To: i-node who wrote (579205 ) 8/4/2010 12:52:49 AM From: tejek Respond to of 1572437 That might be true if the stimulus had failed but of course it hasn't except in your mind. It seems most true economists agree with me, not you, on this. The economists on Fox aren't true anything. In fact, I doubt they are economists.And since you brought it up, why the hell didn't Bush fund any of these projects during his tenure? Oh yeah, a president in the bottom 5 doesn't do visionary projects. Bush properly realized we couldn't afford them and that there was not a consensus for it. As to visionary projects, I can think of none more visionary than the removal of Saddam as a path to fixing the Middle East. Which ultimately will be a success if Obama doesn't f*ck it up. Yes, ask the average American how visionary they thought Bush was? How dare you? How frigging dare you? Your boy spent a trillion dollars on a war in a half ass country called Iraq. Of course, this isn't true at all. Even now the cost of the Iraq war has been $100B less than the wasted stimulus. And the war in Iraq served several important purposes. Only in your war fantasies. We lost thousands of good Americans and many more are permanently injured both physically and mentally and you dare to talk to me about what Obama could have done better. When you are ready to apologize for the asshole you let lose on this country, then we can talk about what Obama can do better. Obama will never be half the president Bush was. That's right. Obama will be several times better.And btw, in July, Iraq had the most civilian deaths in two years and has yet to seat their parliament. It is no surprise if Iraq deteriorates under Obama; he has never mentioned the Iraq War in any legitimate tone. We can hardly blame Bush for electing a grossly incompetent piece of shit to follow him. You play a fool's game, o wise one.