Comment: Assume?

(See in situ)


When "it is safe to assume" why is the first assumption by a large number of people here always seems to be "NOT good"?

I mean what if Dr Paul was correct when he said Greenspan is coming back to his original position on gold, and may soon publish a new book on the subject? What if Dr Paul's assumptions are correct and the Federal Reserve really does now own all the gold in Ft Knox, if not a size-able portion of the worlds total gold supply? What if Bernanke thinks Dr Paul's idea about legalizing gold as a legal tender alternative to the Federal Reserve Note, may not be a completely terrible idea, considering Ben's Fed owns most if not all of the gold? What if Ben, in order to save the Fed's future and his own, is exploring the possibilities of some new ideas to try out, and just wanted feedback and input from someone that he knows for certain is not just another yes man? What if Ben just wanted an opportunity to ask Ron off the record "Ron, why do you hate me so"?

My point is, not every safe assumption has to be a nefarious conspiracy.