• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ellen DeGeneres Responds to George Bush Photo Criticism

Graham2001

Graduate Poster
Graham2001
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,771
Ellen DeGeneres has responded to the pointed social media criticism she has faced after sitting next to former President George Bush at Sunday's Dallas Cowboys-Green Bay Packers.


...Users brought up Bush's conservative politics that were anti-LGBTQ as well as the countless deaths from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that happened during his term and many felt the Ellen host was helping to rehabilitate his image.



...


peaking about the backlash, DeGeneres said that "people were upset: Why is a gay Hollywood liberal sitting next to a conservative president? A lot of people were mad." But she pivoted by putting up one positive tweet which said, "Ellen and George Bush together makes me have faith in America again." Building on the theme of that tweet, Degenres added: "Here's the thing: I'm friends with George Bush, in fact I'm friends with a lot of people who don't share the same beliefs that I have. We are all different and I think we've forgotten that that's OK that we're all different."
Click to expand...


https://www.msn.com/en-au/entertain...ge-bush-photo-criticism/ar-AAIrvrr?li=AAgfLCP
 
Awww, two multimillionaires can overcome their vast differences. How charming. A real inspiration to multimillionaires of all races and creeds and sexualities.
 
theprestige said:
As usual, you actively obscure the point, so I don't feel like this one is on me.
Click to expand...

The point, which is obvious to everyone else, is that the minor differences in political opinions of those two persons are nothing compared to the vast similarities they share by virtue of being staggeringly wealthy. Neither of them has to consider suicide if they get too ill to work. Neither of them is going to miss a meal if they don't choose to. Neither of them has to forego medical treatment due to cost. They can afford, in every sense, the luxury of disregarding such trifling matters that consume the majority. They will sit in comfy chairs nibbling on delicacies while millions suffer, and pride themselves on how open-minded and good they are to be buddies.

The cancer cells get along splendidly with each other. Why wouldn't they?
 
TragicMonkey said:
The point, which is obvious to everyone else, is that the minor differences in political opinions of those two persons are nothing compared to the vast similarities they share by virtue of being staggeringly wealthy. Neither of them has to consider suicide if they get too ill to work. Neither of them is going to miss a meal if they don't choose to. Neither of them has to forego medical treatment due to cost. They can afford, in every sense, the luxury of disregarding such trifling matters that consume the majority. They will sit in comfy chairs nibbling on delicacies while millions suffer, and pride themselves on how open-minded and good they are to be buddies.



The cancer cells get along splendidly with each other. Why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...
The point is that you see them as indistinguishable, therefore they must see each other as indistinguishable?

---

There are also far reaching implications of your hypothesis, which I am certain you have often considered, but which you are disregarding in the present era.
 
theprestige said:
The point is that you see them as indistinguishable, therefore they must see each other as indistinguishable?

---

There are also far reaching implications of your hypothesis, which I am certain you have often considered, but which you are disregarding in the present era.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "indistinguishable". They are more similar than they are different is what I said.

And **** your "implications". It's time for a jacquerie.
 
"I say potato, you say the Constitution should be amended to criminalize my sexuality". Building bridges.

The kneejerk instinct of Democrats to rehabilitate the reputation of W. is absolutely bizarre to see.
 
Last edited:
You guys are so cynical. I'm sure wealth has nothing to do with it and Mr Bush has plenty of poor black gay friends too.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
"I say potato, you say the Constitution should be amended to criminalize my sexuality". Building bridges.
Click to expand...

But even if such an amendment were made, Ellen would be unlikely to suffer from it. We have seen throughout history that the wealthy are insulated from consequences. Being gay WAS illegal for long periods of history but it wasn't the rich who got punished for it. Wealth lifts people out of the life the rest of us lead.
 
TragicMonkey said:
But even if such an amendment were made, Ellen would be unlikely to suffer from it. We have seen throughout history that the wealthy are insulated from consequences. Being gay WAS illegal for long periods of history but it wasn't the rich who got punished for it. Wealth lifts people out of the life the rest of us lead.
Click to expand...

Truth. It's almost comical when people think the tribal lines are sincerely drawn along ideology. They are drawn along net worth. Most of us are just the rabble that cheers for them.
 
The man lied us into a war that killed tens of thousands of people, and he brought back torture.

I'm friends with people who have different beliefs from me, too, but there are lines in the sand.

Pedophiles, Nazis...war criminals would be one, if I were rich enough to somehow end up in a mutual social circle with one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom