Submitted by rizzn on Tue, 08/26/2008 - 18:22.
The zealotry continues today and yesterday from what I earlier noted last week. This is yet another reason you shouldn't open your mouth to defend something if you don't know what you're talking about. On FriendFeed, "nicerobot" has been vehemently defending the presidency of Jimmy Carter, while at the same time relentlessly attacking the presidency of George W. Bush.
In one posting, nicerobot says:
I just never saw [Carter's presidency] as bad as people have claimed. Like I said, He wasn't good, but he wasn't bad. GW, to me, is bad, bad, bad. To me, there is a huge difference in the actions GW is responsible for which make him bad and the issues Carter had which, to me, are what made him appear bad. Simply: GW's actions are bad. Carters reactions were poor.
I'd really love for someone to explain to me the difference between bad actions and poor reactions. Aside from the semantic, when you're in the slot of the presidency, and you have a track record for either one, the culpability and net effect is the same.
Carter has been one of the nation's worst presidents, and George Bush has been giving him a run for his money in terms of fiscal irresponsibility and public relations.