On that point, you and I are in full agreement. I was going to offer to buy the first round too.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you so this will be my last post on this topic, but OCF doesn't need you to defend him. He's an adult. And he and I cleared up that misunderstanding respectfully. And the second quote was in response to your name calling. You called me a name and my response was that name calling is not valuable and it's my fault that the conversation broke down? I honestly cannot understand your line of thinking.

I understand your beef. But the methods that you have beef with are constitutionally protected, and peaceful protest and freedom of speech are, in my view, core principles of our country. You've spoken of shared ideals and finding common ground, and I think that's common ground we should, as Americans, share. The flag, to me, stands for freedom of speech, and represents sacrifices made by Civil Rights leaders just as much as it represents those that put their lives on the line in our military. This protest, to me, is a reminder of everything our country can and should be; they are a renewed call to achieve our country and a call to remember everything our flag represents.

Being offended by that is totally acceptable. But simultaneously you have to accept that the players have this right, and you are not guaranteed the right not be offended by speech or protest. I think we owe it to our country and republic to put aside our own individual feelings in support of one of the core principles of our country. In this case, yes, that means discussing the merits of what the players are protesting and accepting the method of protest as part of the fabric of what makes America unique, regardless of your personal feelings.

(And just to pre-empt the obvious: yes, I know that the NFL could set a policy that removes this right as a private employer. However they haven't done so -- and even were they to, that doesn't change the legal right to protest and free speech, it just makes it such that they can lose their job as consequence.)

Just as I wasn't defending OCF. I was criticizing DelBobcat's presumptions.

I think it's worth pointing out that now we're back to your refusing to have the conversation, which you've been pretty insistent you weren't doing. I'm not doing that to say "gotcha" or try and make you look stupid or anything. I just think we keep ending up at the same point, which is basically you saying "I don't have to discuss police brutality and inequality because I was offended by the protests methods." Which is unquestionably true. You don't.

But it's not at all constructive, and also, in my mind, puts your own individual feelings of offense ahead of some of those shared American values we were both calling for earlier.

We're not gonna change each other's minds at this point, and I know we're annoying other people, so I don't want to drag this out any longer. But I do want to make one last point then I'll let all of this be.

You acknowledge that police brutality is a real issue, and that inequality is a huge problem in our country. I know you empathize with those less fortunate, and understand those issues.

So try and put yourself in the shoes of a young black kid in America right now. How would you feel about the fact that the majority of Americans -- and yes, you're in the majority on this issue -- are far angrier about black men kneeling during the national anthem than they are about Tamir Rice being shot? Or Philandro Castile being shot. Or any of the hundreds of other instances that could be pointed to.

Do you think, in the scheme of things, the offense you've taken to the anthem protests measures anywhere close to the anger and fear seeing a video like the Philandro Castile video must instill in that kid? To feel like those that are sworn to protect and serve might be a danger to you? Not all of them, but some of them, and to never quite know which? And then watching that officer walk away, innocent of all charges? Now imagine you're that kid and you read about Blue Lives Matter laws being proposed.

This protest has dominated the news for a week. Colin Kaepernick's name has been a fixture in sports radio and political coverage for well over a year. Love the methodology or hate it, it has brought this issue to the forefront. The players have been heard.

So at this point it feels willful to me to put your own offense above a more important issue. I think it's important for our country's future that we're able to prioritize our country and ideals over our own individual emotional responses. I'm not saying you're legally required to do so. I'm simply saying I think it's the right thing for our country, and that it's consistent with the ideals represented by the flag you're defending.

So yes, you have the right to dismiss these protests for any reason you want. I just think your reason lacks perspective and empathy, and does little but perpetuate the 'outrage culture' that's become the thorn in the side of American public discourse.

Bingo! Needlessly offensive. That's why this protest is so important. The thought of sitting at a lunch counter next to a Negro (or worse) was offensive to many. The thought of a Negro drinking out of the same water fountain was offensive to many. And heaven forbid, the thought of a Negro man having sex with a white woman even though she was his wife was offensive to many. Sometimes we have to experience true discomfort before we can open our eyes to the wrongs of the world and find a clear path to work for what is right.

Offended at the lunch counter: Racism
Offended at the water fountain: Racism
Offended at the chapel: Racism
Offended at someone kneeling during the anthem (no matter what color they are): Not Racism

One of the items above is different.

Yeah, I get that. This protest is a bridge too far. They are serving, first, to piss people off. I contend it won't get beyond that because the methods are so removed from the problem. What does police brutality have to do with disrespecting the flag and the anthem?

Nothing. And that's the problem.

Could you explain this further?

Then protest in a way that focuses the nation on those problems and does not distract the population with a needless slap that most people take as an insult--an insult that is not related to the issues you describe. All this has done is change the discussion to one about respect for the flag and the anthem. I would wager, in most communities, that's the debate. They're not debating the efficacy of police training.

Do you not think the flag and anthem represent equality and justice? I'm not sure why you think that the ideals these players are pushing have nothing to do with the anthem/flag. Doesn't the flag represent our shared American ideals?

You won't agree with this column, but reading it will give you some historical and present-day perspective as to why people feel a strong sense of injustice. And, in fact, why the anthem is a perfect platform for protest.

"If America demands your respect it must grant you respect and the first order of that respect is equality and eradicating the ominous threat of state violence."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/opinion/the-flag-is-dr...

Even when one has legitimate cause to believe those ideals aren't being achieved and that those elected to represent them aren't doing so?

Put another way: doesn't insisting on blind nationalism and certain behavior towards the flag serve only to undermine it's significance? Shouldn't the 'flag' have to earn our respect by achieving the ideals it represents?