I haven't lost anything. You cannot refute that the Founders backed state laws against sodomy so you redirect the debate even going so far as saying "This is your sides red herring." It is also the view of FR and Jim Robinson.
You bigger government Nanny Staters
Back to Post 366 which you never answered.
So you believe that the Founders backed nanny states? Because I have already posted to you in Post 324 that at the founding of our country and until the 70's there were state laws against sodomy.
So you believe that the Boss is a nanny stater too?
Nope. I can't. I also haven't tried. I do occasionally point out that the Founders didn't give this power to the FedGov either, but you continue to twist between what States are allowed to do, and what the Constitution allows.
So you believe that the Boss is a nanny stater too?
If he believes that the Fedgov should have this power, something I have seen ZERO evidence of, then yes. I don't like putting words in peoples mouths though, so I'd rather ask him before presuming as you are doing.
Jim? Can we settle this one? I'm being painted as pro-gay agenda when I most certainly am not. I am pro-limited Federal Government with expansive States rights as long as they don't fall afoul of the protections for our Rights in the Bill of Rights.
If my views are that at odds with FR's mission statement, can you please let me know? It's your playground and if this other poster is correct, then my last 11 years here are called into question.
I'd like to think they haven't been, and I'd prefer to stay if you will let me.
What say you Jim?
I’m guessing he’d be surprised to hear that.