Tiger in Spain 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Student under fire for shout: 'Remember Chappaquiddick!'Self-described liberal hollers phrase as Kennedy begins on-campus speech By Ron Strom © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com A community college student in Massachusetts faces possible disciplinary action for shouting "Remember Chappaquiddick!" during an on-campus speech by Democrat Sen. Edward Kennedy. Paul Trost, 20, a student at Massasoit Community College in Brockton, Mass., says he was upset by an introduction of Kennedy given by Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., in which the congressman noted how the long-time senator overcame hardship in life on his way to success. "Lynch said Kennedy had overcome such adversity to get to the place he was, and that's a bunch of bull," Trost said of the introduction, which occurred in the school's student center Tuesday morning. Just as Kennedy began speaking, Trost was walking out of the room when he shouted, "Remember Chappaquiddick!" "Most of the crowd gasped," Trost said. "Then I walked out of the student center." The student says a campus police officer went outside and stopped him. He also saw some state troopers go outside, the type who accompany Kennedy around the state to provide security. Trost says the cop took down his information and told him he would be hearing from school officials about disciplinary action. A spokesman with the campus police verified the incident but stressed that Trost was not arrested. The student said one of his teachers confronted him after a class about the Chappaquiddick issue. "One of my teachers called me ignorant and told me this was an embarrassment to the school," Trost told WND. "She said to me, 'Can't you forgive him after all these years?' And I said, 'No, he killed somebody.' "If it had been me or any other person, we'd be in jail," Trost says he told his instructor. Referring to his two-word shout, Trost said, "I did it because I know about Kennedy's past. I know what happened at Chappaquiddick. "I wanted to send a message to him that my generation still knows about it. We haven't forgotten about it." Trost said he was satisfied to know that students on campus were talking about the Chappaquiddick incident later in the day – some of whom, in fact, were not familiar with it. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Trost says the cop took down his information and told him he would be hearing from school officials about disciplinary action What disciplinary action? Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it ? He said 2 words!! Neither of them obscene! What could he POSSIBLY be disciplined for ? What about the utterly false and inflamitory nonsense that other politicians get tagged with, in public and on the internet. Things 100% false and defamitory, yet something called Freedom of Speech allows them to get away with it. I don't know which is more amazing.... this guy getting disciplined, or the fact that there are people in Massachusettes who don't worship the Kenedy klan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing. The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing.The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. 221549[/snapback] Sheehan, though she has a right to voice her opinion, was not thrown out for her opinion. It was the signs, etc. she tried to carry in to the chambers (after being told it wasn't allowed) that got her in trouble. Signage is not allowed in there yet she attempted anyway. There has to remain a certain level of order. Not the same thing as speaking out at an on-campus speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing.The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. 221549[/snapback] Sheehan, though she has a right to voice her opinion, was not thrown out for her opinion. It was the signs, etc. she tried to carry in to the chambers (after being told it wasn't allowed) that got her in trouble. Signage is not allowed in there yet she attempted anyway. There has to remain a certain level of order. Not the same thing as speaking out at an on-campus speech. 221557[/snapback] She was ARRESTED, dude. The other signage gal was merely removed. Her sign didn't protest Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing.The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. 221549[/snapback] Ms Cindy was arrested, then released. A mistake was made and admittted to by those who arrested her. But she did say something, w/ her shirt, in protest. I'm unawre that the SOTU incident will be wiped from her record or not. But a record of being arrested in that town she does have. More than most can say. Trost was walking out of the hall when he said his words, leaving in disgust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing.The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. 221549[/snapback] No one said he was arrested and this has nothing to do with Sheehan. They harassed and attempted to coerce him because he exercised his 1st Amendment right to free speech. He did not stay and attempt to disrupt the event, he was on his way out, said what he wanted to and then left. He was accosted after leaving then later confronted by a teacher. In the minds of libs, free speech is great as long as you agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Author Share Posted February 23, 2006 In the minds of libs, free speech is great as long as you agree with them. 221568[/snapback] BINGO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Cindy wa arrested for refusing to leave and refusing to cooperate with the police - she was not arrested for the slogans on her shirt. The other lady left immediately upon being asked to do so, and only argued with police once she was outside. Speaking of Chappaquidick... The media (and Legal Eagle) is freaking out because it took Dick Cheney, what, a day (?) to tell them about a hunting accident where someone was injured. Just curious, all you Cheney bashers... how long did it take Teddy Kennedy to report his little oopsie with Mary Jo? You know, all that failure to report stuff, when she drowned trapped in the car while he figured out how to cover his big fat ass? He waited until the next day to report A WOMAN TRAPPED IN A CAR!! Talk about a REAL cover-up... At least the Cheney guy received immediate medical attention and was sent to the hospital. More than you can say for Mary Jo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Cindy wa arrested for refusing to leave and refusing to cooperate with the police - she was not arrested for the slogans on her shirt. The other lady left immediately upon being asked to do so, and only argued with police once she was outside.Speaking of Chappaquidick... The media (and Legal Eagle) is freaking out because it took Dick Cheney, what, a day (?) to tell them about a hunting accident where someone was injured. Just curious, all you Cheney bashers... how long did it take Teddy Kennedy to report his little oopsie with Mary Jo? You know, all that failure to report stuff, when she drowned trapped in the car while he figured out how to cover his big fat ass? He waited until the next day to report A WOMAN TRAPPED IN A CAR!! Talk about a REAL cover-up... At least the Cheney guy received immediate medical attention and was sent to the hospital. More than you can say for Mary Jo... 221576[/snapback] I've tried to shed some light on the darkness in this forum, but this place is a black hole. In my post above I said that TK deserved to be harassed, yet I get this comment. I posted for free speech and equal treatment under the law regardless of the political affiliation, and I got the comment above Jen's. I'm leaving this dump with the blind - just the way I found it. God be with you. Blessed be the Football Forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Thank you so much for your futile attempt at enlightening the poor ignorant conservatives. We have known for years that you libs were so much more intelligent but we resist just for the sake of it. But if you will look back, at your post you didn't restrict your comments to Teddy Boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 Trost says the cop took down his information and told him he would be hearing from school officials about disciplinary action What disciplinary action? Is this Russia? This isn't Russia, is it ? He said 2 words!! Neither of them obscene! What could he POSSIBLY be disciplined for ? What about the utterly false and inflamitory nonsense that other politicians get tagged with, in public and on the internet. Things 100% false and defamitory, yet something called Freedom of Speech allows them to get away with it. I don't know which is more amazing.... this guy getting disciplined, or the fact that there are people in Massachusettes who don't worship the Kenedy klan. 221542[/snapback] We're talking about a Yankee state here my friend. A wasteland. A dump. A state with an outdoor insane asylum rivaled only by California. A place that is about as ass backwards as...well...Massachusettes (no really, I'm serious. did you know incest is legal there?!?!). A whollllllllllle different mindset. Not a whole lot has changed up there since 1861...well...I guess the Red Sox finally did win the World Series (on a fluke!). Don't let their communist ways get to you though. As long as we have firey tempered Southerners (like me ), everything will be A-OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 .....#$%#^&*#@$ (sound of door slamming) Yea!!!!!!! But alas , he will be back. Even the libs just can't stand to stay away from the truth too long. Did he say he was going to the FB forum. Oh crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I've tried to shed some light on the darkness in this forum, but this place is a black hole. In my post above I said that TK deserved to be harassed, yet I get this comment. I posted for free speech and equal treatment under the law regardless of the political affiliation, and I got the comment above Jen's. I'm leaving this dump with the blind - just the way I found it. God be with you. Oh, what ever will we do w/ out the shining becon of reason and enlightenment that is Legal Eagle? Whoah, who will spare pity on us now ? Are we not truly now forsaken in this desolate waste of ignorance? I was sooo very close to finding progressvie nirvana.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing.The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. 221549[/snapback] Sheehan, though she has a right to voice her opinion, was not thrown out for her opinion. It was the signs, etc. she tried to carry in to the chambers (after being told it wasn't allowed) that got her in trouble. Signage is not allowed in there yet she attempted anyway. There has to remain a certain level of order. Not the same thing as speaking out at an on-campus speech. 221557[/snapback] She was ARRESTED, dude. The other signage gal was merely removed. Her sign didn't protest Bush. 221561[/snapback] You apparently refuse to see that there is a difference and can't help but default to the "because it was Bush." Sorry we can't agreeon this issue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,997 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 He wasn't arrested as Sheehan was at the State of the Union Address. Sheehan said nothing.The guy won't be punished. He was not taken out of the room like Sheehan. Kennedy deserved it - Bush deserves it. Neither should have been bothered. I can agree on taking the name and address. 221549[/snapback] Sheehan, though she has a right to voice her opinion, was not thrown out for her opinion. It was the signs, etc. she tried to carry in to the chambers (after being told it wasn't allowed) that got her in trouble. Signage is not allowed in there yet she attempted anyway. There has to remain a certain level of order. Not the same thing as speaking out at an on-campus speech. 221557[/snapback] She was ARRESTED, dude. The other signage gal was merely removed. Her sign didn't protest Bush. 221561[/snapback] You apparently refuse to see that there is a difference and can't help but default to the "because it was Bush." Sorry we can't agreeon this issue... 221743[/snapback] Sheehan was removed for a t-shirt, not a sign. The congressman's wife was removed for a t-shirt, not a sign. Both had their Constitutional rights violated. Neither should have been removed, period. The cops admitted that the next day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Sheehan was removed prior to President Bush`s State of the Union speech Jan. 31 for refusing to cover up a T-shirt that protested the war in Iraq.Later, Beverly Young, wife of a Republican congressman from Florida, was ordered to leave the gallery for wearing a T-shirt that said, "Support our troops." Capitol security officers, who also removed a man from the Senate gallery during President Clinton`s impeachment trial for wearing an anti-Clinton shirt, believed they were enforcing the law. A House spokesman, however, said police may have overreacted. OK, I was mistaken. Sorry for that. I was also under the impression (from the local news that night) that she was told not to do this yet she did it anyway and that is why she was removed. I do feel that there is a difference in the House and a campus speech, though. I don't believe in "censorship" but I do feel there should be some form of protocol or decorum in the chambers during the SOTU Address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Sheehan was removed for a t-shirt, not a sign. The congressman's wife was removed for a t-shirt, not a sign. Both had their Constitutional rights violated. Neither should have been removed, period. The cops admitted that the next day. 221750[/snapback] I don't know what constitutional rights were violated but they both violated the rules of general conduct set by both houses of Congress, not this Congress but but those over many years. If you don't believe that do something simple like talking to loud or taking a picture in the gallery. I lived in DC for awhile and have spent lot's of time in both the House and Senate galleries and I've seen lots of people removed for some fairly simple things. Aside from all that, do you honestly believe Shehan just went in as an ordinary person interested in hearing the President give the State of the Union or to try to get attention on national TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,997 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Sheehan was removed prior to President Bush`s State of the Union speech Jan. 31 for refusing to cover up a T-shirt that protested the war in Iraq.Later, Beverly Young, wife of a Republican congressman from Florida, was ordered to leave the gallery for wearing a T-shirt that said, "Support our troops." Capitol security officers, who also removed a man from the Senate gallery during President Clinton`s impeachment trial for wearing an anti-Clinton shirt, believed they were enforcing the law. A House spokesman, however, said police may have overreacted. OK, I was mistaken. Sorry for that. I was also under the impression (from the local news that night) that she was told not to do this yet she did it anyway and that is why she was removed. I do feel that there is a difference in the House and a campus speech, though. I don't believe in "censorship" but I do feel there should be some form of protocol or decorum in the chambers during the SOTU Address. 221753[/snapback] There are certainly legitimate standards that can be enforced. Had someone stood up and yelled something, either pro or con, that would have been disruptive and the person could be removed. It can't be based on content, though, and sitting quietly with either a shirt that says "support our troops" or with the number of troops that have died does not disrupt the event. Would cameras have focused on it? Sure. But cameras would have focused on Sheehan regardless of what she wore. They would have only focused on that congressman's wife b/c of the shirt she was wearing. Either way, that's television and not disruption to the event itself. The SOTU is political theatre-- regardless of the party in power. There is a famous case in which someone was arrested at a courthouse for wearing a shirt that said "**** the draft". The Supreme Court ruled that was protected expression and anyone offended by it could "avert their gaze." Even Scalia and Thomas agree with that. Had Juanita Broaderick been invited by Tom Delay to the SOTU when Clinton was President and had worn a shirt that says, "rape is a crime", it would have been equally wrong to eject her. Ultimately, the issue of what the proper decorum will be during a SOTU is up to the congress and administration who are free to invite guests. I agree that both parties should insist that their guest not overly politicize the event by what they wear, but if they choose to make poor judgements, the Constitution allows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,439 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Even Scalia and Thomas agree with that. They would NEVER had disagreed with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
otterinbham 0 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Of course, the item NOBODY has picked up on in this thread is how the president of the school described Ted Kennedy as OVERCOMING HARDSHIP? Excuse me? This is the ne'er do well son of an obscenely rich Nazi lover who made his money from the proceeds of organized crime. Has Ted Kennedy ever had to work at McDonalds or mow lawns for spending money? Has Ted Kennedy ever been threatened with foreclosure? Has Ted Kennedy ever had to work two jobs to keep the wolf from the door? Well? That "overcoming hardships" line just shows you how divorced academicians are from the real world if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlue72 0 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 In an attempt to get back to the topic after the libbies hijacked the thread to divert the unwanted attention from their idol and icon, let me say this. If Ted Kennedy "accident" had occurred anywhere but in the Kennedy clan's own little fifedom of Martha's Vineyard, he would have faced some serious jail time. If fact, if all the facts had been uncovered in a proper investigation, he might still be in prison!!!! Yes, I noticed the part about overcoming hardship in the introduction.... that is just sick! I think that someone should stand and should "remember Chappaquidick" at every function where that piece of self centered liberal trash shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,439 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Guys, the Dems are too busy Tossing Ted's Salad to ever criticize him for Chappaquiddick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Guys, the Dems are too busy Tossing Ted's Salad to ever criticize him for Chappaquiddick. 221890[/snapback] Don't ever send me a link again! And no I don't want to know anything about cole slaw or apple dumplings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.