(09-21-2017 07:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 10:22 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 09:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It sounds like you're primarily commenting on people/protestors that do things like burn/vandalize symbols (e.g. The flag), as opposed to just protesting/voicing their opinion in general.

Yes, that's exactly and only what I was talking about. I thought that was the premise you were asking about it -- but I see now that it is not. My mistake.

No need to apologize. Your point is pretty valid, in my opinion. However, I wonder where the line is that demarks when it's ok/isn't ok. For each person that's different and Colin Kapernick (sp?) is a great example of that. He was silently and non-violently protesting at his games by not standing for the national anthem and some believe that this was such a disrespectful act that he didn't belong in the NFL.

If you're wondering where the line is, I think Kaepernick showed you. He couldn't content himself with mere words, political speech - speech that by the way probably wouldn't have been that controversial in San Francisco. ("Nonviolently protesting" sure, of course, but not "silently" as he's said plenty and his initial action was a form of speech anyway.) No, he crossed the line into denigrating a revered symbol - the anthem. It was overtly disrespectful, it was really not substantively different from burning a flag, and it reasonably gave much wider offense. Not unlike a "silent, nonviolent" Westboro Baptist parishioner who crosses the line from crackpot social media posts or letters to the editor to carrying a sign at a military funeral.