If the thread was still alive, I’d contribute something like this:

Where have you been all the day, Randall, my son?
Where have you been all the day, my pretty one?
Out trolling the lib’rals, mother
Out trolling the lib’rals, mother
Pour me some snacks
For I’m back to my room
And I’d fain watch TV.

Who have you been posting as, Randall, my son?
(repeats as before)
I’ve been posting as my mother
(repeats as before)

What did they say to you, Randall, my son? (…)
They called me a dumb fuck, mother (…)

What did they do to you, Randall, my son?
They sent me back to my mother.

(and so on)

As for him being cagey — I’ve read maybe a dozen GP posts over the past couple of years, and I’ve never seen him ever write a post without a major factual, logical or basic cognitive error. The only positive thing I can say about the guy is that he doesn’t seem to delete the comments pointing out what an astounding dumbass he is. He’s like Jonah Goldberg or David Frum with his “And this proves my point!” responses, only he’s much dumber.

Doesn’t seem like he’s trying to. He’s arguing that pointing to Kilpatrick’s corruption is not racist but who said it was?

Point well taken. GP doesn’t have some crystal ball and probably doesn’t even have an ounce of human compassion, so it stands to reason he couldn’t see the potential validity of how much invective could be hurled at one guy – and how ugly it can be, and often is.

Guys like this GP douchebag just cloud the larger points.

I fail to see where pointing out Kilpatrick’s fairly egregiously illegal behavior – e.g., the perjury that he blatantly engaged in on the witness stand during the whistleblower trial – is racist.

There’s nothing wrong with it at all! It’s perfectly valid and important.

I’m just not seeing Gateway Pundit’s point — that Kilpatrick’s having used the word, ‘nigger,’ to describe his having been called a nigger by persons unspecified, is hypocrisy because of the tenor of the NAACP rally.

It might even be the case that Kilpatrick is lying. That would be disgusting of him, and it would be even worse in light of the NAACP rally, but it still doesn’t create a conflict between his claims as stated and what the NAACP was saying.

Do you see what I mean?

http://forums.station.sony.com/mxo/posts/list.m?topic_id=12200012985

But Kilpatrick’s own neighbors, colleagues and coworkers are overwhelmingly in favor of him stepping out of office, NOW, because the longer he keeps making a public spectacle out of himself, the City cannot move forward – it’s not just “whitey from the suburbs”. Every day there’s a new story on the local news, sharing details about Mr. Kilpatrick’s iron fist rule – this week we learned via signed affidavit that he threatened and fired men under his own command because they knew too much about his on-the-clock dalliances. It remains to be seen what will happen with the wrongful death lawsuit involving exotic dancer Tamara Greene’s family.

I fail to see where pointing out Kilpatrick’s fairly egregiously illegal behavior – e.g., the perjury that he blatantly engaged in on the witness stand during the whistleblower trial – is racist. It’s also rather obvious, given the revelation of explicit text messages between Christine Beatty and Mr. Kilpatrick revealing their affair, that they both attempted to lie to a jury to avoid blowing their cover. Hence, a nearly $9M award to 2 wringfully-terminated police officers.

Again, not really understanding how pointing out the righteous anger of Kilpatrick’s constituency is racist, nor do I see that I’m excusing it. But I’m sure you’ll let me know.

Not at all. By all means, go right ahead. Say whatever you like.

Let us know how it works out for you.

I think this is all attempting to lay the foundation for an “oppressed white people” argument. You know, “Our rights are restricted! We can’t say racist things about them, but they can say racists things about themselves! Isn’t that unfair, mister liberal? Huh? Huh Mr. Liberal?”

And the whole attempt at an argument makes no sense. It’s like this: if you’re friends with someone, you can call them an asshole and they won’t necessarily feel attacked. But if you call a stranger an asshole, they’ll definitely feel attacked.

Why am I telling you guys this? You know it. Just venting.

Oh, come on, please?

Anyone else think of Napoleon Dynamite?

Spewit of St. Louis?

I like Spewie of St. Louie.

Oh wait, this has something to do with Detroit politics?
Like anyone cares.

Of course that’s the assumption. Which means that Gateway Pundit must think that Kilpatrick was so desperate to say that word that he invented these threats just so he could say it. I think “dumb fuck” was actually too generous.

I think you’re right, but he’s in for yet another disappointment. This argument isn’t new, though usually it’s articulated as a despairing wail of “They call each other that word, why can’t we?”

It would serve them better to understand why they think it’s such a tragedy that they can’t use that word, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for them.

moist-lipped mug

OK, no more references to GP’s lips. I’ve seen this twice and now I have to mentally pronounce the word “moist” every time I see the guy’s picture, and it’s grossing me out.

He’s not *that* stupid. He’s actually pretty cagey. He’s arguing that since African-Americans use the word, that alone makes it acceptable. And he wants to see if anyone will bite that bait. Hoft and his primate pals aren’t stupid or reckless enough to start bandying “nigger” about just to see if it takes. They’re floating trial balloons first.

That’s what his post is about.