Now Eric's mad at me, too (apparently part 3 in a three-part series)

Geez, you go away for a week, you come back, and look what's happened to the place.

Not here. Over at the descriptively-named Pathetically Incorrect. Odd how fitting that name is, considering how often he is, you see...

My short relationship with Eric is chronicled here. We debated for a while, and then last week, he banned me from his blog. I mean, I could post some responses anyway - Diogenes does, and he was "banned" four or five times over the course of a week. But many of his comments get yanked, and I don't think it's worth the effort, really.

See, E-man reprinted a column by Ted Nugent, which I made fun of last week. And this apparently annoyed Eric. Because he then wrote a response entitled "An Open Letter To Bill From Eric About Ted..."

(Which means I could have titled this "An Open Letter To Eric About An Open Letter To Bill From Eric About Ted..." - yeah, I thought about that. For ten seconds or so. Gave up on it pretty quickly.)

You can read it yourself, if you'd like. But it has some fascinating formatting problems, and is currently in black on red - kind of hard on the eyes (the background and header picture changes about once a week or so - everybody needs a hobby, I guess). But in essence, he was upset because I was picking on Ted Nugent.

Did I make fun of Ted? Well, yeah. But he's a millionaire rock guy, so he can probably take it.

Do I use "strong words?" Well, yes. I always do. But when the Nuge is talking about "(the Democratic leadership's) ongoing program to bankrupt the entire nation," or that Democrats are "compromising our values, beliefs, and ideals," I think I'm justified in firing back.

But why would Eric get all cranky about me "demeaning and humiliating" Ted Nugent? The man does that all by himself. The last time I posted a link to a video of Ted and quoted his own words, Eric refused to post it: he apparently thought it was obscene.

Ted Nugent was arrested once for firing a flaming arrow into his audience. He doesn't need my help making a fool out of himself. For example, in this column of his that I made fun of.

And I wasn't even complete: I could have gone on for paragraphs more, pointing out one by one the stupidities and lies he was quoting. But I'd used up the humor and was in danger of going into pedantry. Thought I'd avoid that.

But all things considered, I think that I should respond to Mr Graff. (And actually, it might be helpful to try to read the original at this stage. But I'll try to summarize his points, in case you don't have the stomach for it.)

Dear Eric,

When I said "I only wish that the conservatives had control of the Republican party. Sadly, the neocons, religious lunatics and the inbred have taken it over. I had respect for the Republican party once, but lately they're just sad and outdated," you responded with:

If that were true, they never in a million years would have nominated John McCain to represent them as their president... The Republicans may be searching for a leader, but McCain was not it because many of them voted for Obama because the base was ignored.

And then McCain nominated a former beauty queen with a trailer-trash soap opera family as his running mate, as a sop to the religious right and a sad attempt to lure women to his side. Because the wimmenfolk will vote for anything with a vajayjay, right?

(I'll be happy to point out the numerous inadequacies of Ms Palin, but that's a column all to itself. Let me just say that I'll be thrilled and excited if the woman runs in 2012. It'll throw the GOP even further into the dustbin of obscurity.)

They nominated Michael Steele as leader in an effort to hide the fact that most racists are Republicans (if they support either major party, that is), but then the GOP strips him of power, and even tries to take away his access to their money.

So who's the real leader of the GOP? You get to choose between Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh. Nice. Like I said, neocons, religious lunatics and the inbred.

How does Bill know Ted surrounds himself with the unemployed?

Ah, ah, ah, Eman. I said he surrounded himself with musicians. A group with, as I further said, a ridiculously high unemployment rate (at least in music - hence the need for day jobs). I should know, my wife is an operatically-trained soprano. For that matter, you should know - don't you have some musical outreach going?

Yeah Bill, like YOU pay for your music downloads.

Actually, I don't download much, but when I do, I have an ITunes account for that. You really don't know me as well as you think you do.

First Bill says Ted hangs around with the unemployed, then he calls Ted rich.

Well, he is. He's a musician who "made it." And he hangs out with other musicians. What, exactly, are you arguing here?

The country is in trouble because the stimulus package stimulated nothing,

* sigh *

And we needed a stimulus package because why, again? Perhaps because the country was already in trouble?

And by the way, only a small percentage of the stimulus money has been spent so far. So your point makes no sense on two levels.

Government increased payrolls by thousands.

And those are jobs, right? Isn't that good?

Government employees pay no federal taxes Bill. That means less people paying taxes and those people who do pay, pay more.

What? Where do you even get that? I'd say "urban myth," but it's not one I've ever heard.

OK, I spent 21 years in the military. Paying taxes. I then did a year with the DOE. Paying taxes. Every year, the president's tax records are released to the public. So, at what point are you saying that government employees don't pay taxes? (The military, in combat zones only, are the only exceptions to this.)

OK, let's try this. Timothy Geithner, before he was nominated as Treasury Secretary, worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. You know that's a government job, right? And then he got in trouble for using Turbotax to do his income tax, right? Why would he need Turbotax at all if he didn't pay taxes?

It's like I said. Sometimes, the things that you think you know turn out to be horribly wrong.

WOE!!! OK ..STOP RIGHT THERE!!! Business people aren’t giving out jobs because they have to cut back because of huge tax increases on business.

Woe, indeed. Your argument makes me very sad.

December 2008, if you'll recall, was before Obama was elected. For the past twelve months, the national unemployment rate had increased 2.3%. Even the government was calling it a recession back then.

So if the phenomenal growth in their taxes is the reason businesses aren't hiring now, why weren't they hiring then? Or could this just be a continuing trend, and you're trying to conflate two unrelated points?

Don’t be sorry Bill, we understand your public education on economics impairs your ability to think rationally.

You like to run down "public education" a lot, Eric. Did you notice which one of us has facts to back up our points here? And spells things right? Your private (or possibly home-based) education isn't doing you any favors here, my friend.

What business is it or yours or the governments what a business makes or does or pays it’s employees? What you want is SOCIALIZOM so you and the president can dictate what we make. It’s WAR on PROSPERITY!!!

Well, aside from figuring out tax levels and things, "pays it’s employees?" Really? Do you even know what socialism (that's how it's spelled, by the way) is? Look at China. Describe their government. Consider the concept of "sweat shops."

And now wander into Walmart and look at the tags on most of what's sold there. Note the profusion of "Made in China."

The Chinese own us, Eman. Body and soul. A good part of that is because Bush borrowed more from foreign countries than all previous 42 presidents combined. Added together, Japan and China hold 47% of US public debt.

My public education tells me that's a bad thing, Eric.

And by the way, can you please explain how you can have a "war on prosperity" during a depression? The defining aspect of a depression (or even a recession) is the overall lack of prosperity.

AGAIN Bill sees a need to be snide and obtuse. Equate to liberal minds.

Do you see the humor in being snide and obtuse when you're talking about me being snide and obtuse?

Bill, the French get 80% of their power from nuclear. How has that damaged anything at anytime in your lifetime?

Oy. Chernobyl. Three Mile Island. Here, look it up yourself.

Technologies today make storage of spent nuclear fuel safe and effective. Or are you still thinking from the 70’s???

"Storage." Please note that word. What happens when we run out of places to store it? Do we just build new places? You're like some guy driving down the road throwing your trash out the window. "Oh, it's fine. The state hires people to pick that up."

Let me just quote a physician on this.

Plutonium, the most significant element in nuclear waste, is so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo evenly distributed could cause cancer in everyone on Earth.

Lasting for half a million years, it enters the body through the lungs where it is known to cause cancer. It mimics iron in the body, migrating to bones, where it can induce bone cancer or leukemia, and to the liver, where it can cause primary liver cancer. It crosses the placenta into the embryo and, like the drug thalidomide, causes gross birth deformities.

Finally, plutonium has a predilection for the testicles, where it induces genetic mutations in the sperm of humans and other animals that are passed on from generation to generation.

Where do we put the garbage, Eric? Will that storage site always remain secure? (Does "Love Canal" mean anything to you?) And that's only one of the many problems with nuclear power.

I'm not entirely opposed to nuclear power, but I see the problems. Do you?

if we did drill (offshore), the supply would explode and Bill overlooks this because of convenience, and lack of common sense.

Again, you make me sad. Aside from the facts I quoted (and you even reprint), now it's you oversimplifying. Here. read this. Consider the bigger picture.

Then you quote me saying "I thought you (Ted Nugent) were a big supporter of conservation? What happened to that?" And you follow that up with:

No, you thought wrong Bill, Ted is a drug free rocker. Has been all his life. And he is a hunter, big time hunter. A Big game hunter.

Yup. Correct.

Ted Nugent on conservation.

When the Canadian provinces were drained for increased agricultural production, it was the hunters, the waterfowl hunters that saw the destruction of nesting habitat and came to the aid of Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl. These are hunting organizations. And I can name the Rocky Mountain Elk foundation, Pheasants Forever, Quail Unlimited, National Wild Turkey Federation. We [hunters] stop the bulldozer boogie. We put value on wild ground. Because not only does the wild ground produce more ducks, of which we only shoot a minor percentage, but that ultimately is going to be where our quality air, soil and water will come. As a hunter, fisherman and trapper, I am proud to join this honorable community in taking credit for that.

But back to you.

Michigan... Everyone’s moved out of the place. No jobs, no money, all because of a LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC GOVENOR AND LEGISLATURE!! This would bring jobs to a job-starved state!!

Wait. Let me think. Michigan... Detroit... joblessness... I'm sure those things are related somehow...

Come on, Eric, grow up! Don't try to link "socialism" and Obama bailing out the car companies, and then ignore the very real problems that happen when those car companies fail.

No Bill, (the Founding Fathers are) not Gods, they are the ones who sacrificed their lives, their money, their families and everything they had for Freedom, the very thing you and Obama want to regulate. Not me, not now, not ever. Ted would back me on that... They knew people like you would come along and destroy the very fabric of our freedoms. Ted knows too.

Really? Here's some concepts I want you to look up. Habeus corpus, Freedom of Speech, and the relationship between illegal search and seizure and government wiretapping without a warrant. Now, look up what happened to those concepts over the last eight years. (And those are just three off the top of my head. Don't get me started...)

And then explain what the hell you mean by "you and Obama want to regulate." Because it's really sounding like you're off your medication again.

We got into crime, and you said:

Where concealed carry is the law, crime is down. Way down. Look up TEXAS!!

Really? Because according to the Census Bureau, Texas ranks higher than average in crime overall. Or, to put that in simple terms for you, Texas ranks as the 15th most dangerous state to live, when you consider violent crimes only. (In case you're curious, South Carolina is the most dangerous, and Maine is the least.)

See, the facts don't back up this "common knowledge" you keep relying on. (Or is this more of those "private/home education" problems?)

But then you get into some weird territory, Eric. Just before you ban me from your blog.

bill likes to put links in every other line he types. Yeah Bill, now I know I've debated someone who believes everything he sees on the internet.

No, I don't believe everything I see on the Internet. Nor do I believe everything I read in the library. But like the man said, the truth is out there. You should consider looking for it. Did you notice that many of my links in this post are to government websites? There are these things we call "facts." I like to base my opinions on them. Unlike you, who likes to pull non-facts out of your ass and pretend that the crap that adheres to them is chocolate.

Think, my good man. Find out where reality lies, and then form an opinion. Because right now, you're just making my points for me.

The man confuses me. After all, he invited me to debate on his site. And then he bans me for doing so?

I'd think about that, but it makes my brain hurt.