That's the way it has always been used where I was raised. But, you are sure to take it as you wish. So be it.

As for my circle of acquaintances, it is very diversified. Even within our Sunday school class (60+ pretty regular members) it ranges from extremely liberal to stanch conservatives. Albeit, the vast majority are nearer to the middle. Our teacher is a longtime basketball coach so we occasionally get off on tough topics such as this. Our conversations have most recently been shifted to facebook where I am friends with most of them. I've brought my "conversion" up in these conversations.

And "open-minded" in the sense I am using it is defined as - "the willingness to search actively for evidence against one's favored beliefs, plans, or goals, and to weigh such evidence fairly when it is available." That has no liberal or conservative connotations. It requires honest open-mindedness to be able to change one's mind.

I'd tell you to look up the definition of the phrase you used to verify that it means exactly what I said it means, but I am certain that you already know. You just pretend to be ignorant when you get caught with your foot in your mouth. That's alright, friend. I get it.

As for the definition you gave for open mindedness, that one is actually correct. However, your application of the term is clearly liberal. Liberals hijack lots of terms that don't mean what they think it means. Because, you see, some of us HAVE bothered to actively search for evidence, fairly, without the use of preconceptions. There are actual facts with statistical analysis, which myself, and several others on here, have displayed COUNTLESS times. Those facts refute the narrative of systemic racism.

It doesn't matter what your friends think, or how they feel. What evidence do THEY actually have to support their claims? None. But you've sided with their emotions. You call that open-minded, I call it willful ignorance.

And as it pertains to the method of protest, regardless of the narrative that drove it, the method was offensive to a lot of people for very valid reasons. The players never gave an adequate explanation as to HOW this was somehow NOT disrespectful toward the flag and the people it represents (which is all of us). They just said "it's not about the flag", and we're supposed to accept that. They say that because of all the backlash they received a couple of years ago. It's a cop out. The "reporters" at CNN say "we're just reporting the news". Are they? Is it POSSIBLE that people LIE when their character and reputation are under attack? Noooo, that never happens.

He just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. If this entire board supported kneeling for the anthem he would be against it. I highly doubt he really feels the way he presents himself.

You would be wrong, my friend. There are a few members here that know me away from this forum. I am who you see and love. As for arguing, yes, I do enjoy debating and it is fairly easy to find at least a couple of people here or there with faulty ideals. My wife of 32 years tells me that I'd argue with a fence post all the time. She's wrong, though, even if the fence post was wrong it couldn't argue back.

If the fence post won't cooperate and argue with you then maybe you should try it in the mirror. You might get a better response.