Tom Green County Democratic Party Chair Outlines His Progressive Agenda He is Pushing on Rural Texans

The reason it's referred to as "pushing" your Prigressive agenda is because 70% of Concho Valkey voters know you're full of horse manure. If it weren't for the liberal editors of this poorly written rag, you wouldn't even have a forum to spew your hot air. The conservatives of the Concho Valkey see thru your bs. Judging from recent elections, so do many Democrats....

Most of what was written here seems very reasonable. Personally, I just can't get past how the infanticide or "abortion" issue that Democrats support wasn't touched on. Between taxpayer funded euthanasia and forcing insurers to cover sexual reassignment surgeries, I can't imagine ever marking any ballot with a vote for a Democratic candidate. (You can't spare a stretch a couple of yards wide for the sake of national security? I'd hate to be your meter reader!)

But have issues with the things you don't say. No one can dispute what allowing freedom of religion for all people has done to Europe. Turns out some religions want more than freedom! Rita is right about the abortion issue - not mentioned. Do you suppose a retired Baptist preacher's former congregants would watch the video by Dr. Anthony Levitino and support the progressive position on abortion? Open borders is just choosing illegal entrants over American citizens, but we didn't hear how that was a positive "progressive" position.
One can easily state half a dozen republican positions that will be popular with everyone as well. We don't vote republican because of the handful of things we agree with democrats on, we do it for the multitude of things we disagree on. Fix those and we can talk, Mr. Currie.

The First Amendment says nothing about using state money to support private and religious schools. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." To be perfectly honest, schools, public or otherwise, are not addressed in the Constitution at all. Maybe you should read Section 1 Article 8 again, and see what the enumerated powers of the Congress actually are.

Some school districts in the area encourage transfers to get that extra state money, smaller schools stay viable, and it relieves some of the overcrowding in the bigger schools.

I always think property taxes are too high, and I also think that inhabitants of Tom Green, who inevitably shop in San Angelo and pay those extra sales taxes, should at least have some say in if they are collected or not, especially since we get little benefit from those taxes (our own form of taxation without representation).

As to the TGC Republicans, every primary season when we vote, we get a chance to tell them what we want them to work towards, and what we don't like. If we feel that strongly about it, we go to the monthly meetings and make our opinions known.

I also have to agree with Rita - as long as the Dems want to punish a baby with the death penalty just for being inconveniently conceived, I will vote for Life. If some mom feels she's being "punished with a baby," there are plenty of people willing to adopt, and we should make it easier for them to do so, instead of always making it harder and more expensive.

Democrats are evil baby killing monsters. Once you get past that their ideas on anything else also suck.

Poor David, he is a nice guy but not a very good Dem! I mean do other Dems know he supports the 2nd Amendment? I am surprised they haven't kicked him out yet. As for the rest I think Rutherford and Rita have handled it pretty well. Religions freedom means the right to believe what you believe and to be free from the government telling you what you have to believe. Dems think the Government should be able to make a baker bake a cake for someone they don't want to celebrating something they think violates their core religious beliefs. Not very free if you ask me. The other part that is pretty scary is David seems to think that if he moves the cups fast enough you won't be able to follow the ball. Simple fact is whether the State pays 36% or 50% they are paying with OUR tax dollars. David thinks we can spend more if we 'make' the State or the Feds pay for it. David, it is still OUR tax dollars. If my property tax goes down but everything else I buy goes up, how did that help me? Obamacare was going to help me too! Geez... I love my Dem friends, but just don't ever put them in charge of the money. They are sweet caring people but maybe that is why they stink at running the government.

Mr Currie, thank you for giving us your opinion. However, if you believed everything you state, then you would be a moderate Republican. Since you strongly state you're a Democrat, I can only conclude you are full of horse hockey since no Democrat is interested in anything local; only whatever doesn't offend them!

It has been a pleasure reading the excellent rants and articles generated as a result of Mr. Currie's so-called progressive agenda. I'd now like to tag on to the conversation. Mr. Currie states in his article that the Republican Party believes in religious freedom only for Christians. That is not true. Perhaps he and I disagree on the definition of religion. If a religion exercises beliefs that conflict with our Constitution, such as honor killings or child sacrifice or that its adherents are to be governed by another set of laws entirely, then that "religion" has entered into dictating a way of life not compatible with American norms and ideals. Not accepting such a system wanting to be called a religion is not infringement of religious freedom, but rather a desire to preserve freedom and liberty afforded to all under current law.

It has been a pleasure reading the excellent rants and articles generated by Mr. Currie's so-called progressive agenda piece. I'd now like to tag on to the conversation. Mr. Currie states in his article that the Republican Party wants religious freedom only for Christians. That is not true. Perhaps he and I disagree on the definition of religion. A religion that exercises beliefs that are in conflict with our Constitution, such as honor killings or child sacrifice or that its adherents are to be governed by a separate set of laws entirely, is not compatible with American norms and ideals, not to mention American law. Not accepting with open arms such a system, even if it represents itself as a religion, is far from being a case of infringement on religious freedom. Instead, it is a desire to preserve and protect the liberty and freedom afforded to all under current law.