Laura Bush is a murderer. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

alkaloid · 04-27-2007, 10:05 AM

In snopes.com the story is headlined:
Claim: While a teenager, future First Lady Laura Bush caused the death of a classmate in a car accident.
Status: True

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

But if you look at the details of the case as described in this article and elsewhere, it seems very likely that she had every intention of killing the victim, making this not just an accident, but a cold blooded murder. What do you guys think?

Bill O'Rights · 04-27-2007, 12:15 PM

What do I think? I think that the term "very likely" is a hell of a stretch. I think that you have a 17 year old girl driving a car with another 17 year old girl. (Probably a lot of jacking around.) I see a 17 year old boy driving a Corvair. (Unsafe At Any Speed?) What I see is a bad accident. To buy into anything other than that, with what we have, is just pointless muck raking. Cold blooded murder? I very highly doubt it.

pan6467 · 04-27-2007, 09:09 PM

I must bring this up the next time someone mentions Chappaquiddick.

The_Dunedan · 04-27-2007, 10:23 PM

The two deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. However, it does deserve mention that Mrs. Bush does not hold elected office as Kennedy does and, moreover, did not gain and retain that office despite having killed someone. Moreover, Kennedy made the decision to abandon his victim to die, while Mrs. Bush's accident seems to have been precisely that: an accident through and through. An idiotic accident, true; but I know people who have done even dumber things than that and not realized it until the act was completed: fortunately, neither they nor anyone else were killed by such things.* Accidentally killing someone in a car wreck is bad, yes: but knowingly abandoning an unconscious, injured individual in a sinking car and not reporting the accident is manslaughter at least by any standard, and the attempt to cover up the act could (in some jurasdictions) support a Murder-3 charge.

*Just how easy it is for 17-year-olds to do really stupid things in cars by accident is illustrated by a friend from High School who destroyed his first car a few weeks after he got it. In our town, there was a hill, at the bottom of which was a railroad track. The track had a raised bed; for obvious reasons, this was known to locals as the "ski jump." About three weeks after my friend got his first car he (who had moved to town about a year before) was headed down that hill with his girlfriend, and forgot about the railroad track at the bottom of the hill. The hill wasn't very steep, so he didn't ram the car into the railroad-bed...instead, he hit the bump at about 40 or so, and pancaked the landing, which destroyed the suspension on his old Chevvy. He told the cops, his parents, and me that he simply never saw the railbed and had forgotten it was there; "blanked out" was the phrase he used. Granted, it's not the same as running a stop-sign and killing someone, but it does illustrate how easy it is for someone to be distracted or "blanked" and miss something that -should- be glaringly obvious.

Ourcrazymodern? · 04-28-2007, 03:28 PM

You go Pan, please!

DEI37 · 04-28-2007, 04:53 PM

It's all a conspiracy. Michael Douglas is alive and well. In fact, he's made a few decent movies!

Bill O'Rights · 04-30-2007, 04:29 AM

Very few.

Oh...wait...I got him mixed up with Kurt Russel again. I don't know why I always do that.

alkaloid · 05-03-2007, 06:20 AM

Here are some of the reasons why I thought this was a murder, not an accident.

snopes article says:

Quote:

There are those who want to believe the future First Lady deliberately and with malice aforethought murdered her (ex-)boyfriend over some now forgotten teen tiff and who point to what they view as the suspicious circumstances of the accident and the subsequent lack of prosecution as proofs of their supposition. Yet to entertain such a hypothesis is to believe the young woman would have attempted to kill another by doing away with herself. (As the driver of what was intended to be a murder weapon, she would have had no reason to believe she would survive a collision severe enough to be fatal to her prey; that events turned out that way doesn't mean that outcome could have been reasonably foreseen.) Although the theory of "I'll kill you even though I have to kill myself to do it" might still play in a person sufficiently vengeance-minded (e.g., a suicide bomber), it is far better discounted in cases where an innocent life would also be taken (e.g., a passenger in the car). Those intent upon acts of revenge are generally impelled by a misguided sense of justice, and there is precious little justice (misguided or otherwise) in causing the death of innocent parties.

Here is what I think: Head to head collision coming at same speed might be roughly equally damaging for both cars but in cases of collision to the side, most of energy is transferred to the car being struck. The aspiring killer may reasonably assume that the damage to herself would be minor. My question would be, how much were Laura Bush and her friend hurt? My guess is that they were not hurt much, if at all. Another question would be, were Laura Welch and her friend wearing seatbelt? My guess is that they were.

Another issue raised was:

Quote:

Then there are the circumstances of the crash. It was 8 pm on a November night in Texas on roads far removed from any town, so it was dark. With no stop sign facing him, the doomed young man would have had no reason to slow his vehicle even if he had seen another car approaching the intersection. He therefore would have been travelling at least 50 mph. Laura Welch ran the stop sign facing her, so there is reason to assume she too was going approximately 50 mph, the speed she would have been doing if she'd had the right of way.

The aspiring murderer may greatly increase the chance of successful collision by placing obstruction at the intersection so that the victim has to slow down or stop. This may have been done by the accomplice waving down the victim's car as the driver and the car accelerated toward the intersection, or merely placing objects such as rocks or tree branches on the road.

Since we are in Paranoid forum, I'd might as well go all out crazy.

Doesn't she look a bit, well, reptilian?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizard_People

Quote:

According to David Icke reptilian humanoids are the force behind a worldwide conspiracy directed at manipulation and control of humanity. He contends that most of our world's leaders, from George W. Bush to members of the British royal family, are in fact 7-foot tall, blood-drinking reptilians from the star system Alpha Draconia.

According to an interview with David Icke, Christine Fitzgerald, a confidante of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, claims that Diana told her that the Royal Family were reptilian aliens, and that they could shapeshift. [11] David Icke and others have claimed that U.S. President George W. Bush and his family are part of this same bloodline (Icke, 2004).

Icke claims, based on his exploration of genealogical connections to European royalty, that many presidents of the United States have been and are reptilian humanoids. In his view, United States foreign policy after September 11 is the product of a reptilian conspiracy to enslave humanity, with George W. Bush as a servant of the lizards.

Bill O'Rights · 05-03-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I must bring this up the next time someone mentions Chappaquiddick.

I hardly think that this falls into the same venue as Chappaquiddick. What do they have at all in common? Unless it's...a car. And someone died. That's really about it.

This whole thing is very far fetched. Consider the skill required for the driver of one car to intersect with another car, when both cars are travelling at right angles, each going about 50 mph. Does a 17 year old girl have that skill? Now, granted, Laura is the brains of the family, but c'mon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alkaloid

The aspiring murderer may greatly increase the chance of successful collision by placing obstruction at the intersection so that the victim has to slow down or stop. This may have been done by the accomplice waving down the victim's car as the driver and the car accelerated toward the intersection, or merely placing objects such as rocks or tree branches on the road.

Is there any reason, whatsoever, to suspect that this happened? Other than the fact that she is married to G.W. Bush? How far are we willing to reach? Is it not possible that Michael Douglas was placed in that intersection by the "Shadow Government"? Could he not have been distracted by the "black helicopters"? It's just as reasonable.

Ourcrazymodern? · 05-03-2007, 04:58 PM

Tiny little things:
Our First Lady, a killer?
Wanton, it's absurd.

Having no doubt that the privileged get away with stuff all the time...

pan6467 · 05-07-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I hardly think that this falls into the same venue as Chappaquiddick. What do they have at all in common? Unless it's...a car. And someone died. That's really about it.

This whole thing is very far fetched. Consider the skill required for the driver of one car to intersect with another car, when both cars are travelling at right angles, each going about 50 mph. Does a 17 year old girl have that skill? Now, granted, Laura is the brains of the family, but c'mon.

1) not saying she did it on purpose.

2) Kennedy didn't mean to kill either, it was a drunken accident he tried very poorly to cover up.

They both have a lot in common, as I see it. Both were ACCIDENTS, both killed, both were young and are changed people now. I could go on, but I think I made my point agree or disagree that is how I personally see it, it is my opinion and that is all, just as everyone else has theirs.

I don't consider Laura evil for this, nor do I see Ted K., as evil. They both, I am sure, have lived with the guilt and horror of their mistake every day of their life in some way. I am not God and I am not to judge them for those ancient historic events. I can only judge them on what I see now and the people they are now.

Both have been tremendous advocates for important issues and both have demonstrated to me very commendable attributes and very poor attributes, but overall, politics aside, spouses aside...... I have a lot of respect for both Laura and Teddy K. and I feel this nation owes them both gratitude for their accomplishments... not anger or hate or nastiness for those discrepencies of youth that they have made up for and paid for.

Is there anyone here who wants to be judged solely for one event in their life where they made a mistake? I wouldn't. I'm sure though people will argue how wrong I am for saying this.... to them, I say go fuck yourself, it's my opinion and I'm very content with how I feel about it. Just as you have your opinions and you hopefully are comfortable with them and would tell me to fuck off if I tried to tell you how wrong you are and try to change your mind through partisan or self righteous or innuendoes given by others who have something to gain.

I don't need a Limbaugh or Franken or Moore or O'Reilly to tell me how to think on an issue or about a person. Hopefully, most people are intelligent enough to come up with their own opinions and ideas based on their own experiences, pasts and lives.

loquitur · 05-09-2007, 01:06 PM

<br>The OP relies on Snopes, eh?<br><br><IMG SRC="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snopes.png">

MSD · 06-02-2007, 09:47 PM

Even Snopes itself warns against false authority. I strongly suspect that a few lawyers have paid visits to the Snopes office over the years; the most glaring example is the Little Mermaid video cover. They take the most half-assed excuse I've ever heard and repeat what the artist told them as truth when saying otherwise could have gotten him in a lot of trouble. Sure, not all of the legend is true (he wasn't about to be fired,) but concluding that if he denied intentionally drawing an obscene image on a kids' video he must be telling the truth is foolish. There are a few others on the site that stick out as having been done at lawsuit-point, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.

04-27-2007, 10:05 AM	#1 (permalink)
alkaloid Dead Inside Location: East Coast, USA	Laura Bush is a murderer. In snopes.com the story is headlined: Claim: While a teenager, future First Lady Laura Bush caused the death of a classmate in a car accident. Status: True http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp But if you look at the details of the case as described in this article and elsewhere, it seems very likely that she had every intention of killing the victim, making this not just an accident, but a cold blooded murder. What do you guys think? Last edited by alkaloid; 06-17-2007 at 05:09 AM..

04-27-2007, 12:15 PM	#2 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	What do I think? I think that the term "very likely" is a hell of a stretch. I think that you have a 17 year old girl driving a car with another 17 year old girl. (Probably a lot of jacking around.) I see a 17 year old boy driving a Corvair. (Unsafe At Any Speed?) What I see is a bad accident. To buy into anything other than that, with what we have, is just pointless muck raking. Cold blooded murder? I very highly doubt it. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

04-27-2007, 09:09 PM	#3 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I must bring this up the next time someone mentions Chappaquiddick. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

04-28-2007, 03:28 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	You go Pan, please! __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

04-28-2007, 04:53 PM	#6 (permalink)
DEI37 Go faster! Location: Wisconsin	It's all a conspiracy. Michael Douglas is alive and well. In fact, he's made a few decent movies! __________________ Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

04-27-2007, 10:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The two deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. However, it does deserve mention that Mrs. Bush does not hold elected office as Kennedy does and, moreover, did not gain and retain that office despite having killed someone. Moreover, Kennedy made the decision to abandon his victim to die, while Mrs. Bush's accident seems to have been precisely that: an accident through and through. An idiotic accident, true; but I know people who have done even dumber things than that and not realized it until the act was completed: fortunately, neither they nor anyone else were killed by such things.* Accidentally killing someone in a car wreck is bad, yes: but knowingly abandoning an unconscious, injured individual in a sinking car and not reporting the accident is manslaughter at least by any standard, and the attempt to cover up the act could (in some jurasdictions) support a Murder-3 charge. *Just how easy it is for 17-year-olds to do really stupid things in cars by accident is illustrated by a friend from High School who destroyed his first car a few weeks after he got it. In our town, there was a hill, at the bottom of which was a railroad track. The track had a raised bed; for obvious reasons, this was known to locals as the "ski jump." About three weeks after my friend got his first car he (who had moved to town about a year before) was headed down that hill with his girlfriend, and forgot about the railroad track at the bottom of the hill. The hill wasn't very steep, so he didn't ram the car into the railroad-bed...instead, he hit the bump at about 40 or so, and pancaked the landing, which destroyed the suspension on his old Chevvy. He told the cops, his parents, and me that he simply never saw the railbed and had forgotten it was there; "blanked out" was the phrase he used. Granted, it's not the same as running a stop-sign and killing someone, but it does illustrate how easy it is for someone to be distracted or "blanked" and miss something that -should- be glaringly obvious.

04-30-2007, 04:29 AM	#7 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Very few. Oh...wait...I got him mixed up with Kurt Russel again. I don't know why I always do that. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

05-03-2007, 04:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Tiny little things: Our First Lady, a killer? Wanton, it's absurd. Having no doubt that the privileged get away with stuff all the time... __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

05-09-2007, 01:06 PM	#12 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	<br>The OP relies on Snopes, eh?<br><br><IMG SRC="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/snopes.png">

06-02-2007, 09:47 PM	#13 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Even Snopes itself warns against false authority. I strongly suspect that a few lawyers have paid visits to the Snopes office over the years; the most glaring example is the Little Mermaid video cover. They take the most half-assed excuse I've ever heard and repeat what the artist told them as truth when saying otherwise could have gotten him in a lot of trouble. Sure, not all of the legend is true (he wasn't about to be fired,) but concluding that if he denied intentionally drawing an obscene image on a kids' video he must be telling the truth is foolish. There are a few others on the site that stick out as having been done at lawsuit-point, but I don't remember them off the top of my head.