Hollywood divided over Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with George W. Bush

[Beazy]

They're also divided on calling Roman Polanski out on drugging and ass raping a child too.

Who gives a fuck what anyone working in Hollywood thinks?

[Adam Jensen]

*Peter Griffin voice*

Oh my god. Who the hell cares!

*End Peter Griffin voice*

There's nothing wrong with meeting someone you disagree with and being civil with them.

[Ooid]

Do you make a habit of hanging out with mass murderers?

No I don't hang out with politicians.

[Velerios]

*Peter Griffin voice*

Oh my god. Who the hell cares!

*End Peter Griffin voice*

There's nothing wrong with meeting someone you disagree with and being civil with them.

I still can't understand why people need to have the urgency to tell others with whom they can or can't be friends. Typical SJW bullshit, ellen and bush jr. are friends, TRIGGERED!

[kail]

It's a fucking football game. They're not holding some political convention, they're just enjoying a sports game.

[Mister Cheese]

Who gives a shit? Bush Jr isnt even involved in politics anymore. And he seems like an okay guy otherwise.

I appreciate Ellen not kowtowing to progressive nutjobs. She's done this before where she did something verboten against the left wing ideology; retweeting a picture of herself riding Usain Bolt to the grocery store and was called racist. And she didn't back down then.



I don't like her show but I can respect her for that.

[arandomuser]

not really divided

george bush is a saint compared to the current WH occupant, and i apologize for anything negative i said about the bush presidency because put into perspective sometimes you dont know how good you have it.

[Burgerberg]

Holy false equivalence, batman. For one, you would need to compare Bush to Hitler himself, since they are in the similar position. Secondly, sending ANY civilian to any prison camp for whatever reason based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs is wrong. Nice apples to atomic bomb comparison.

Do you honestly expect every single persons decisions to be based on the outcomes and not on the situation and the context?

The point here is incompetence and ignorance for terrible actions is not an excuse. You're making it one.

Just because he is the POTUS doesn't make him omnipotent. He's not a master spy. He has an entire fucking intelligence agency working for him, but you think he should know better than all of them.

It's really easy to sit there in hindsight and armchair president to say "Well he should have known the information was faulty". Yet you don't even know what information was presented in the room, nor how he was supposed to know what parts of the information was faulty. Solid argument there.

Who said he's supposed to be?

There was plenty of information around at the time showing that Saddam did not have WMDs. This guy had more access to information than the average joe, and even the latter knew it was all BS. I don't care what happened in the room. He made the wrong call and should be held accountable for it.

My back is just fine. There is really no gymnastics needed. I'm not from the US, but the way justice works there, situation and context matter. It's crazy to just judge a decision on the outcome alone, especially when we don't do that for literally any other situation.

War always results in death and suffering. So do you believe that every country that has ever gone to war, on either side, should be charged? I mean, the outcome lead to the deaths of multiple people. They should be a criminal and in jail, according to you. Outcome is what matters.

The US shouldn't have declared war on Germany, because doing so resulted in many deaths. They should have just minded their own business.

The US shouldn't have nuked Japan, because doing so resulted in many deaths. They should have just waited them out.

Is there any situation for you where it is right for someone to declare war? Or is it only dependent on waiting and seeing the aftermath of that decision to decide what is "right"?

The way justice works there is that the rich and powerful get away with mass-killing, whereas if I was in charge of a bus company who didn't train their drivers properly, and one accident involved the death of several people, it is very likely I'd find myself in a prison cell. Yes, context matters, but if it involves the death of many peoples, then the person in charge is still held accountable whether it's accidental or malicious.

Speaking of false equivalences, comparing the 2nd Iraq war to WWII is laughable. The former was launched on false pretenses, by corrupt and greedy people... the latter was the driving motivation. So yes, those launching illegal wars of aggression should be put on trial. It is not like WWII where America was fighting a power bent on world domination, with a political ideology that included genocide. Now, there may have been specific events during said wars that deserve scrutiny but that's a topic for another time.

You are writing this nonsense as if you're washing his hands of his decisions. It's really pathetic seeing you defend someone who is actually a war criminal.

[Zaktar]

I wonder how many people accusing Bush Jr. of being a war criminal either supported the invasion at the time or would have had they been politically aware (soo easy to look back and judge). I remember that time pretty well; it was like living in bizzaro world where otherwise reasonable people were utterly behind the notion of invading Iraq for reasons and could no amount of fact bombs could budge them out of their mental bunkers. Undoubtedly at least some of you also opposed it, but I guess my point is that a lot of people share culpability with Bush. Part of being in a country with elected representatives is that shared responsibility. Should everyone who voted for him be jailed? Just the ones from '04? Being friendly to someone you're sitting next to at a football game is pretty normal human behavior. It's not an endorsement of every decision they've ever made.

[Krastyn]

The point here is incompetence and ignorance for terrible actions is not an excuse. You're making it one.

You have yet to show how the decision was either incompetent or ignorant.

There was plenty of information around at the time showing that Saddam did not have WMDs. This guy had more access to information than the average joe, and even the latter knew it was all BS. I don't care what happened in the room. He made the wrong call and should be held accountable for it.

The statement in bold, is pure ignorance. You don't care about details or facts. What you say is right, regardless.

The statement in italics shows that he had information that the average person did not. Once again, you don't know what that information was, but you're all "who cares".

The way justice works there is that the rich and powerful get away with mass-killing, whereas if I was in charge of a bus company who didn't train their drivers properly, and one accident involved the death of several people, it is very likely I'd find myself in a prison cell. Yes, context matters, but if it involves the death of many peoples, then the person in charge is still held accountable whether it's accidental or malicious.

There are multiple cases where deaths, and multiple deaths have not resulted in any charges, for people all over the social spectrum, so save your bullshit.

Speaking of false equivalences, comparing the 2nd Iraq war to WWII is laughable. The former was launched on false pretenses, by corrupt and greedy people... the latter was the driving motivation. So yes, those launching illegal wars of aggression should be put on trial. It is not like WWII where America was fighting a power bent on world domination, with a political ideology that included genocide. Now, there may have been specific events during said wars that deserve scrutiny but that's a topic for another time.

If you think there is no way someone could compare Hitler's desire to wipe out the Jewsish people to that of Hussein trying to wipe out the Kurdish people (which he was literally charged with genocide against), you're blind.

You're also still dodging the question.

Is there any situation for you where it is right for someone to declare war? Or is it only dependent on waiting and seeing the aftermath of that decision to decide what is "right"?
You are writing this nonsense as if you're washing his hands of his decisions. It's really pathetic seeing you defend someone who is actually a war criminal.[/QUOTE]

[DarkAmbient]

Sadly many people have become so immersed in and polarised by Twitter/internet outrage culture that they're no longer equipped to function socially in the real world where compromise and mutual concession are necessary for maintaining relationships. The concept of being friends with people who don't align entirely with their own views is not one they understand. They think and converse with zingers and comebacks, like they're playing for the crowd instead of just conversing normally.