In 37B, Kurt Bills - A "Tenther" Version of Judy Lindsay

Privatization of all federal assets doesn't necessarily mean opening federal land to oil companies. I'd be perfectly happy with the feds selling ANWR to say, the Sierra Club, no strings attached, at a bargain price. Then let the oil companies negotiate with the Sierra Club for drilling rights. Let the Sierra Club weigh the dangers of drilling in ANWR against the environmental good they could do with millions of dollars in annual royalties. Their ideological devotion to all things environmental certainly makes them better qualified than government bureaucrats and politically motivated legislators to make that evaluation.

My bet is there'd be drilling in ANWR in a nanosecond -- well-monitored and regulated by terms of a private contract enforced by the legitimate government provision of a civil court system.

The point is private ownership of land is more likely to put the land to its best use than is public ownership. Private owners are more apt to create reasonable regulation of activities on their properties (to make them more attractive to lessors). They are also more apt to monitor and enforce regulations because it is to their benefit to do so.

So yes, divesting the federal government of asset ownership not compatible with its constitutionally defined functions is a good idea.
 

Kevin-

You're off your rocker, dude.

Any candidate that thinks every part of the Constitution is important is clearly outside the mainstream. Here's a quick primer on the first ten to help you be more mainstream:

#1- Free speech is o.k. as long as you say the right things and don't try to influence the election of smart people who know better than you.

A free press is o.k. as long as it's not hateful right-wing stuff.

Religion is o.k. as long as you keep you mouth shut, unless your religion is about hugging trees or smoking marijuana, then we're all for it.

Free assembly and the right to petition your government is a patriotic duty, unless your assembling and petitioning is questioning those smart people who know better than you who you wrongfully tried to keep from being elected.

#2 We're pretty sure this whole amendment was just a typographical error.

#3 Soldiers. This one might have been an error as well. The constitution is a very fallible living, breathing document.

#s 4-8. These amendments are the core to our justice system, as long as they aren't applied to right wing wingnuts, tea partiers, and corporations. Terrorists, yes. Wingnuts, suits, and teaspooners, no.

#s 9 & 10. Some people think these are meant to limit the power of the Federal government. We all know how silly that idea is. Any group of people that broke away from an overreaching government thousands of miles away would have wanted to create for their people and overreaching government hundreds-to-thousands of miles away....isn't it obvious?

In fact in Federalist #61 Aaron Burr wrote: "Bwaaahhh, haaaa, haaaa. The fools think a bill of rights with a limitation of government expressed explicitly will prevent the Federal government from doing whatever the heck it wants. We all know that the interstate commerce clause will be interpreted to mean "The smart people who know better can just do whatever the hell they feel like so there's no bother in reading any further in the constitution."
 

Ohhh another guilt by association argument....cause those are valid.

"what he accepts as endorsements"....so someone has to ask his permission to endorse him?? I don't think you understand how this all works.

Not to mention you're basically criticizing him for being liked by a group that's a big fan of the Constitution. Why is that bad again??

By your guilt by association argument I can therefore conclude that Kelliher, Entenza, Dayton, Powers, Madore, Sterner and Lindstrom all hate the Constitution. Thanks for enlightening me.