Topic: Bi-partisanship
Bi-Partisanship How Bi-Partisanship Will Destroy Americaby Thomas Locke
(libertarian)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
I've heard a lot of talk going on about something called bi-partisanship. To those who don't know what that is, it's when two typically opposing parties work together to reach a compromise on an usually controversial issue. Ahhh, Democrats and Republicans working together to "make America great again." Well, sorry to ring the alarm but Democrats and Republicans don't have what it takes to make anything great again. Allow me to prove my point.
Democrats passed the "stimulus" bill that sets an unprecedented amount of money allocated to President Obama's public works projects. Then, they worked with the Republicans to "compromise" by adding in over 8,000 earmarks. Six out of ten of the biggest "porkers" were indeed Republican. Is this your idea of "bi-partisanship"?
Clearly the two major parties are out of touch with basic American principles. The reason we fought a revolution was to get government off our backs. Instead, we're allowing this enlarged bureacracy to take over our lives and telling the Founders "Thanks but no thanks."
An enlarged bureacracy will inevitably bring oppression. Currently, we're living in a limited socialist society, and trust me when I say this, Obama will have NO problem taking it the next step further.
I'm not saying he's a full-blown socialist, but he's pretty damn close. These ideas such as universal health care, bailouts, the government saving the incompetent would have our Founding Fathers scratching their heads.
To reiterate my point, there is no way you can call this bi-partisanship. bi-partisanship implicates that there's two opposing sides working together when in reality there really isn't much difference. Both parties neglect the individual, neglect the powers of the state government, and wish to enlarge the federal bureacracy. Again, someone has to stop this madness or they American people will continue to suffer. If only a certain conservative libertarian would've won the presidency, then maybe the circumstances would've been different.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Thomas Locke only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Thomas Locke is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
Not very convincing.. Just a statement of an opinion without saying why this is so.
Where did the number 8,000 earmarks come from?
Where does the relation more money => more bureacracy come from? The money can go to other people then those behind a desk, you know..
Where is the money really going? Infrastructure? Education? Research?