But to your point, those were actual quotes referenced and they were not taken out of context because great effort was made to include more than 1/2 a sentence. The specific of your post that irritated me was:
“…You use some “drop” site for a reference. Only very few of those quotes are traceable…”

There were 14 references listed for nine quotes…I’d call that “traceable”.

You are right about one thing, there is
something terrible wrong with someone falsely attributing something [comment/statement/action/lack of traceable quotes] to someone…specially when facts have been previously made clear – but are ignored in order to forward personal agendas.

Sadly, this applies to the global warming, the economy & pretty much everything that’s currently being proposed in Washington – and applies to both parties and many posters on this site.

It’s also part of what makes finding the proper villain, so hard. Times were so much easier back in the days when ‘badguys’ were a different race or spoke a different language, wore a black hat….something easy for all to identify.

And judging from your comment, your teacher was correct. You don’t seem to be able to decipher between bullshit and the truth.

Opinions are NOT facts. Quotes out of context are disingenuous. Falsely attributing something to someone is just plain wrong.

next complaint will be cause the link comes from a biased source(can only use ‘approved sources’)…ya know, like FOX, MSNBC, WaPo or AP )
sounds a bit like my old english teacher, nothing I did was ever good enough for her either:)

Sorry to disagree, but it isn’t a harsh reply. You stated that “Krugman misread the economy as well.” and post a bunch of quotes. Your quotes come out of nowhere and seem entirely phoney.

In fact they are useless. You use some “drop” site for a reference. Only very few of those quotes are traceable. Then, it appears most of those quotes are taken out of context (the few I looked at) and old. If something refers to another situatuation, it is very wrong to use it in the current discussion.

Yes I know posting several links on this blog always gets caught in the spam filter, but as I recently dicovered, removing the “http://www.” will allow the address through. The reader will need to copy and paste but I think most honest readers appreciate the time and effort required.

By not posting your sources (links) you leave yourself open to be accused of invention. Trying to apply a Krugman quote from 2002 to the surrent situation is just such an invention. It is intellectually dishonest.

Expecting someone else to spend the time researching your claims is just plain wrong. You made the claim, not I. You back them up.

Krugman misread the economy as well.

Another incredibly stupid comment. If you can’t link or cite where you got your quotes then they are just more bullshit.”

I love you too. Sorry for not linking, but that’s pretty harsh reply, you could’ve used Google if you had some patience. I’ll add sources next time.

I copied and pasted sources to a drop just for you:
http://drop.io/krugmanquotes

“yoshi,

Krugman misread the economy as well.

Another incredibly stupid comment. If you can’t link or cite where you got your quotes then they are just more bullshit.”

I love you too. Sorry for not linking, but that’s pretty harsh reply, you could’ve used Google if you had some patience. I’ll add sources next time.

I copied and pasted sources to a drop just for you:
http://drop.io/krugmanquotes

Yeah, that same dastardly person who said he had just reviewed the FM’s and found them to be a sound investment….just a few months before the collapse. The same person who re-wrote regulations (in that bill that’s being touted as a savior) forcing the FM’s to loan money to people who had slim to no chance of being qualified. Yeah, that’s the same crook who got all sorts of extra contributions cause of his hard work.
********************
All things aside, Obama maybe a decent person – but he has surrounded himself with so many crooks, liars and thieves that we’ll never get a chance to see what he is really like. Though crooked Chicago politics are as good of an indication as any.

New York Times

Very true. There was nothing about assuming toxic assets that the Bush Administration forced them to assume later in 2006 – 2008. There is lots though about the American dream of home ownership, something pushed by Clinton and later by Bush.

WSJ

An opinion piece by, of all people, Karl Rove. And you are suggesting you want credibility? I won’t waste my time reading this.

US Today

Another opinion piece. The links backing up his statement are dead. The stronger regulation proposed by Bush was to move the FMs to being regulated by the White House instead of through Congress. Yet, for six years the Republicans had control of Congress and the White House and didn’t pass anything.

The Ranking Member doesn’t control what legislation goes through the committee. Yet we continually hear about how Barney Frank stopped some legislation. The Republicans can’t admit it was THEM who dropped a bad bill.

OH WAIT !!! It was that dastardly Barney Frank who finally passed a new oversight bill for the FMs in 2007, after the Democrats took control of Congress and Frank took over the Chairmanship of the Banking Committee.

*

For some insight on why the meltdown occurred,
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/bill-clinton-on-his-economic-legacy/

For the most extensive report on Bush and his Administration’s role in this
nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1
(one of the best summaries to date)

*

And you still haven’t posted all those “Liberals” who were all complaining the Stimulus Package was too little. Instead you changed course when you realized you had lost, again. Please try to answer my concerns from #36.

Accordingly they did nothing for jobs…for the economy…porkulus spending projects, Green stupidity that does nothing to create real jobs…

AND the first thing Obama did was ensure our dependency upon foreign oil…shut down domestic oil expansion, thus guaranteeing gas would be above $1.00 a gallon, robbing the economy of that stimulus.

THEY BET the economy would recover on its own, and as they knew the first 100 days was the best to pass legislation, they focused in their STATIST agenda, mislabeling everything they did to establish Government control as “stimulus…job creation” when in fact it accomplished the opposite.

They created the anti-business climate BANANA REPUBLICS manifest, and now BANANA Republic of the United States gets the same level of job creating investment as other banana republics, where the “leader” promises to “spread the wealth around”, ZERO

Obama owns our high unemployment…he made sure it can only increase, by being anti business.

Just as a UNION MAN won’t go to work, if its promised they will have to pay by the hour, not get paid, so also job creating business don’t form when its guaranteed their profits will be stolen by Obama and Congress.

The numbers vary, its only over the long haul you win by betting on 7 rather than snake-eyes, but only in the long haul.

I had to separate my reply into two parts to keep my research assignment civilized.
As promised, here are the names you demanded.
Democrats who voted against stimulus bill:
Allan Boyd (D-FL) Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Jim Cooper (D-TN) Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Parker Griffith (D-AL) Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD) Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Collin Peterson (D-MN) Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)

Other liberals who pointed out obviously inflated recovery predictions used to push stimulus:
Mickey Kaus
Richard Posner
Paul Krugman
Simon Johnson
Ed Leamer (His policies generally seem liberal, but not sure officially how he leans.)
Menzie Chinn (Ditto… sorry – likewise)
Jared Bernstein (Hey, at least the administration finally admitted it, though still not being realistic.)
None of these are even the ones I remember talking about it, and I could dig those up as well but you only asked for three.

This shows how we are tracking vs. Obama’s job predictions.

We could theoretically still hit them if things change sharply in the next year, but numbers we will surely not hit are the federal revenue numbers used to show how the money spent on the stimulus and the future spending it requires will not explode the national debt.

Other good reads on the subject:
Is The Economic Forecast Too Optimistic?

May Unemployment Numbers Worse Than Projected, Long Term Unemployment Sets Record

Rosy Scenario, or the Audacity of Hope?

Since you are reaping the enlightenment of my work, would you be so kind as to specifically list three things Bush did to cause the housing bubble or the resulting credit crunch? I assure you that your work will not go unread, as I suspect is the fate for my citations.

Can you even write one post that does that does not veer off into attacking ‘right wing nut jobs’. And seriously, if you don’t want people to ‘shift the topic’ then don’t bring the crap up in the first place in order to insult people. — The fact is, Bush warned against the risks of lack of oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie May 17 times. Ron Paul warned against it even earlier than Bush. Did Obama warn of anything like this when he was a senator? Yes, Bush should have pushed even harder for more regulation, but was the Republicans were overly concerned about appearing to take money away from poor people. So please, if you want to ‘shift topics’, that is not a topic you want to shift into if you are Obama drone you seem to be. You could probably stand to do some reading on that subject.
nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html
usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html
youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

“The right wing blah blah blah. The wingnuts blah blah blah…”