"My daughter had a right to be on the road that night," Innis said. "He didn't."

"gringo" > wrote in message
...
> Popeye wrote:
>>
>>> She ran a stop sign; she killed.
>>>
>>> An unfortunate accident, yes. but people go to prison every day for
>>> involvement for even lesser lapses in judgment.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that she should or they should- I'm really missing
>> your Socialist reasoning here.

> Popeye, somebody **** in your cornflakes today? Why get nasty and spoil a
> polite conversation???

A) I wasn't being nasty, I was being factual, you aren't.

B) This isn't a polite conversation, it's a trite, baseless and shameful
character assassination of a teenage girl.

What's patently dishonest on your part is that you won't call it what it
is.

Trust me, gringo, I'd do the same for Hillary.

She eases up on gun control, I may even vote for her.

> I wasn't there and neither were you. It may have been an emotionally
> distraught girl mashing the peddle because she could not reach into the
> car and slap the boy's face; it may have been a teenager in a hurry to get
> home to dress for a party.

You need to re-read Snopes- you cite it with gross inaccuracy.

You insist that Snopes states they were dating- it does not.

"There has always been speculation about the nature of his relationship
with Laura Welch."

They quote third parties with agendas, such as yourself.

Like I said, there should be -plenty- of evidence, a whole highschool full
of students- his family, pictures, if they're all so rich and famous, and
there's not a scrap.

You seem to think that repeating what you know is not true, again and
again, will validate it.

Either you're being morally and intellectually dishonest, or you have
major reading comprehension issues.

I'm not trying to start a fight or insult you, I'm citing these
discrepancies in black and white.

> Accidents happen; that's why they call them accidents. But if the
> accident is judged to be serious negligence and someone died as a result,
> then society gets its revenge: the negligent driver often goes to prison
> for a very long time. That is fact, fact that you and I and courts
> themselves are unable to change. Judges and lawyers decide the
> appropriate course of action when fatal accidents are investigated. The
> family of Laura's victim, Michael Douglas, never got their day in court.

There's no evidence to say they were robbed of it, or that they even
wanted one.

Where are they today?

> I make no judgment the right or wrong of it. I merely made the true
> statement that if Laura had been the daughter of a working stiff,

She was, her father was a general contractor, her mother was the company
bookkeeper- the Rockefellers they weren't.

Your -entire- premise is based on inaccuracy.

> or if she had been a trucker, it is highly likely that she would have
> gotten at least community service out of her actions that day.

Hookus- answered by another poster.

Maybe in this day and age- not back than.

>>>> You guys have judged -and- sentenced her both on incorrect
>>>> information, and because of who her husband is 40 years later.
>>>>
>>> There is in fact some small reason for suspicious minds

No, there isn't.

"There are those ----->who want to believe<-----(that would be you) 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."

> to suspect that
>>> Laura purposely ran the stop sign in order to strike the Chevy Corvair
>>> driven by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Douglas. According to friends,
>>> Laura was quite distraught over the break-up and his subsequent
>>> relationship with a girl who had once been her best friend. Now, I
>>> don't claim it was murder. It should have been seriously investigated,
>>> however.
>>>
>> According to Snopes, there's -no- evidence, where -plenty- should be
>> available, that they were ever dating, or that she could have identified
>> the oncoming car in the dark, or had any reason, with a friend in the
>> car, to expect to survive a 50mph perpendicular crash in an older vehicle
>> (near certain death in that era).
>
> According to snopes, there was credible evidence that they had been
> dating.

No- see above.

> There is at least the possibility that the distinctive grill/headlight
> arrangement of his car was recognizable.

This is in fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Snopes states, as I cite
below:

"The vehicles were traveling at right angles to one another, so an
unusual headlight array on one wouldn't have been visible to the other.
(According to the experts, the headlight array on the 1962 Corvair was
typical of the cars of the day; two headlights on each side, as this photo
shows.)"

> Again, I point out that it should have been seriously investigated--all
> questions should have been answered. The official investigation lasted
> all of five minutes.

To which I point out you have no idea if it did or didn't, or if there was
a reason it should.

You're indignantly ranting on pure speculation.

"Consider two cars travelling in the dark at right angles to each other,
each going approximately 50 mph. The span of time available in which to form
murderous intent would have amounted to mere seconds, given the speed at
which the event was unfolding and how close the two vehicles had to be to
one another before the ill-intentioned would recognize the vehicle of her
target. It doesn't add up."

Except to you.

>> There are so many common sense factors -against- it being intentional,
>> you've only left out voo doo and involvement of alien spaceships.
>
> Sigh. You're beating a dead horse. Why won't you acknowledge the
> *possibility* that she should have been charged with negligence homicide?
>> As for myself, I'd like to see some actual evidence that she was dating
>> W at the time, since each and every one of your other "facts" are skewed
>> (you could be right, I have no idea, and -damn- sure didn't read her
>> autobiography).
>
> Hold on. I did not state that she was dating Dubya.

You don't even remember what you write:

"Her age doesn't preclude power and influence. Her boyfriend George at
17 was the grandson of Precott Bush, war profiteer extraordinaire; son
of George, senator and future CIA chief and future vice presidency and
future president."

> She had been dating Douglas, the guy she killed, however.

Not that you know of.

>> As far as it being investigated, you have no idea if it was or wasn't,
>> since the political slur didn't surface till 40 years later.
>>
> I do know that no inquest was ordered. Thus, there was no serious
> investigation.

Lack of one does not require or preclude the other.

Talk about beating a dead horse.

>> You only choose to insist it wasn't, from a position of utter and total
>> ignorance, as it suits you.
>>
> I DID in fact read at least a portion of Laura's biography. I did read
> everything I could find relating to the accident.

Cites, please.

If you have made these studies, I find it even harder to believe your
"inaccuracies" were accidental, further lending to the charge of
intellectual dishonesty.

> You have just bragged that you did not research the issue.

Please cite my brag.

I have obviously researched the issue with greater vigor and far less bias
than you have.

> So which of us is the more ignorant, eh?

I stand by my cites, and have seen none of yours.

I have, however, seen error after error in your posts.

>>> We'll never know for certain, will we--because her family's connections
>>> precluded any serious investigation.
>>
>> Pure political tripe.
>
> Also true, dude. Nothing whatever to do with politics but everything to
> do with the power of great wealth and influence. Should Kennedy have been
> charge with negligent homicide in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? I don't
> know.

Talk about blinders.

> But the death was seriously investigated, which cannot be claimed about
> Laura's killing of her ex-boyfriend M. Douglas.
>>>> True students of the Constitution.
>>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>> No, sadly.
>>
>> Stalinist at best.
>>
>> One step up from executing the family of the previous regime.
>
> Laugh. It's the Right Wing who continue to hound Bill Clinton (going so
> far as to state publicly that he should be murdered). Understandable,
> really.

Absolutely, with a showing like this.

The world's most humiliating fact is that no matter how low the
Conservative numbers are, while being in office and having responsibility,
the Liberal numbers are just as low, while having accomplished little or
nothing.

No -that's- a vote of confidence.

The Democrats will win the next election no matter what deadbeat they run,
and the Repubs will spend 4 years giving him what Bush got, and you and I
will pay.

> Clinton was a success as president; Bush has been systematically
> dismantling the Constitution for eight years.

And you still couldn't get him out of office last election.

Damn, that must smart.

If the Republicans win this time, you need to hibernate, dude.

> He is embarrassing the hell out of his fellow Neo-Cons and the people of
> the United States. Did you see the pics of Georgie giving a back massage
> to a cringing head of state? If Clinton had touched her without
> permission, the rightards would be screaming that he be charged with
> sexual harassment.

It's sad that Clinton's reputation and legal precedents precede him.

I, personally, thought he was a fine President, except for turning tail in
Somalia.

The fact that no one objects to W doing it is a statement in and of
itself.

--

Popeye
I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening
carefully. Most people never listen. -Hemingway

"gringo" > wrote in message
.. .
> Popeye wrote:
>> Don't you have kids, Gringo?
>>
>> Think those anti-war protesters (of which you are one) should have your
>> kids jailed for murder for their service in Iraq?
>>
>> Think of all those innocent Iraqi deaths your kids contribute to.
>>
>> War criminals, in the eyes of the majority of the world.

> Popeye, off topic. But okay. Honorable service, whether for the cops or
> the military, should be honored, and is. The few who sink into the slime
> of murder and rape should be punished, and are--if some honorable someone
> who happened to be accompanying the scumbags squeals about it to the
> Press.

Not really off topic.

In the eyes of most the world, your kids are war criminals.

Just ask anyone from France.

Myself, I think they should get a better tax rate, preferred parking, and
better social security, just to name a few bennies, but, I'm not the rest of
the world.

It's nice to know you've decided the war is legal and honorable, however.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:57:28 -0700, "P.Roehling"
> wrote:

>
>"Stephan Rothstein" > wrote
>
>> Besides which, it is totally irrelevant to anything since she has never
>> yet held public office and holds no authority. You are blaming people she
>> would not meet for 15 years for actions they could not possibly be
>> involved in. You may not be one, but you sure sound like a typical
>> Democrat whiner to me.
>
>*BING* Oh, sorry; and you were doing so *well* right up until that final
>sentence!
>

Are you saying that gringo is an atypical Democrat whiner?

>
> In the eyes of most the world, your kids are war criminals.
>
> Just ask anyone from France.
>
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA! France???? HAHAHHAHAHAHAH.

"RM v2.0" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> In the eyes of most the world, your kids are war criminals.
>>
>> Just ask anyone from France.
>>
> HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA! France???? HAHAHHAHAHAHAH.


:-)

Dude, I couldn't agree more.
--

Popeye
I like to listen. I have learned a great deal from listening
carefully. Most people never listen. -Hemingway

gringo wrote:
> Popeye wrote:
>> "HeyBub" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Popeye wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Are you aware that she was well off, and with political influence,
>>>>>> as a 17 year old?
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, I wasn't. Even so, so what?
>>>>>
>>>> It's good that so many can read for context and comprehension
>>>>
>>> I agree. The more literate people we have, the better off we'll all be.
>>>
>>
>> Our cup seems to runneth over.
>>
>>
>>>>>> And did she deserve to go to jail?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Of course not, especially if she was well off and had political
>>>>> influence.
>>>>>
>>>> Which makes her automatically guilty, I take it?
>>>>
>>> Well, in the sense that power and position have should have an effect
>>> on the outcome of the trial, her place in society would mitigate
>>> against a finding of guilty.
>>>
>>
>> -If- she had that power and position as a 17 year old.
>>
>>
>
>
> Her age doesn't preclude power and influence. Her boyfriend George at
> 17 was the grandson of Precott Bush, war profiteer extraordinaire; son
> of George, senator and future CIA chief and future vice presidency and
> future president.

At age 17 Laura Welch had never met George Bush. Therefore, he was not
her "boyfriend" at age 17.

Further, that crack about her having power and influence, even through
her parents, is nothing but bull****. Her parents were middle class,
not wealthy, and not particularly well-connected. But they were
Democrats, as were most middle-class Texans at that time.

Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Libertarian

gringo wrote:
> Popeye wrote:
>> "gringo" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>
>>> She ran a stop sign; she killed.
>>>
>>> An unfortunate accident, yes. but people go to prison every day for
>>> involvement for even lesser lapses in judgment.
>>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean that she should or they should- I'm really missing
>> your Socialist reasoning here.
>>
>>
>
>
> Popeye, somebody **** in your cornflakes today? Why get nasty and spoil
> a polite conversation???
>
> I wasn't there and neither were you. It may have been an emotionally
> distraught girl mashing the peddle because she could not reach into the
> car and slap the boy's face; it may have been a teenager in a hurry to
> get home to dress for a party.
> Accidents happen; that's why they call them accidents. But if the
> accident is judged to be serious negligence and someone died as a
> result, then society gets its revenge: the negligent driver often goes
> to prison for a very long time. That is fact, fact that you and I and
> courts themselves are unable to change. Judges and lawyers decide the
> appropriate course of action when fatal accidents are investigated. The
> family of Laura's victim, Michael Douglas, never got their day in
> court. I make no judgment the right or wrong of it. I merely made
> the true statement that if Laura had been the daughter of a working
> stiff, or if she had been a trucker, it is highly likely that she would
> have gotten at least community service out of her actions that day.

Nonsense. No alcohol involved; she was likely gabbing with her buddy
and just missed the stop sign altogether. Certainly she missed the
point that she was about to hit another car at 50 mph.

Stuff like that doesn't necessarily result in a conviction or a ticket,
even today. Ever hear that favorite defense from someone who just ran
over a motorcyclist of "I just didn't see him." How many of those even
get a ticket?


>
>>>> You guys have judged -and- sentenced her both on incorrect
>>>> information, and because of who her husband is 40 years later.
>>>>
>>> There is in fact some small reason for suspicious minds to suspect
>>> that Laura purposely ran the stop sign in order to strike the Chevy
>>> Corvair driven by her ex-boyfriend, Michael Douglas. According to
>>> friends, Laura was quite distraught over the break-up and his
>>> subsequent relationship with a girl who had once been her best
>>> friend. Now, I don't claim it was murder. It should have been
>>> seriously investigated, however.
>>>
>>
>> According to Snopes, there's -no- evidence, where -plenty- should be
>> available, that they were ever dating, or that she could have
>> identified the oncoming car in the dark, or had any reason, with a
>> friend in the car, to expect to survive a 50mph perpendicular crash in
>> an older vehicle (near certain death in that era).
>>
>
> According to snopes, there was credible evidence that they had been
> dating.

Not according to Snopes, there isn't.

> There is at least the possibility that the distinctive
> grill/headlight arrangement of his car was recognizable.

There is NOTHING distinctive about the grill/headlight arrangement of a
Corvair seen from the side of the car, after dark. There's no grill on
any year's Corvair - but there's no way this can be seen after dark, or
from the side.

You try it sometime. Go out in a rural area and park facing an
unlighted intersection at a county road, where the on-coming traffic
from the side has a speed of around 50 mph.

Then, with your headlights on, try to identify the make or model of cars
approaching from the side. You're not going to be able to do it, even
with 17 year-old eyes. You're even less able to do it if the vehicle is
approaching you.

> Again, I point
> out that it should have been seriously investigated--all questions
> should have been answered. The official investigation lasted all of
> five minutes.

How do you know this? You're just guessing, aren't you?

>> There are so many common sense factors -against- it being
>> intentional, you've only left out voo doo and involvement of alien
>> spaceships.
>>
>
> Sigh. You're beating a dead horse. Why won't you acknowledge the
> *possibility* that she should have been charged with negligence homicide?

Why don't you stop beating that dead horse yourself. Even today, teens
who cause fatal accidents don't get charged with negligent homicide
unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

>> As for myself, I'd like to see some actual evidence that she was
>> dating W at the time, since each and every one of your other "facts"
>> are skewed (you could be right, I have no idea, and -damn- sure didn't
>> read her autobiography).
>>
>
> Hold on. I did not state that she was dating Dubya. She had been
> dating Douglas, the guy she killed, however.

Nope. No evidence for it.

>> As far as it being investigated, you have no idea if it was or
>> wasn't, since the political slur didn't surface till 40 years later.
>>
>
> I do know that no inquest was ordered. Thus, there was no serious
> investigation.

Why would there be an inquest? What was it about the accident that
required one?

>> You only choose to insist it wasn't, from a position of utter and
>> total ignorance, as it suits you.
>>
>
> I DID in fact read at least a portion of Laura's biography. I did read
> everything I could find relating to the accident. You have just bragged
> that you did not research the issue. So which of us is the more
> ignorant, eh?

I'd say you're the more ignorant. You want so badly to find that G.W.
Bush AND his spouse are guilty of wrong-doing that you ignore reality.

>>
>>> We'll never know for certain, will we--because her family's
>>> connections precluded any serious investigation.
>>>
>>
>> Pure political tripe.
>>
>>
>
>
> Also true, dude. Nothing whatever to do with politics but everything to
> do with the power of great wealth and influence. Should Kennedy have
> been charge with negligent homicide in the death of Mar Jo Kopechne? I
> don't know. But the death was seriously investigated,

No, it wasn't. Or, if it was, it was seriously hushed up.

> which cannot be
> claimed about Laura's killing of her ex-boyfriend M. Douglas.

How about Clinton's list of close personal friends and bodyguards who
just happened to turn up dead? Something like 48 of them, ISTR.

Why don't you want these deaths investigated?

>>>> True students of the Constitution.
>>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>
>> No, sadly.
>>
>> Stalinist at best.
>>
>> One step up from executing the family of the previous regime.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Laugh. It's the Right Wing who continue to hound Bill Clinton (going so
> far as to state publicly that he should be murdered). Understandable,
> really. Clinton was a success as president; Bush has been
> systematically dismantling the Constitution for eight years. He is
> embarrassing the hell out of his fellow Neo-Cons and the people of the
> United States. Did you see the pics of Georgie giving a back massage to
> a cringing head of state? If Clinton had touched her without
> permission, the rightards would be screaming that he be charged with
> sexual harassment.

Clinton touched a rather large number of women without permission. Some
called it rape. He also left behind a legacy of dead bodies that have
apparently never been properly investigated.

Now I don't like G.W. Bush one damn bit. But this on-going witch hunt
to smear his wife is just going too damned far. Let up on Laura Bush;
she's one of the better first ladies we've had.

Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian

Bama Brian wrote:

>
>
> Nonsense. No alcohol involved; she was likely gabbing with her buddy
> and just missed the stop sign altogether. Certainly she missed the
> point that she was about to hit another car at 50 mph.
>
> Stuff like that doesn't necessarily result in a conviction or a ticket,
> even today. Ever hear that favorite defense from someone who just ran
> over a motorcyclist of "I just didn't see him." How many of those even
> get a ticket?

A few years ago I was knocked off my bicycle by a woman who pulled out from a
stop sign while I was halfway around the corner. I had the right of way. She
had a stop sign. I didn't. A car coming the opposite way had slowed down and
waved me through. Then the old bag pulled out. She wasn't charged. I would not
have been so upset about that except that she refused to admit that she was in
the wrong. I had a hard time getting the money out of her for repairs to my
bike because thought I was at fault. As she saw it... "I did yield the right of
way, but them you pulled in front of me while I was turning."

You're simply making excuses as to why it's okay to needlessly insult people
who disagree with you.

It isn't okay.

Popeye wrote:
> "gringo" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>> Popeye wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you have kids, Gringo?
>>>
>>> Think those anti-war protesters (of which you are one) should have your
>>> kids jailed for murder for their service in Iraq?
>>>
>>> Think of all those innocent Iraqi deaths your kids contribute to.
>>>
>>> War criminals, in the eyes of the majority of the world.
>>>
>
>
>> Popeye, off topic. But okay. Honorable service, whether for the cops or
>> the military, should be honored, and is. The few who sink into the slime
>> of murder and rape should be punished, and are--if some honorable someone
>> who happened to be accompanying the scumbags squeals about it to the
>> Press.
>>
>
> Not really off topic.
>
> In the eyes of most the world, your kids are war criminals.
>
> Just ask anyone from France.
>
> Myself, I think they should get a better tax rate, preferred parking, and
> better social security, just to name a few bennies, but, I'm not the rest of
> the world.
>
> It's nice to know you've decided the war is legal and honorable, however.
>
>
>
The war is legal and honorable *for the soldiers* who are doing the
fighting and dying. It is dishonorable for the nation--because most of
us sat mute while Bush lied us into it. BTW, our military handily won
the war; Bush and Rumsfeld have lost the occupation. Even George's
daddy was too wise to get bogged down in an occupation he knew we cannot
win. Popeye, think about something. I trained 6 weeks in basic and
another 10 weeks in AIT and the US Army considered me fully trained to
fight America's battles. I assume your story is similar? Twenty weeks
from standing on a corner to trained soldier. We've been training
Iraqis going on four years to fight their own battles, and they still
can't make their own camps safe from looters. No, Halliburton has
earned enough; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have been screwing our nation long
enough.

--
*fas-cism* (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.
-- The American Heritage Dictionary, 1983



"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
------George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999