|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Nov 20, 2006 12:07:48 GMT -5
I heard the show Marc one of the best. I hope Stef will be guess again. It's always beautiful, but all your shows are so informative and 1hr is killing me. |
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Nov 27, 2006 18:32:34 GMT -5
FDA
Cherry Trafficking? :DLOL
Something that is just there? So if you like to chew fig leafs and I become aware of the market for this, I'm abiding by law to labeling the content of my edible product. Competition wise, I can further suggest on the product label as "The Best" or "Good For You" right? Is it science to determine my product will fill you up? such as Snickers bars or Taco Bell state? Not everybody has the same full threshold. Is it fair to include all ingredients and list benefit info per ingredient? Is it science to state that my Snicker's Bar may have been made near peanuts? Is there scientific assumption that my well being may be jeopardized due consumption of this peanut? Is this really A warning for the safety of the populace or A protection concern for the wellbeing of A company that provides great monetary benefit for government. One day just as Vincente Fox made marijuana legal for an hour (sarcastic) Here in the united states it will also happen after they fully become aware of something they can never contain. Do apple seeds really contain cyanide? "Science has failed the Mother Earth".
I believe most of it's works are under the guise of protecting society from fraudulent proclamations, but unfortunately many times it has come down to who are you going to believe, yourself or the government
Married Without A license
When it gets legal as far as divorce and supports and other benefit such as renting or purchasing housing, things would have to be legal for government to participate in supposed fair litigations. Again giving the people the appearance their works are in our best interest.
Currency
how best to contain a market other than to designate one type of currency, Ultimately controlling the advent of A currency chaos due to saturation of multi-currencies. Would their be A problem with multi-currency? I haven't looked inside my head as far as weighing what affect there would be in the future of multi-currency.
Idiotical
Aren't we told or pushed to learn law? So why shouldn't I represent myself if I know the law equally as any lawyer?
and why deny me? very contradictory. Don't J-walk!
"Hey I just learned A Law"
Dug The show
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Nov 28, 2006 8:17:22 GMT -5
Hey, if one is delusional enough to see The State, then one is in The State of mind to surely see (accept) most anything after all. So, good citizen, surely you can see the danger of the likes of unregulated cherries!?!
When you have these moments of grand illusion (aka "hey, the emperor has no clothes!") simply remember the likes of Santa & The Tooth Fairy & The Easter Bunny-- where mommy & daddy (The State/authority) gets to say anything and it goes!
Oh, and recall "The Honorable" (Judge) Humpty Dumpty's words that live in infamy.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all."
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Nov 28, 2006 13:48:43 GMT -5
I love the uncanny ability of everyone but me, the Recalling of text and verbal quotes. A lot of it (truths) seems to slip up in made for children type media.
Alice in Wonderland? Wisdom, you can find nearly everywhere. Especially in the old children classics. fantastic phrase. playstation and nintendo have all but ruined any future foods for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Dec 9, 2006 16:33:20 GMT -5
anyone besides myself having problem playing the Dec 9th* show from the RBN archives as of Dec 9 4:22pm est? I've tried all 3 options but can only seem to get about 3-4 minutes of the broadcast to ever play; I even tried downloading/'saving' the .mp3 file option but only get a blip of a file saved...  * [or was it the Dec 7th show, marc?!? otay, otay, easy for an east coast dude to snicker about, eh?! lol ;D.] |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 9, 2006 18:19:18 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
time to ban the eye2 guy. ;D
I even wrote the date down so I would not screw it up. I really messed up the time zones, instead of 2 hours, I went back 2 days.
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Dec 30, 2006 15:29:36 GMT -5
Marc,
On the Dec 30th show you posed an opening commentary question regarding "why?" do people overall seem to perpetually believe in Government as the answer. Stefan & Christine Molyneux point out what is perhaps a key aspect of this, that being the Parental factor. Most of the last 3 generations or so have had the double whammy of having Statist indoctrination paralleled with the parental role/influence in the formative years, where the parental authority position is naturally grounded. Couple the natural order of parental authority with Statist propaganda as equally authoritative, supported further by parental reinforcement, and perhaps we grasp the root of said blind perpetual support of The State Order?
Noting then how difficult it is to bring, particularly young, children to embrace that their parents could be in error, to the degree that they would reject and leave them!?! Then couple that with all the fear propaganda that adults get-- as the State's benefactor/protectorate "child" (mental children) --then have to embrace regarding rejecting as being separated from their life-long Government Authority? Perhaps its like the reaction tendency found when children find out that their parents are divorcing? Interesting then too, noting that there are two ("monogamous"?) parties in The State political. Daddy Republican and Mommy Democrat ala bi-partisan? All "the children" have known, all their life...
--eye2i2hear
ps: further in the Dec 3oth program... regarding the "commandment" of JewDay-Old-Christianity ala "love The Lord" and "love thy neighbor", it still amazes me that one that can so clearly see the "land" of The State with its CONstitution-- aka words --can not see the exact, precise parallel in the "world" of The Word --aka words (of men). But in that amazement, I of course recall the "parental" aspect already covered regarding Statists "children" above. Having "been there/done that" of course I understand the "command" to slip...er... "sow seed" into the conversation aka "witness opportunity", so I certainly know from whence such insertion in your program comes. But really, how confusing is it to say "love The Lord"? Right up there with determining what The Constitution "says"/means. Questioning then why folks cannot seem to open their eyes to "The State" (Father) seems contradictory when considering why folks can't seem to open their eyes to The Word (Father/The Lord). imo, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by dentistsugardust on Dec 31, 2006 1:07:47 GMT -5
I Adamantly Agree
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Dec 31, 2006 11:30:40 GMT -5
I'll wishy-washily kinda sorta agree... maybe...
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on Dec 31, 2006 13:52:06 GMT -5
On the Dec 30th show you posed an opening commentary question... That if perhaps asked rhetorically, then... ? Wherein I'd offer my best Emily Litella impersonation here: " Nevermind".  |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 1, 2007 14:23:14 GMT -5
Marc,
I just finished listening to the Dec. 30, 2006 show and it was absolutely delightful in it's insanity. What a great sendoff for the end of 2006.
The show gave me an idea. Everything you said on the show (aside from your own commentary) was a direct quote from material that you either recorded with permission or that is part of the public record, if I recall correctly.
Here's the idea: Make a theatrical production of this. (Theatrical meaning: a movie, a cartoon, a comic strip, etc.) Make the ENTIRE piece direct quotes. Do not put in a single piece of verbiage which is not from the mouths of people actually involved in the legal process. Naturally you would edit this in such a manner as to portray the events as you want for the most effective portrayal of the insanity that is the system, but the VALUE this would have is that each and every word spoken would be directly attributable, linkable and quotable. You would want to point this out very clearly either in the beginning or at the end. You might even post the script with actual links for those who want to check out the source material.
I'm thinking of the South Park episode on Scientology. It was SUCH a farce, and yet every idea they presented was truthful as regards Scientology. Perhaps you could even sell this to the South Park production people.
But this would be even better in that there would be NO fiction at all. EVERY WORD spoken would be actual quotes from the legal process. The imagery would of course be a fiction; it could be acted by actors in a set of some sort, or characters in a cartoon sequence, or whatever. I think that this could possibly be a viral event of significant value in spreading knowledge of the insanity of the tax system.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by dudeman on Jan 1, 2007 18:16:57 GMT -5
Marc, I just finished listening to the Dec. 30, 2006 show and it was absolutely delightful in it's insanity. What a great sendoff for the end of 2006. The show gave me an idea. Everything you said on the show (aside from your own commentary) was a direct quote from material that you either recorded with permission or that is part of the public record, if I recall correctly. Here's the idea: Make a theatrical production of this. (Theatrical meaning: a movie, a cartoon, a comic strip, etc.) Make the ENTIRE piece direct quotes. Do not put in a single piece of verbiage which is not from the mouths of people actually involved in the legal process. Naturally you would edit this in such a manner as to portray the events as you want for the most effective portrayal of the insanity that is the system, but the VALUE this would have is that each and every word spoken would be directly attributable, linkable and quotable. You would want to point this out very clearly either in the beginning or at the end. You might even post the script with actual links for those who want to check out the source material. I'm thinking of the South Park episode on Scientology. It was SUCH a farce, and yet every idea they presented was truthful as regards Scientology. Perhaps you could even sell this to the South Park production people. But this would be even better in that there would be NO fiction at all. EVERY WORD spoken would be actual quotes from the legal process. The imagery would of course be a fiction; it could be acted by actors in a set of some sort, or characters in a cartoon sequence, or whatever. I think that this could possibly be a viral event of significant value in spreading knowledge of the insanity of the tax system. - NonE NonE, This is a great idea; in fact I would rank it second only to the invention of the wheel ;D as the greatest idea in human history. Seriously, in this day & age of technology that allows the common man to make some sort of video production on a shoestring budget and iweb-cast it to millions, this is the sort of thing that we need. We are involved in a war-no, not a guns & bullets war-but an information war. Our job is to put the plain, ugly truth about the "legal system" in front of as many people as possible and let people see the lawyers, judges, politicians, et. al. for the crooks and fools (& killers) that they are. You referenced South Park; I bet you the creators of that show could do something great with this stuff. I'll have my people call your people; let's do lunch tomorrow at Wolfgang Puck's. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 1, 2007 20:11:38 GMT -5
Not as good as the wheel, huh? Hmph!
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 1, 2007 22:34:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dudeman on Jan 7, 2007 20:49:13 GMT -5
I tried to download the mp3 file of the Jan. 6 show from rbnlive.com but I'm getting a "the requested URL is not available on this server." Is there a problem? Will this be fixed?
|
|
