|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Nov 13, 2006 11:50:46 GMT -5
Marc, Marc, Marc, RBN 11/11 (doesn't 11/11 hold some significants?)
U Know The problem with dignitaries or (Dig-Nits) is that I've noticed that when you (Marc Stevens) pose questions, especially questions that aren't politically anchored for cliche' political spin, they become flustered at the advent of coming up with an intelligent response and at becoming cornered, they attack. Once the light of the question really shines on them, what we get out of these are the deer in the light or the diaboloical vampire understudy. Lawyers, politicians And the police. These people become so frightened when caught out of their element and once they're with those feelings right at the footsteps of being shamed, they will not answer at the thought of making a statement that their peers will look down upon as it threatens their entire, which is A confession that they live in fear. What goes on in their heads in those moments? We all remember the feeling of trying to figure the perfect lie out of situation. Even as they become caught, they will insist that they are not. It's like the person you throw off you into A deep volcano and they happen to get hold of a piece of your clothing with that look in their eyes of "I don't wanna die" "forgive me. " Help me". But it's only A look, and they don't really want your help. They've been bred in believing they are above me and you.
You're A Bad Man, Marc Stevens
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Nov 13, 2006 17:16:07 GMT -5
regarding "live interviews"/taped interviews to date... from the "fwiw" category, mye2 cents worth first-- duly granting that by nature perhaps I'm too sympathetic --i honestly found myself, from what I hope to have been a genuine case of 'The Golden Rule' application, feeling a tad disconcerted during almost all of the interviews; i actually caught myself having those feelings, as to then question whether they were warranted. I think then its centrally a human nature thing; none of us like being in a position, or even feeling we are potentially in a position, to be embarrassed, period; much less with the thought of being before a crowd, as "on the public record", and being embarrassed; that touch of fear, whether natural or something in need of de-programming, then adds the potential-- via distraction if nothing else --that easily enuff leads to a being in a guarded position. I mean, after all, we can relate to this level of "representative" as being from the same public schools ala civics class we were in, no? So prior to our having been awakened (much less the time we've had since to sober up), how might we have felt in a similar questioning scenario? I guess what i'd offer is simply to make the questions as "normal"--again, from that indoctrinated perspective --as possible. Admittedly, a tad inherently difficult to do, as after all, we working with legaleze! I totally agree that the answers being sought are legitimate ones and indeed should be issues that people in these positions should know the answer to. Again, tho unsure why, i've just found the questions thus far initially a tad disconcerting. Along the line of specific questioning, i wonder if you might consider developing a couple of opening questions as to this biz about this being a nation of law. For example, an excerpt from a White House press release of Oct. 2006: " We're sending a clear signal that we're a nation of law, and laws will be enforced. President George W. Bush is joined by Arizona legislators as he signs ..." Whitehouse.gov/news/releasesThis might tie in your questions regarding a state's constitution (ie nation of law = written law) for making a smoother transition? Something along the line of a "leading" question?! Or perhaps something along the line of a question regarding how the law is available to the people? So the questions might go something like: Q: According to The Courts, the U.S. is a nation of law, agree? A: Correct. Q: Ok, and would you agree that this law then is in written and published form? A: Yes. Q: Ok, now where are the foundational laws written, upon which all State and local legislation must be based? A: The State's Constitution. Q: Ok. Do you feel any representative of the people should be pretty familiar with their respective State's Constitution, as it is the foundation of any and all legislation? A: Yes/Well they should.... etc Q: Now, are you aware that The State of [ name ]'s Constitution specifically states what the first purpose of The State is? A: No Q: So you wouldn't happen to know what that stated purpose is then? A: Yes/No Q: Regardless, would you agree that all legislation must conform to that stated purpose or otherwise it is null and void (or illegal/unlawful)? etc... All that said, Marc please know that as to "a feel", I also feel it easily comes across that you are sincere in your interviews. So again, I don't think its anything primarily but the discomfort potential of being all too aware of the "unfamiliar"-- which puts one on guard --that is simply human nature. That then followed up with facing either a bad case of delusion/denial or a legit case of embarrassment! respectfully, --eye2i2hear |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Nov 14, 2006 7:22:53 GMT -5
2i2's thoughts have stimulated this from me:
Marc,
In your get-out-of-court-free-card (your scripts) you have a very specific set of questions which pretty much force the hand (and mind) of the "court" into stating and revealing it's position, and once you have done that you hold it's feet to the fire. Perhaps you might give some consideration to this same kind of procedure in questioning the bureaucrats. It just might get them thinking more about what they are doing instead of automatically shutting you off and shutting down thinking because you are "just some wacko!" It also might assist the listeners to your audio, who may be unsure of the issues themselves, to be able to see more clearly the reality of the bureaucratic position.
So, instead of jumping in with the deal-killer-question right up front (what is the purpose of government?), you might begin with something along the lines of, "Do you believe that it is important for a government agent to be sure about his position before threatening the life, property or well-being of a citizen?" (That is too complicated to be a good example, but may get my idea across to you.)
Anyway, just some thoughts on the subject...
- NonE
addendum:
Remember, it is not the people who are the problem, it is the ideas that they/we hold which are. Therefore while it may be fun to make someone feel like an ass and to get them all flustered and ranty, it does nothing to change their minds, rather, it reinforces the idea that others are dangerous and must be controlled because they have all of this dangerous thinking.
The ideas are the enemy, not those holding them. (And do note that I realize I very often don't act as loftily as I preach, being human and all...)
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Nov 14, 2006 13:52:01 GMT -5
You Guys Are Right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 14, 2006 14:57:13 GMT -5
So, instead of jumping in with the deal-killer-question right up front (what is the purpose of government?), you might begin with something along the lines of, "Do you believe that it is important for a government agent to be sure about his position before threatening the life, property or well-being of a citizen?" NonE, I just picked up my copy of the Secret Thesaurus of Terrorcrats, and apparently the word "threaten" is a synonym for "help" (just like "collect" is a synonym for "extort", but hey that's a whole other issue...  ) Help the gubmint help you to help yourself!  Remember, if you don't bend over and submit to the police state legislation, the terrorists will win! |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Nov 14, 2006 18:23:05 GMT -5
I remember that Thesourus well. They had to expand it during Clinton's reign to include all kinds of sexual stuff, too. I wonder, with the neocons if they are now coming out with a new edition where the sexual section is reexpanded to cover all of the new uses for words?
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 14, 2006 21:07:36 GMT -5
Yo, it don't matter none, home, cuz da New Cons be leaving, da Democrats be in da House now! Aiight?
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Nov 15, 2006 1:05:46 GMT -5
The ideas are the enemy, not those holding them. (And do note that I realize I very often don't act as loftily as I preach, being human and all...) An idea/belief is nothing without a sentient being that thinks/believes it. Ideas beliefs and thoughts contribute to stimulating action/reaction. An idea itself cannot hurt me but the one holding it who will act upon it can, especially if they believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Nov 15, 2006 9:10:14 GMT -5
No argument with you at all, Sagas. Nonetheless, it is the ideas that are the problems regardless of where they manifest.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Nov 16, 2006 1:32:30 GMT -5
NonE,
Yess that is true. You and I are in agreement on that.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Nov 17, 2006 15:23:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Nov 17, 2006 16:39:04 GMT -5
great article you linked to... It's kinda like how I used to try responding re. abortion, when folks would try to say "well then, are *you* going to adopt all the unwanted babies?" Um, if I express an opinion/observation that XYZ is morally evil/inefficient, how does that obligation me to find a morally right/efficient alternative to XYZ? |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Nov 17, 2006 18:27:16 GMT -5
"Um, if I express an opinion/observation that XYZ is morally evil/inefficient, how does that obligation me to find a morally right/efficient alternative to XYZ?"
To which the proper self-righteous pompous ass's reaction is a rolling of the eyes followed by, "Well if YOU don't understand THAT, I certainly can't explain it to you!" with a huff and a leaving of the scene.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Nov 17, 2006 21:27:24 GMT -5
Of course, not all politicians, bureaucrats and government apologists are as cool and professional as Tony "the definition of freedom is very flexible" Snow. Any disagreement with the government and his response is:
"They're confused."
Next question...
|
|
Freeborn
Full Member
In legal land armed robbery is ''taxation''
Posts: 199
|
Post by Freeborn on Nov 19, 2006 17:45:11 GMT -5
I heard the show Marc one of the best. I hope Stef will be guess again.
|
|
)
Remember, if you don't bend over and submit to the police state legislation, the terrorists will win!
