Why You Should Vote Democrat

Comment   Email   Print
Related Articles
On the front page of last week's Courier, Matt Studd claims that Democrats are "in full rebellion against God almighty." On behalf of godly Democrats in Cannon County and across the land, I object to that statement. Because the article doesn't say how Studd arrived at such a wild opinion, I go for more detail to James Hill's letter to the editor (page 4):  

Apparently, Republicans are upset about the economic stimulus package. But we can all thank the Democrats for practicing good economics and moderating the effects of the Great Recession which, by the way, was caused by a Republican president.  

Republicans seem to get upset over clean energy legislation. But if we don't replace our fossil fuels with clean energy, this planet will soon become unfit for life of any kind. We can best trust the Democrats to heed science and to stop pollution.  

Republicans seem to be against family planning and abortion. But family planning becomes increasingly important as the world gets more crowded. Also, with all due respect to Corey Davenport (page 10), abortion is not murder, because a zygote is not a person. We can thank Democrats for upholding Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy.  

Republicans seem to be against health care legislation. The Democrats alone are willing to stand against the inhumanity of our heartless, greedy insurance giants.  

Republicans seem to be against taxation. They should, then, applaud the Democrats, who have consistently cut taxes for the middle class in the last two years.  

Republicans seem to disapprove of equality for homosexuals. We can thank Democrats for upholding the rights of minorities.  

Republicans seem to be against disclosure. We can thank this Democratic administration for its openness, in contrast to the disastrously secretive Republican administration before it.  

Republicans seem to get upset over the regulation of corporations. In fact, it was mostly the Republicans who rolled back the regulations which would have prevented the Great Recession. We need to regulate the financial industry to avoid further trouble, and we can thank the Democrats for recognizing that need.  

Republicans, clinging to the failed trickle-down theory, seem to favor tax cuts for the rich. Under prior Republican administrations, the rich got richer and the middle class got poorer. We can thank Democrats for increasing taxes on the rich in order to decrease taxes on the middle class. The federal estate tax (the so-called "death tax") applies only to multi-millionaires. Unless you're a multi-millionaire, your estate is not subject to the tax.  

The Democrats aren't perfect, but neither are the Republicans. All told, it seems to me that the Democrats are smarter and - with all due respect to Matt Studd - godlier. It all boils down to this: If you want a heartless government that shoots from the gut, starts unjust wars, gives your money to rich corporations, rolls back your rights, and destroys the planet, vote Republican. If you want a compassionate government that values reason and science, gets us out of Iraq, cuts taxes for the middle class, upholds your rights, and saves the planet, vote Democrat.  

Kyle Williams
Read more from:
Comment   Email   Print
Members Opinions:
October 24, 2010 at 2:31pm
A great letter! Wish I had written one as eloquent and factual as Mr. Williams.
Faye Northcutt-Knox
October 24, 2010 at 3:13pm
I am sure there are many changes which Democrats, Republicans and Independents all would agree have been good in the nearly four years Democrats have controlled Congress and the nearly two since Obama has been president.

There is also this:

• Record deficits

• Record unemployment, longest jobless stretch since the 1930's

• Record bank failures

• Record foreclosures

• Record spending

• Record number of people on food stamps

• Record death toll in Afghanistan

• Record poverty rate

• Consumer confidence at record lows

• Record time on unemployment

• Record health care costs

• Record takeover of private companies

• For the first time, Democrats in the House will not offer a budget this year.

• Record job loses
October 24, 2010 at 4:52pm
I'm voting for Independent candidates this year wherever possible. Most Americans are fed up with the politics as usual between both the Democrat and Republican parties. Neither party has done anything to bragg about in the past 20 years. Both parties promise and neither deliver. The American citizen demands action from this election. Both parties have been hi-jacked by their extremes and neither offer the majority of Americans anything but the same old business as usual. It is time both parties get the message that the American people will not put us with such sloppy government any longer. This government is OUR government. It does not belong to the Democrats or to the Republicans. It belongs to America and it is becoming a shame we have only these two choices to choose from. The time is now to send home those who believe Americans do or must work FOR the government. It is not the government that makes our nation strong but rather its people. It is time we take back our country.
October 24, 2010 at 7:03pm
It seems to me if both parties would give up some of the big money they are getting and help us the poor people.That they want to say they are helping but not doing anything for.All that they want to do is point blame at the other.They need to pull together to help the people.Every time that they get on the tv trying to get votes it is always im working for u the people,but I say that is a BIG fat lie. They are working for their own pockets.If both parties would get back to the roots that this nation was builded on then no one would have to point fingers. It says IN GOD WE TRUST! not in man we trust.
October 24, 2010 at 10:28pm
Please Kyle, don't use zygote again, by the time that the mother finds out she is pregnant that zygote is a child. I see where you used a small "g" when you said godlier, that is probably good because I don't think our God really wants us to admit that His people are agreeing with abortion. And in Leviticus God already told us what he thinks about homosexuality.
Bob Stoetzel
October 25, 2010 at 4:45am
Thank you Mr. Williams, you and Mr Hill have demonstrated that those with divergent views can reasonable sit down and discuss matters of great importance.

Yout dismissal of Studd's comments was magnificent--superb!
October 25, 2010 at 10:48am
Dear Bob Stoetzel: Thank you for your message. I stand corrected. It is a zygote for 4 days, after which it is a blastocyst. It is called an embryo until 8 weeks, when it is called a fetus.

Regardless of what it's called, Roe v. Wade balances the interests in the prenatal life with the interests of the mother, as summarized by Wikipedia:

In the first trimester, the state's two interests in regulating abortions are at their weakest, and so the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion in any way.

In the second trimester, there is an increase in the risks that an abortion poses to maternal health, and so the state may regulate the abortion procedure only "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health" (defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton).

In the third trimester, there is an increase in viability rates and a corresponding greater state interest in prenatal life, and so the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother").

I applaud Roe v. Wade, and I see nothing ungodly (or unGodly) about it. Nor do I see anything ungodly (or unGodly) about homosexuality. Fundamentalism, you see, is not the only form of Christianity. You may disagree. That's Okay. You're my neighbor, and our difference of opinion doesn't affect my high regard for you.

Kyle Williams
October 25, 2010 at 1:15pm
Kyle, do you not see the hypocrisy and lunacy in your statement by claiming a baby, fetus, or "zygote" as you call it is not a life but the same scientists who come to that conclusion with the help of NASA spend millions of dollars and countless hours searching for a microbe so small you need a microscope to see it just to prove there is life on planets outside of the Earth?

You also diregard that the LAW considers a woman who is pregnant to contain life inside of her regardless of one day, one week or six months. As a lawyer you should know that if she is killed and negligence can be proven then the person can be charged with TWO counts of murder.

If a "zygote" is not life then how can a person be charged with double murder?

I have always felt life would be so much easier if the mothers of all of the people who are pro choice had practiced what they preached.

Isn't it ironic that all the people who believe in the murder of innocent babies has parents who believed in life? And you call the Democrats smarter? I guess you would.

And as far as homosexuality is concerned. That is your choice. I don't agree with it. I think it is a sin according to the scripture and I think you will have to answer to it when you move on to the next life.

But, here is the difference with me and most "dumb" Republicans as you would have us to believe. I don't care what you do. I don't care who you are with and I don't care what you do when you are with them.

I know several people who are gay. Very nice people and I consider them to be honorable friends of mine. I have worked with them for years and always got along with them. But, they don't try to change me and I don't try to change them.

We have had very philosophical discussions about being gay and what I think vs. what they think. In the end, we agreed to disaree. And that is where all America should be.

I do not condone discrimination to gay people. But, I do not condone making laws to promote that lifestyle either. And why should you? What freedoms or liberties are you denied now?

You can't be recognized as husband and husband or wife and wife, but that is simply a peice of paper. You have the same rights and more than I do currently.

We could debate it forever, but I had much rather you live your life and I live mine in peace without all of the turmoil. It is a waste of time because neither of us will ever convince the other of anything different.

October 25, 2010 at 2:32pm
Dear doolittlerd77: We agree on several things. You are partially correct about the law. According to my law dictionary:

“Word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn…. Unborn child is a ‘person’ for purpose of remedies given for personal injuries, and child may sue after his birth. In some jurisdictions a viable fetus is considered a person within the meaning of the state’s wrongful death statute, and within the meaning of the state’s vehicular homicide statute.”

So a prenatal life, especially a viable fetus, is a person for some purposes, but not a person for other purposes. This is not hypocrisy or lunacy, as you suggest. It’s the law.

By the way, I didn’t write that a zygote is not a ‘life’. I wrote that a zygote is not a ‘person’. Thanks to Mr. Stoetzel, I will change that statement to say that an embryo or fetus is not a person. This is accurate in the context of Roe v. Wade.

I’m glad you do not discriminate against homosexuals. Neither do I. I’m glad you don’t want the government promoting homosexuality. Neither do I. The only thing I want for the sake of my homosexual friends, is equal protection under the law. They should be allowed to marry, for example, or serve openly in the military. In these regards, they do not presently have the same rights as you and I. Someday they will, and we will look back and wonder how we were ever so benighted as to deny them such rights.

I’m glad you don’t try to change others, and that you can agree to disagree agreeably. I try to do the same. By the way, who are you? You seem to know I’m a lawyer. Have we met?
October 25, 2010 at 3:09pm
Kyle, what will eventually happen if the "embryo or fetus" is not aborted? To the best of my knowledge, a "person" will be born. I have respect for those who are Pro-Choice, but it seems as though they try to pull the wool over my eyes to what that choice really is.
October 25, 2010 at 5:35pm
Economic stimulus: Allowing people to buy to stimulate the economy did not work
the last couple times so why try it again. After a few months, my employees
heard they had to pay it back at the end of the year and asked me to take more
out of their check to compensate. I was the only stimulated.

Healthcare Legislation: We're against another form of government control and
honestly don't know where the money is going to come from. I know you have this
visualization of the rich getting richer but alot of small companies are caught
in the drop of water effect. (you know that failed trickle down theory)

You know I would always help those who need it, however if I don't have it, I
don't have it. For instance the current Medicare program and the corrupt
companies; not your big corps, but the small ones - found ways to steel from
Uncle Sam because they could. So Uncle Sam slashed the benefits to be
received. Therefore causing 30% of (honest) small companies to go out of
business and make a profit. (why - because the ones who were hired to "regulate"
were not doing their job and allowed these companies to bill without proper
inspections first) Everyone says these companies are to blame, but they were
"regulated." Suppose to be inspected before ever starting up and were not. Who
do you feel is to blame? Ripple Effect... Company choice and service will
deteriorate over time, effecting only the consumer and in this case, the
elderly, sick and disabled. There is a ripple effect in everything you do
grasshopper and I'm just saying the plan was made without fully researching the
long term effect it will have on small business, big business, and the consumer,
and that's my problem with Obama-care.

Most Republicans are for cleaning up the environment, the only ones against it
are those that make their money from the use of pollutants. (intelligent
assumption) However, where's the money going to come from to create these
wonderful projects...we have to get out of debt first. We need to focus on the
projects that don't cost money or use limited money. There are things we can do
to assist in this change until there is proper funding for these projects.

Financial Regulations: Pretty soon we're going to have more companies that
regulate, than we have companies. Whose going to pay for these regulating
companies and what happens if the regulator is corrupt or bias (Like in the
previous situation) or is paid off? (I know!)... Maybe we should pay someone
to regulate the regulators. There will always be those trying to buc the
system...you know that legal eagle. Pretty plan but needs more thought.

Also, I'm going to be regulated right out of business. New cert's, new
licenses, new classes, all this cost money...Where does it come from? I know
what the ripple effect will be... 4 more standing in the unemployment line and
collecting food stamps.

The change needs to take place within the community governments and move up from
there. Not spending at this time and being more conservative in the project
choices, until we get out of this economic downturn. How about focusing on
things to create jobs and increasing Uncle Sam's wallet, then we can focus on the other important issues. If we can't help
ourselves right now, we're not going to be able to help others.

All of us are to blame for the greed and conscienceously overspending for
immediate gratification which is the evil in all this and it's time for that to

I put this in lamens terms because I wanted the rest of my fellow republicans to
understand... I want to hear solutions and improvements without breaking the
bank. I'm sure others will agree and don't want to hear: they did this or
they feel that...accusations. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree to disagree. God Bless.
Laurie Bowling,
Readyville Republican
October 25, 2010 at 7:28pm
Kyle this just gets more bizarre all the time.

No wonder you write that Democrats are smarter than Republicans because a person would have to be Einstein to understand that a "a prenatal life, especially a viable fetus, is a person for some purposes, but not a person for other purposes".

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone explain that a life is only a life for some purposes but not others. In other words, when it is conveinent to be a life that is what we will consider it. But, when we want to call it choice we will decide it is not a life.

You say it is not hypocrisy and that it is just "the law" and that is what defines life for one thing and not the other? That is the very definition of hypocrisy. It could not be any clearer than that.

You also fail to respond why scientists search for a microbe to claim life on other planets, but dismiss the unborn fetus as nothing.

As far as the rights of the homosexual, the same argument could be made using your 14th ammendment statement.
“Word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the homosexual.

And, I ask again what rights are you denied? What liberties are you not granted.

Does forcing people to accept marriage between two men grant you a liberty you are being denied? Does that peice of paper give you a right to do something you didn't otherwise have?

The answer to both questions is NO. There is nothing that legalizing marriage between same sex partners changes except you force the majority to accept what the minority wants, regardless of what they believe. And it gives you nothing more than a peice of paper to hang on the wall.

Liberals never understand that forcing me and other conservatives to accept what we do not believe about same sex marriage is no different that forcing you to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

And as far as the military goes, that is the one thing I can see a homosexual not entitled to. But, my question is why do you feel a need to tell anyone? If you don't say anything, then no one will know.

I don't feel the need to tell you I am hetrosexual. I don't feel the need to gather all of my hetrosexual friends together and march down the street in a parade. I don't feel the need to "come out of the closet" because I am hetrosexual.

And, to be honest, I don't feel the need to tell you or anyone else what I do, when I do it or who I do it with. And I don't understand why anyone else does. Live your life how you choose and I will do the same.

And I know you are a lawyer because it is Woodbury and everyone knows who goes to the bathroom and if they flushed or not.

And by the way, I waved at you today while you were riding your bicycle up Doolittle Road and you didn't wave back. Does this mean we aren't friends? I know you are much smarter than me because you are a Democrat, but I am a nice guy.

October 25, 2010 at 8:10pm
@ Kyle:
I fail to see how just b/c something is law that that makes it nonhypocrital, or, at times, lunacy. You hit the nail on the head when you said, " So a prenatal life, especially a viable fetus, is a person for some purposes, but not a person for other purposes." What it comes down to is purpose & what someone wants for their agenda. For those wanting to prosecute, value is actually given to human life. For those who want to kill & soothe their conscience about it, well, for their purpose we'll play with words & devalue the life that is there, call it some other name according to it's developemental stage & not what it really is. Just b/c something is law doesn't make it infalliable or even something that makes sense. How many times have laws had to be changed, ammended, etc? At one point in history they were thought to make sense & people followed it b/c, well, it's the law, or they were forced to obey. I am no lawyer & I'm sure you see plenty in my comment to pick at with your law books, but where the purposeful taking of the life of the innocent is concerned I honestly don't care what your law books say. The law can be wrong/unjust or even cruel. For example slavery, disenfranchisment of blacks & women & in this case, abortion just to name a few.
October 26, 2010 at 9:32am
Well said Kyle!
October 26, 2010 at 11:06am
Dear doolittlerd77: According to the law, a 20-year-old is an adult for some purposes (e.g. serving in the military) and not for others (e.g. drinking alcohol). Hypocrical? Maybe. Maybe not. That’s just the way the law has evolved. Maybe it needs to change to become more consistent. The same may be said for the laws that consider a fetus a person for some purposes, but not for others. You might call the law hypocritical, but I am not a hypocrite for explaining the law.

You ask me to respond specifically to “why scientists search for a microbe to claim life on other planets, but dismiss the unborn fetus as nothing.” Yes, scientists are eager to find life beyond Earth. Nothing wrong with that. I don’t know what you mean by scientists dismissing a fetus as nothing. I think your gripe is with the law rather than science. And if you don’t like the law, you can campaign to change it.

You asked again what rights homosexuals are denied. I answer again: Tennessee law does not allow them to marry. Federal law does not allow them to serve openly in the military. You seem to think that these rights are worthless. But what if the shoe were on the other foot? Use your imagination. What if you and your wife were not allowed to marry, and you therefore could not visit her in the hospital? What if you died unexpectedly without a will, and your (non-)wife could not inherit your property? What if you couldn’t file your taxes jointly? Or get insurance benefits? Marriage matters, and homosexuals are being denied equal protection of the laws.

In the military, suppose you could never mention the fact that you have a wife? It slips out once, and you get a dishonorable discharge. In the meantime, everyone else speaks freely about their spouses. They can even hold hands and kiss in public. But your wife has to remain hidden. Is that fair?

Equal rights for homosexuals would not in any way infringe on our rights as heterosexuals. You talk about being forced to accept something you don’t believe in. We would not be forced to accept anything. If we don’t want to marry someone of our own sex, we simply don’t marry someone of our own sex. We are free to marry whomever we choose.

The only thing we might have to give up in order to function in a more righteous society is bigotry. When schools were integrated, some people cringed for a while, but they got used to treating others with dignity, and now different races rub shoulders every day. Most people don’t even think about it anymore. We have grown more tolerant, and we need to grow more tolerant still.

About my failure to wave: I usually nod and smile at people, and sometimes I’ll even take a hand off the handlebar to wave. If I fail to acknowledge people, it’s probably because I’m preoccupied. It’s never because I don’t like them. Next time you see me, please introduce yourself. I’m always happy to meet a new friend, even if we disagree about some things.
October 26, 2010 at 1:06pm
You are right in some sense in that my argument lies more with the fact the law is hypocritical. However, if you believe the same way the law does then it makes your belief hypocritical as well. And so far, from what I have read, you do believe in what the law says.

And I do campaign to change the law. I do it by voting for the people who I believe best represent what I believe. Although, when I campaign or express myself for those people, I am labeled a radical or extremist by the liberals who think there is a conspiracy to suppress them.

What I mean about scientits dimissing the fetus as nothing is simple. They consider a microbe so small you need a microscope to see it as "life". That is what they spend millions upon millions of dollars trying to find that microbe to prove life exists on other planets and that we are all evolving vs. being created. They actively promote that as proof of "life".

Yet, they and you turn around and say a "zygote" or a "blastocyst" does not qualify as a life when there is 100% proof that it is. It can't be one way and then another.

You try to defend the right of the homosexual not being able to marry and everything you argue exists the exact same way with a hetrosexual couple who have lived together for years but never married.

That couple is not recognized by the hospital as next of kin, that couple is not recognized for insurance purposes, that couple can not file jointly on their taxes and they cannot inherit any property unless there is a will.

It affects non-married hetrosexual couples the exact same way as it does gay couples. No difference, except no one is making a federal case out of the hetrosexual couples. Who do you know fighting for their rights? When is the last time you heard that argument made on national t.v.?

And as far as the military. It is the "law" as you say. And to use your words, "that is the way it has evolved". Just like driving 55 is a law and if you break it and go 75 you get a ticket.

I never promote or condone discrimination, I respect everyone's right to believe what they believe. I do not respect people who try to force their particular way of living into my life.

There is a double standard to promoting a microbe as life and calling the murder of an unborn fetus a choice.

There is a double standard to promoting same sex marriage and denying the hetrosexual couple the same rights.

I am all for tolerance, but I am against apathy and believing everything is a right and the government owes us.
October 26, 2010 at 2:08pm
Respect for other's beliefs sometimes is presented in a odd way.

A quote: "You and your liberal loving, anti-God, pro abortion, murderer loving sentiments are the very reason this country has declined over the past fifty years.
Is it not evident that the Democratic party is morally against what the Holy scripture teaches?

How anyone could vote for a party that represents such unethical, immoral and anti-God sentiments is beyond me."

More like hatred than respect, but what would I know, being a Liberal Democrat.
October 26, 2010 at 2:56pm
It comes down to Who has the rights; the unborn OR the woman who carries it?

Because there are two sides who will never sympathize with the other, we have to pick a side -no middle ground. I believe this is a personal issue not a political or legal issue that most of us should stay out of.

In the near future we will look back on the gay right issue and be appalled at our actions in these times. The real question is why do a man and woman who live together IN MARRIAGE (with a certificate of Gods approval) deserve added privileges.

This will fire up the bible thumpers but dont worry there will be new groups to condemn and hate. Have you heard -the muslins are coming!!!
October 26, 2010 at 8:33pm


Once again you start typing in mid thought and your comments sounds the same.

Go back to Murfreesboro. Stay out of Woodbury news and find something else to complain about and offer no solutions to help the problem.

We know you are a liberal Democrat. You have told us countless times. No one cares about you or your opinion.
Powered by Bondware
News Publishing Software

The browser you are using is outdated!

You may not be getting all you can out of your browsing experience
and may be open to security risks!

Consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser or choose on below: