The Reason Why Kaepernick Kneeled

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Wrong. They do NOT have a right to protest while they are working.

They shouldn't have to surrender being an American to join the NFL. If the laws are such that they do...perhaps those laws should be changed. I mean, shouldn't a baker have the right to deny services in protest of their disapproval of a customer's lifestyle?

Here we go with the new liberal garbage narrative: football players being viewed as "slaves." News flash, cupcake, employers don't have to honor employees 1A rights on the job.

Wrong. The point was that on our corporate plantation, black or white, employees have been reduced to being "owned" if they want to keep their jobs. Many companies already dictate what you can or cannot do even when you're off the clock in your private life and on your private property.

Sure. Just as you didn't mean to insult us with your plea to protest Pentecostal services or with your post claiming you would understand a person who would shoot up a church.

Stay on topic and stop distorting actual reasoning and intentions. The point was if pulpits want to go political and turn churches into political action committees, those who oppose should protest. And notice, I said such should be said regardless as to if the church was liberal or conservative. But distorting the actual point and intentions of my previous statements, you only proves how weak your argument is.

Fact: It is not a fundamental right while on the job. But hey, why don't you try it, Aquila. While on the job, why not write some cardboard signs and march around protesting white supremacy and the false narrative that blacks are more likely to die from police brutality. Then when your supervisor calls you in and tells you to stop, I want you to tell him to get lost. Tell him it's your fundamental right and then walk out and continue protesting. See how long you remain employed.

Actually, I'm union. Should the union call us to picket during work hours, I'll do it. You see, being a part of a union, I don't surrender my civil rights at the door of my employer. You do.

FALSE. If the protest is based on a lie and false narrative, it should be exposed for what it is - a LIE.

Oh, I'm not against exposing a lie if it can be proven to be a lie. That's the opposition's free speech. What I'm saying is that lie or not, one has the right to protest any perceived injustice.

FALSE and insulting. Tell me, Aquila, why aren't these "gutsy" athletes protesting black on black violence in Chicago and other urban metros? Black on black violence will cause more black deaths in Chicago in a month, than cops will in a year or more.

That's much like my question when I asked why Christian athletes aren't protesting for Christian causes. I think it isn't so much about the "cause", it's about supporting Kaepernick and his right to protest in relation to the national anthem. I mean, he's still showing up for the game. He's still playing the game. He's only taking a knee during a song. A song that represents the very freedom to take a knee if one so desires. Does his contract require him to stand for the anthem? I don't think so. I think it's about players supporting a fellow player more than it is the issue itself. Or, as you and I both illustrated, they'd be protesting other issues as well.

[Aquila]

In short, those on the side of liberty will support a fellow American's right to protest, even if they don't entirely agree with why he or she is protesting.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This brings up some interesting questions:

1.) Should one have to surrender their Constitutional liberties for a job? Why shouldn't employers have recognized an employee's Constitutional liberties?
2.) Are they paid to stand for the anthem? Hasn't that always been optional?
3.) If what you explained is embraced, then wouldn't the biggest gripe be against the NFL and not Kaepernick?

1. Why should an owner/employer pay an employee to do something other than the job they were hired to do? That makes no sense. Seriously! You're claiming that an owner/employer should be forced to allow their employees to spend time during their work schedule to protest?

2. They are paid to put on the uniform and play the game. The anthem is during their work hours. It has not been optional, it's written that they should stand for the anthem.

3. Why would I gripe against the NFL for wanting their employees to do their job and not hijack a game for their false narrative and stupid protest?

Originally Posted by Aquila

The NFL has a number of minority players. If it tried to overtly silence Kaepernick's protest involving a minority concern, they might face bigger problems than a group of players taking a knee during the national anthem.

Sure, you libs love talking about slavery and the bad white slave owners. The problem is the NFL is too scared and has failed in its PR efforts. What it should have done at the very beginning is clearly state that it wouldn't be tolerated and anyone who was insubordinate would find themselves unemployed.

Originally Posted by Aquila

There might be a degree of truth to that. He really doesn't have to be more vocal. His peaceful action has said it all. If he became more vocal, I'm sure some NFL attorney would find a reason to skin him alive. In addition, becoming more vocal could only damage his reputation even more. Being rather quiet while taking a knee is wise. As for him being willing to stand if another team hired him, if it is as you present it, it only goes to show how celebrity status of a protest can poison the waters.

But I thought he had guts. I'm confused....

Originally Posted by Aquila

I noticed you didn't address my point. Let me reiterate it again for you:

-People argued against the violent protests of perceived black injustice.
-People are arguing against peaceful protests of perceived black injustice.

How does that not send the picture that a large segment of our society just wants black people to shut up about perceived injustice? I mean, think about it, violent protest or peaceful protest, they can't win with these people.

Prove me wrong.

You're completely missing the issue. The issue isn't the protest. The issue isn't the kneeling. The issue is the timing and when it's being done. That these pampered, privileged, spoiled, entitled, and self-promoting athletes are kneeling DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM is the issue. These privileged athletes like Kap want to claim it's not an insult to the military or the flag, but it is. If they want to take a knee and protest, fine. Do it after the game. Do it during the week. "But it won't be as effective during the week."

Ooohhhh, right. See the truth is they're doing this for a show. They want eyes on them. It's not really about the cause as much as it's about them being seen by people.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

1. Why should an owner/employer pay an employee to do something other than the job they were hired to do? That makes no sense. Seriously! You're claiming that an owner/employer should be forced to allow their employees to spend time during their work schedule to protest?

I never said an employer should have to pay them. lol

The only way I could see an employer paying an employee while protesting is if it were a part of a legal contract.

2. They are paid to put on the uniform and play the game. The anthem is during their work hours. It has not been optional, it's written that they should stand for the anthem.

I think that's a stretch. It's the anthem. And I doubt they have anything in their contract requiring them to stand for the anthem.

3. Why would I gripe against the NFL for wanting their employees to do their job and not hijack a game for their false narrative and stupid protest?

Oh, the humanity, they have now hijacked a game by... taking a knee. lol Americans in peaceful protest are now terrorists! My stars, somebody call in the Navy Seals! LOL

Sure, you libs love talking about slavery and the bad white slave owners. The problem is the NFL is too scared and has failed in its PR efforts. What it should have done at the very beginning is clearly state that it wouldn't be tolerated and anyone who was insubordinate would find themselves unemployed.

And I think they'd get their pants sued off. Because to my knowledge players aren't contractually obligated to stand for the national anthem.

But I thought he had guts. I'm confused....

I know you're confused. Stay with me, I'm sure you'll catch on.

You're completely missing the issue. The issue isn't the protest. The issue isn't the kneeling. The issue is the timing and when it's being done. That these pampered, privileged, spoiled, entitled, and self-promoting athletes are kneeling DURING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM is the issue. These privileged athletes like Kap want to claim it's not an insult to the military or the flag, but it is. If they want to take a knee and protest, fine. Do it after the game. Do it during the week. "But it won't be as effective during the week."

I served in the military for 8 years. I see it more insulting to see an American degraded over exercising his right to protest than I do seeing someone take a knee in protest of a perceived injustice.

Ooohhhh, right. See the truth is they're doing this for a show. They want eyes on them. It's not really about the cause as much as it's about them being seen by people.

There might be some truth to that. Stuff like this can often start with altruistic motives and evolve into a show.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

They shouldn't have to surrender being an American to join the NFL. If the laws are such that they do...perhaps those laws should be changed.

Why should an owner/employer be forced to pay someone to NOT do the job they were hired to do? That's just stupid. And communism. Not surprised to see you promoting communism.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I mean, shouldn't a baker have the right to deny services in protest of their disapproval of a customer's lifestyle?

Not the same and you should know it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Wrong. The point was that on our corporate plantation, black or white, employees have been reduced to being "owned" if they want to keep their jobs. Many companies already dictate what you can or cannot do even when you're off the clock in your private life and on your private property.

Again, why should a company be forced to pay you to not do the job you were hired to do? Kap was hired to do a job - to be a Quarterback. He was not given a ridiculous salary to use his team's television appearance for his personal agenda.

If you want communism, go to a communist country. Don't try to bring it here.

Originally Posted by Aquila

The point was if pulpits want to go political and turn churches into political action committees, those who oppose should protest.

How ironic. If players want to go political and turn a football game into political protests, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, I'm union. Should the union call us to picket during work hours, I'll do it. You see, being a part of a union, I don't surrender my civil rights at the door of my employer. You do.

Notice you said, "should the union call us." I'm not talking about a union sponsored picket. I'm saying today, write some anti white slogans on some cardboard signs and start walking around the office or outside in front of the business. Raise your fist high, kneel down low and shout against white oppression! Doesn't matter if your union. They won't let you continue to do that during your work hours. And should you tell them to take a hike, you will face consequences.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, I'm not against exposing a lie if it can be proven to be a lie. That's the opposition's free speech. What I'm saying is that lie or not, one has the right to protest any perceived injustice.

Sure. Do it another time.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Does his contract require him to stand for the anthem? I don't think so. I think it's about players supporting a fellow player more than it is the issue itself. Or, as you and I both illustrated, they'd be protesting other issues as well.

The NFL rules require all athletes to stand for the anthem. His contract states he will abide by the rules of the organization. Technically, they're all in breach of contract.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never said an employer should have to pay them. lol

But you ARE! You've posted more than once that a company shouldn't have the right to keep an employee from protesting. You've posted that a company should be forced to allow employees to exercise their 1A rights to protest. WHY? Why should an owner/employer be forced to pay its employee to something on their personal agenda they were not hired to do?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think that's a stretch. It's the anthem. And I doubt they have anything in their contract requiring them to stand for the anthem.

And I think they'd get their pants sued off. Because to my knowledge players aren't contractually obligated to stand for the national anthem.

Yes, they are required to stand for the anthem, per the NFL:

"The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses."

That is in the NFL manual.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know you're confused. Stay with me, I'm sure you'll catch on.

First you claim Kap has guts, then you say it's better for his career if he stays quiet. Where's the guts in that?

Originally Posted by Aquila

There might be some truth to that. Stuff like this can often start with altruistic motives and evolve into a show.

I'm not against Kap taking a knee and protesting their false narrative, just not during the anthem. Instead of insinuating that people are racist, consider that people likely wouldn't care about the protests were they happening any other time than during the anthem.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

But you ARE! You've posted more than once that a company shouldn't have the right to keep an employee from protesting. You've posted that a company should be forced to allow employees to exercise their 1A rights to protest. WHY? Why should an owner/employer be forced to pay its employee to something on their personal agenda they were not hired to do?

I never said that the company should be forced to pay the employee. My point is that the employee shouldn't be "terminated" on the grounds of exercising their rights as an American. If they aren't on the clock and doing what you paid them to do, sure, dock their pay. Even when union members protest we loose pay. Again, STOP trying to argue that I'm saying something that I'm not. It only makes you look like you're throwing a tantrum.

Yes, they are required to stand for the anthem, per the NFL:

"The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses. "

That is in the NFL manual.

Ummm....

Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

First: It states that if players aren't on the field by the start of the National Anthem it "may" result in discipline not "shall" result in discipline. So, it is entirely at the discretion of the NFL. There is no required disciplinary action.

Second: It's vague as to what it means by "for violations of the above". Does that mean every instruction above or failure to be on the field. The way it is written it can be argued that "for violations of the above" only means failure to be on the field. It should definitely be written more clearly.

I'm thinking that it doesn't mention refusal to stand during the anthem because it has never been an issue. Perhaps when they rewrite the NFL manual they will indicate that players who specifically refuse to stand for the anthem "may" face discipline. lol

First you claim Kap has guts, then you say it's better for his career if he stays quiet. Where's the guts in that?

It's called quiet resolve. His goal isn't to get fired. His goal isn't to incite violence. His goal isn't to become the "voice" of NFL players who protest. He just wants to take a knee to draw attention to his cause. And frankly, it took guts. He had to know that he'd face overwhelming criticism and be misinterpreted by detractors.

I'm not against Kap taking a knee and protesting their false narrative, just not during the anthem. Instead of insinuating that people are racist, consider that people likely wouldn't care about the protests were they happening any other time than during the anthem.

So you think NFL players should be legally "forced" to stand for the anthem?

"Ve have vays to make you stand, Kaepernick."

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by Aquila

First, one can protest against Trump on the pretense that they think he's a space alien if they want to. It's a fundamental right. They don't have to justify it through studies and all that garbage.

Second, there was a time when all credible studies told us that tobacco wasn't bad for us. You can't always trust studies. I'm sure that if slavery continued until this very day there would be studies that black slaves were actually "happy" being slaves. So, frankly, the studies are better served if used as toilet paper.



The NFL was wise. They'd be viewed as "owning" players and denying them their 1st Amendment rights. Since the protest was peaceful and doesn't truly interfere with the job the players are paid to do, they decided to let the players be. I'm interested to see the next issue protested by taking a knee. What if it is one you support? What if it is one what your precious "studies" validate? Will you support those players in taking a knee then???



I don't mean to insult anyone. I'm only saying how it looks from where I sit. If I'm mistaken, please show me where I'm mistaken. We had violent protest and people argued that violent protest only hurt their cause, they'd get farther with peaceful protest. We get peaceful protest, and everyone wants to boycott the NFL, never watch a game again, blah, blah, blah. C'mon. We either support the peaceful exercise of the 1st Amendment or we don't.



Um... I've largely left this thread alone. I can probably pull a dozen posts that are insulting to those who support Kaepernick's cause or who at least support his use of peaceful protest. I post one tiny little post that holds irrefutable logic, and y'all gonna act like I've been bullying you are something. LOL

C'mon. If you can refute my logic, do so.

My points:

1.) Protest is a fundamental right and should NEVER be denied.
2.) Peaceful protest should be supported and praised, even if one doesn't agree with the cause itself.
3.) Pretty much the same crowd that argued against the violent protests in Charlotte are whining about the peaceful protest of Kaepernick. So, doesn't that tell you that violent or peaceful, they just don't want black people protesting of any perceived injustice?

Please tell me where my logic is flawed.

My points
1. This is a very telling point with how you are dishonest in your debates. And a big part of why I put you on ignore.
You have made a history of putting a lot of stock in "scientific" studies. Now you want to trash all studies that disagree with your opinion.
Incidentally, can you find those studies that show tobacco was not bad for you?
Studies that I recall seeing as far back as in the 1800's showed that it was bad.
2. Is the perception given that the NBA "owns" players?
No, yet you have not seen any protests of the anthem in the NBA.
WHY?
Because the NBA enforces the rule that all players must stand during the anthem.
The NFL should have done the same.

Now to address your points.
Which are all pretty much the same.
1. A business owner has the right to control an employee when he is paying said employee. If an employee wished to wear a pin that said "Jesus is the only way", that employer could prevent that.
Do you not see that?
Otherwise an employee could do anything and hide behind the "peaceful protest" mantra.
2. I agree with, just on your own time. Also, if you are a celebrity, there could be pushback from those who disagree with your protest.
3. Basically what you are saying here is that everyone who disagrees with the NFL protest is racist.
Again, total dishonesty.
Attempting to paint anyone who disagrees with you as racist.

Now, I remember why you were on ignore.
In an "official" debate, (which I did in high school) you would be destroyed by the judges.
You attempt to play both sides of the fence and are basically intellectually dishonest.
I agree with you on some points, yet my experience with you, when we disagree is that you cannot just accept that.
You have to claim the "moral high ground", by attempting to paint those who disagree with you as racist, bigoted, unlearned, whatever you feel you need to do to claim that ground.
No hard feelings, just the way I see it.
And I still hope to see you in heaven.
So, all this "fluff" down here will be forgetten!

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I never said that the company should be forced to pay the employee. My point is that the employee shouldn't be "terminated" on the grounds of exercising their rights as an American. If they aren't on the clock and doing what you paid them to do, sure, dock their pay. Even when union members protest we loose pay. Again, STOP trying to argue that I'm saying something that I'm not. It only makes you look like you're throwing a tantrum.

They shouldn't have to surrender being an American to join the NFL. If the laws are such that they do...perhaps those laws should be changed.

Should one have to surrender their Constitutional liberties for a job? Why shouldn't employers have recognized an employee's Constitutional liberties?

You're arguing that a company should be forced to recognize its employees constitutional liberties. You did not offer any exclusions. Those quotes make it appear you are for a company to be forced to pay its employee to be able to protest on their job and during their work hours. And now after I've pointed out the absurdity of your posts, you're backtracking and claiming you didn't post what you did.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummm....

Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

First: It states that if players aren't on the field by the start of the National Anthem it "may" result in discipline not "shall" result in discipline. So, it is entirely at the discretion of the NFL. There is no required disciplinary action.

Second: It's vague as to what it means by "for violations of the above". Does that mean every instruction above or failure to be on the field. The way it is written it can be argued that "for violations of the above" only means failure to be on the field. It should definitely be written more clearly.

Only you would try to claim the paragraph is ambiguous and ignore the part where it states they should stand at attention.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's called quiet resolve. His goal isn't to get fired. His goal isn't to incite violence. His goal isn't to become the "voice" of NFL players who protest. He just wants to take a knee to draw attention to his cause. And frankly, it took guts. He had to know that he'd face overwhelming criticism and be misinterpreted by detractors.

You should read the article JD posted about why Kap decided to kneel. He thought it would be "powerful." He expected to be hailed as a hero, not denounced. The reason he's not talking is because he saw how badly his dumb protest was received. He thought people would support him.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So you think NFL players should be legally "forced" to stand for the anthem?

Should employees be required to follow the rules of its employer? If a player doesn't want to follow the rules, they don't have to sign a contract which pays them a ridiculous amount of money to play a game. If they sign a contract, they should follow the rules. Period.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

My points
1. This is a very telling point with how you are dishonest in your debates. And a big part of why I put you on ignore.
You have made a history of putting a lot of stock in "scientific" studies. Now you want to trash all studies that disagree with your opinion.
Incidentally, can you find those studies that show tobacco was not bad for you?
Studies that I recall seeing as far back as in the 1800's showed that it was bad.

I don't think you pay attention to the subtle nuances of my posts. For example, I've included studies on posts relating to climate change. But my posts weren't entirely based on the studies. You'll note that I often stated that even if the studies are incorrect, it just makes sense to protect the environment and be proactive about even the remote possibility of man's impact on climate change. It's more of a philosophical argument than an analytical argument based on studies. The studies were only supplemental data. However, I always found it interesting how everyone would focus on debunking a study and repeatedly ignore my logic of conservation for the simple sake of being wise stewards of the planet. No one ever wanted to go there, I guess.

Are you saying that the tobacco industry didn't go on a massive publicity campaign with doctors and supposed "studies" stating that tobacco wasn't bad for us?

2. Is the perception given that the NBA "owns" players?
No, yet you have not seen any protests of the anthem in the NBA.
WHY?
Because the NBA enforces the rule that all players must stand during the anthem.
The NFL should have done the same.

And that's between the NFL and the NBA. Personally, I'm wondering why the National Anthem even has to be played during sporting events. I mean, why cheapen the National Anthem with worldly sports, foam fingers, beer, hotdogs, and hot pretzels? I found this bit of history interesting:

How Did The National Anthem Get To Be A Mainstay Of Sports In The First Place?
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/04/492599...he-first-place

Those who feel like it is a "sacred" part of the game really have to get themselves historically adjusted. Frankly, I think the Anthem should be played during distinctly patriotic events and special occasions. But I'm not a big sports fan, I think sports is a worldly waste of time. I'd rather go to something far more important, like a Nickelback concert. LOL But they don't play the anthem there, so I'm confused. Is sports more important than REO Speedwagon? ;p Point is, it just doesn't make sense to me why so many think it matters so much in the context of an entertainment event. I mean, isn't a little like having to burn a pinch of incense to the emperor before entering the Olympic stadium? It's just weird to me. But like I said, I could care less about sports.

Now to address your points.
Which are all pretty much the same.
1. A business owner has the right to control an employee when he is paying said employee. If an employee wished to wear a pin that said "Jesus is the only way", that employer could prevent that.
Do you not see that?
Otherwise an employee could do anything and hide behind the "peaceful protest" mantra.

I like what supermodel Kate Upton did. She wore a cross to a photoshoot and they demanded that she take it off. So, she did. During the entire photoshoot they mocked her faith and made remarks like, "There's no way she could be religious." Well, she was so upset and shaken up after the photoshoot she decided to get a small cross tattoo on the inside of one of her fingers so that she would always be wearing a cross on her body.

Why I just told that story, I don't know. But I thought of I while reading your post. Personally, I don't think employers should hold as much control over their employees as they do today. I'm also dead set against corporate personhood. I mean, what if you worked in a chocolate factory making big chocolate bunnies and your boss wanted you to bow and sing a song:

The Bunny, the bunny, whoa I love the bunny
I don't love my mom or my dad, just the bunny
The Bunny, the bunny, Yeah I love the bunny
I gave everything that I had for the bunny

Isn't it a bit creepy that they want us to honor the nation's Anthem in such a setting?

2. I agree with, just on your own time. Also, if you are a celebrity, there could be pushback from those who disagree with your protest.

Well, depending on the importance of the issue to an individual, they decide when and where to protest to draw attention to their cause. And as a result, they will face whatever the repercussions are, if there are any at all. Personally, I think it would look worse if the NFL tried to FORCE players to stand during the Anthem.

3. Basically what you are saying here is that everyone who disagrees with the NFL protest is racist.
Again, total dishonesty.
Attempting to paint anyone who disagrees with you as racist.

Nope. I'm saying that those who argued against violent protest kept arguing that they could protest peacefully. However, a football player chooses to protest peacefully and many of these same individuals are still whining. THEY give the impression that THEY are racists who simply just want the black community to shut up. Why? Essentially they've argued that both violent and peaceful protests aren't acceptable. What's the alternative? No protest. THEY reveal their true colors.

Now, I remember why you were on ignore.
In an "official" debate, (which I did in high school) you would be destroyed by the judges.

Right is right, rather a judge agrees or not. LOL

You attempt to play both sides of the fence and are basically intellectually dishonest.

No, I'm trying to be balanced. I support peaceful protest, even if I don't entirely agree with the protester on the issue. It's like believing in the freedom of religion, even if one chooses Satanism for their religion.

I agree with you on some points, yet my experience with you, when we disagree is that you cannot just accept that.

I can accept disagreement. I think people have a right to disagree. And they don't even need a logic reason to do so. Sometimes you have to answer to your "gut".

You have to claim the "moral high ground", by attempting to paint those who disagree with you as racist, bigoted, unlearned, whatever you feel you need to do to claim that ground.

Bro., go back to what I actually wrote. It's the loose/loose dynamic that many of these people are applying minorities who protest. They complain that minorities protesting perceived injustice should be peaceful. Then they argue that minorities engaging in peaceful protests shouldn't be allowed. I mean, c'mon. It's glaring that they are basically saying minorities shouldn't be allowed to protest.

Or... do you agree that Kaepernick's protest is peaceful and should be given credit for that fact?

No hard feelings, just the way I see it.

I don't detect any hard feelings. None on this end either. We're both just sharing how we see it.

Isn't it interesting how people can see things so radically different? I mean, we'd probably cut up and be good company at a cookout or picnic, but on some of these issues, we just see the issue from different perspectives. Weird. lol

And I still hope to see you in heaven.

Let me tell you, I hope to see me in Heaven too. LOL

So, all this "fluff" down here will be forgetten!

Amen.

P.S.

I didn't mean to convey that I thought you were racist. I apologize man. I'm only talking about those who seem to criticize minority protests rather they be peaceful or violent. It really looks like the minorities just can't win the least bit of respect with those folks.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with Kaepernick's cause. I've seen articles and statistic presented from both sides affirming their claims. I know there are good cops and I know that there are bad cops. I firmly believe most cops are decent cops. I would like to see a closer look at various local precincts where there might be a question. But what I do support about Kaepernick is that his taking a knee is a sterling example of a "peaceful protest". And it had a high enough profile that other players chose to do the same and that the entire nation sees it and is reminded of what a peaceful protest looks like during football games. I give him props for that.