On Mon, 13 May 2013 14:30:46 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:



Find a lie in there. I double dog dare.

You can't even read what *YOU* have writen:

"So, he did have a relative surplus since these
bookkeeping shenanagins were in place before he
came on the scene."

There is no such thing as a "relative surplus". Either there is one
or there isn't. There wasn't.

Okay then, according to your own statements there was a surplus under
the accounting processes legally in place at the time by the Congress.
Otherwise, it is only your personal opinion that they were cooking the
books (which I agree with BTW). However, Clinton was the beneficiary and
not the instigator, which was the point before I allowed this other
tangent to materialize.

I never said Clinton was an "instigator", though he certainly was. I
never said that Clinton was a liar, though he clearly was. I said
that *you* were a liar, which you, and all who claim there was some
"surplus", even a "relative surplus" during the Clinton
administration. The lie is wrong on *so* many levels.

....and you defend the lie, then deny that you're a lefty.