Seemed important with the original ask, some while back.

“If it adds $2T to our deficit, just to make a point, …”

Reestablishing the rule of law and constitutional government, restoring legislative self-government as opposed to unlimited executive and administrative discretion and malfeasance; liberating middle class Americans from an unsupportable oppression in the form of a tax in the guise of an insurance premium which buys them nothing …

And that according to your supercilious pose, is just making a point.

I am not as I have stated before, a self-identified conservative in a political sense. But I have never quite fully appreciated the utter uselessness of so-called conservatism in actually promoting and restoring law and freedom until now.

The questions were posed, but you won’t bother with them, defaulting back to the “enforce the laws” meme.

There are some serious questions on how to achieve what I have to assume is 100% deportation is your goal.

Just one simple one, what is a reasonable monetary cost? If it adds $2T to our deficit, just to make a point, is that worthwhile? If so, what is your cutoff point?

On the surface level, I am very much for “enforcing the law”, but as we peel that onion, we might find reality imposes its own limits on what we can do.

You’d rather spend time making assumptions about our character, values, and emotional state. All avoiding exposing what may be rather uncomfortable realities with following through to meet your ideal “goal”?

Big Maq Says:
November 7th, 2016 at 9:59 pm

“Anyway, once we, or I in particular, know that your conservatism, whatever that supposedly means, even stops short at actually enforcing the law with the legal mechanisms which are in principle currently available, there is nothing to discuss.”

— DNW

The problem with all this is that you won’t describe how you think it all gets done. The devil is in the details.”

No, the devil is in your demand that the law be enforced according to your sensibilities rather than according to established legal process.

Illegal aliens have been expelled for generations from this country.

Your beef is with the supposedly unbearable consequences which you assert will come with trying to reestablish the rule of law; after of course, those like-minded to you successfully subverted it for decades at an ever increasing pace till now.

As far as “plans” go: It’s really rich to see you complaining about not getting a “plan” when we already have laws and enforcement mechanisms in place; and to see you additionally demanding a cracker barrel (as I characterized it earlier) discussion resulting in what is to you an acceptable plan B after a Clinton Victory; when – drum roll – you repeatedly admit you don’t have the slightest idea of how to effectively reestablish the rule of law after another 4 to 8 years of Democratic administrative malfeasance, criminality, and politically directed persecution.

What you really want is the assurance that if the law is to be enforced and freedom under law restored, it will be enforced and restored in a way which will take your sensibilities into account.

As a conservative you conserve nothing, as a “planner” you propose and restore nothing, and you stand paralyzed and politically impotent to strike at the root of the problem that has arguably thrust us into the middle class and freedom destroying program of Obama Care in the first place, by an emotionally overwrought “moral” dilemma of your own creation.

Well, that is the best case assumption.

The one wherein I accept that you are not really a Democrat.

The problem with all this is that you won’t describe how you think it all gets done. The devil is in the details.

So, I have to conclude that all we will get is the same old smoke blowing of some “real versus the apparent ethical and legal arguments”, but you just won’t get down to brass tacks on how the h*ll you think it is going to be done.
.

“Better to keep it as abstract as possible; while making use of the substance of the arguments or views which have been presented here.”

You pretend “enforce the law” is all that is needed to answer, but it only makes clear you have no answer and prefer to hide that fact by dwelling at the 30000 foot theoretical.

You know full well Bill is not saying “let’s stop short of enforcing the law”, but he has assumed something about what you might mean by that in the practical terms. Terms you really won’t specify, nor commit to. Then, all this time, you take him to task for his reaction to an assumption.

If anything “adds nothing substantive, and detracts from the purpose of Neo’s blog”, it is this behavior, and the not so well veiled insults.

If you never learn to stop talking down to people …. you will never learn.

OM Says:
November 7th, 2016 at 10:39 am
DNW:

Why bother posting at all …”

In order to achieve clarity of perspective, insight, and understanding. Not sympathy, but understanding and insight.

That is then, in order to identity the real versus the apparent ethical and legal arguments; and so to know whether the ostensible premisses are really categorical and sincere, or just a kind of mealy-mouthed homage to some prevailing sentiment in some locale or grouping.

For example, and to paraphrase myself:

My purpose in posing the hypothetical was to find out just how much more weight some give to the preservation of constitutional government, the rule of law, and a system promoting personal self-direction, as opposed to a country conceived as nicely upholstered with lady bountiful impulses and feelings.

I don’t presently believe that a run-of-the-mill Mr. X or a Mrs. Y, can usually be argued out of their tastes and life strategies. The best that can be hoped for in a muddled social situation, is to accurately identify what those aims and tastes actually are: to try and penetrate the community minded and defensive emotive fog so many emit. This, so as to better judge what the real case is, and what one’s real options are.

What’s the point of aligning with a false flag?

You have been hunting I am sure. And I am sure you quickly came to recognize that there is a big difference between what men say about what they value and wish to do, and what they actually are willing to do about it – even within a strictly legal, ethical, and fair chase context.

Some people seem to have a strong impulse to belong, or participate, and adjust their statements in order to fit in or to gain admittance. The first freezing rain or bitter wind sorts that out.

Of course if you never learn to tell the difference, you will be dragging them along all your life and wondering why everything always seems to go to hell somehow.

Why bother posting at all since contempt is your main point?

Cracker barrel indeed.