|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Texas Democrats Want to Turn Out Rural Voters, but What’s Their Plan?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In this election cycle, the Democratic Party has fielded a weak crop of statewide candidates who are struggling to deliver any kind of unified message. Do they want single-payer health care? Humane immigration policy? Congressional term limits? Who knows. On the other hand, we do know what the Texas Republican Party stands for: limited government, the Second Amendment, banning abortion. It’s a theme that serves the GOP well in both suburban and rural areas, but Democrats have struggled to articulate any similarly straightforward messaging. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/24/2018)
|
| Their plan should be to move to CA or NY; they need replacement commies. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
