Bix Weir thinks we have an unlikely ally in Greenspan:

[Cebu_4_2]

Thanks to DMac, this has to be read in its own post.
First read I doubted but it is quite possible a real thing.
Kennedy died trying, could Greenspan out smart the Zionist Elitists?


Bix Weir thinks we have an unlikely ally in Greenspan:

http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/101.cfm

[Cebu_4_2]

evryone stealing DMacs post BUMP for the night crew

[FunnyMoney]

evryone stealing DMacs post BUMP for the night crew


Oh, I read it alright. It is disinformation. While there is a small amount of good advice mixed in, most of the article is false hope and false speculation. Greenspan is not going to defeat anybody, much less TPTB. He has enjoyed being one of them and if a gold standard comes into being, he will have a party with the elite and they will get a good laugh out of it as it will mean they have taken full corrupted control of an entirely disfunctional world...

Didn't you read my explanation of what a future gold standard would look like...

http://gold-silver.us/forum/general-discussion/confiscation-of-gold-will-cause-civil-war/

[Cebu_4_2]

Yes I did read it but tend to disagree, completely. There will be no confiscation of gold/silver this round, the people wont contend with it. Have you read about how many people are or have received CCW's (concealed carry permits) and the like (some states use different terms) WTF is TPTB gonna do when people sell everything but only keep their firearms? Things have changed bro. I don't need to explain the simple ideology in this thread.

[Saul Mine]

I read until I lost interest. The best we can say about Greenspan is that he talks from both sides of his mouth.

[Ash_Williams]

I doubt it.

What Greenspan does makes sense in within the framework of what he can do. He took over as head of the fed decades after the fate of the economy was sealed, and he kept it as good as he could. His job was to try to lessen the negative effects of what was happening, not to impose his morals on the country. That's what a job is - you are restricted by someone else's decisions. He was the chairman of the fed, not the king of the world and president of the country. The most considerate shoe salesman on the planet will still sell me something that doesn't fit and may injure my feet if that is my final decision. The dentist can't force me to brush my teeth. Vegetarians sometimes work at fast food joints. Cops can't cross pot laws off the books. That's how jobs work.

Think of being offered a position as a judge. You could accept it, and immediately throw out every case if you didn't agree with the law. Then you last about one week. Or, you could do you job well enough to be satisfactory, and also use your position to do good, to maybe help out those who shouldn't be on trial a little. Now your influence can last years instead of days, and your presence as the judge fills the position so that it won't be left empty for some total asshole. You do what you can.

Greenspan isn't on your side or my side or their side, he's on his side. Instead of liking or hating him, the only smart thing to do is learn from him.

Edit: I'll also add, the way he answers questions is careful and that carefulness is ignored. He'll be asked something like "To make A happen should we do B or C" and he will answer "If you want A to happen, C is the best choice." The "If" is ignored by people quoting him, to suggest that he wants to use C to accomplish A.

Example: someone could ask me "I'm buying a house, should I get a fixed rate mortgage or a variable rate mortgage." I may start my answer with "If you insist on getting a mortgage to buy a house, then fixed rate is the better choice." The "if" is completely important to what I said and yet it will be ignored and I will later hear "You're against mortgages? You hypocrite, you told me to get a fixed-rate mortgage!" If you listen to the "if"s Greenspan uses, it's a lot less confusing...

[Awoke]

Example: someone could ask me "I'm buying a house, should I get a fixed rate mortgage or a variable rate mortgage." I may start my answer with "If you insist on getting a mortgage to buy a house, then fixed rate is the better choice." The "if" is completely important to what I said and yet it will be ignored and I will later hear "You're against mortgages? You hypocrite, you told me to get a fixed-rate mortgage!" If you listen to the "if"s Greenspan uses, it's a lot less confusing...


Uh, I actually found that very confusing.

[Ash_Williams]

Uh, I actually found that very confusing.

Ok.. how's this...

Greenspan is very logical, and he uses language very precisely. As the link mentions, he's a capable computer programmer, which is all about precision and understanding logic, cases, and cases within cases.

If you asked Greenspan, "I'm buying a handgun for deer hunting, do you think I should use a 38 special or the 44 mag?" then Greenspan may say "Given those options, the 44 would be better."

Then the media or the gimmer/gsuser would post "Greenspan says to hunt deer with a handgun and recommends 44 magnum cartridge." This would be a total misinterpretation of what he has said.

To be more precise, Greenspan recommended the 44 over the 38, in the case that someone wanted to go hunting with a handgun. He did not address if hunting deer with a handgun was a good idea. What he did do was to answer the question given to him. Some people have trouble understanding this, because what they would expect to hear is "Don't use a handgun for hunting deer, use a rifle."

This seems to be Greenspan's typical response to loaded questions. He simply answers them instead of reducing himself to their level or being drawn into the argument. I know you're a catholic so I could try to draw you into an argument by asking something like "If a priest wants to rape a kid should he buy the child's silence with candy or demand it with threats of violence?" You could shut me down by not losing your composure and just saying "well if he really wants to do that I think the threat of violence would be more effective." and that way you don't get drawn into a dispute that you don't want to bother with. The only problem is that someone listening might not "get it" and later claim you said that Catholic priests should rape kids and threaten them with violence to keep them silent.

He seems to also respond to bad questions this way. The media sucks. Interviewers suck. When someone asks a bad question, he gives them nothing by just answering it. I could ask you "what is your favorite food, salmon or pizza?" It's a bad question because both those choices could be wrong. You could say "Medium Rare steak with fresh corn", or you could just say "Of salmon and pizza, my favorite is pizza" and the interviewer may realize how stupid his question was. But again, the quote will be taken by some as "Awoke says pizza is his favorite food."

Actually I think every time I've heard him being asked a stupid question, he's responded that way. He just doesn't want to deal with people too incompetent to ask something properly and I imagine he believes that he doesn't have to. If someone ignores the subtlety of what he has said he just assumes they are stupid and he doesn't feel the need to "dumb down" his conversations to avoid misunderstandings. I bet if you saw him on the side of the road and asked "Can you tell me how to get to walmart?" he would just say "Yes I can."

Clinton's famous "definition of 'is'" thing was similar. They asked "Is there a relationship between you and Monica." Clinton said no, because the relationship had already ended. Had they asked "Was there a relationship" or "Is there or has there ever been a relationship" he would have answered yes. Then came the classic line that went something like: "It depends what your definition of 'is' is". To me, he was right. They asked if there was currently a relationship and he said no, so he told the truth. They didn't ask if there had been a relationship and he didn't elaborate.