Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Oh Good God, someone showed Maggie how to post graphics.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Oh Good God, someone showed Maggie how to post graphics.

Hate to pop your balloon Finn but I have a forum with the same format and I already know how to post pictures, etc. You see, we non-republicans tend to read and figure out how to do things. We don't wait around for a talking head to give us a sound byte to repeat endlessly.

Well good for you honey. How independent of you.

Anon, I have no idea why these people are dwelling on Ted Kennedy and a possible murder when they have Chicken george and his wifey poo who are in your face murderers.

A "possible murder?" Teddy isn't guilty of first degree murder. I don't think anyone believes he intended to kill Mary Jo. What many of us do believe is that when the accident happened, his immediate firs concern was his own ass (physical and political). Whether or not his actions rise to breaking any statutes, they certainly were proof of his utter absence of character. Anyone who claims Teddy as a hero is either an absolute fool or a sybarite.

Laura ran a stop sign and rammed a car driven by a boy friend who had dumped her glassy eyedarse. Chicken george sent a girl friend or several girl friends to get abortions......

Your MO is to spout these outlandish claims without any substantiation. Oher A2Kers have consistently called you out on this, and yet you never provide any backing for your calumny.

Provide us with legitimate proof that George and Laura Bush are "in your face" murderers or, for the love of God, shut the hell up!
Of course these don't count since both "got saved" later. And of course these bu$h worshippers are overlooking the fact that bu$h has killed 3000 people from 9-11, Thousands of innocent people of Afghanistan and Iraq and heading toward 3000 of our soldiers..... and that doesn't even take into account the thousands more who are wounded, maimed or sick because of these two illegal wars.

Clinton lied and no one died.
Bu$h lied and thousands died.

Magginkat wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Oh Good God, someone showed Maggie how to post graphics.

Hate to pop your balloon Finn but I have a forum with the same format and I already know how to post pictures, etc. You see, we non-republicans tend to read and figure out how to do things. We don't wait around for a talking head to give us a sound byte to repeat endlessly.

Well good for you honey. How independent of you.


Hey old geezer, that if there's one thing I'm not... it's honey. You didn't think that I was going to wait around from some dumb bu$h lover to help did you?

Anon, I have no idea why these people are dwelling on Ted Kennedy and a possible murder when they have Chicken george and his wifey poo who are in your face murderers.

A "possible murder?" Teddy isn't guilty of first degree murder. I don't think anyone believes he intended to kill Mary Jo. What many of us do believe is that when the accident happened, his immediate firs concern was his own ass (physical and political). Whether or not his actions rise to breaking any statutes, they certainly were proof of his utter absence of character. Anyone who claims Teddy as a hero is either an absolute fool or a sybarite.

Name one place that you have ever seen me call Ted Kennedy or any other politician a hero. You are an absolute fool if you try to say that I have. Just when will you people get over Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, etc.? Chicken george is killing people as I type. Why is that no concern for you.


Laura ran a stop sign and rammed a car driven by a boy friend who had dumped her glassy eyedarse. Chicken george sent a girl friend or several girl friends to get abortions......

Your MO is to spout these outlandish claims without any substantiation. Oher A2Kers have consistently called you out on this, and yet you never provide any backing for your calumny.

Provide us with legitimate proof that George and Laura Bush are "in your face" murderers or, for the love of God, shut the hell up!

When I first heard about the adventures of Laura, I did do a search of news articles,etc. Some are still on Google. Just because you "call me out" on anything does not mean that I am going to drop what I am doing to run off an do research for you clowns. I have an idea. Prove that what I said is wrong.

As for AWOL chicken george, just turn go to Google once again and search for the bodies he has left scattered all over Iraq. Check the Obituaries for the soldiers who are returning in body bags. Look at the children who have been blown to bits. How much proof do you need? Are you blind & deaf? What part of "Thou shalt not kill, don't you and chicken george understand?



Of course these don't count since both "got saved" later. And of course these bu$h worshippers are overlooking the fact that bu$h has killed 3000 people from 9-11, Thousands of innocent people of Afghanistan and Iraq and heading toward 3000 of our soldiers..... and that doesn't even take into account the thousands more who are wounded, maimed or sick because of these two illegal wars.

Clinton lied and no one died.
Bu$h lied and thousands died

This is America's pride and joy? Judging by the look on Laura's face old Charles had his hand some place it should not have been.

Understanding that some are so hate filled and malicious they'll say just about anything about anybody without caring whether it is true or not,
if you are going to relate an incident that has absolutely nothing to do with anything now, at least get your facts straight. The whole account is related here in Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp

Anon, I have no idea why these people are dwelling on Ted Kennedy and a possible murder when they have Chicken george and his wifey poo who are in your face murderers.

Fox,
Dont argue with Mags.

Its like that old cliche...
Arguing with her is like mudwrestling a pig,you find out that she enjoys it.

Just leave her to her fantasies and move on to talk with rational people.

Actually, it was Bill's logic. He got the point, he just did it silently, unlike you.

Anon

Anon-Voter wrote:

Actually, it was Bill's logic. He got the point, he just did it silently, unlike you.

Anon

No, Bill tries to avoid responding to idiotic claims in cases where the claimant is notorious for idiotic claims. Believing either accident was pre-meditated fits the description. Kennedy's crime took place after his accident. Mary Jo suffocated because he chose not to report the accident immediately. Kennedy was no kid at the time either. The comparison is as inappropriate as it is hyper-partisan idiocy. Party on.

Drowning victims should be treated even if they have been submerged for a long time. The rule "no patient should be pronounced dead until warm and dead" applies. Children in particular have a good chance of survival in water up to 3 minutes, or 10 minutes in cold water (10 to 15 °C or 50 to 60 °F). Submersion in cold water can slow the metabolism drastically. There are rare but documented cases of survivable submersion for extreme lengths of time. In one case a child survived drowning after being submerged in cold water for 70 minutes. In another, an 18 year old man survived 38 minutes under water. This is known as cold water drowning.

Prove to me he could have saved her!! Prove to me that (1) he didn't try to save her, and (2) that he could have got help, any help, in time to save her.

Lets take the second part first...

You want proof that he could have gotten help for her?
Then lets look at the actual police report and drawings of the incident...

http://www.ytedk.com/exhibits.htm

We can see in diagram 2 of the actual police report that there was a house 450 feet away.

He could have gotten help there.
According to the report,he drove right past that house on his way to the bridge,so he knew the house was there.
In the picture titled "Inquest exhibit #8",you can actually see the house from the bridge.

If he had been trying to get help,he could have gone there,but he didn't.

You are assuming (1) That they were home, and (2) He was in the condition it required to get there, and get them back and SAVE the girl in 40 minutes. You are also assuming that the people at the house were physically capable of diving down, finding her in the back seat in the dark, under water, and dragging her out of the car WITHIN 40 minutes. That's lots of assumptions, with no proof. I wonder if you would want to be found guilty of MURDER for proof like you're fabricating.!!

And here...
http://www.ytedk.com/statement.htm

We have his own statement of the events.

Again,nothing was said about trying to save her.

You really need to start reading your own links before you shoot your mouth off. Don't you rightwingers even read?? Now I discredited his statement that he dove, but since you entered the link, now we count it. He repeatedly dove and could not find her, probably from the dark and the fact she ended up in the back seat. That adds considerable time to the 40 minutes, and proves that he DID try to save her. Your link, your proof!!

"I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car. I was unsuccessful in the attempt. I was exhausted and in a state of shock.".

And here is Ted Kennedy's driving record...

http://www.ytedk.com/drivingrecord.htm

Notice this part...

"Senator Kennedy's driver's license had expired on February 22, 1969 (nearly 5 months before the accident at Chappaquiddick) and had not been renewed."

So,his driving record shows a pattern of recklessness.

Lot's of people have shitty driving records, I have already conceded that he was drunk at the time. I know lots of rightwing construction people that not only drive on suspended licenses, but operate heavy equipment without them. I was at a clients site less than two months ago, and one of the unlicensed rightwing morons who worked for him punched out the back window of the van with a forklift. You're reaching at straws to prove your ridiculous statements.

You still want more proof and evidence?
I will be glad to provide it.

You are assuming (1) That they were home, and (2) He was in the condition it required to get there, and get them back and SAVE the girl in 40 minutes. You are also assuming that the people at the house were physically capable of diving down, finding her in the back seat in the dark, under water, and dragging her out of the car WITHIN 40 minutes. That's lots of assumptions, with no proof. I wonder if you would want to be found guilty of MURDER for proof like you're fabricating.!!

Quote:

You are assuming (1) That they were home, and (2) He was in the condition it required to get there, and get them back and SAVE the girl in 40 minutes. You are also assuming that the people at the house were physically capable of diving down, finding her in the back seat in the dark, under water, and dragging her out of the car WITHIN 40 minutes. That's lots of assumptions, with no proof. I wonder if you would want to be found guilty of MURDER for proof like you're fabricating.!!

Why are you assuming the negative?

Why are you assuming the opposite?

If the people weren't home,then in an emergency he could have forced his way in.

If they weren't able to drive,then they could have made a phone call.

So, after he spent 10 or so minutes diving and trying to save her, then he had to run 450 feet, break in, and make the call while he was drunk, exhausted, and in shock? Then, the emergency crew had time to respond, dive in, and rescue her in the allotted remaining 30 minutes, given she broke the survival record for "cold drowning".

Yea, right!

You are trying really hard to defend him,aren't you.

I really don't give a **** other than I get tired of hearing rightwing stupidity and ignorance. For the most part, I have learned that it is just the rightwing mind and don't let it bother me. Like I said to mental Bill, I had reserved judgement until now. Now I know to ignore him as well since he has demonstrated his inability to understand minimal common sense.

He supposedly wasn't able to help her,but he was able to swim across the channel,and then contact his aides and friends.

I didn't get the part of swimming across the channel ... that even cuts down the time more. She was dead before he hit the other side of the channel. That he did it drunk and exhausted is a miracle in itself.

Why did he wait 8 hours to notify anyone of the accident?

I don't know, but I will guess because he was drunk and shouldn't have been driving. Wasn't he also married and a Senator then? I would imagine he wanted time to come up with an excuse and get sober.

Why are you trying so hard to defend him?

I already answered that!

He is guilty of manslaughter,there is no doubt of that.

I don't claim to be judge and jury, so I have no idea.