Shots Across the Bow

A Reality Based Blog


Simply Amazing

Folks, I'm going to do something I've never done before on this blog; I'm going to republish a comment thread from another site. The commenters are WhitesCreek, Andy Axel, and myself, and we're discussing R. Neal's analysis of the latest weekly newsletter from the Tennessee GOP. At least, that's what I thought we'd be discussing.

I haven't left a comment at any of Mr. Neal's sites in nearly a year, and I'm too sure why I did yesterday. Maybe I was feeling a tad cranky because of the flue. In any event, I followed a link from KnoxvilleTalks to TennViews, where I read R. Neal's Post entitled "Factchecking the TNGOP." To see the article, you'll have to follow the link to Katie's post, and then go from there to TennViews. Mr. Neal finds it amusing to send any links from my IP address to Free In any event, it will generate more traffic for KnoxvilleTalks, which is a good thing.

Too make a long story short, after reading Mr. Neal's post, I decided to respond. Blame the Nyquil if you have to have a reason. The following is pasted directly from I have only edited for formatting and ease of reading.

More Misdirection from the Master
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 02/10/2008 - 22:17.

First, a link to the most recent WSMV poll, which features numbers slightly different than your unlinked poll. You make your point by narrowly defining National Security as only the War on Terror, but try to find a single Republican who doesn't consider our porous borders to be an issue of National Security. Taking the two issues together means that 28% of Republicans see National Security concerns as our highest issue, tied for first with the economy. By my reckoning, that means the TNGOP is 3 for 4 in listing the issues of highest concern.

You're not off to such a good start. Let's check your next "fact."

The GOP and the GOP controlled mainstream media have manufactured the so-called racial and gender divide.

Exit polling data from the California Primary show Obama pulled 78% of the black vote and only 45% of the white vote. If that's not a racial divide, I don't know what is. The sex gap is narrower, but not by much; Clinton pulled 59% of the female vote, while garnering only 45% of the male vote, while Obama pulled 48% of the males and 36% of the females. By the way, the exit polls showed Clinton winning 53% to 42% which is extremely close to the actual margin of victory, just in case you thought the polling data might have been skewed by the GOP controlled MSM.

That's strike two. Let's check the next "fact."

TNGOP: In unifying behind a single candidate, history shows that debate over issues is much healthier than personal politics aligned among demographics such as gender and race.

FACT: The GOP is hardly unified behind their single candidate.

Read the TNGOP statement again. Notice that it does not claim that the GOP is united behind a single candidate. What it does say is that when working toward unifying behind a single candidate, it is much better to talk about issues, rather than race and gender. Surely a good progressive like yourself could hardly disagree with that statement.

The leader of their own party, the President of the United States, won't even endorse him.

Sitting presidents rarely endorse a candidate during the primary season. Reagan waited until after all other opponents withdrew to endorse Bush. The first Bush waited until the National Convention to endorse Bob Dole. And as near as I can tell, Bill Clinton never officially endorsed Al Gore.

You're three for three, R. Neal, and three strikes means you're out. I could continue to refute the rest of your "analysis", but my point has been made for anybody with an open mind and the will to use it.

* reply
* Email this page

Andy Axel's picture
my point has been made for
Submitted by Andy Axel on Mon, 02/11/2008 - 09:32.

my point has been made for anybody with an open mind and the will to use it.

I guess it takes an "open mind" to conflate two issues to come up with one to make the math work (liars, after all, will figure), to cherry-pick results a single primary as evidence of a war within the Democratic Party (more lying, more figuring), and to explicate a vague, fatuous statement with a smug, fatuous statement- then to proclaim victory! Whee!

See, Randy, I told you. This was too many words for Hobbs.


"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain

* reply
* Email this page

Mr. Axel
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 02/11/2008 - 23:22.

Would you care to describe how a virtually open border is not a National Security Issue? Or were you supportive of the President's attempt to allow a UAE company to run several of our ports?

Working from the California data, please show how there is no racial or gender bias within democratic voters. If I cherry picked the data, as you suggest, follow the link I provided, and place it in its proper context. Or, if my analysis of the California data is correct, find a state without significant differences in gender and race voting patterns. Back up your argument with fact, as I did. Heck, we might all learn something.

And what is vague or fatuous about suggesting that deciding which candidate you want to support should be based on a discussion of the issues, rather than a vivisection of each candidate's ethnicity and gender?

And I am not Hobbs. Incidentally, by speculating on my identity, you are in violation of the TOS for this site. "...don't speculate about people's "real" identity."

But I won't tell if you don't.

* reply
* Email this page

WhitesCreek's picture
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 07:08.

The "speculation on identity" is for folks who register and post under a consistant username.

Most honest folk want others to understand which person is speaking in a dark room, so to speak. That way a train of though can be developed. If there are more than one anons, more than one train of thought can be intermingled and the message becomes irrational. I'm sure that's the problem here, since it would be rare to find some "one" person that disingenuous.

If you sign in and register, we will always know which person is speaking, even though we don't know the identity. I think the username "jerk" is still available.

* reply
* Email this page

Mr. Creek
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:14.

By threading your replies, as you did above, you can make it quite clear which train of thought is being developed, despite the lack of an identifiable user name.

Additionally, your implication that anonymity is a cover for dishonesty is disingenuous at best. Anonymity is an excellent way to move the emphasis from who is talking to what they are saying. It shouldn't matter who I am; all that should matter is whether my argument is logically sound and based on fact. If you read my original comment, you'll see that I made no personal attacks. I did charge Mr. Neal with indulging in misdirection, and I gave three solid examples of that misdirection. At no time did I engage in name calling, even by implication. By contrast, let's look at you and Mr. Axel. Between the two of you, you have either implied or said straight out that I'm smug, dishonest, a liar, a jerk, and a drooling coward.

All this because I didn't provide a user name? Is this what passes for reasoned open debate of issues in TennViews? Since my anonymity is such a major stumbling block for you, allow me to remove it.

My name is Rich Hailey.

Now, would you care to discuss the argument at hand, or do you want to call me some more names?

* reply
* Email this page

WhitesCreek's picture
Now see...There you go
Submitted by WhitesCreek on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:35.

Now see...There you go again.

I never implied anon was dishonest. I did say there were disingenuous posts, such as your claim that anonymity is a stumbling block for me. I said no such thing and you are attempting to make it appear that I did. That fits my def of disingenuous to a T.

I said that we needed some way to keep track of what poster said what. Your inability to make simple rational associations may have led you to give your name in public, but don't blame it on me.

I stand by my recommendation as to a username, based on your posts to this point. Now if you'd like to start over and work on being honest and rational, I would love to joust with you on our differences of opinion.

Otherwise, it would still help if you'd pick a username so I can know who to ignore.

* reply
* Email this page

Rich again, for a final note.
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 17:17.

Your previous statement beginning, "Most honest people..." clearly implies that anonymity, as opposed to pseudonymity, is often a cover for dishonesty. You reaffirm that implication with your penultimate sentence in this comment, ..."Now if you'd like to start over and work on being honest and rational..." The obvious implication is that my behavior to this point has been dishonest and irrational.

I'll let the readers of this thread decide if your characterization is accurate or not.

I agree that you never said that anonymity was a stumbling block for you, and I never said or implied that you said it. What I did say was that, based on your initial comment on this thread, which completely ignored the content and focussed solely on the subject of my anonymity, you found it easier, or more worthwhile, to argue about my identity rather than about the points I raised. That remains an accurate statement.

And I don't blame you for my giving out my name. That was my choice, made in an attempt to refocus the discussion on the issue at hand, rather than my identity. Obviously, that attempt failed as we are still just talking about who I am.

And frankly, I find that to be a very boring discussion.

* reply
* Email this page

Andy Axel's picture
Thanks for reminding me of
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 08:58.

Thanks for reminding me of my own rules, WhitesCreek - the ones about dishing out comments to cowards who can't go to the trouble to register before drooling on the interface. As in, "don't."


"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain

* reply
* Email this page

Go figure ...
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 13:50.

They still can't bring themselves to actually argue the points that were made. I guess that means that it is not possible to do so. So all they do is call names and hurl pathetic insults. Typical around these parts ...

Not Rich

* reply
* Email this page

Can I be Anonymous #4? Or,
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 15:12.

Can I be Anonymous #4? Or, are we working on #3? Hard to keep track

* reply
* Email this page

Andy Axel's picture
All this because I didn't
Submitted by Andy Axel on Tue, 02/12/2008 - 19:55.

All this because I didn't provide a user name?

Partly. Election season usually brings out some of the most skull-thumpingly pedantic trolls on weblogs like this.

Is this what passes for reasoned open debate of issues in TennViews?

Where were you promised "reasoned open debate?"

My name is Rich Hailey.

Oh. This Rich Hailey?

As for "turn tail and run", when a man tells you that you are no longer welcome in his house, (and telling a man you once invited in that he is no longer welcome on the front porch, but can still use the side door as long as nobody sees him certainly falls under the heading "You're not welcome") then the polite thing to do is leave.

Now, would you care to discuss the argument at hand, or do you want to call me some more names?

Um... is there a third choice?


"The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out the conservative adopts them." -M. Twain

* reply
* Email this page

Did I misread, or did Andy Axel just state openly that TennViews is not a place to find reason? Or openness for that matter?

Wow. Just wow.
Posted by Rich
Humor2 • (3) Comments • (0) TrackbacksPermalink

***Due to Spammer activity, comments have been temporarily disabled.
Please contact us by email if you wish to comment and we will enter it manually

You tell'em! Great analysis! Great job! Really Outstanding! Excellent breakdown!

(Is there an echo in here?)

If only we could provide this kind of fact-checking on the MSM for all the liberal sheep. But I am afraid this may be too many words for R. Neal. If he couldn't lie or distort the truth, he wouldn't have anything to say, which sounds exactly like what I hear every day on left wing cable news shows. I just may forward this to a few people later this evening ...

But of course you already know, Knox/Blount/TennViews is NOT about discussion of the issues. The three sites are there merely to serve as echo chambers for East Tennessee liberals who love nothing more than to distort and twist reality to suit their own agenda, which consists mostly of tearing down our government in a series of self-righteous tantrums fueled by a raging case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Truth, facts and honesty have no place in these people's twisted universe. When challenged, the only thing they know to do is act like petulant 3 year olds that have been scolded by their mama.
Posted by LissaKay  on  02/12  at  11:54 PM

Now that's funny right there.

They didn't even ATTEMPT to address the substantive issues you raised.

Usually liberals at least flounder about in a vain attempt to feign rationality for a few posts before resorting to ad hominems and strawmen.

At least R Neal and Axel saved time by cutting right to the chase.
Posted by Sailorcurt  on  02/13  at  09:05 AM

I would be surprised if Axel and Neal even attempted to respond to the comments at hand. Their responses are always to attack the commenter or the commenter's sources.

It is interesting that Neal has banned me from posting on the KnoxNews front page. I am limited to only commenting (maybe not even that?). I have written him requesting why on a couple of occasions and he hasn't seen fit to reply
Posted by RedDog  on  02/13  at  09:58 AM

Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this site entry.


Bible Verse of the Day

Monthly Archives