Giacomo-Billy the Cat & the like, when you defend Colin Kaepernick by equating him with Civil Rights marchers of the 1960s and even engage in diversionary tactics like telling me Ronald Reagan never said certain famous quotes, it all comes back to your bankrupt ideology. Colin Kaepernick lauded the monstrous Fidel Castro a man who murdered, tortured and jailed tens of thousands of people--some of which fought at his side. Kaepernick lectured anyone who would listen about politics and at the end of the day didn't even vote. You defend this charlatan and clown?

As I stated before, comparing Colin Kaepernick to the heroic Civil Right marchers of the 1960s is like going to an art gallery under the assumption that you are viewing works of the masters. Later you come to find out that the artwork you just viewed was painted by some beret wearing guy on the sidewalk with some paint brushes and and easel who calls himself an artist. If there ever was a conservative fraud and charlatan like Kaepernick, I wouldn't waste one breath in defending them.

And yes, as someone stated earlier, this topic is dividing clearly along the lines of who voted for whom in the last election. I guess OU students and grads aren't nearly as "liberal" as the general public makes them out to be. (although I'm not sure some of those crucifying the SFO qb actually attended OU).

I'm curious - do you have an opinion on the reason why Kaepernick is protesting?

I've never compared him to a Huey, Bobby, Malcom, Medgar or any of the great civil rights leaders, but I will compare him very favor ly to a Tommie Smith and John Carlos, and I will continue to defend his right to make a stand, and he hasn't once complained about the backlash, he's stood accountable for his actions, and I'll applaud that as well.

Shabamon--A very interesting question. As a white Catholic kid growing up in the 1970s and 80s in north central Ohio I was fascinated by the Civil Right movement. When I wasn't playing sports in the summer, I would often go the public library and read up on events of the 1960s, like the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War and the the music scene-another passion of mine. When I arrived in Athens I marveled at the stacks in Aldan library and spent many hours researching all kinds historical events. Sometimes I would be so bold to ask some of my dads acquaintances about their experiences in the Jim Crow south. My parents grew up very poor and were not college educated, though they were always reading and greatly valued education. My dad was an amateur historian who is somewhat of an expert on the Tuskegee Airmen, some of whom I met through him.

The reason the Civil Right Movement fascinated me was due to some of the open prejudice I encountered from some in our community. They truly felt the Pope was going to take over and we Catholics were going to surreptitiously aid him with the guns and ammo we had hidden in the church's basement. It got me to wonder why they had such ridiculous ideas, did they really hate me because of my faith? However, I soon began to realize with the help of an elderly Jewish family friend that ignoring them was the best way to succeed. While prejudice will always be with us, the worst is behind us. Blame games and victimology would only exacerbate the problem. More recently in life, my line of work has given me the good fortune to meet and hear the story of people like Dr Alveda King, niece of Dr Martin Luther King. I could go on and on, but I hope I have given you some insight into my views and experience.

I think this interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. I didn't think he said anything like that. I think he was just saying he liked MLK's non-violent approach better than more militant approaches like, say, that of the Black Panthers. I'm also taking liberties here with his exact words, but I think I've caught the essence of what he said a little closer than you did. I'll wait for cbus to tell us what he actually meant.

Quit playing games Billy, read my previous post with a little introspection. Then do some research on Dr Alveda King. Besides being a fascinating person to meet and talk with, she has some great insights into the views of her famous uncle and the Civil Rights Movement in general, something she witnessed first hand.

I am well aware of who she is and was fortunate enough to here her speak in Selma a few years ago. Sorry, though I do not and will not see this issue the way you do, I will defend the rights of those who want to exercise their rights to civil disobedience. And the fact that you claim to be a student of the era and yet admonish the rights to passive protest by a disenfranchised population is sadly humorous

Your post "ignoring them (reference the bigots) is the best way to succeed". Man that is so easy to a white middle class college educated male to say!

While talking about "rights", what about the rights of the team owners? If the protests are harming their business, do they have the right to terminate these people? Or, are they just capitalist pigs, and have to sit and take it? Note that I fully understand that they in a no-win situation, and that if they don't do anything those that are offended by the protests will stop watching/spending, and that if they do terminate them, those that support the protests will stop watching/spending. Thus I'm not suggesting that they should terminate them, I'm just asking they hypothetical question whether people think they have the right to, and/or if they should have the right to.

My gut tells me that there is nothing that the owners or league can do without making the situation worse. Thus I expect it to continue unless the players decide to stop it themselves.

Yes they have the right to terminate employees, and I support that as well. In the public arena you have rights and those come with consequences, and not once have I said that I also do not support the employer in meting out their consequences.

1.The Washington Post article was written after the murder of police in New Orleans.
It doesn't change the fact that there was no condemnation of the people making the kill police chants.
In fact,there were concerns that those chants and others like them,could embolden people to attack police officers.

2."Buzzfeed" and "Snope" could hardly be considered reliable news sources.

3.If you read my posts,I never condemned the entire BLM or any other movement for the violence which took place in Baltimore and other places.
What I said was there are those who consider violence,and breaking other laws legitimate forms of protest.

4.I presume your comment about "oppressed people" refers to a specific segment of the black population,not that community as a whole.
In 2016,with a black President,black Atty.General,a former black Sec. of State,doctors,lawyers,executives, etc.I don't think "oppressed" in an appropriate term for blacks as a whole.

5.If I remember my history correctly,the Boston Tea Party was non violent.

Breaking the law,yes,but still non-violent.

Also,is it "looting" if you destroy property and don't take and keep it ?

I looked up a couple of definitions and I'm not sure.