Wow, I think you've reached damn_registrars levels of making stuff up out of whole cloth. Everything I say underscores disregard for truth? You've moved past strawmen to a comprehensive sort of Dyson sphere of tautology surrounding me now. Let me give you a golf clap. [clap]. Does the sound penetrate this bubble in which you've encapsulated me?
Can I ask where this bubble is going, since you're doing all the driving?

What I actually want is to constrain the Federal government to its original enumerated powers. But the truth doesn't seem to amount to much with you anymore.

What I actually think, not that it amounts to a fart in your thunderstorm of stereotype, is captured nicely here:

Let's stipulate that this is an 80/20 ratio in favor of delegation, and that when we say "delegation", we mean, "what the large-frogskin donors want".
But shag all that. Let's focus on what matters: your strawman collection.

No, I don't. For instance, while I don't agree with much of anything BHO does foreign-policy wise, I'm the first to admit it's (a) an NP-complete problem, and (b) absolutely no one else has any clear, simple, repeatable foreign policy framework that is met with general support. But the facts of what I actually think and have said would crash your little ice cream truck.

I can't. Hence my admission to having been pwned.

No, I don't. Doesn't seem to abate your accusations. The point about the excessively concentrated power in DC holds, irrespective of party. Whatever, dude.

chiefly due to the fact that DC today is become as odious as Parliament then. Bravo, gold star for the day, move to head of class.

I wouldn't have counted on his re-election, either, but we've acquired a taste for "daft" of late.

I stand pwned.