Why not? Why not support by taking part? If it's a powerful message for the players, wouldn't it be made even more powerful by believers, like you, taking part?

I'm not referring to youth sports or even high school sports. I'm referring mostly to professional-level sports. In that arena, I think it's noble tradition to find common ground before the teams "do battle." It establishes what's important in contrast to what is merely entertainment.

Is it absolutely necessary? No. But it's a good tradition, especially for large-scale games like playoffs, super bowls, and international competitions.

Probably not, but that's as much a result of hyper active marketing folks as it is any over-zealous nationalism. No matter what, the participants love to emulate the pros. So no matter what the fanfare you see in the NFL, it's a matter of time before you see it in the lower levels, in some cases, all the way down to peewee.

40 years ago my brother protested the war without burning the flag, or his draft card (he was drafted). Sunday lending my hand to my friend's shoulder I did take part - in my way - and a way many others (on the field and off) are doing so. I never said taking a knee was not hurtful to others and their views - I understand it is. I HAVE said that I think the pain of the racial injustice is more painful to individuals and, I think, the country. (We can disagree on that). Therefore I have no issue if someone takes a knee, I chose to lend my hand. As I said in my original post, my gesture was to lend support to a friend, not a statement about the anthem or to "stick it' to a conservative or otherwise that feel offended by someone taking a knee. Perhaps a step to middle or common ground.

/\/\/\/\/\/\

Agree - it is also time to take a moment and remember Hugh Heffner - God rest his soul.....and body

What is your issue with me dude? Like I said before, I've had some big disagreements with lots of our conservative friends on this board but we've never taken shots at each other like you continually take them at me. I really enjoy these debates because I often get to hear perspectives that I would not be exposed to otherwise. But you really bring it down for me with this stuff.

Sorry man, but I don't think you're particularly aware when it comes to tone.

You say, about your contributions to this thread: "I attempted to enter this discussion and keep it civil. I get tired of being labeled with BS and continually accused of being thick headed."

Now here are your actual contributions:

You started by supporting the notion that the fact that NFL players are millionaires somehow invalidates their stance. When asked for clarity, you said:

"If you can't see the irony in his comments, then I can't shed any more light on it."

You then jumped in with this cool, sarcastic critique of the methodology:

"What will be the end-game of all this kneeling, I wonder? How will the country be "healed" by this kneeling? Since the point is about police brutality, I wonder if police departments across the USA will suddenly change their policies? 

How soon can we expect the healing to begin? I wonder if all the kneeling participants know what the issue is? The female singer who kneeled after the performance? The 8-year-old youth football players? I wonder if white people are capable of understanding the complexities here?"

To summarize, the protesters don't even know what they're protesting, and nothing's going to change. And of course, a bit of white grief thrown in.

Is that how you define a civil conversation? That's not a discussion, it's a post that, whether you know it or not, is obviously antagonistic.

Then you responded to a post criticizing racists to see if you were racist, too:

"If I'm against the kneeling, am I a racist too?"  

Here you are accusing people of calling you thick headed and labelling you with BS -- meanwhile, you're literally seeking that shit out. The post you were responding to wasn't in reference to you. It didn't call everybody who opposed kneeling racist. It was simply critical of racists on the other side of this issue. You read that post and, somehow, felt like you were being called racist.

And then there's this:

"That sentence alone explains the entire disconnect between right and left on this issue. On the right, that's absolutely what this is about. You can claim it's not, but that doesn't change anything. That basic fact is what's lost on the kneelers. It is a monumental slap in the face to those who are protective of their own country. If you begin a dialogue by first insulting your opposition, you won't likely get very far."

Imagine, for a second, how different this conversation would be if you weren't so inclined to see this as a personal insult. Nothing about what Colin Kaepernick did is an insult to you. He quietly and peacefully knelt during the national anthem. That you feel like that's a slap in the face to you personally is, honestly, ridiculous. It epitomizes the outrage culture that's made our political discourse worthless. You're basically saying that because you felt insulted, you're not going to have a conversation. But you're unwilling to examine your own sensitivity and ask whether it's justified.

Nobody on the right's willing to acknowledge it, but you're just the PC police in this case. You didn't like somebody's actions, and felt insulted, so you're shouting them down and insisting you don't have to listen to what they say. It's exactly what you constantly rail about. You're guilty of the exact same things you criticize your opposition for. You're just not self-aware enough to see it.

So I misunderstood one comment and you decide the conversation's not worth having. You continue to prove my point. You're the most sensitive person here.

I'm talking about your tone, and the "conversation" you've been having, which as I illustrated, was largely about your unwillingness to have a conversation.

You literally said you won't have a conversation because you felt insulted. That's what I'm talking about. Saying words does not a conversation make.

It was in the post you refused to address two posts ago.

Here it is again:

"That sentence alone explains the entire disconnect between right and left on this issue. On the right, that's absolutely what this is about. You can claim it's not, but that doesn't change anything. That basic fact is what's lost on the kneelers. It is a monumental slap in the face to those who are protective of their own country. If you begin a dialogue by first insulting your opposition, you won't likely get very far."

See that last sentence? You were insulted, so the dialogue didn't go anywhere. And that's fine, because you felt insulted and you have your right to a safe space, or whatever.

And what's lost on you is that post content is far more important than post count. You went 10 pages before you actually started having a conversation. In response to your critiques of others, I was attempting to demonstrate how your tone wasn't about a civil conversation.

And your reaction to my post has been more of the same. It took me three extra posts just to get you to read what I wrote.

And at the end of that, you Pat yourself on the back for post count.

The conversation you were having was about why the conversation isn't happening. Can you not see that? Why you say "don't start by insulting your opponent" you're arguing against having a conversation. Every critique you made -- from methodology to your reaction to accusing the kneelers of insulting you -- is nothing but avoidance. You're looking for reasons not to engage on the point at hand, and insisting the issue here is disrespect towards the flag and justifying your refusal because you felt insulted and "browbeaten." It is the EXACT argument that whiny little liberals make on college campuses.

I've made my point, and provided quotes from you that clearly lay out your stance. If you think your contributions to this threat constitute a civil conversation, so be it. With the exception of the "millionaire thing", which I admit to having misinterpreted, your posts in the first 9 pages of this thread were antagonistic and sarcastic. I tried to point that out to you when you were critical of another's tone. I thought, wrongfully, that you might see yourself in a different light when you could compare it to how you perceived another poster.

I was wrong, obviously. You play the victim constantly. You're overly sensitive, perceive insults where there are none, and then use those perceived slights to justify your snark and unwillingness to converse.

Only one of us is not hiding behind a handle, so I don't think that's going to happen.