I am perfectly willing to believe that Sherrod might have indeed aided the Spooners a couple of decades ago. They may be exactly what they portray themselves as, or as I indicated they may be a plant (not actors, just fellow travelers from the left) or just a completely different set of people and totally unrelated to the farmer Sherrod spoke of in the video. I failed to clarify this possibility in my earlier comment and even though I thought that it was implied, it obviously was not; this is an error is on my behalf. Mea Culpa.

My point, which you avoided addressing, is that we do not know that Mr. Spooner is the same individual whom Sherrod described as condescending and whom she said looked down on her because she was black. He did not come across as either condescending or racist in the interviews I watched. Quite the contrary in fact, he seemed quite down to earth and color-blind. His manner is not congruent with her description of him. How do you explain this?

As I pointed out, Mr. Spooner has not been asked about Sherrod's description of him as a racist. Nor has it been addressed as to why Sherrod said that she did the minimum she could for him because he was white if she was not biased against him. I would like for both Sherrod and Spooner to address this.

At present I am a 3rd year law school student working to use my MA in history as a stepping-stone to a law degree. As such my training makes me question everything, especially when multiple inconsistencies emerge in someone's story. As I already pointed out there are such inconsistencies in Sherrod's and Spooner's accounts that need to be cleared up.

You are right hoosier, it's not hard to debate morons. But it gets so tedious to hear the same old same old retorts. The buttons I push are those that get my adversaries in an outrage because of my "commie" opinions. Actually I don't have opportunity to do that much. My main adversary stopped harrassing me when he was advised that he was engaging in "malicious mischief."

Actually I don’t find it hard debating morons because of the odd things one can induce them to say can be quite amusing, I do wonder though as to what buttons you are advocating pushing? If you mean saying things to drive them to distraction I find that that becomes very boring in short order.

I found the interview with the farmer you are referencing. The clip (and others) I viewed was of interviews with a couple purporting to be the farmer and his wife. In these interviews the couple claims that Sherrod did help them and was never biased against them.

Unfortunately we have no way of knowing if this really is the farmer in question. The farmer is never named in the NAACP video so anyone could be brought in to claim to be him. If there were some way to prove it was actually them it would help. It could actually be the farmer referenced in the NAACP video, or it could be a plant.

Another problem is that just because someone does not recognize bigotry when it is aimed at them does not mean that it did not happen. There is the possibility that the couple may not have even realized that Sherrod was not doing as much for them as she would have had they been black, which is what she said in the first place. Sherrod and her defenders can’t have it both ways; either she did not help the farmer as much as she would have had he been black or she did not do anything racist.

Add to this the fact that in the NAACP video Sherrod said that the farmer was acting condescending and superior to her. She implied that this was due to him being racist. I have yet to find a video that shows Mr. Spooner being asked about this aspect of the story. Was he being condescending and superior and racist towards Sherrod? If he says he was then good enough; if not then what is his version of that meeting with Sherrod?

I don't defend the left wing reactionaries. I do think most of the leftists who do the name calling are either students who have not learned respect, or people 45 or older who have reverted to adolescence. They are frustrated and don't know how to vent their anger constructively. We all might be guilty of this on occasion. It's hard to debate morons. Why not just give up and try to push some buttons? lol

I am going to throw out a disclaimer that I am not authorized to give legal advice or practice law.

With that said, I don't know the details of what AB intentions were when he posted the video. I am of the opinion that what he did was illegal. He is a cocky sob. He deserves to pay.

I'm all for freedom of speech as long as it's not libelous or slanderous. There are parameters that we all must respect if our freedoms are to mean anything. You just can't lie or misrepresent something that will disparage someone's reputation, job, or career. To do that for your own gain is reprehensible, imo.

Actually, though, of far more import than the Shirley Sharrod story is my undying curiosity as to what the heck that funky thing is that is on Frank Ross's head in the above teeny tiny picture! (Actually, I taken to really liking Frank's writing – keep it up!)