I absolutely felt Obama "won" the debate (better to say he had the best performance).  Almost everything McCain focused on was military in nature.  He kept talking about funding veterans, Petraeus (sp?) is who he admires most, we're winning Iraq, etc, etc.  Besides my own feelings on having a military man as president, this isn't a good time for McCain to show what he thinks about most since the average citizen is not in the military nor is happy with the course of the Iraq "war".

QUOTE: <<Wouldn't those that choose to have an abortion be pro-abortion? If they were anti-abortion they wouldn't be having one. >> No.

This wasn't my statement Howard quoted, but I agree with it anyway.  How does a simple "no" invalidate the statement/question?  Obviously if someone chooses to have an abortion, they are pro-abortion!  They may not love the option, but they accept that people should be able to have one when they want to.  Pro-abortion doesn't necessarily mean that they view the procedure with glee, but they obviously support the procedure.  No one is forced (unless the circumstances are such that the mother will surely die or be irreparably harmed, which comprises a very small percentage of the reasons) to have the procedure.

<<That pesky First Ammendment...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308>>

At first blush I was appalled by this article, and what it said about a Presidential candidate. I seemed like exactly the kind of tactics utilized by the current administration.

So, I decided to dig a little deeper, and realized that I could not find a single major news site carrying this story. It is mostly carried by very right leaning blogs,etc... just scroll down to the bottom of the original link and look at the additional links and their titles.

Finally, on Youtube, I found a link to the original television piece. I wanted to hear what the Prosecutors were saying in their own words. There is an interesting twisting of the story going on here-- and one that seems well played to those who want to believe it. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but when you hear the Prosecutors, all they are saying is that if someone is running ads with falsehoods-- they will step forward and speak the truth. I couldn't find anything about them going after anyone legally. Did I miss something?

Howard

<<This wasn't my statement Howard quoted, but I agree with it anyway.  How does a simple "no" invalidate the statement/question?  Obviously if someone chooses to have an abortion, they are pro-abortion!  They may not love the option, but they accept that people should be able to have one when they want to.  Pro-abortion doesn't necessarily mean that they view the procedure with glee, but they obviously support the procedure.  No one is forced (unless the circumstances are such that the mother will surely die or be irreparably harmed, which comprises a very small percentage of the reasons) to have the procedure.>>

I was responding in a simple way to what I seem to be a simplistic statement about an incredibly complex and deeply persoanl issue. I see the very problem in attempting to discuss the issue of women's right's in relation to abortion as the simplistic PRO or CON. Whether YOU believe so or not, attaching the word PRO to the word abortion does, in many peoples minds images of gleeful baby killers. It is just not the case.

Howard

Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. I'm in favour of people having the right to choose to express their belief in God. Doesn't mean I'm pro- religion, just that I'm pro-choice on the matter.

People who have abortions don't need to be "pro-abortion". Being "pro-abortion" means you think it's a good thing in itself. To a lot of people an abortion is just the second worst choice available.  Doesn't meant thay have warm and fuzzy feelings about it (which is what the term "pro-abortion" suggests, whether we want it to or not)

The term "pro-abortion" seems like it should mean that if a woman who is "pro-abortion" gets pregnant, she would get all ecstatic and shout "Goody! Finally I get to have an abortion, too." 

Pro-choice people understand that this is how a lot of  people would interpret the term, which is why they shun it (since it does not accurately represent their views). "Pro-life" people also understand that the term sends out that "image", which is why they like using it.

Nicely said.

Howard

QUOTE: Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion.

That's because people can more comfortably accept they are supporting an adult woman's "rights" instead of murdering life.  Sure, people will say that pro-choice means a woman can go to term and keep the baby, go to term and give it up for adoption, or have an abortion, but let's face it: being pro-choice is a support of a woman or couple deciding to get an abortion.  Deciding to raise a baby that started as an unwanted pregnancy, or going to term with a baby and offering it up for adoption are admirable, honorable things that happen all the time, and I'm in awe of those women who do it.  Terminating a life and pregnancy because of inconvenience or self-perceived non-readiness is abhorrent.  By the way, it doesn't really matter what the prefix "pro" suggests, because that can change generationally.  What doesn't change about its suggested meaning is that if you are pro something, you accept that thing in society.  I rather the term anti-abortion over pro-life, but both can represent how I feel about it, I guess.  In the medically-necessary situations, it is still life that is being preserved (the mother's).

Sheriffs and Prosecuters going after people isn't "going after anyone legally"?

Really?  I wonder what the Secret Service says?
"But a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, responsible for protecting presidential candidates, says that the service has no objection to signs at rallies, provided that no “part of the sign could be used as a weapon”–e.g., a heavy metal pole or a sharpened stick.

As I said these events are paid for by the candidate, they can tell you what you can bring in or not, period. A person that came to the event I was working, brought in a pro Obama sign and they were told to throw it away for the reasons I have mentioned. 

Anyone can stand outside, rain or shine, all day long on public property and hold up a "I hate Obama" sign and when you have a case where Obama stops that from happening, then you can whine.

 This is another attempt to paint Obama in a negative light, when it is a non issue. Hasn't what is happening in the bailout and Iraq put this type of harping in a really stupid light. This is the same type of thing as the "Obama hates America because he doesn't wear a flag pin."  (which in the debate Obama did and McCain didn't)

Jodi, you said that security was one of the reasons no signs were allowed.  I pointed out that the Secret Service has no problem with signs.

So yes, if the campaign doesn't want signs then they can say "no signs".  Personally, I have no problem with that.  It makes for better television if we don't have to deal with signs being put up in front of cameras.  But don't blame it on security.