I was reading the LA Times and and they published this article on the statistics regarding legalizing Marijuana in California. I don't care about the article or people's opinions on Marijuana, I loved the statistics.
According to the article 57% of voters said they had never tried marijuana. 37% said they had tried marijuana. What about the other 6%, were they unsure? Were they like Bill Clinton, they puffed but did not inhale? Nationally this would mean somewhere around 20 MILLION people don't know if they have tried marijuana.
Marijuana legalization
Monday, May 31, 2010
Idiot Contest
Michele Obama was recently at a school and a child asked her about the President wanting to deport illegal aliens. Mrs. Obama responded by saying only people without the proper papers would be deported. The little girl said that her mother didn't have any papers. The little girls mother ran out of the room and is now in hiding. The little girl was born in the United States.
The article about the girl
Lets start with the obvious. Do you really believe that every child in that class didn't get a background check along with their parents? How dumb do they think we are? The first lady doesn't go to places at random, there is an office of people dedicated to managing everyone of her public appearances. The timing is also perfect in light of the law passed in Arizona.
The argument will now be over whether or not children of illegal aliens should be given citizenship. The argument continues to be over what rights people should have. People are being led by their biases and bigotry to destroy our national rights. It is not about illegal aliens, it is about rights.
Some will argue that being born here does not entitle one to citizenship. That is a dangerous and slippery slope. How far back do you want to go, how many came here legally. The American Indian might argue that none of us is here legally.
UPDATE
So the idiots have already been posting responses to the article on Yahoo News. They have found a novel interpretation of the Constitution. The article in question says, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The writer states that this clause was meant to deny citizenship to those who held allegiance to other countries; but, were born here.
730 idiots agreed with his interpretation. I think it is the 6% that don't know if they have ever smoked marijuana. Lets start simple. It says born or naturalized. Two different things. If you are born in a country you are almost always a citizen of it. When are you not? When you are not subject to it's jurisdiction. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are born here?
Two cases I can think of. Firstly, people born here while their parents were on vacation. This was especially true in the 1700s, vacations went on for months. Secondly, and more importantly, children of people who were part of an embassy. The question was concerned with not denying someone their own citizenship. It was answered by their parents, a parents choice if you will.
The coming argument will have to do with pledging allegiance to ONLY the United States. Personally, I am unwilling to pledge allegiance to a piece of dirt or a governmental structure. Dirt is just dirt and governmental structures change. The founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to each other not to the land or the government.
A country is not a place, boundaries change. It is not a form of government or financial system. It is each other. We promise our help to each other, we commit to each other.
The article about the girl
Lets start with the obvious. Do you really believe that every child in that class didn't get a background check along with their parents? How dumb do they think we are? The first lady doesn't go to places at random, there is an office of people dedicated to managing everyone of her public appearances. The timing is also perfect in light of the law passed in Arizona.
The argument will now be over whether or not children of illegal aliens should be given citizenship. The argument continues to be over what rights people should have. People are being led by their biases and bigotry to destroy our national rights. It is not about illegal aliens, it is about rights.
Some will argue that being born here does not entitle one to citizenship. That is a dangerous and slippery slope. How far back do you want to go, how many came here legally. The American Indian might argue that none of us is here legally.
UPDATE
So the idiots have already been posting responses to the article on Yahoo News. They have found a novel interpretation of the Constitution. The article in question says, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The writer states that this clause was meant to deny citizenship to those who held allegiance to other countries; but, were born here.
730 idiots agreed with his interpretation. I think it is the 6% that don't know if they have ever smoked marijuana. Lets start simple. It says born or naturalized. Two different things. If you are born in a country you are almost always a citizen of it. When are you not? When you are not subject to it's jurisdiction. Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States but are born here?
Two cases I can think of. Firstly, people born here while their parents were on vacation. This was especially true in the 1700s, vacations went on for months. Secondly, and more importantly, children of people who were part of an embassy. The question was concerned with not denying someone their own citizenship. It was answered by their parents, a parents choice if you will.
The coming argument will have to do with pledging allegiance to ONLY the United States. Personally, I am unwilling to pledge allegiance to a piece of dirt or a governmental structure. Dirt is just dirt and governmental structures change. The founding fathers pledged their fortunes and lives to each other not to the land or the government.
A country is not a place, boundaries change. It is not a form of government or financial system. It is each other. We promise our help to each other, we commit to each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)