Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Thats right Nexus, Clinton did lie about Lewinsky.
You see- when faced with the question;
"Did you engage in sexual actions with Ms. Lewinski?"
Clinton responded;
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."
When he knew the answer was 'Yes" (cause he was there).
When you answer 'No' when you are well aware than the truthful answer is 'Yes' thats lying.
Acting on bad information you didnt know was bad in the first place isnt lying.
In addition, effects on the economy ususally take years following policy implementation and are unrelated to who is in office for the most part.
I see your logic now... so Bush HW set up such a good economic policy with a Democratic Congress that it carried Clinton for 8 years of phenominal prosperity...
But Clinton was such a screw up with a Republican Congress that it took 8 years pluse a little into Bush Dubya's administration before the economy really got bad.
One thing I don't understand how was it that Clinton was able to balance the budget and create a surplus? Is that credit given to HW?
And the fact that Dubya was able to take that surplus give it to the rich and then screw the pooch all in one year... that's Clinton's fault?
I have this theory that... oval office blow jobs help inflate the prosperity of the US economy.
Perhaps Dubya should get a few!
Oh yahand.... Bush is Hitler - it's obviously the same Nazi smirk minus the mustache.
