NO, don't be ridiculous
I don't know
Allow me to explain.
Since the portion of my post that you quoted in post #98 was merely an explanation of why my previous question was rhetorical. In essence, I was explaining why the question in question was asked for effect and not for a formal answer. Typically with rhetorical questions the answer is obvious, and I admit that in this case I assumed that anyone who read the question would be aware that the answer to it was obvious.
However, you pointed to that same obvious answer as evidence that I fail at comprehension. You even said that it was where I failed at comprehension.
The only way on an Earth where intelligent thought can exist where that could be the exact point where I failed at comprehension is if that presumably obvious answer was actually incorrect (or at least assumed to be incorrect by the person making the claim that this was the place where I failed at comprehension).
Thus, I felt it necessary to ask a direct question about your presumptive belief that Byrd and Duke helped the Spooners keep their farm.
If that is your presumptive belief, then I would then ask for evidence of these two actually helping the Spooners save their farm under the primary assumption that somehow my information is incorrect regarding their lack of assistance with regard to the Spooner farm.
But if that isn't your presumptive belief, then I must hope beyond hope that it was all some sort of subtly brilliant form of self-effacing humor because, frankly, the alternative is a disturbing indictment of our education system.
Now, one could say that your red herring question that triggered this particular exchange was based on your own belief that there is some sort of systemic injustice in our country with regards to a double standard regarding accusations of racism.
One could even say that this primary belief of yours has some degree of merit in some cases. Just not this case.
The sad truth is that your adherence to this belief in this case is not founded on actual evidence.
In fact, it can only exist in an absence of the evidence because the real reason people are defending Shirley Sherrod in this case is because she did ultimately put forth as much effort as she could bear in favor of the Spooners to a degree that actually saved their farm.
While the discussion of your perceptions of a systemic injustice base don a double standard may make for an interesting discussion in general, it provides for a piss poor argument against this particular woman because it can only be brought into the discussion when one is devoid of any knowledge of this particular case.
So, in essence, while your arguments may have merit in some other context, they are a variation of the "Chewbacca defense" when it comes to this discussion.
"Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks?.... No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense!"
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Good lord, all this thread is is right wingers bull****ting themselves into believing that Andrew Breitbart, who wants to be remembered as having taken down the 'institutional left', was set up into posting a video which would at the very least help him do that a little better.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK