Ziobuck Responds  

Sunday, August 27, 2006

It seems Ziobuck from over at Brad Stine's blog did make a couple of stops here this weekend, one on Friday afternoon, and one on Saturday evening. He said some interesting things, so let's get right to it:

Ya know...I'll bet we DO have more in common than not, especially regarding libs. Ha. Okay, I'll take back that LIB comment I directed at you. I have to admit....that WAS a low blow. Ha. Also, sorry you think I thought you were a kook. I thought I was just disagreeing with someone who I thought was WRONG (I have so much to learn).
Took back the lib comment ... Check. Admitted it was a low blow ... Check. Just disagreeing with someone you thought was wrong? Sorry I took a different meaning from his words? That whole lib coment labelled me as a kook. And wrong? Yeah, right. Much to learn you do have, my friend. It's ok, though. A hard-right blogger such as myself gets used to that kind of thing, it was just a little odd having it come from my own side of the aisle.
Your illustration about McCain-Feingold actually makes my point. It is bad law. It should have been vetoed by my president (who isn't the Reagan conservative I wish him to be) who, IMO, failed to uphold his constitutional duty by assuming the SUPREMEs would do their duty. Of course, the Supremes messed it up too.
McCain-Feingold doesn't illustrate your point at all. McCain-Feingold is an unlawful restriction upon free speech that should never have been passed in the first place, let alone signed by the president and upheld by the courts. You are demanding that the same kind of illegal law be enforced, and you shred your own argument in the process. I have been a major opponent of McCain-Feingold from the very beginning, and you can see from my sidebar content that I have no intention of paying it any heed whatsoever (e.g. "McCain-Feingold can kiss my ass" and "Screw McCain-Feingold").
BTW, I'm retired USAF and took my oath of commission seriously about defending the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC!
Great. I thank you for your service from the bottom of my heart. Still, what does this have to do with the domestic enemies of the Constitution that we repeatedly elect to office such as Bush, McCain, the Democrat Party? What have you done to defend against those who allow and enforce unconstitutional federal intrusion into our constitutional rights, since you were so eloquent in bringing that up and even emphasizing "DOMESTIC"?
I think where we part company is that you think our freedom of speech is and should remain unrestricted (public and private), whereas I believe in some basic "indecency" restrictions in our free speech codes (common sense stuff, like speech you wouldn't normally use around your mother) at the very least on our PUBLIC airwaves (notice I don't have a problem with garbage talk in a movie, on HBO, in a Las Vegas club, etc. I can protect my kids in those areas).
Let's take a look at this, ok? As evidence, I present the First Amendment:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
While we do agree that the founders intended this to mean political speech, there's also the freedom to have an opinion and voice it. That's why the semicolon appears AFTER the freedom of the press, and not between the two. Howard Stern, irrelevant idiot that he is, has every right to place his opinion of a good show into the marketplace. If people don't want to listen to him, they don't have to. Furthermore, you say you don't have a problem with garbage talk in a movie or on HBO, but you have one with XM radio, which is no different from HBO - it's a pay service. You have therefore killed your own argument.

Besides, if there weren't an audience for Stern, he wouldn't have a show. Market forces would ensure that. I don't like him, so I don't listen to him. With all the choices we have, especially this day and age, it doesn't make sense to argue that people should be telling each other what to listen to on the radio or watch on TV. There are good choices and bad, and it's easy to monitor. You can even turn the thing off if you don't like anything that's on. All this barking at and about Howard Stern is stupid. Stupider than his programming.
RWR, you suggested it was political free speech our Founding Fathers were referring to. So, why are you "protecting" someone's right to be pornographic in word and deed on our PUBLIC airwaves? Again, just because some SUPREMEs have ruled some of that garbage as free speech doesn't make it right (again, look at McCain-Feingold).
Again, XM is not "public airwaves", and the SUPREMES can kiss my ass. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I do not want people trampling upon MY constitutional rights - therefore I will defend those whose constitutional rights are under assault. Again, with so many ways for you and I not to be offended by things that come up on TV and the radio - hell, even in the news and on the internet - it just seems kind of stupid and petty to me to go after someone who's just being himself, not hurting anyone, and completely within his rights to be what he is and do what he does.
So what do we do, RWR, when we disagree with the courts? Appeal! Get a new case to go before the bench and hopefully get a different ruling. Ensure we elect folks who can appoint GOOD judges with common sense. (Let's VOTE okay?) I'm not [forcing] my beliefs on others as much as suggesting they should be up for a vote from the PEOPLE [versus] activist judges.
I have a different perspective on that. What I think we should do when we disagree with the courts has more to do with our Second Amendment rights than anything else. As far as I'm concerned, I couldn't care less how much common sense a judge has as long as he's using the Constitution as his guide and not the scriptures or foreign law. Someone who thinks in terms of original intent. Your insistence upon federal intervention (FCC) is at odds with the whole concept of limited government, and like all things that come by way of government in a small way, that way eventually becomes bigger and the program, law, department, or agency sooner or later begins to intrude upon your own rights and/or ability to sustain them. It's all too apparent today with the socialist programs of the 1930's and 1960's taking so much out of your pocket today that you can hardly live on the difference, while it didn't seem like such a big deal at their onset. People in America are expected to govern themselves.
Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
With rights come responsibilities. This is where my suggestion of persuading people against Stern comes in. You have as much right to your opinion and to speak that opinion as Howard Stern and, quite frankly, people who like to listen to him. Like Stern, you are not guaranteed an audience, but if your powers of persuasion and those of others like you are good enough, you may be successful. You may also be deemed a kook by the general populace, or at least by Stern's audience. It's a risk you take. It's a risk I take every time I post on this blog. It's also what freedom is all about. It's what you stood up to our enemies to defend.
Your comments on the FCC are interesting. I'll have to do some research. It might have saved us a lot of angst in our writings if that point was mentioned in one of your earlier posts. I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion about the FCC. There are many many federal agencies (correct me if I'm in error) that aren't specifically provided for in the Constitution, i.e., FBI, the Federal Reserve, IRS. Does that make them unlawful/unconstitutional? Ha (Perhaps... but they aren't going away soon).
The FBI is authorized under Article II, Section 3. The Federal Reserve is, in concept, authorized under Artice I, Section 8, but is unconstitutional in its present form, as outlined here. The IRS is a violation of Article I, Section 8. Congress alone has the power to collect taxes.

These things are not going away any day soon because people are too busy trying to use the government to create and enforce MORE unconstitutional laws, agencies, and actions to cater to whatever personal bitch they have with this person or that - or with this group of people or that. They don't see the long-term effects of their actions, and it doesn't look like they will until their own rights are infringed upon. Try buying a gun this day and age, for example.
I'm sure the FCC was created to regulate radiation power, band-width redistribution, conflicting radio signals, etc., so that public safety wasn't jeopardized. I, for one, am happy they can also regulate some of the indecency on our PUBLIC airwaves. I guess we'll never see eye to eye on that issue. --Ziobuck the loquacious
All well and good, Ziobuck, but where does the FCC get the constitutional authority to do any of this? You swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet you defend the very people and agencies that work to tear it down. That may make you a good Christian (I doubt it), but it definitely doesn't make you a good American.

Ziobuck comes back Saturday evening with this:
Oh, BTW, since I won't be returning to your pleasant Blog site (you're right...you are a bit too conservative for me), I'll leave you with this thought. You pride yourself on your consistency. Yet, the whole tenor of your graceless discourse, the way you mock someone who has a "mild" disagreement with you (yeah, I think I actually agree with about 90% of what you profess), the way you ridicule a "brother" in the Lord, your use of the locker room word "efing" (notice you didn't use it on Brad's site--trying to impress your friends here?), are very "inconsistent" with the tenets of your faith, unless, of course, you belong to one of those "kool aid" drinking sects.
Come back if you want, or don't come back. Quite frankly I couldn't give two shits. I'll mock at will, Ziobuck. My disagreement with you was hardly "mild". I tend to have SERIOUS and VEHEMENT disagreements with people who characterize my words as having "contributed greatly to the decline of civility and decency in our country." In saying these sorts of things, you have yourself thrown civility and decency to the wind, and have invited for yourself a good mocking. You deserved it. Perfectly consistent.

You wouldn't know my faith if it bit you in the ass. I have no "brothers in the Lord", as I keep my faith betwen God and myself. How I choose to worship, or for that matter not worship, is my busiess exclusively, and I have a major problem with people who call themselves Christian who can't accept the fact that their version of Christianity isn't the only one that exists. My "sect" happens to be the one I personally developed through reason. I'm sure it's not perfect, but what is? Scripture? Talk about inconsistency. We could go on for days about faith and what it is and what it means to be a Christian.

Don't forget the basis of Christianity, Ziobuck. It's not about scripture much beyond John 3:16. If you believe Jesus is the Savior, then you are a Christian. That opens the door for a LOT of different versions of Christianity, and those versions would far outnumber the number of "sects" that you refer to.

I'll use whatever words I like on my blog. It's my blog. It's my interpretation of the First Amendment that is being exercised here. Same goes for Brad Stine. I avoided certain words on Brad's site not because I'm trying to impress anyone here, but because there it's HIS BLOG, and it would be the height of disrespect to do so there. When you're in someone's house, you live by their rules and traditions.

At the RWRepublic we use that kind of language for one reason and one reason only ... because we think it's FUN. Try it sometime; you may find you agree. We also think it's harmless. Here, watch - FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK. See? No ambulance or medical attention necessary, and probably most people who read it are laughing right now, for whatever reason. No one died. No one was maimed or injured. Best of all, those who didn't like it are free to point their browsers elsewhere. Are you suggesting the FCC should come and shut down my site because I used the word FUCK? If so, I'd posit that you are liberal, at least on that point.

I have enjoyed our spirited debate, though. I'd say I'm sorry if any of it made you uncomfortable, but I'd be lying. My true position is more like "tough shit" (with a smile, of course). I defended Stern, and will continue to do so, because I wouldn't want someone pulling that kind of crap with me. The truth hurts sometimes, but facing it is always the best course of action.

See ya at Brad Stine's Blog Nation