The Gordon Lightfoot song about the Edmund Fitzgerald carrying 26,000 tons
of iron ore makes for an interesting comparison. It is said all the gold in
the world would weigh just over 100,000 tons. (a final Jeopardy question a
while back). This is four Edmund Fitzgerald loads. At the current gold price
of $ 465 per oz., how would you think the entire worlds gold supply would
compare to our national debt?----- The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt. Trouble coming?
Dixon

OlBlueEyes wrote:
"Dixon" wrote in
:

The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt.

But selling the superfluous properties the govt owns would pay it all off.

Hell yes. Who needs some wide open space where the deer and the
antelope play, anyway?

Yellowstone? Pave that sucka and put up a WalMart. They can use
geothermal energy for heat.

Yosemite? Can you say ticky tacky condos? We could hang actual pictures
in all the picture windows, so the new residents will know what the
place looked like before the cinderblocks blocked the view.

Gettysburg? Leave a statue off in a corner someplace, and carve it up
with cul-de-sacs and a strip mall.

Little Bighorn? Put up a refrigerated desert concession and advertise
it as Custard's Last "Stand".

If there are any of those pesky darned birds and animals still hanging
around, shoot the critters after sending a couple of dozen off to
various zoos. Lop off those dang trees while we're at it. Didn't Rush
Limbaugh tell us all that pollution is actually caused by trees?

As far as the Capitol Mall goes, who the hell needs that in this day
and age? Send all the congresspeople home, let them debate in chatrooms
and vote on the internet. No point in maintaining the Federal Justice
Building, either; we'll just let Bush decide who gets shot and who
should live, much simpler than screwing around with a bunch of ACLU
liberal lawyers in any case.

Once we get the debt down to zero by selling off all the government
property in the US, we can go back to spending like a bunch of drunks
on a holiday and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

Chuck,
It is nice to see you are thinking rational.


wrote in message
oups.com...

OlBlueEyes wrote:
"Dixon" wrote in
:

The value of the all the worlds gold
would not even pay one- fifth of our debt.

But selling the superfluous properties the govt owns would pay it all
off.

Hell yes. Who needs some wide open space where the deer and the
antelope play, anyway?

Yellowstone? Pave that sucka and put up a WalMart. They can use
geothermal energy for heat.

Yosemite? Can you say ticky tacky condos? We could hang actual pictures
in all the picture windows, so the new residents will know what the
place looked like before the cinderblocks blocked the view.

Gettysburg? Leave a statue off in a corner someplace, and carve it up
with cul-de-sacs and a strip mall.

Little Bighorn? Put up a refrigerated desert concession and advertise
it as Custard's Last "Stand".

If there are any of those pesky darned birds and animals still hanging
around, shoot the critters after sending a couple of dozen off to
various zoos. Lop off those dang trees while we're at it. Didn't Rush
Limbaugh tell us all that pollution is actually caused by trees?

As far as the Capitol Mall goes, who the hell needs that in this day
and age? Send all the congresspeople home, let them debate in chatrooms
and vote on the internet. No point in maintaining the Federal Justice
Building, either; we'll just let Bush decide who gets shot and who
should live, much simpler than screwing around with a bunch of ACLU
liberal lawyers in any case.

Once we get the debt down to zero by selling off all the government
property in the US, we can go back to spending like a bunch of drunks
on a holiday and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:48:36 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:


Even if one turns a blind eye to the Constitutional requirement that the
federal government only purchase land for "forts and other needful
buildings", the superfluous properties needed to erase the debt can be
assembled without touching those you name.

Now, that is one flawed reading of the Constitution. That section is
about granting legislative control, not about ownership.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government
of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places
purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same
shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and
other needful Buildings"

I'd also point out that *all* land west of the 13 original states was at
one time federally owned. If it wasn't for that fact, there would have
been no land to go west to, and least not in the United States.

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be given
back to the French.

(1) environmentally speaking, privately held forest lands fare far better
than government-owned ones, since private entities have an interest in
reforestation of lands they own, whereas ones leased by government are far
more likely to be clearcut.

There's a real easy solution to that problem. Stop making sweetheart
deals with loggers and ranchers. It's called pork, and is just another
form of corporate welfare.


After all, where would you rather visit a restroom in New York - the
Waldorf or the subway?

I'd rather visit the Statue of Liberty.

and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.


And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but
then again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 03:31:48 -0700, tschnautz wrote:

and be back to almost $8 TRILLION in debt, (thank GWB for
the last $2.5 trillion of that) before we know it.


And who is resposible for the previous 5.5 tril? I got an Idea, but then
again, that wasn't his fault, now was it?

Uh, it might not be who you think.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:48:36 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:


Even if one turns a blind eye to the Constitutional requirement that
the federal government only purchase land for "forts and other
needful buildings", the superfluous properties needed to erase the
debt can be assembled without touching those you name.

Now, that is one flawed reading of the Constitution. That section is
about granting legislative control, not about ownership.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

I'd also point out that *all* land west of the 13 original states was
at one time federally owned. If it wasn't for that fact, there would
have been no land to go west to, and least not in the United States.

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be
given back to the French.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of the US you'd know that Thomas
Jefferson explicitly STATED that the LP was in fact illegal.

I don't recall reading about Jefferson stating that. From what I remember,
it was the Federalist Party that opposed the purchase...citing that the
Constitution did not allow for acquisition of new lands or negotiation of
treaties without the consent of the Senate.

Can you point me to a source showing that Jefferson stated that the LP was
illegal?

Harry,
If you really have a "bozo bin", why do you keep taking people out of the
"bozo bin" and then putting them back in the "bozo bin". Any rational
individual would think you really don't have a "bozo bin", but really just
want to talk about your "bozo bin".

By the way, what position did you play when you were on U of Kansas's "Rugby
Team".




"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
OlBlueEyes wrote:

Nevertheless, I would still point out that:

(1) environmentally speaking, privately held forest lands fare far better
than government-owned ones, since private entities have an interest in
reforestation of lands they own, whereas ones leased by government are
far more likely to be clearcut.


Absurd on its face.



(2) the three most famous historic residences in the United States -
Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Biltmore - are all in PRIVATE hands. From
the Monticello website: "As a private, nonprofit organization, the
Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support". From
Mount Vernon's: "Mount Vernon does not accept grants from federal, state
or local governments, and no tax dollars are expended to support its
purposes."


Absurd argument.



After all, where would you rather visit a restroom in New York - the
Waldorf or the subway?

Idiotic argument.

Stick to drooling on your bib. Now, back in the bozo bin you go.

OBE,
When you use profanity like that you sound like many of the leftwing nutjobs
who post in rec.boats. ; )



"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote in
:

OlBlueEyes wrote:

Nevertheless, I would still point out that:

(1) environmentally speaking, privately held forest lands fare far
better than government-owned ones, since private entities have an
interest in reforestation of lands they own, whereas ones leased by
government are far more likely to be clearcut.


Absurd on its face.

Not at all. Absolutely true and verifiable.

(2) the three most famous historic residences in the United States -
Mount Vernon, Monticello, and Biltmore - are all in PRIVATE hands.
From the Monticello website: "As a private, nonprofit organization,
the Foundation receives no regular federal or state budget support".
From Mount Vernon's: "Mount Vernon does not accept grants from
federal, state or local governments, and no tax dollars are expended
to support its purposes."


Absurd argument.

Direct quotes from websites, you cocksucking mother****ing faggot son os a
****sucking infected ****.

Jefferson believed the LP one of his greatest achievements, also expressed
concern about overstepping the government's powers as outlined by the
constitution.
"His brilliant negotiation and ties to France led to the Louisiana Purchase
for $15 million, doubling the size of the nation. Nonetheless, the deal
troubled Jefferson, who did not wish to overstep the central government's
powers as outlined by the Constitution, which made no mention of the power
to acquire new territory. It was Jefferson who authorized the famous Lewis
and Clark Expedition (1804-1806), led by Meriwether Lewis, a military
officer who was Jefferson's clerk at the White House."

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/LewisClark2/...naPurchase.htm


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"OlBlueEyes" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 04:48:36 +0000, OlBlueEyes wrote:


Even if one turns a blind eye to the Constitutional requirement that
the federal government only purchase land for "forts and other
needful buildings", the superfluous properties needed to erase the
debt can be assembled without touching those you name.

Now, that is one flawed reading of the Constitution. That section is
about granting legislative control, not about ownership.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings"

I'd also point out that *all* land west of the 13 original states was
at one time federally owned. If it wasn't for that fact, there would
have been no land to go west to, and least not in the United States.

By your reading, the Louisiana Purchase was illegal, and should be
given back to the French.

If you knew ANYTHING about the history of the US you'd know that Thomas
Jefferson explicitly STATED that the LP was in fact illegal.

I don't recall reading about Jefferson stating that. From what I
remember, it was the Federalist Party that opposed the purchase...citing
that the Constitution did not allow for acquisition of new lands or
negotiation of treaties without the consent of the Senate.

Can you point me to a source showing that Jefferson stated that the LP was
illegal?