|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 10, 2006 14:10:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Apr 10, 2006 15:05:41 GMT -5
If you're regulating the sale and the sale is the objective which she constantly repeated, then why not arrest the licensee who made the sale as well as the intoxicated patron?
I'm sorry folks but I did not hear where Marc was even slightly discourteous, let alone battering the woman.
At 36:55 we get to the real Q&A. She said they have a "RESPONSIBILITY" to do this and Marc simply reminded here of her words and questioned her on that. She agreed and said we have been tasked with that responsibility [i.e. to protect the people of Texas] by the legislature. At 37:40 Marc reads directly from one of her High priests opinions, (No Duty to Protect) I have a question or so you see the issue if the agency is being told there is a duty to protect when the lawyers and courts are saying there is not. Her response (no longer to "protect" since she's been called on it) now it's our duty is to ENFORCE THE LAW, as if the earlier comments about the law being written buy "duly" elected people means anything.
Well which is it? Is the duty to protect or is it to enforce the law? Although the law can be in harmony with protection (as it is merely an opinion), most often it is not and therefore to say our duty is to enforce the law is in direct contradiction to her earlier comments of saying we have been tasked with ["protection of the people"] by the legislature.
There is no financial benefit to *our agency*. (Well revenue does go to the state doesn't it?) She said the licenses and permits pay for the regulation evenly and then suggests that the other guy (the attorney) could answer a question on raising revenue but "that other guy" who is a lawyer Marc referred to was the one who claimed the county had no duty to protect which has nothing to do with raising revenue. (Classic case of I'm not responsible don't ask me ask the other guy).
Marc: "Would you agree, If there is Legally no duty to protect the people that the raising of the revenue or the regulation of that particular industry is not to protect the people?; it;s for something else."
Agent: "No I can't agree with that".
...
Marc: (paraphrase) you can't sue the city of Austin successfully for protection if you car is stolen.
Agent: "That doesn't mean they not trying".
Now if the questions which are based upon her own words are beyond the scope of her expertise and her job then why the bleep did she make statements "beyond the scope of her expertise and her job" in the first place? She says Marc is trying to go beyond her duty as a spokes person, and that she is not an attorney so she can't speak to the laws, but in the same breath says, "I'm here to explain to you what were doing why and WHAT THE LAWS ARE THAT BACK THAT UP".
Just after that Marc asks about someone selling without a license and again she defers to quoting something she not 30 seconds ago said she was unqualified to discuss. . . . THE LAW.
Well my question would then be "why tell me what the law is if you are not qualified to tell me what the law is, discuss, or explain it then"?
I think 2i2 has it right. They are dunk on the maddening wine of their power made from the blood of their prey.
My take is that she wanted to simply state the party line and not answer any difficult questions so she claims to be unqualified to answer matters of law but wants to tell you what it is that you have to obey . . . . BECAUSE IT's THE LAW!!!
WE DONT WRITE THE LAW WE JUST ENFORCE IT.
What a wonderful excuse. . . .
I'M JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. . . .
GREAT Interview Marc I did not hear any battering or badgering.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 10, 2006 15:17:21 GMT -5
GREAT Interview Marc I did not hear any battering or badgering. " Happy to hear that  " - me (aka "someone who hasn't yet listened to the interview") Just a thought: MURDER = legally defined, "The *unlawful* taking of a life, something like that. Therefore military murder, capitalpunishment murder, abortionmurder, physicanmistake murder are all "not" murder because of the "law" [being enforced]. Similarly, 19th century: Slavery GOOD, cuz the "law" sez it is good (or at least "legal")... then later that same century Slavery BAD cuz the SAME set of "law" sez it is not good anymore (or at least "illegal").  wuh? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by moosedog on Apr 11, 2006 0:49:22 GMT -5
I dont think Marc was badgering her. The interview did take a turn when Marc disagreed with her and took the position the gov't has no duty to protect. At this point she seems becomes defensive. Then he follows up asking her if the agency's role is to protect or to raise revenue. After telling her the supreme court says there is no duty to protect he then implies they're just raising revenue, what she gunna say "yes, we're greedy state shills just stealing people's money." I think Marc's timing was a little off in this interview, he probably should've continued along with his socratic questioning method and waited till the end of the show to take a position. If she was a judge, she would've just denied your position and threatened you with contempt, since she's not- she took the Nuremburg pity defense "I'm just doing my job."
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Apr 11, 2006 11:57:40 GMT -5
side-bar: I have to snicker (ok, even if to myself) a little here, as for myself, immediately after writing my initial reaction to the show and cliking "Post" in this thread, wondering if how I 'hear' the words "battered" and "badgered" would be the same other's "hear" here... where I honestly wondered if I'd used a word to best describe my feelings. I would confess, I tend now to hear "battered" with a 'PC' slant per the ever "news" speak of spousal abuse. I snickered again as considering that a baseball player "battering" is then "good"! With further reflection (and perhaps significantly in noting I have not relistened to the show) perhaps my reaction (live, as real time, as it was, and I think that's significant, actually) was to have simply sensed either frustration or futility/disappointment in the interview course. Perhaps it just sounded too much like an (insignificant) game, as each side simply getting drafted in to "a win" affair rather than true dialog/debate to persuade? To say (judge) whether this lady was an emotional dupe being played like a card in the king's game (espousing the 'party line'), or a jack-booted thug slinking back via disguise (ie "coppin' out"), I don't feel I can say. My reaction during the live process, however, was to give her the benefit of the doubt, as then to wish a different point(s) could have been found regarding helping her 'seeing' her State of mind(set). I sincerely wish to again, for the 'record', note this is not a judgment of Marc; hopefully, just a feedback critique that prompts for an ever-improving 'batting average'  in the future~ eye2i fwiw: |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 12, 2006 17:44:31 GMT -5
Just finished listening to the show, finally. You did fine, Marc... Probably in hindsight it was virtually pointless to have her on, for the same reason it would be pointless to have former A.G. Ashcroft on, or even the local county sherriff: most terrorcrats will (as you said about cops on the witness stand) go on and on offering *clearly* "legal opinions", and then when it suits them they will say "I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on that... I can't continue in this conversation" etc. Which is what she did. Primarily in the last 10 minutes. IMHO, you showed almost superhuman restraint, there were plenty of times she got to go on repeating her fallacious mantras about "protecting the public", without you questioning her what she meant by her mantras... and I think that was all you could do, since her brainwashing is self-imposed now. It was only in your last few sentences that you really started to let your position be clearly declared. You made excellent, very skilled points re. how the "Supreme Court" has made it clear that a case lacking in either rights being violated, or an actual injury to those rights, means it is not a valid cause of action ... but it was too late (for her) so hopefully some listeners benefited at least. ...here's hopin' one of her legal buddies agrees to comes on the show to "defend her honour/the home turf" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by stefbot on Apr 12, 2006 17:58:15 GMT -5
Hi everyone, it's Stefan Molyneux - thanks for the kind words about my article - if you're interested, I have a podcast as well as a blog, which I think you might really enjoy, at www.freedomainradio.com |
|
|
|
Post by creolefood on Apr 12, 2006 18:26:03 GMT -5
re: Marc's show with the TX Alcohol lady, yes, Marc you did show remarkable restraint and civility. Like how the first half to three quarters of the show, you discussed with her exactly what their program is, how they carry it out, what they hope to accomplish, etc. I think that was very important so that you, and the listeners, had an accurate idea of the program.
It was telling that, when you asked her (and I forget the exact words you used) "is this program a means to protect the public or to raise revenue?" she paused and had to think about it; I doubt many bureaucrats are confronted with that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Apr 12, 2006 19:39:59 GMT -5
I actually had Anna Park commit to do the show this weekend. She is the lead attorney for the EEOC who filed suit against Lawry's The Prime Rib in LA. She emailed me and declined to do the show though.
I am lining up a former US attorney and former IRS district counsel. At least he won't have the "I'm not an attorney" excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by dudeman on Apr 13, 2006 21:36:36 GMT -5
Marc,
You wrote, "I am lining up a former US attorney and former IRS district counsel. At least he won't have the "I'm not an attorney" excuse."
Would that be one person who was both a US attorney and also a IRS district counsel? Or two separate people? Since they/he/she is/are no longer thieves I wonder if they'll speak more freely? That could truly be a breakthrough show.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Apr 13, 2006 22:49:32 GMT -5
I have spoken with a former US attorney and IRS counsel and he may do the show in May. I would imagine since he's doing defense work he'd be more open to discuss the issues and answer the questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 18, 2006 12:19:44 GMT -5
GL this coming Thursday, Marc. I'm sure you know the likelihood will drop that you'll get a truly fair interview with A.J. , once you start questioning the legitimacy of *any* kind of government... but you'll do it anyway ;D Here's hoping Alex Jones' millions of listeners, and hopefully website visitors (I'm guessing your interview will go on the website so long as you mention a few simple facts why 9-11 was a government domestic terrorism operation) will realize the flaw in many paytriot's belief in trusting your "local, county, city government officials" to clean up the "corrupt higher levels". I'm tired; I hope this makes sense. PS: WTG! Can't believe they finally agreed to have you on! Do you have a "plan" of what you want to say before control of the direction of topics gets taken away from you? |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 20, 2006 13:05:27 GMT -5
GL -- hopefully that hour (the third hour, after Alex rants about 'illegal immigration' and 'back to the constitutional limits of government', of course  ) will not be a 15 minute ambush followed by 45 minutes of callers asking you to explain who will build roads, feed the poor, pay for "social security" etc. - - - update 11:30am CST: the infowars.com website has been updated, perhaps Alex will be focusing on the scam of fiat currency and so Marc can talk about voluntary economic solutions to the money problem as well as related issues (and avoid being interrupted by statist objections by Alex or callers)... uh-oh, Spot The Presumptions: to discuss the unconstitutional income tax and the monitary fraud being perpetrated on the world by the global banks. I say again my friend, Good Luck ;D Sweet! Alex just mentioned that he is now offering Marc's book in the Infowars.com store!  ...may the thousands of listeners who hear Marc's interview today buy the book and have fun on the journey down the rabbit hole... >> store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/adinlela.html << ^ ( ;D top of the list of 'recommended' list -- store.yahoo.com/infowars-shop/test.html ) - - - PS: Hey Alex, not a "conspiracy" why Marc hasn't been on in a while? Wait, I thought Marc has *never* been on!  |
|
Blade
Full Member
"Think for yourself. Question authority."
Posts: 126
|
Post by Blade on Apr 20, 2006 13:08:04 GMT -5
I'm listening right now. It doesnt surprise me Alex is taking up Marcs time. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Apr 20, 2006 13:13:02 GMT -5
I'm listening right now. It doesnt surprise me Alex is taking up Marcs time. ;D Gold, gold, gold, buy gold, gold, gold, it's going higher, buy gold... "Near the end of the hour -- we will debate his view that no state is legitimate" ...ooo... Wow, Alex, that's mighty brave of you -- of course since you're the host you will likely control the direction of the debate, i.e. the questions you will ask will be loaded, filled with colelctivist presumptions not much different than asking "have you stopped beating your wife"... But here's one individualist hoping I'm wrong |
|
"
wuh? 
in the future~
) will not be a 15 minute ambush followed by 45 minutes of callers asking you to explain who will build roads, feed the poor, pay for "social security" etc. 
