US unemployment goes down .4%....who cares.

[A'isha]

My money is on you not knowing how to use a browser.

Your problem is you do know how to use a browser. You should learn how to use a library.

 

[BeAChooser]

I somehow doubt that BAC is as favorably inclined towards the parts of Morgenthau's statement where he says the government should give a job to everybody who wanted one, or that when it comes to taxes that they haven't taxed the people they way they should be and that "people who have it should pay."

Of course not. But then I wasn't trying to prove that democrats can't learn from history ... which is all those parts prove. Even after 8 years of failed policies democrat/socialist Morgenthau was advocating more of the same. It's called Stuck On Stupid. Just like Obama and the democrats now are proving they can't learn from history ... are Stuck On Stupid. They can't even learn from a massive election loss. They are only moving farther to the left as they shed the relative moderates (like Harman) from the party.

By the way, did you note the part of Morgenthau's statement where he said "I think it's a darn good year to begin to balance the budget. . . . the biggest deterrent of all . . . is that the country does not know when the end is in sight and this unbalancing of the budget . . . that's what frightens people." How prescient of him to describe the problem NOW. Somehow I doubt that you, lomiller and Tranewreck are "favorably inclined towards" it, however.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I must say, I am consistently impressed with your ability to spin things, BAC.

 

[A'isha]

By the way, did you note the part of Morgenthau's statement where he said "I think it's a darn good year to begin to balance the budget. . . . the biggest deterrent of all . . . is that the country does not know when the end is in sight and this unbalancing of the budget . . . that's what frightens people." How prescient of him to describe the problem NOW. Somehow I doubt that you, lomiller and Tranewreck are "favorably inclined towards" it, however.

Yes, I think we should definitely balance the budget. Morgenthau wanted to balance the budget in part by massively raising taxes, especially on the rich.

Do you agree with that method of budget-balancing, BAC?

 

[timhau]

That's what happens when you rely on biased single sources.

Actually, it happens to BAC all the time. Except when he's going with argument by LOL.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Henry Morgenthau said what I quoted on May 9, 1939, while appearing before democrats of the House Ways and Means Committee (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30331 ).

No he didn't. He did it in private while complaining to his buddy, the chairman of the committee, and then wrote about the private meeting in his diary.

Actually, the only possible inaccuracy in my statement (if it is one … see below) is my use of an "s" following democrat. Because you yourself admit that Morganthau did make the statement in front of at least one democrat who was a member of House Ways and Means Committee. Now if you and lomiller think that's a gotcha, and want to gloat over it, be my guest. … but you might want to keep reading before you do.

Because first, were Doughton and Morganthau "buddies"?

Not according to Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,774121,00.html

U.S. At War: Mr. Morgenthau Pays a Call

Dec. 14, 1942

With the air of a man looking over his shoulder, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. slipped quietly into the Capitol last week.

… snip …

Inside, at a lunch table set for two, sat North Carolina's stubborn, gnarled old Congressman Robert L. Doughton, chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. For embarrassed Mr. Morgenthau, the lunch was doubtless a painful experience. For Mr. Doughton, it was a gala, never-to-be-forgotten occasion.

Mr. Morgenthau had seldom paid much attention to rustic, rawboned "Muley" Doughton, except to be annoyed at his dirt farmer's conservatism. Nor had Mr. Morgenthau, full of the righteousness of his own tax schemes, ever regarded Mr. Doughton's committee as particularly qualified for its job of originating the nation's tax laws. But now Mr. Morgenthau, whose influence on Capitol Hill had dropped below zero, was paying his belated respects.

How's that for a *gotcha*?

And here's another.

Folsum's book (http://books.google.com/books?id=Hw...=onepage&q=Robert Doughton Morgenthau&f=false ) does NOT claim that Morgenthau made that statement "during testimony before the Congressional Ways and Means Committee" as you claimed in post #91. It states quite clearly on page 143 of Folsum's book that "Morgenthau met with Doughton and Cooper in private and unloaded his frustrations:".

How's that for a *gotcha*?

But I'm not done. Cooper is Jere Cooper who was also a democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. So my use of the word "democrats" was entirely correct. Gotcha.

And I'm not done.

Page 144 of Folsum's book contains a part of Morgenthau's statement. It's true that Folsum left out of that statement the portions you noted. But you left out something too, ANTPogo. This:

Now, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … snip ...

So gotcha. It looks like you deliberately left off the "Now, gentlemen" part of the quote, which by itself indicates that Morgenthau was speaking to more than one person … more than one democrat … not just Doughton, as you claimed in post #91.

Seems to me your only hope of saving any of your credibility at this point … to keep from looking like either a liar or a fool … is to prove that Morgenthau's diary doesn't actually say those words. Or that Jere Cooper wasn't at that meeting. Can you?

 

[BeAChooser]

as well as misrepresenting a private meeting between political friends and allies as the Treasury Secretary giving groundbreaking testimony before a Congressional Committee.

Liar liar pants on fire.

 

[BeAChooser]

And thus the reason that said poster is the lone member of JREF I can only read in quoted form...

Gee ... aren't you angry that ANTPogo just tried to deceive you as to what Folsum's book actually stated and who was there at the private meeting with Morgenthau?

 

[BeAChooser]

I must say, I am consistently impressed with your ability to spin things, BAC.

Tell me, ALB, aren't you impressed with ANTPogo's attempt to LIE about the contents of Folsum's book and who was at the meeting with Morgenthau?

 

[BeAChooser]

Goodness me, did you just catch BAC in a mistake of fact?

No he didn't. See my post above. But I did catch him making a mistake of fact ... several actually. Or was it not a mistake but an attempt to lie?

 

[BeAChooser]

Wow. BAC is dumb/blinkered enough to assert the validity of his quote even after it's been proven to be a lie.

LOL! Now who is the "dumb/blinkered" one? That would be you, dk.

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually, it happens to BAC all the time. Except when he's going with argument by LOL.

This is really fun ... watching all of you step into it.

 

[A'isha]

Actually, the only possible inaccuracy in my statement (if it is one … see below) is my use of an "s" following democrat. Because you yourself admit that Morganthau did make the statement in front of at least one democrat who was a member of House Ways and Means Committee. Now if you and lomiller think that's a gotcha, and want to gloat over it, be my guest. … but you might want to keep reading before you do.

Because first, were Doughton and Morganthau "buddies"?

Not according to Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,774121,00.html



How's that for a *gotcha*?

According to that Time article, BAC, how many people were at that meeting?

And here's another.

Folsum book (http://books.google.com/books?id=Hw...=onepage&q=Robert Doughton Morgenthau&f=false ) does NOT claim that Morgenthau made that statement "during testimony before the Congressional Ways and Means Committee" as you claimed in post #91. It states quite clearly on page 143 of Folsum's book that "Morgenthau met with Doughton and Cooper in private and unloaded his frustrations:".

How's that for a *gotcha*?

I do admit to skipping Folsom's polemical book in favor of going straight to the source he cited. Which is far more than you bothered to do.

I suppose now that you've shown what Folsom really said, you're right now in the process of writing a mocking letter to Human Events for claiming that the Morgenthau quote was from testimony in Congress before the Ways and Means Committee, right?

Or did you simply link to a source without checking it because it agreed with your preconceived notions?

But I'm not done. Cooper is Jere Cooper who was also a democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. So my use of the word "democrats" was entirely correct. Gotcha.

So, who do you believe regarding the attendees of the meeting: Folsom, or Time Magazine?

Page 144 of Folsum's book contains a part of Morgenthau's statement. It's true that Folsum left out of that statement the portions you noted. But you left out something too, ANTPogo.

I'm sorry to tarnish your triumph here, but it wasn't me leaving anything out. It was Blum who quoted Morgenthau. I was merely repeating his quote, because that's where Folsom claimed he got his quote from.

So gotcha. It looks like you deliberately left off the "Now, gentlemen" part of the quote, which by itself indicates that Morgenthau was speaking to more than one person … more than one democrat … not just Doughton, as you claimed in post #91.

I don't recall ever saying it was a one-on-one meeting (though one of your own cites does indeed say that...why don't you believe it, BAC?).

Seems to me your only hope of saving any of your credibility at this point … to keep from looking like either a liar or a fool … is to prove that Morgenthau's diary doesn't actually say those words. Or that Jere Cooper wasn't at that meeting. Can you?

Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, I never specified that Morgenthau was only in a room with one person, and never tried to claim otherwise. Because it's irrelevant.

You quoted a source that claimed Morgenthau was testifying before Congress when he said the above. He wasn't. He was in a private meeting, and regardless of who else was there in the room, the statement quoted was from a dialogue that Morgenthau and Doughton were having, and so the only relevant people involved are Morgenthau and Doughton. In fact, it was Doughton who prompted part of Morgenthau's statement. To wit:

U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.: But why not let’s come to grips? And as I say, all I am interested in is to really see this country prosperous and this form of Government continue, because after eight years if we can’t make a success somebody else is going to claim the right to make it and he’s got the right to make the trial. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.

Mr. Doughton: And an enormous debt to boot!

HMJr.: And an enormous debt to boot! We are just sitting here and fiddling and I am just wearing myself out and getting sick. Because why? I can’t see any daylight. I want it for my people, for my children, and your children. I want to see some daylight and I don’t see it…

The plain fact of the matter is you cited a source making grandiose but patently false claims about when and where Morgenthau said those words, and that source itself cited a source that dishonestly edited Morgenthau's words in an effort to portray him (also patently falsely) as someone who wanted to implement what are current Conservative economic policies.

Your quote doesn't say what you think it says, and Morgenthau didn't mean what you claim he means, and you never once bothered to look beyond the biased websites you love, because what you found agreed with your preconceived ideas and that's all you care about.

 

[DavidJames]

If this were made into a movie, I would cast BAC as Gossage

 

[BeAChooser]

According to that Time article, BAC, how many people were at that meeting?

You are either obtuse or continuing your dishonesty. The meeting mentioned in the Time article is NOT the same meeting where Morgenthau expressed his frustration with the New Deal accomplishing nothing. Just look at the dates of each meeting, ANTPogo. Just admit the fact that you were wrong when you called Morgenthau and Doughton "buddies".

I do admit to skipping Folsom's polemical book

So in other words, all YOUR claims about what Folsom said about this or that in his book were merely lies … either that, or based on some source that you used which totally misrepresented them. In either event, it doesn't reflect well on you … especially after your sanctimonious comments about my "research" and sources.

I suppose now that you've shown what Folsom really said, you're right now in the process of writing a mocking letter to Human Events for claiming that the Morgenthau quote was from testimony in Congress before the Ways and Means Committee, right?

Go on, continue your dishonesty, ANTPogo. Dig your credibility even further into the ground. The Human Events article I linked doesn't claim that the Morgenthau quote came from "testimony in Congress before the Ways and Means Committee." It only states "Morgenthau was appearing before powerful Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee" which does not rule out a private meeting.

Quote:
But I'm not done. Cooper is Jere Cooper who was also a democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. So my use of the word "democrats" was entirely correct. Gotcha.

So, who do you believe regarding the attendees of the meeting: Folsom, or Time Magazine?

LOL! Look at the two dates, ANTPogo. You seem intent on digging a hole in the ground for your credibility. The lunch date mentioned in the Times article occurred in 1942. The meeting in which Morgenthau made his statement about the New Deal occurred in 1939. NOT THE SAME MEETING.

Quote:
Page 144 of Folsum's book contains a part of Morgenthau's statement. It's true that Folsum left out of that statement the portions you noted. But you left out something too, ANTPogo.

I'm sorry to tarnish your triumph here, but it wasn't me leaving anything out. It was Blum who quoted Morgenthau. I was merely repeating his quote, because that's where Folsom claimed he got his quote from.

Think about the logic of your claim. If Folsom got his quote from Blum, and you claim that you left nothing out of Blum's quote, then how come Folsom's quote of Morgenthau includes the phrase "Now, Gentlemen," and yours didn't? I'm calling you a liar, in case you didn't understand. A liar who is now trying to spin his way out of the hole he's dug for his credibility.

I don't recall ever saying it was a one-on-one meeting

Oh … so in post #91, you weren't trying to suggest it was a one-on-one meeting when you wrote "In reality, it was said at a private meeting between Morgenthau and the chairman of that committee, Robert Doughton, that Morgenthau later recounted in his diary on May 9, 1939." LIAR.

(though one of your own cites does indeed say that...why don't you believe it, BAC?).

I wonder how many times I'll have to tell you what was obvious … that they weren't the same meetings.

Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

LOL! You think that's what this is? A molehill? No, you roundly chastized me (with a whole bunch of your groupies joining in) for making a statement that you claimed was incorrect … that you said proved I only used "right wing sources." That you said proved "what happens when you rely on biased single sources." Yet, it turns out everything I said was correct and that it was you who apparently used the faulty source(s) … or else lied.

You quoted a source that claimed Morgenthau was testifying before Congress when he said the above.

LIAR. Neither I or either of my sources said Morgenthau testified before Congress. You even claimed that one of my sources said that when it clearly stated that he met "IN PRIVATE" with not just one but TWO top democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee. Just keep digging, ANTPogo. It's fun watching you continue to trash your credibility after joining this thread to sanctimoniously try and trash mine.

 

[A'isha]

You are either obtuse or continuing your dishonesty. The meeting mentioned in the Time article is NOT the same meeting where Morgenthau expressed his frustration with the New Deal accomplishing nothing. Just look at the dates of each meeting, ANTPogo. Just admit the fact that you were wrong when you called Morgenthau and Doughton "buddies".

My interest in the actual personal relationship between Morgenthau and Doughton is pretty much zero, because it's irrelevant to the accuracy of the quotes involved. Whether the two men were bestest buds or mortal enemies doesn't change the fact that the quote you relied on was dishonestly edited.

And the fact that you're jumping up and down, waving your arms frantically about this pointless diversion shows just how bankrupt your argument really is.

EDIT: And wait...you're using a meeting in 1942 to prove the nature of the relationship of the two men in 1939? When even Folsom describes Morgenthau as "confiding" in Doughton and meeting in private to "unload his frustrations"? Call me crazy, BAC, but I generally don't confide my anxieties about things with people who aren't my friends.

So in other words, all YOUR claims about what Folsom said about this or that in his book were merely lies … either that, or based on some source that you used which totally misrepresented them. In either event, it doesn't reflect well on you … especially after your sanctimonious comments about my "research" and sources.

Because I wasn't interested in the text of Folsom's book, but merely the accuracy of the cited quotation from Blum. I looked at Folsom's quote, then the citation he provided.

Go on, continue your dishonesty, ANTPogo. Dig your credibility even further into the ground. The Human Events article I linked doesn't claim that the Morgenthau quote came from "testimony in Congress before the Ways and Means Committee." It only states "Morgenthau was appearing before powerful Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee" which does not rule out a private meeting.

No, it's merely deliberately constructed to mislead people into thinking that he gave testimony in Congress before the Committee. You don't use the phrasing "appeared before members of the Ways and Means Committee" to describe a private meeting outside of a session of Congress between a few men. Well, you might, but honest people don't.

Just look at the number of people describing the Morgenthau quote as "testimony."

LOL! Look at the two dates, ANTPogo. You seem intent on digging a hole in the ground for your credibility. The lunch date mentioned in the Times article occurred in 1942. The meeting in which Morgenthau made his statement about the New Deal occurred in 1939. NOT THE SAME MEETING.

That's nice. I really don't care, since it still doesn't change the fact that you cited a deliberately cut-down quote from a site that either flat-out lied or deliberately and misleadingly exaggerated what the author said about his own deceptively-edited quote.

Think about the logic of your claim. If Folsom got his quote from Blum, and you claim that you left nothing out of Blum's quote, then how come Folsom's quote of Morgenthau includes the phrase "Now, Gentlemen," and yours didn't? I'm calling you a liar, in case you didn't understand. A liar who is now trying to spin his way out of the hole he's dug for his credibility.

You cite a misleading article quoting an author who misleadingly edited the original cited quote, and then decide I'm a big fat liar because when I reproduced Blum's original version of the quote it didn't include the phrase "Now, Gentlemen"...but Folsom gutting the entire center section out of the cited quote as mentioned on a page that deliberately lies about the setting the quote was spoken at doesn't even make you blink?

Oh … so in post #91, you weren't trying to suggest it was a one-on-one meeting when you wrote "In reality, it was said at a private meeting between Morgenthau and the chairman of that committee, Robert Doughton, that Morgenthau later recounted in his diary on May 9, 1939." LIAR.

Was it a private meeting? Yes. Was it said between Morgenthau and Doughton? Yes. Does the presence or absence of anyone else at the meeting have anything to do with the quote and/or the setting in which it was originally spoken? No.

I wonder how many times I'll have to tell you what was obvious … that they weren't the same meetings.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

LOL! You think that's what this is? A molehill?

You're right. It's not even as big a molehill.

No, you roundly chastized me (with a whole bunch of your groupies joining in) for making a statement that you claimed was incorrect … that you said proved I only used "right wing sources." That you said proved "what happens when you rely on biased single sources." Yet, it turns out everything I said was correct and that it was you who apparently used the faulty source(s) … or else lied.

Wait...you uncritically (and without the slightest modicum of effort to research it) repeat the claims made by a right-wing website which falsely describes a quote that itself was misleadingly edited by a right-wing author, and when I bother to track back all the citations to the original source and post that showing how both the parties above have twisted and told deliberate untruths about that original source...I'm the one who lied?

I really have to applaud you, BAC. That argument is so audacious in it's vapidly partisan maliciousness that I actually had to read it twice to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

LIAR. Neither I or either of my sources said Morgenthau testified before Congress.

Cool! Next time my boss and boss' boss take us all out to lunch and we end up talking shop, I get to say I "appeared before top executives on the bank's Technology Acquisition Committee to deliver a statement."

You even claimed that one of my sources said that when it clearly stated that he met "IN PRIVATE" with not just one but TWO top democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Yes, I made the mistake of assuming that the article you cited was at least partially truthful about something.

Believe me, I won't do that again.

 

[TraneWreck]

LIAR!! LOL! It wasn't me that _________ you're the one that __________ LOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

My interest in the actual personal relationship between Morgenthau and Doughton is pretty much zero

And yet you were the one who called them "buddies".

Whether the two men were bestest buds or mortal enemies doesn't change the fact that the quote you relied on was dishonestly edited.

Not dishonestly since nothing that was edited changed the meaning of anything that was quoted. Besides, like me, I imagine Folsom wasn't trying to prove that liberals/socialists can't learn from their mistakes … which is what the edited out portions prove in Morgenthau's case. And you're busy proving now.

And the fact that you're jumping up and down, waving your arms frantically about this pointless diversion shows just how bankrupt your argument really is.

Spin spin spin. Never mind that ANTPogo lied repeatedly folks. He'd like you just to move on now. For his credibility's sake.

And wait...you're using a meeting in 1942 to prove the nature of the relationship of the two men in 1939?

Well the article does say that "Mr. Morgenthau had seldom paid much attention to rustic, rawboned "Muley" Doughton, except to be annoyed at his dirt farmer's conservatism." Sure doesn't sound like they were ever "buddies", as you described them.

When even Folsom describes Morgenthau as "confiding" in Doughton and meeting in private to "unload his frustrations"? Call me crazy, BAC, but I generally don't confide my anxieties about things with people who aren't my friends.

Well, maybe that's just you. Or maybe you just don't know the definition of "confide" … which is to tell someone in confidence … to reveal "in private". Like in a private meeting.

Because I wasn't interested in the text of Folsom's book

So that gave you license to lie about what Folsom actually said in his book? In post #91 you said "Folsom claimed that the statement was made during testimony before the Congressional Ways and Means Committee." That was a clear effort to discredit Folsom since in the next sentence you said "In reality, it was said at a private meeting between Morgenthau and the chairman of that committee, Robert Doughton". You LIED, ANTPogo, to try and discredit Folsom … but you've discredited yourself instead. Why don't you quit while you are behind because now you are only looking more and more desperate. With enough time, people may forget this thread, but keep it up?

No, it's merely deliberately constructed to mislead people into thinking that he gave testimony in Congress before the Committee.

While you merely deliberately constructed A LIE to mislead forum members into thinking that Folsom was inaccurate in his book. Dig dig dig.

Just look at the number of people describing the Morgenthau quote as "testimony."

LOL! And the very first hit in that google list is YOU doing it.

The lunch date mentioned in the Times article occurred in 1942. The meeting in which Morgenthau made his statement about the New Deal occurred in 1939. NOT THE SAME MEETING.

That's nice. I really don't care

That's right, folks. Move on because ANTPogo doesn't want you to dwell on what a fool he just made of himself … after all that pontificating he did about "right-wing sources" not doing their own "research" and not bothering to "actually check on things".

since it still doesn't change the fact that you cited a deliberately cut-down quote from a site that either flat-out lied

Dig dig dig. You're accusing Folsom of a lie without actually demonstrating any lie whatsoever. Ergo YOU are the one being dishonest here. But you keep right on digging. Every one of your false and misleading statements is going into internet memory.

You cite a misleading article quoting an author who misleadingly edited the original cited quote

Dig dig dig. Snipping out material from a statement that does not affect the meaning of what is quoted (which was the case in Folsom's book) … while indicating that you have snipped portions of a statement (which Folsom did) ... is not misleading.

You, on the other hand, tried to make forum members think Morgenthau met with only Doughton when what you edited from Morgenthau's statement clearly indicates that was not the case. Furthermore, you tried to mislead forum members into thinking Foster said Morgenthau made his statement in testimony before Congress, when Folsom clearly stated that Morgenthau, Doughton and Cooper met "in private". Just keep digging.

I reproduced Blum's original version of the quote it didn't include the phrase "Now, Gentlemen"

Gosh. Did you ever consider that perhaps Blum's version is incomplete? That Folsom went back to the original diaries? It would be rather silly to think that he added language like "Now, gentlemen," to Morgenthau's statement. What could possibly have been his motivation? (This we are all dying to hear. )

Does the presence or absence of anyone else at the meeting have anything to do with the quote and/or the setting in which it was originally spoken?

Of course it does, since you objected to a statement I wrote which is that "democratS" were at the meeting. And since nothing else I wrote was inaccurate, the S must have been your objection.

I really have to applaud you, BAC. That argument is so audacious in it's vapidly partisan maliciousness that I actually had to read it twice to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

Dig dig dig. But it's all in black and white here … for posterity.

 

[A'isha]

Dig dig dig. But it's all in black and white here … for posterity.

Yes.

Yes it is, BAC. Yes it is.

 

[BeAChooser]

Yes it is, BAC. Yes it is.

Hey, let's put it in color for posterity.

Lies by ANTPogo in red. Misleading statements by ANTPogo in orange.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6858378&postcount=91

… snip … Folsom claimed that the statement was made during testimony before the Congressional Ways and Means Committee.

In reality, it was said at a private meeting between Morgenthau and the chairman of that committee, Robert Doughton,

And guess what?

http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html

Citing the 1939 Morgenthau quote

Sometime ago I blogged here about tracking down a 1939 Morgenthau quote that was going around the Internet, and I found Alan Caruba. There were a number of comments, some disbelieving. Another reader, Jared Nourse of Williams College, class of 2011, contacted me by e-mail with additional information:

"I was recently browsing the web for the 1939 Morgenthau quote and came across your blog post of Feb 2009, which motivated me to look into the question further. I'm sure you've long since come to terms with the mystery, but I uncovered the full language of the original quote in a scholarly article, which sets to rest some of Anonymous' unease with the quote. … snip … Here it is:

[U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr.]: No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises…But why not let’s come to grips? And as I say, all I am interested in is to really see this country prosperous and this form of Government continue, because after eight years if we can’t make a success somebody else is going to claim the right to make it and he’s got the right to make the trial. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.


Mr. Doughton: And an enormous debt to boot!


HMJr.: And an enormous debt to boot! We are just sitting here and fiddling and I am just wearing myself out and getting sick. Because why? I can’t see any daylight. I want it for my people, for my children, and your children. I want to see some daylight and I don’t see it…


—Transcript of private meeting at the Treasury Department, May 9, 1939, F.D. Roosevelt Presidential Library

Horwitz, Steven. "Great Apprehensions, Prolonged Depression: Gauti Eggertsson on the 1930s." Econ Journal Watch 6.3 (2009): 313-36. Web.10 Aug 2010.

He notes that Folsom cites the transcript as well.

Here is a link (http://econjwatch.org/articles/grea...nged-depression-gauti-eggertsson-on-the-1930s ) so everyone can see that the article by Steven Horwitz mentioned above says exactly what is claimed. Just download where it says "Full Article pdf" to read it.

So it does indeed look like Blum misled you, ANTPogo, by selectively editing out the gentleman phrase that was in the diary. Either that or you lied about actually reading what Blum wrote. Or you dishonestly misquoted him. And it appears you lied about who Folsom actually cited for the quote in his book. (I notice that you didn't actually supply a link to the source from which you got your Blum quote and it's really unclear how carefully you read Folsom's book given you claimed he said things that he clearly didn't. )