Assuming it was an accident is just as silly IMO as assuming it was intentional. What I find compelling is her misrepresentations as to knowing who the victim was, why she failed to allude to the fact that is was her ex-boyfriend, when the District Attorney for midland said stated he was. Why would she have lied about this? Logic would dictate she knew full well who she had hit, he lay on the side of the road for an estimated ten minutes and the boy's father arrived on the scene. Midland Texas wasn't some vast metropolis, this is small town america here, the intersection was only a few miles from their residences, and there is no doubt in my mind, she knew who she hit. The question of premeditation come into play here when we ask why the lies, and was there motive? If the stories match up, then yes. Rumors of a pregnancy, ex-boyfriend now dating a close friend, both of them having 'family' problems. Circumstantial? Perhaps, but then we throw in the fact that Laura's dad was locally prominent, and the fact that no citation was issued even for so much as an unsafe movement? Also, the boy's parents moved out of town shortly there after. Fifty miles an hour through an intersection near your home with a stop sign? How many times you run the stop sign down below your house at 50mph? I wonder what 'family' problems Laura was having at the time? Pregnancy maybe? Who knows, we all know how forth comming the elite are when revealing their skeletons.

Are all of these assumptions or are there facts to back up these claims?

The police report is hardly an assumption, subsequent statements from Laura Bush are common knowlege and the primary sources for this information are very reliable. Are you assuming they are assumptions?

I'm asking because I am not aware of all of the facts of this Laura Bush case. I would just like to know what information exists that is not heresay and is available regarding this. Based on that info I would make my opinion. I don't know the facts of this issue. Please share them if you have them. Thanks

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

lets let her become first lady and have her mouth off to say like russia or someone then we'll see how things go.

"today the first lady mouthed off to Mrs. Putin, causing the rusians to start WWIV!, # are those air raid sirens?"

I doubt she's that unrestrained... Do we have any quotes of her attacking international leaders that we are on "friendly" terms with?

-Attero

she not first lady yet. im sure itll happen if she becomes first lady. at least once

I would certainly hope she would not do that, but I won't say its impossible. If she can't be quiet for 3 months, imagine what she would do with 4 years.

Originally posted by twitchy
The police report is hardly an assumption, subsequent statements from Laura Bush are common knowlege and the primary sources for this information are very reliable. Are you assuming they are assumptions?

I don't think anyone here is doubting the police report except maybe you and a couple others. We know she was driving, we know she was at fault, we know she knew and possibly dated the driver she killed.

The falicy exist in the many accusations and "facts" that you seem to draw from the police report which it does not state. We can all agree it was a bad accident, it was her fault, and that she knew the guy who was killed. We can also note that no presence of intoxication were present and no test for such was deemed neccesary by the officer in control at the time of the accident.

The main thing I have issue with is the "ASSUMPTION" (of which you seem to love to accuse others of) that we can somehow, from this report, draw the un-debatable conclusion that this was intentional. Now, its fine if thats your opinion but since none of us were present at the time at the scene (if someone reading this was or knows someone who was, please give us your scoop) all we really have is the police report which, in now way, gives us any indication of such criminal intent.

Now I know in this time of political rhetoric that many of us tend to personally relate ourselves to these candidates as close friends or family members to the point that we attack (and yes even create things to attack) their opponents without the slightest hint of the reality of the situation. This passion is obvious in this discussion but let us all remember that neither of these candidates have our best interest at heart as evident from actions on both sides of the coin.

If Laura Bush was guilty of murder, I would hope we would have had a police force which would have indicated such to a prosecuting attorney and tried her. This not being the case, I can't really see where these neverending arguments are going. If you would like the case re-opened, I suggest petitioning the court or whatever you need to do.

By now, I think everyone's opinion on this is known so there is no need to keep repeating the same thing. You look to the police report to prove murder, we look but cannot find the same "incriminating" evidence. We do see a careless, inept driver at fault. So what? I past an accident that looked about the same on the way to work this morning. Looked like someone ran a signal light. Hard to tell but the state police were re-creating the scene, something they're trained to do but I am not.

Yes running a red light or stop sign is illegal and very well should be. Yes, she broke the law and deserves every punishment set forth. Can I determine if she ran it on purpose just to kill this guy? Not from anything I've seen here. Forgive me for needing more substancial evidence to form that opinion.

I can agree on everything in the report is probably an accurate account of the incident. I think if we had a statement from the passenger, it might hold a little more weight on the theory one way or another. Until then, it is supposition.

twitchy: you posted a "Page can pot be found link" to the only credible source you had. Personally I think you are incredibly low spreading rumors about pregnancies and premeditated murder by the first lady at age 17. Keep trucking you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

You argue your case incredibly weakly - you substantiate your "facts" (not) with links that do not exist and sites that lack credibility. I truly believe that there is nobody here that think that you are a credible poster in this regard.

Find real sources for your facts then lets speak again. However you might reemember that the thread is actually about whether being a home maker is actually a job.



[edit on 27-10-2004 by Mynaeris]

Your little quote about the pregnancy is totally wrong.

“Laura Bush thought that she was pregnant by her boyfriend Michael Dutton Douglas. When she told him, instead of agreeing to marry her, Douglas had instead broken up with her.”

If this had been written at the time of the "murder" she would have been referred to as "Laura Welch", so this is obviously speculation from source YEARS after the fact. Probably from the discredited defamation from 4 years ago.

I think either post facts or be quiet.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by Mynaeris]

Originally posted by Mynaeris
twitchy: you posted a "Page can pot be found link" to the only credible source you had.

Newsweek not credible enough for you? Funny, the link worked fine before this election year.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Personally I think you are incredibly low spreading rumors about pregnancies and premeditated murder by the first lady at age 17. Keep trucking you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
You argue your case incredibly weakly - you substantiate your "facts" (not) with links that do not exist and sites that lack credibility. I truly believe that there is nobody here that think that you are a credible poster in this regard.

If my case is weakly argued, debunk it. Making some broad statement about my credibility doesn't refute anything. Try to focus on the facts rather than trying to speak for the ATS community. In other words, prove me wrong if you can. Your opinions about me are yours to have, but they do little to support a counter position. If you don't like what I'm saying, then simply discredit or move on with your life and spare me the drama.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Find real sources for your facts then lets speak again. However you might reemember that the thread is actually about whether being a home maker is actually a job.

Uh no this thread was an attack on Theresa Kerry and a comparison was made to Laura Bush who somehow got elevated to sainthood in the process. My sources are more credible than your emotional reactions to what I have posted. Discredit my sources, debunk my information, you know, try to arrange some reply that actually addresses something beyond your mostly un-informed OPINON. Can you dispute any one single fact I have presented?

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Your little quote about the pregnancy is totally wrong.
“Laura Bush thought that she was pregnant by her boyfriend Michael Dutton Douglas. When she told him, instead of agreeing to marry her, Douglas had instead broken up with her.”
If this had been written at the time of the "murder" she would have been referred to as "Laura Welch", so this is obviously speculation from source YEARS after the fact. Probably from the discredited defamation from 4 years ago.
I think either post facts or be quiet.
[edit on 27-10-2004 by Mynaeris]

Nice try, but the funny thing is that I didn't say when the article was written did I? Funny I read a similar article on Marylin Monroe, yet they failed to call her Norma Jean Baker when discussing her ealier life... Do you have any real information to argue with?
You have the athority to tell me to be quiet? Hey I got an idea, why don't you quit trying to turn this into an arguement to get the thread closed and actually try debunking some of the information. Your opinions do little to dispute the facts. Fact is Laura bush killed her ex-boyfriend and wasn't charged with so much as a stop sign ticket. Fact is Laura bush said herself that her father used his connections to keep her out of hot water. Fact is her hometown newspaper ran an article stating the above. Fact is, you don't have many facts in your response. Debate the information, do some homework, arguing my credibility while failing to demonstrate any of your own is hardly worthy of reply.


[edit on 28-10-2004 by twitchy]

How many people posting in this thread (or the one when she said "shove it" or the one when she...burped, hell I don't know what you people talk about for page after page) have said Teresa doesn't have the "class" to be First Lady, but also think Bush giving the finger is cute, inoffensive and forgivable? Nay, it makes him MORE likable! Right?

Show of hands? How about middle fingers? Want to see mine?

I'm aware none of you care about Cheney's FU's either. So I'm just making sure you're all consistent, and it's just the class of the First Lady in question when choosing a President. Right?

I know I'm all biased and stuff, so I need some Gad damn moral guidance on this one if any professional tizzy Teresa haters could help me out here? I look forward to your thoughts, oh bastions of convenient outrage.

Please do enlighten. I'll be in the corner still not giving a damn while you formulate your incoherant positions on this one.

You should know if this means you.

[edit on 28-10-2004 by RANT]

Uh no this thread was an attack on Theresa Kerry and a comparison was made to Laura Bush who somehow got elevated to sainthood in the process.

This post was created because Teresa Kerry jeapordizes the democratic party with her mouth. How can you not accept the fact that the things that she says do not help the party and cause negative attention. This post was not a comparison to the jacka$$ things that the Bush administration does, who can count that high.

I did not pose a comparison to Laura Bush, but I believe that was brought up later by another. I did not elevate Laura Bush to any status, but simply pointed out that Teresa Kerry is talking trash without knowing the facts. Many posters do the same on a regular basis. I am not saying you do not have your facts, but simply that I would like to see the sources on the Laura Bush accusations because I have not read them.

Originally posted by twitchy
Well astrocreep, like most people, I look at the facts and then formulate an opinion, then discuss this opinion on ATS. Is there some kind of a problem with that?


Now if you care to debunk this information, knock yourself out, otherwise your defense of Laura Bush is little more than an opinion. Right?

Hey, thats all I wanted. Your opinion. Thank you very much. To keep telling us the police report states it was premeditated murder is the only problem I had with your post. Your opinion based on the lack of punishment for even running the stoplight, and the subsequent tries on the part of Laura Bush to change the facts is just that. Your opinion and you're welcome to it. It will not, however, be posted as a forced accepted fact and be barred from debate by other members. I will not tolerate your attacks on other members for there differing opinions and likewise their personal attacks on you for yours. I think you might be having a problem with the first part of that as others might from the second. nevertheless, it will be so.

Secondly, Its rediculous to accuse me of defense of Laura Bush. I don't know Laura Bush, I don't like Laura Bush, and its certainly not worth my time running down evidence in defense of her. She has a full staff, let them do that. You, on the other hand seem to be personally tied in with the Kerrys because you sure seem to be partial to defend either of them.

See, I loathe both sides but I have to point out obvious persoanlly biased opinions being stated as facts. You may , in fact, be correct about this. I don't know and frankly, I don't care. I have no stake in seeing either side of the inept circus win over the other. Nothing changes, merely our perception of it because of what? Because of a label. Democrats are happy when a dem wins and republicans are happy when the GOP wins but both take orders from the same people.

So, to answer your question, no I could give a damn about refuting your so called evidence. However, the rules of this board will be upheld..not that you have broken any or that I'm accusing you of such. In fact the first address I made about name calling was dirtected at a member calling you a name. I am, however not barred from a personal opinion as neither are you. You presented the facts and I agree she did something wrong. When we get to the part about her doing it on purpose to kill the guy, we need to distiguish an opinion derived from the evidence from an actual proved case in court. Thats my only point.

Now, for the love of God, address someone else for a while.

Originally posted by astrocreep
To keep telling us the police report states it was premeditated murder is the only problem I had with your post.

I never said any such thing. If that's the only problem you had with my post then I guess you don't have a problem, right?

Originally posted by astrocreep
Your opinion based on the lack of punishment for even running the stoplight, and the subsequent tries on the part of Laura Bush to change the facts is just that. Your opinion and you're welcome to it. It will not, however, be posted as a forced accepted fact and be barred from debate by other members.

Laura bush was not issued a citation for even so much as running the stop sign, that is a FACT. Laura Bush changing the story? Have you read my posts or just scanned them? Was he in a open jeep or a corvair? Was it raining or were the roads dry that night? If you read my posts you can answer those questions and your own in regards to my posts as well. Yes the story has changed and Laura Bush has not addressed these discrepancies, ever...Fact. Barring from debate? I'm desperately trying to encourage debate here. Can you refute anything I have stated? Can you provide something other than opinions of your own? Please do, I wouldn't have mentioned all this for nothing, I enjoy a good debate. So far nobody has given an honest effort to refute anything I have said. There isn't anything I have stated here on this thread that can't be supported by evidence or at least by reports from other sources. I didn't take two years of public speaking and debate classes for nothing and I don't research these things to merely post my opinions.

Originally posted by astrocreep
I will not tolerate your attacks on other members for there differing opinions and likewise their personal attacks on you for yours. I think you might be having a problem with the first part of that as others might from the second. nevertheless, it will be so.

Yeah, hey I get it ok, you're a moderator. You already closed the thread once and every post you have made so far on this thread had made this more than clear, so um... yeah, let's get past the attacks here. Its a discussion. I know that, you know that, everybody else knows that; so if we aren't breaking any rules here, let's discuss this issue shall we?

Originally posted by astrocreep
You, on the other hand seem to be personally tied in with the Kerrys because you sure seem to be partial to defend either of them.

No, sorry. That's your opinion.

Originally posted by astrocreep
See, I loathe both sides but I have to point out obvious persoanlly biased opinions being stated as facts.

You mean like assuming I was 'new found' democrat or this one?

Originally posted by astrocreep
You, on the other hand seem to be personally tied in with the Kerrys because you sure seem to be partial to defend either of them.

Originally posted by astrocreep
You may , in fact, be correct about this. I don't know and frankly, I don't care. I have no stake in seeing either side of the inept circus win over the other. Nothing changes, merely our perception of it because of what? Because of a label. Democrats are happy when a dem wins and republicans are happy when the GOP wins but both take orders from the same people.

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with you here. That's alot better.

Originally posted by astrocreep
So, to answer your question, no I could give a damn about refuting your so called evidence. However, the rules of this board will be upheld..not that you have broken any or that I'm accusing you of such. In fact the first address I made about name calling was dirtected at a member calling you a name. I am, however not barred from a personal opinion as neither are you. You presented the facts and I agree she did something wrong. When we get to the part about her doing it on purpose to kill the guy, we need to distiguish an opinion derived from the evidence from an actual proved case in court. Thats my only point.

It never went to court, thats my point. If it had I would have posted a link to the decisions of that court, and more than likely it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory would it? Did you miss the part of my post where I was quoting Laura Bush herself about her father's conenctions keeping her out of trouble? I didn't pull that out of thin air, it came from the largest newspaper in Dallas. When we get to the part about her doing it on purpose, that is where I actually said it In MY Opinion, based on the research I have done, ad nauseum.
I'm not out to anger you or any one else astrocreep, I'm here to debate. That is why I came to ATS and that is why I am sitting here typing now. I don't understand the problem here honestly. Nobody has post any facts to contridict my arguement, I am the only one posting any evidence or facts or sources here yet I'm the one making conjectures... I don't get it.

How many damn times are you going to repeat this tired rhetoric? I tried to explain my position. I even went as far as fairly giving you your points. I specifically asked you to continue your crusade without including me but without the subversion of opposing opinions. Look. I do not care if Laura Bush is guilty of intentional muder or not just that I see no concrete proof of such. If you are saying she is guilty of running a stop light and killing a man by negligent driving, then I agree.

My patients for members goes along way but you are pushing your luck. I suggest you take what I have said for its face value and move on in your discussion. Now, lets see if you're as smart as you appear to be.