facts versus opinions (presented as "facts")

[eye2i2hear]

I was reminded while listening to the recent No State Broadcast that it seems that one of the too successfully working tricks used by Statists is to present opinions when asked for the facts. An example in the broadcast was, when asked for the witnesses having first hand knowledge that one is a taxpayer, they respond with the details of one's 'employer'. Marc noted that asking an employer if they a.) are witnesses, and b.) are experts in the application of tax law gets to the facts of the matter: the employer wasn't a witness.

It's like with "The Constitution". There is the fact of it (the paper, ink, sentences, etc exists) that too easily lends to referring to the title makes it (seem) factual. JT in the broadcast mentioned that pointing at a Santa Claus at a mall doesn't make that "Santa Claus" --yet, with all the factual matter (clothing, beard, etc), it is factually (a) Santa Claus -just ask anybody/everybody (it's just not the real unreal Santa!?! :rolleyes: ).

My point being that it seems our having been indoctrinated all our lives too easily lends us to being led into confusing opinions as being the facts. I wonder if anyone has any tips, pointers, or tools for overcoming that enticement when encountering bureaucrats?