2pid, this article shows...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

....something. What is it?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30180729//

1. The result of a liberal plot to allow illegal immigrants into the
US.

2. Typical spin from liberal MSM sources.

3. One good reason that mass deportations are not possible. With 13
(or more) million illegal immigrants and not enough resources to round
them up and deport them it is illogical to not have a path to
citizenship.

4. What's wrong with a few hundred US citizens being illegally
detained? If they were smart they wouldn't look Mexican.

5. People shouldn't choose to be mentally ill or poor. They should get
rid of their cell phones.

6. White is right.

7. MSN is 'trashing' America...again.

LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 13, 2:15*pm, wrote:

> *Then when labor starts to go up, we roll out a guest worker
> program...designed our way. We make its approval contingent on getting
> rid of the current H-1B visa AND on getting rid of Anchor Baby

Where else would you change the Constitution, dum-dum?

Or (since I'm talking to you and you've never had an original
thought), where do Sailer and Oliver want to change the Constitution?
LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Apr 15, 1:54*am, wrote:
> On Apr 13, 8:00 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 2:15 pm, wrote:
>
> > > *Then when labor starts to go up, we roll out a guest worker
> > > program...designed our way. We make its approval contingent on getting
> > > rid of the current H-1B visa AND on getting rid of Anchor Baby
>
> > Where else would you change the Constitution, dum-dum?
>
> > Or (since I'm talking to you and you've never had an original
> > thought), where do Sailer and Oliver want to change the Constitution?
> > LOL!
>
> *I'd change the constitution in several places, ****ter. But it's the
> INCORRECT INTERPRETATION of the Fourteenth Amendment which is at issue
> here. Only if the Supreme Court gets tabasco-ass on us does the
> constitution neeed amending for this reason.

Oh, so you merely disagree with over 100 years of Supreme Court case
law and you (or is it Sailer and Oliver? LOL!) feel *this* should be
overturned.

Those poor justices who have INCORRECT INTERPRETED the Constitution
all of these years. Where were Sailer and Oliver when the Supreme
Court needed them?

And you feel that you're wise enough to change the Constitution,
Bratzi? LOL!