Laura Bush killed first fiance, was never charged

[rain]

'sometimes,rr, it's just better to shut the f up'<br>no it isn't, gw, else we wouldn't have the benefit of your incisive insight.<br>but settle little pony, wakin' up is hard to do. <p></p><i></i>

[OnoI812]

Snopes is full of fallacy, especially when it comes to deep politics conspiracy. They like to cite disinfo sources.<br><br>Who died and left Snopes the moniopoly shareholder of the truth? that should be the real question <p></p><i></i>

[gurp13]

Hmm, interesting to know. I wasn't aware of it. I always thought Snopes a good place to check out stuff. 'Course, I only ever used it to see if the latest effing "virus alert" or "Bill Gates is giving away money" email was true or not. And, as for that, I got tired of checking some years ago because they were NEVER true. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Pants Elk]

"Mrs. Bush hasn't let the tragedy keep her from attending high school reunions ... she stood out in the middle of the dance floor and danced with anybody who wanted to dance with her ... she was out there 'til late and I thought that was above and beyond what she needed to do. That tells you what kind of lady she is."<br><br>Well, yes, it does. But perhaps not in the way intended. One person's dutiful, brave, tragic, suffering widow-of-love is another's heartless partying bitch.<br><br>(marginalia: can we not get distracted by Robert's kneejerk "cynic from central casting" posts? Let's assume he means well, and move on.) <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

"This site you find helpful to debunk conspiracy theories..."<br><br>That isn't what I said. I said that I've found Snopes to be a useful resource on occasion. I also mentioned that one reason I consider it valuable is because in cases where I favor a particular viewpoint- typically one harboring sinister suspicions of a conspiratorial nature- Snopes is often capable of providing evidence and articulate arguments in opposition.<br><br>As opposed to, say, simply being told to "shut the f' up."<br><br>I'll concede that sometimes Snopes gets used by on-line debaters as if it has the last, authoritative, "case closed" word on a given event or topic. But considering that they typically concentrate on quite specific claims or rumors- urban folklore tales, Internet chain letters, faked photos, etc.-their track record is fairly accurate when they stick to those subjects.<br><br>Perhaps the most telling thing about Snopes is the topics they DON'T address, including the vast majority of political conspiracy allegations. I don't necessarily fault them for their discretion. <br><br>To return to the Laura Bush accident case- I don't have much trouble imagining that the leniency in her case was related to the fact that she had a reputation as a nice girl from a good family in a small town. But I also don't see anything particularly sinister about her case. She wasn't reform-school bound, no matter what. She hadn't been drinking- and it being 1963 in small-town Anglo Texas, I think illegal drug use can be ruled out, so there was no cover-up there. <br><br>I think that perhaps young folks don't realize that before the mid-1980s, there wasn't a great emphasis on draconian penalties for traffic offenses, even in the case of DUI. I had friends in the 1970s who had 3 DUIs before their 18th birthday, including single-car accidents. The fine for a first DUI was, in rerospect, ridiculously cheap, and it wasn't until the second offense that license suspension was even considered. Boy, it was loose. We thought nothing of...well, let's not go there. But the adults were scarcely more responsible, in those days.It was a popular culture of two-martini lunches... <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

...having been around the block a time or two as an adherent of controversial views, I'm not threatened by skepticism. To the contrary, I welcome it. <br><br>If you won't hear out a well-reasoned counter-argument, how will you ever manage to offer an on-point refutation of it? <br><br>"Those who have no understanding of the arguments of their opponents have an inadequate understanding of their own."<br><br>Also to the point: if you're unable to hear out a counter-argument, how can you claim to have an open mind? <br><br>To return to the Laura Bush case: it's tough to even know what's being contested here, since no one will come right out and say it. How about stating your proposition explicitly? <br><br>Here are a couple of the unspoken hypotheticals I'm hearing:<br><br>"Laura Bush got off with a slap on the wrist after killing one of her classmates in a car wreck that was her fault, when most anyone else in her high school who did that would have been convicted of a felony and sent to the Texas Reformatory."<br><br>There. That's the "soft" hypothesis.<br><br>Then there's the "hard" hypothesis:<br><br>"Laura Bush made her bones by contriving to kill her ex-boyfriend, thus demonstrating the ruthlessness required to mix bloodlines with the Demonic Bush Dynasty." <br><br>Give me a sec..<br><br>Okay, I'm braced and ready to take the heat for my wholesale misreading and misinterpretation of the comments that opened this thread.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

In response to gwbmalecheerleader's challenge, I attempted a search on snopes.com on the terms "Bush" + "Cuba"; also "bush" + "zapata"; also "hinckley" (the correct spelling of the surname of Reagan's assailant, for what it's worth.) <br><br>Nothin'. Zero. Nada. <br><br>If you saw anything on Snopes related to the topics you mentioned, it appears that it's been taken down. <p></p><i></i>

[Pants Elk]

*This* is what you do best, Robert, and it's terrific. I just wish you could delay your first impulse to push the red "nuke 'em" button. <p></p><i></i>

[tabasco1776]

Regarding the Laura Bush story, I simply posted it and <br>found it interesting. I didn't propose any backstory or <br>conspiracy theory behind it. <br><br>Not sure why RDR keeps issuing challenges on threads like <br>this, daring someone to come forward with their conspiracy<br> theory on any given issue so that he can enjoy glibly <br>attempting to tear it down, as if we're in college debate <br>club or something.<br><br>Can't we just tuck it in the back of our minds as an <br>interesting squib, and not go to one extreme ("it's totally <br>meaningless and innocent" versus "it was her cult initiation<br>into the illuminati") or another, and leave it at that? <br><br>As for Snopes, I'n not impressed with their skepticism - I <br>don't think they're particularly learned or well-educated on <br>any of the topics on which they pontificate. There are many <br>moments where they are just plain making stuff up, making<br> themselves no better than the hoaxsters they seek to <br>deflate. On many subjects, if there is an unknown, they will<br> fill that gap with skepticism that goes beyond the data (or <br>lack thereof), saying "this isn't true" or "this is a fallacy" <br>when they actually <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>don't</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> know that, and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>cannot</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br>know that for certain.<br><br>What these skeptics seem incapable of grasping is that <br>skepticism as a mindset, as a worldview, means entering <br>any topic with preconceived notions. And what bothers me <br>is not so much that more people don't share my agnostic <br>meta-viewpoint, but that so many seem incapable of being<br> agnostic. So many seem literally incapable of just saying <br>"we don't know". <br><br>There's a very good book whose title I forget at the <br>moment, but it talks about how people today feel obligated<br> to have an opinion one way or the other about all things. <br>When presented with something, modern man has a <br>knee-jerk reaction to try to rapidly form some sort of <br>opinion on it, to choose a side, creating a false yes/no, <br>black/white, lib/con, rep/dem, true/false, duality from the <br>getgo. A lot of posts of this board demonstrate this <br>unhealthy reflex perfectly. <p></p><i></i>

[Asta]

Before the election was stolen in 2000, Diane Sawyer interviewed Laura and she asked her what her regrets were regarding the car accident in which her former fiance was killed.<br><br>Laura's answer was chilling: "I regret that anyone found out about it."<br><br>Not "I am so sorry it happened, there's not a day that goes by that I don't think of him," or "I wish I could go back and change what happened..." you know, the NORMAL regrets that a NORMAL person has when a another's life has been lost because of the NORMAL person's actions. <br><br>Sorry I don't have a link. I guess I'm the link. I saw the interview. <p></p><i></i>

[marykmusic]

The Bush family connection? The very same day that Hinckley shot Reagan, his father was having dinner with Niel Bush, the other brother of our current President. They're old friends. --MaryK <p></p><i></i>

[lilorphant]

But what if it was a Kennedy?<br><br>No one has touched Laura Bush on this, but the death of <br>Mary Jane Kopechne... <p></p><i></i>

[robertdreed]

For drill.<br><br>In response to lilo, a few of the salient differences-<br><br>Laura Bush isn't, and has never been, an elected official. She had been driving less than a year when the incident (accident or murder, pick one) happened. She wasn't drunk. The accident was reported promptly. She wasn't a member of the Bush clan at the time. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[justdrew]

as in "could be" <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

whoops posted on wrong ID...<br><br>I don't propose that this had anything to do with anything so high level as 'illuminati'. Rather a test of loyalty and to prove her programing functional. Killing someone close while risking ones own life, especially by car, has been reported as a tactic used by some of the various groups that love to worship evil. The fact that her family wasn't sooo high ranking just adds to the likelyhood that her 'test' would involve some risk. dubya's test was probably much less risky.<br><br>Yeah, this is just speculation, but such can bring other bits and pieces forward.... Like for instance, I had no idea she said on TV that she was regretful that anyone found out about it. wow<br><br>Also, if this were true, there isn't a chance in hell that any "proof" would ever come out. What could such proof consist of? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 5/24/05 6:27 pm<br></i>