Please don’t tell me that you are also in favor of entitlement reform and cutting government spending then. Please don’t do that.

    I don’t know that you can call Obama and Congress stupid for trying to put forward comprehensive reform. Foolish, overzealous, or idealistic perhaps, but I don’t think it is stupid. I mean, look: the bills passed in both the House and the Senate. It’s not like this thing failed even though all the Republicans and a bunch of the shooting-themselves-in-the-feet Democrats act like it has. The issue is that a lot of these things need all the elements to be there to work. You can’t just say “no more pre-existing conditions” but not have the mandate, for example, otherwise insurance rates will skyrocket and it will be only affordable for the extremely rich.

Leave a Reply