How to irritate everyone:an essay in many parts

Lots of people say lots of things. More often than is good for us those things are stupid. And sometimes people are looking so hard for stupid things they twist things that are not as stupid as the people want them to be so they keep pushing. For instance, there is an easy second interpretation available: he could just as easily have been saying he liked living in a part of the country where the population was half and half. However, because of who he is there was no chance his critics...let me rephrase that, because I am one of his critics, I just don't see these comments the way some of his other critics do.
The moderator tries very hard to get him to say something he is not saying. The assumption he means something he did not say is so strong that regardless of what he meant he will be interpreted that way. And the desperate attempt to further smear a man who has already said enough things that legitimately smear him become so over the top in their banality that they have the reverse effect of what they are striving for. In fact, they irritated me so much I almost felt like defending Buchanan.
For instance, Tripmaster Monkey trots out the seemingly intelligent yet ultimately banal argument about displacing people. Never mind that the people he refers to themselves displaced others. But that argument somehow doesn't count because it is his (or hers).
At the same time, the continued criticism of "former Klansman" David Dukes just proves that people who once made an error and corrected it, the corrections don't matter because they once made that error. Good to see that forgiveness and understanding and recognistion that people can change is on the side of this numbskull. Oh, wait a second...
The passionate but bizarre ramblings of Jackie Rawlings lead me to wonder exactly how many drugs were in-system as the incoherent garbled nonsense was being written.
But one of my favorites is this bit, pasted from the link:
I was travelling through (hitch hiking) the southern states in the late sixties and I found the Blacks (I hate using that terminology because I don’t see colour or anything else but the person) much more friendlier and more understanding than anyone else. Being a Canadian I was readily accepted except by the whites because I associated with the Blacks.I don’t see colour, I don’t see religion, I don’t see nationality and I don’t see race.All I see is the person and I will accept them or not by their attitude, personality or predjudism, nothing else.I have a problem about putting people in nitches reguarding their race, religion, colour, age, height, amount of hair on their head, their education level, where they work, what they do, what they look like, what they weigh and everything else that discriminates anyone.

Well said. Well, except for the intrinsic self-contradictions and racism within the statement, the very flaws Kimmy purports to despise. "...because I don't see colour..." yet it was a colour that was more understanding...it was a colour (whites) that she found unaccepting...yet she can't see that she is stereotyping and performing the other classic markers of racism and division. "I have a problem about putting people in nitches (sic)" she says despite her ENTIRE POST putting people into niches.
In Talladega Nights:The Ballad of Bobby Jimmy (2006) Will Farrell's character is about to blast his boss, so he says, "With all due respect" and then lets loose a rude, disrespectful blast that has everyone cringing. His boss says, "Just because you say 'with all due respect' doesn't mean you can say anything you want" to which of course Bobby Jimmy relies, "With all due respect, yes it does." Why do I bring this up?
Because in modern pop culture political arguments people preface racist, bigoted statements with, "I have a black friend, so you know I am okay" type nonsense, or "I traveled and found that..." or "I am not racist, but..." and then unleash stupidity laden racist blasts like the one above. And since she proclaims herself to not be racist and is attacking someone everyone "knows" is then the evidence can be ignored. With all due respect...bull-smurf. Grade A.
Of course, an easy way to target someone you hate but don't have the goods on is to manufacture stuff and make it hyperbole that makes Baron Munchausen look conservative: for example,
Pat would probably like to exterminate Blacks, Hispanics,Asians, Jews, Muslims, and Liberals. With those groups gone America would be a perfect place. Rush, Sean,Coulter, Beck and Malkin feel the same way. Only when Michelle is being led to the gallows will she realize that spewing her hate couldn’t save here from her white, christian, Consertvative “friends” .
This random extrapolation approaches outright slander. It is definitely not readable from his comments in the link dude is commenting on. I have used this argument before when discussing the horrific Michael Moore: when someone goes to such extremes to create something that was not said and fight against it, when their tactics must rely on misrepresentations, manipulations and outright falsehoods to get their point across then they are defending an untenable and probably harmful position.
The comments went on and on getting stupider and stupider, although occasionally (such as 86) someone will make an attempt at a legitimate, insightful, discussable attempt to move things forward. I just think it is funny that a group of people cracking on someone (and, considering his body of work and extremely debatable...okay, flat out errant statsistic of 89 - 90%, easily crackable) for their vituperation and calumnation with their own racist, hateful, steretype laden vituperation and calumnation is so hypcritical as to be cartoonish in its banality.
It is sad that a statement which could be taken many ways...including that he preferred living in an area of the country with close to an even split of people of different colors...is assumed to be the way that the people making the assumption then demonstrate themselves to be. There were no innocents in that debate.