Free Republic

I've quickly scanned through many of the posts on this topic and am glad to see that most are giving this man the respect he is due. I'm seeing the word "hero" used repeatedly. But, the one word that most exemplifies this man and others like him, is "patriot". This is a man I'd love to see my children grow up having as a role model. actually, I think he should be a role model to ALL of us. This is indeed a sad, sad day, as is everyday we lose someone who willingly gives the ultimate sacrifice in the service of freedom.
God bless the Tillman family, God bless America, and God bless all of you reading this....And may we never forget, God bless the men and women serving in our armed forces.

you mean the "lady" with a penis?!?....eewwwwwww

i can't believe he just attacked FOX for reporting facts!......here comes the partisan BS........again..........still.........

"will not accept a position with the kerry administration"??? does that mean we can nail him for perjury when/if he does???

isn't that one of clinton's favorites?

I see your point. It is a bit offensive to females and girls to be compared to RATS. Would "S$#*heads" work for you? ;)

i hope somebody does. perhaps it will show them the ridiculousness of what they're doing. if nothing else, it should open the door for legal action against the city of san fran for discriminating against another group of people who are not being afforded equal protection under the law.

let's just hope they take full advantage of the sacrifices america and her allies have made to give them this opportunity. if they are successful, it will serve as a great role model for the rest of the middle east. a real ally in the middle east would be of great benefit to us in the future, and would be a crippling blow to the terrorist cells in the long run.

an anti-war-war-hero??? the guy's a walking, talking oxymoron. (emphasis on the "moron")

there's a difference between law and legal precedent. legal precedent can be erased by another court ruling differently based on law, or by a new law. laws, however, can only be repealed, or preempted by new law. (unless another court decides to legislate from the bench......a la the 4th circuit in california?)i still maintain that the legal precedent set by the supreme court was a misinterpretation, or possibly, more legislating from the bench. either way, it's wrong. and either way, it can be undone, just as the abortion issue nearly was in the early nineties, and would have been if not for some clever maneuvering by former justice blackmun. (who by the way, just passed away the other day with a "clear conscience", despite the fact that he's responsible for the deaths of millions of babies) but, it's going to take bush getting the opportunity to appoint a few supreme court justices before he leaves office, or a new law. i think we stand a much better chance of getting the new appointees.

Again, it is not law. The courts do not make laws, they interpret them. It is not the job of the courts to legislate from the bench. The supreme court of which you speak, misinterpreted the law. Unfortunately, you're right about there not being much that can be done now to correct the error, short of congress stepping in. (fat chance) You're also right about no citizen being above the law. Moore's being removed from his position was the correct thing to do because he did not follow a court order, not because he broke a misinterpreted law. I know these are technicalities. But, what Moore did was still wrong. And unlike the mayor of San Fransisco, Moore was punished for his wrongdoing. Mostly because of the outcry in the press. Where is that outcry now? Laws are being broken again! (oh right.....liberal issues don't raise the ire of the liberal press.........hypocrites...) I do however hope that eventually, a group of like minded conservative representatives do grow a collective set, and do something to correct the err of our supreme court past. I believe that's exactly what the American people want.........and deserve.

I'd just like to respond to the beginning of your comments. Moore did not violate the law. He disobeyed a court order that was based on a misinterpretation of the constitution. There is NO separation of church and state in the constitution. Read it in its entirety. i don't have it in front of me, but the pertinent part goes something like, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Moore's 1st amendment rights were violated because the judiciary in this country has completely omitted the second part of that line in the 1st amendment. That second line means I can say the pledge, pray to my God before a meal, observe a moment of silence before class, tell a neighbor "Merry Christmas", display a cross or nativity during the holidays for all to see, and that I should be able to do these things in pretty much any location I want.........including schools, court houses, government buildings, etc......How is it that "we the people" have allowed our constitutional right to be taken from us? And why is it that the judiciary of this country is so effectively able to legislate from the bench, with no "checks and balances" seemingly able to stop them? How do we reign them back in? Those are open questions for anyone to respond to......

There's little doubt that King was a great thinker, speaker, and motivator. I think he'd be ashamed of the way many those who followed him to great victories in the civil rights debate have turned into extortionists, thugs, and bullies. I believe the racial problems we face today are not as much about skin color as they are about stupidity, hatred, and ignorance. Unfortunately, these things aren't just "skin deep". They run clear through to the soul of a man, and are "equal opportunity" problems. That is to say, our current problems are not caused only by one-way hatred, ignorance, or stupidity. Both races are guilty of the afore mentioned offenses.

It's scientific fact that the human brain needs animal fat to function properly. So, it follows that the "administrator" will definitely be voting for the RAT. One's brain would have to NOT be functioning properly to vote for one. lol.....

Please tell me that was in jest??? (besides, we'd have to start right here at home with about 1/2 the population.....lol)

So then, by your logic, we should just bring our boys home, give up the war on terror altogether, and hide behind our own borders because THAT will make us safer? You said it yourself, with Saddam gone, there is one less source of funding for terrorism. You also used the word "verifiable". Do you really think that's the only thing Hussein was guilty of? Funding Palestinian terrorists? Pull your head out of your %(#@!!
Every time we have a victory in the war on terror, there are going to be attempts at retaliation. That's a foregone conclusion. That's how these people do business. We knew that going in. Nothing's changed. Does that really mean that we should have never undertaken the war on terror? Does that mean we should just sit around waiting for the next attack, instead of trying to attack those who would strike at us if and when given the opportunity? Hiding our heads in the sand does not seem to me to be a very good strategy for defending our nation. Bush is doing the right thing. In the long run, our country, and the rest of the free world, will be safer. A world where the bad guys have diminished power, money, and opportunity to do damage to the innocent is the very path on which we need to be, and are heading down.
And by the way, we've been hearing for the past 2+ years that the next attack is coming. And while I believe there will be more attacks on this country, there simply haven't yet been. In case you've not been paying attention, Bush's policies have been working. I believe he could and should be doing more, but, we're far better off under President Bush than we would have been under President McCain, Gore, Clinton, or would be under a future President Dean. You wanna talk about making America less safe? Go ahead........Vote Dean.........Seal our collective fates.....

What is it that you people don't get? Moving the risk level up is just another part of making sure we stay safer. For those fo you agreeing with Dean, your views are completely one dimensional. There is a complete package at work here. And if you want to go that route, fine. Have we been attacked here at home since 9/11? No? Though not. Every step we take makes America a little safer, INCLUDING capturing Saddam Hussein! That does not insure that there will never be another attack. We know they are continuing to try. Until they are ALL eliminated, there will always be danger. However, to elimiate all of them, you have to start with one.........then another.......and another........etc.......etc......get the idea?

At what point did I say the capture of Hussein was going to cure everything? The fact remains that he is ONE psycho. And his capture sends a message to the others on the list...."STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, OR YOU'RE NEXT!" Anyone with a thimble full of logic realizes there is more to do. But, one less idiot with too much money, a liking for genocide and WMD's, a hatred towards America, and a strong desire to do us harm, is certainly a step towards American safety at home and abroad. In the long run, because of his capture, we are a safer nation.
One last time for the thinking impaired......world peace is not imminent. We do not have a "magic dome" covering our glorious country that was miraculously erected at the time of his capture. As much as I'd like to have my Fairy Godmother wave her magic wand and make all of the bad people disappear, it's just not going to happen. There is still danger, and will be for a long time to come. Sadly, much of that is due to years (8) of neglecting everything that was going on outside of the oval office. Perhaps, more specifically, what was going on inside a young White House intern. If Clinton had held Saddam's feet to the fire, paid attention during the intel briefings and less to the latest poll numbers, bombed a real target instead of an pharmaceutical factory, or countless other things he SHOULD have been doing, perhaps nearly 3,000 innocent civilians would not have had to pay for his ignorance and arrogance with their lives. Perhaps we wouldn't be making a second appearance in the Middle East. And yes.....before you say it, Reagan and Bush should have handled Hussein a little differently, but when the torch was handed to Clinton, it was his hand that dropped it. (now, go ahead and tell me that it was under Bush's watch that 9/11 happened, that it was completely his fault, etc....That way, everyone can see your true colors)

Personally, i think it should be every child's right to do exactly that. If you need to change or delete a word to make it fit you, then more power to you. But, I don't think that should be the school district's call. I don't think it should be the Government's call. I think it should be the individual's call. Just like the Constitution says it is!

"shall not establish" and "shall not prohibit the free exercise of".....as long as it ain't hurtin' nobody, do what feels good....:)