Writer urges others to save, prepare
The money supply has been doubled, out of thin air, in the last year, in addition to all of the previous increases. That is similar to British pounds and German marks being created in abundance in earlier times. Originally, the pound sterling was a pound of real silver. Today a pound of silver sells for considerably more than $200. A paper pound is worth less than $2, a more than 99 percent loss of value.
In Germany, a pound of butter cost 1.4 marks in 1914, 3.0 marks in 1918, 2,400 marks in 1922 and 6 billion marks in 1923. Many Germans starved. A few saw what was coming and acted on their understanding. They grew rich, just as a few Americans did during the Great Depression.
Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it. Individuals should learn and prepare. Some people may become angry at me, but I’m just the messenger, trying to alert them. I didn’t cause it. Within the next two years, possibly sooner, they may face starvation. A few will learn and prosper. There will be no in-between.
There’s generally a lag of at least 18 months, or a bit longer, between monetary inflation and price inflation. The window to prepare is closing fast. Act now.
Roger M. Clites
Johnson City, Tenn.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
What do you really mean?
Farmer,
Again, your reasoning skills leave us all in wonderous amazement. Let’s take your synopsis and break it down. First you write “It’s so funny how you constantly bash Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity.“
Why is that funny? And, what constitutes “constantly” to you?
You wrote: “Look, if you don’t like those guys, fine, just don’t listen to them. (I doubt seriously they’d be upset if you didn’t listen.) It should be so simple.“
How do you know how much I listen to these people? Your statement would indicate that you are somehow privy to how I spend my personal time. So, the reality is that this statement of yours makes no sense whatsoever, given you have no emperical evidence to support it. Basically, you have established yourself as some type of authority on the validity of a persons opinions about these people and you base it on how time you think others listen to them.
You wrote: “On the other hand, if you didn’t see them as somewhat legitimate, I doubt you’d spend so much time on them.“
Now that is a puzzling non sequitar you put forth. You assume that because I listen to them I must therefore find them legitimate. Is it then your contention that legitimacy is established by merely listening to someone? Wow! That is a profound belief you have there. Should I assume then that because you “constantly” read what I write, you find me legitimate?
You wrote:“Think about this….How often do you see/hear conservatives bash guys like Olbermann and Maddow?“
Do I really need to answer that? Is it your insinuation that conservatives don’t often “bash” these two people? Your statement here indicates that at best you are ill informed. The same people you seemingly defend here do exactly what you indicate doesn’t happen. Furthermore, you yourself, in your statement, have bashed Maddow. So, yes it does happen.
You wrote:“(I think Maddow is a guy, but I’m not sure.)
Isn’t that bashing by a conservative?
You wrote:“Anyway, most conservatives don’t like those folks so they don’t listen to them, and therefore don’t post time after time on here about them. They, and their 16 viewers, play a very small role.“
Another logical fallacy from you. For your statement to make any sense, we must assume that viewership is made up of those in opposition. You are indicating here that because their ratings are smaller than conservatives, it is because they lack conservative viewers/listeners. Secondly, for you to assert that because the conservatives who participate here don’t “bash” Olbermann and Maddow it is somehow an indication that “most” conservatives don’t like them. confusing to say the least. Are you sayng that failure to “bash” Olbermann by the 10-15 people who frequently participate here is proof of your theory? Wow! what a wonderful scientific analysis. You have single handedly re-defined the mathematical laws of probability and statistics.
You wrote:“Face it, Bossman, the folks you choose to bash on here are pretty popular, and getting more popular.“
How many logical fallacies can you fit in to one paragraph Farmer? Glenn Beck averages around 2.5 million viewers each day on FOX. This means that less than 1% of the population of this country pay attention to him. In fact, when Beck was on CNN he had less than one million viewers, which would indicate that he simply gained popularity by being placed in a venue of like minded people. Preaching to the choir so to speak. So, yeah, these guys are popular amongst the fringe fanatics in our society. But, popular among reasonable people, I think not.
You wrote:“And I know you’d never admit it, but lots of the new listeners these guys have are former liberals who finally saw the light. That kind of bothers you doesn’t it, Bossman?“
A fallacy of hasty generalization Farmer. Perhaps you would be generous enough to point me to the evidence which you have that indicates “lots” of new listeners are Liberals who have seen the light. For that matter, perhaps you could let me know how many “new” listeners these guys have. Surely you have some type of factual support for your assertions or are you just pulling stuff our of your backside…...again?
I’ve been saving a lot this time, but i still need to pay for my loans. Payday lending gets a bad rap. Essentially the argument is that lenders open up a shop in poor areas to prey upon the desperate, but when payday lending as an industry is studied, that isn’t the universal case, at all. Think about it this way: payday lenders and pawn shops tend to be located in areas where inhabitants have typically lower credit scores and less access to credit, which is true according to a study by the Federal Reserve, headed by Robin Prager, which is to say that – and listen to this one closely – SUPPLY HAS FOLLOWED DEMAND. Perhaps instead of railing at payday lenders and payday loans, you might try coming up with a solution to poverty you cads.
I like listening to Glen beck myself, and like alot of what he has to say. I guess my favorite one to listen to though would be Neal Boortz! Therer very informative and truthful, and the truth is something that alot of people cannot stand, and that is why they are hated so much!
Chester (Bossman),
It’s so funny how you constantly bash Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity. Look, if you don’t like those guys, fine, just don’t listen to them. (I doubt seriously they’d be upset if you didn’t listen.) It should be so simple.
On the other hand, if you didn’t see them as somewhat legitimate, I doubt you’d spend so much time on them. Think about this….How often do you see/hear conservatives bash guys like Olbermann and Maddow? (I think Maddow is a guy, but I’m not sure.) Anyway, most conservatives don’t like those folks so they don’t listen to them, and therefore don’t post time after time on here about them. They, and their 16 viewers, play a very small role.
Face it, Bossman, the folks you choose to bash on here are pretty popular, and getting more popular. And I know you’d never admit it, but lots of the new listeners these guys have are former liberals who finally saw the light. That kind of bothers you doesn’t it, Bossman?
Yep….keep laughing Chester….you’ll have plenty of company when your world crashes down around your ears.
Never been a paper fiat to survive long term, and the US buck sure won’t be the first. Gold over 1100 today is a reflection of the value the world places on the dollar.
And don’t forget to call the Glenn Beck Hotline for some fantastic deals on some backyard bunkers, food supplies, and ammunition.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement