First, I am not your "Bud". Second, I'm not disputing that those are my words, I don't think you have reached the point of outright tampering with my posts to make your point (yet). However, you are notorious in my eyes for taking single sentences, out of thread, post, paragraph and context and using them to promote , as my own,a position that I do not endorse. When quoting in vBulletin, the referral source link is automatically included. I can only assume you gathered these quotes another way, or chose to remove the link backs. Regardless, you still have not posted a smoking gun with regards to the positions you have attributed to me.
I believe I have very clearly established the "smoking gun" with post #38. You saying "no you haven't" and me saying "yes I have" is meritless. The points are made, and reviewable by all. Your attempting to paint a picture of my "notorious" posting methods. I couldn't care less what you "think I'm up to," Guerilla. You are free to now deny your own words, or not; or claim some kind of conspiracy on my (or anyone's) part, as usual, in my experience. (god, laughably ridiculous: "I can only assume you gathered these quotes another way, or chose to remove the link backs." Yep, you're that important to work this hard. No, it's called "search function" in DP, by "word" and "user." Try, "constitutionalist," and "Guerilla." There - that's the only spoon I'm feeding today).
Ok, let's go through this again slowly. 1) Do you have a source where "I" say I am a strict constructionist? 2) Do you believe that strict constructionists do not believe in making amendments to the Constitution, per the Constitution? 3) Do you feel that my support for Ron Paul's positions indicates that all of his positions are my own?
Ah, now it's "repeating" something not yet said. 'kay, Guerilla-land, got it. Slow, if you need it, fast if you're able, whatever. I'm cool with either. 1. You have indicated why you support RP along these lines. Your posts of RP along these lines are your post of RP's words, often with your emphasis, wherein you indicated your support for him on this basis. If you now would like to claim when you say you like a candidate because of X, post and emphasize X, then say it isn't because of X you support him, well, 'kay, again. 2. No, strict constructionists believe that whatever exists in the constitution are not to be interpreted by the judiciary, drawing conclusions that go beyond the words themselves in reaching decisions. 3. No, just the ones where you say they're your own, such as the examples provided, and a nearly infinite stream of RP pages you've created in this forum. The rest you tend to ignore, I'd imagine, if your behavior otherwise, as I experience it, is any indication. Let's just cut the bullshit, shall we? You have posted that you support RP as a strict constitutionalist. Do you not now support him along these lines? Is the constitution to be interpreted by the Supreme Court as intrinsic to its job, as Hamilton indicated, and the constitution itself to grow with "each new generation," as Jefferson said?
So your answer is "no". You do not have a source where I refer to myself as a strict constructionist. Got it. Is it "no" or is it "yes" to my question. I didn't ask about interpretation. I asked if you believe that strict constructionists do not believe in following the Constitution when it comes to Amendments. Ok, well this is some progress. Finally a fairly straight answer with a lot of needless qualifications but hey, I'll take it! Thanks!
Man, you do try, really, really, really hard; I have to hand you that. 1. Now, apparently: 2. "No," is generally thought to mean "no," in the usage of reasonable people. "No," strict constructionists do not disallow amendments to the constitution, and "no," I never said that. "yes," they do believe that whatever exists in the constitution is not to be interpreted by the judiciary, drawing conclusions that go beyond the words themselves in reaching decisions. "Yes," I did say that. 3. Why would you ask about whether I believe you support everything RP says, when the issue is an area where you very clearly indicate your support of his stand? If "no" means "no," "trying to divert attention away from your problem" means "trying to divert attention away from your problem."
Thanks again NorthPoint. It's great to know that we can work together to clear up any misconceptions you may have had.
Sure, bud. If my refutations provide a palliative to what ails your point of view, we both win. I walk away with the knowledge I have hopefully brought forward a discussion for others to consider in good faith, and you walk away feeling your erroneous and illusionary points are intact. Now, Nate, and everyone else, I certainly long ago said enough, probably somewhere around #38, so with apologies to all for my part in taking this off-topic, Nate, back to you and your thread, at least on my part.