Seahawks’ Baldwin speaks out against Trump, anthem rule

[SixSeahawk]

RENTON, Wash. — Doug Baldwin, Russell Wilson and other NFL players are speaking out against a rule approved by the league’s owners this week mandating players on the field stand for the national anthem.

Baldwin took his comments a step further, calling President Donald Trump "an idiot" in response to the president’s comments on "Fox & Friends" saying that "maybe you shouldn’t be in the country" if you don’t stand for the anthem.

Baldwin says the decision by the league’s owners is a step back from the progress made between players and the league regarding social issues and community initiatives. Teams are allowed to create their own policies, and those in charge are considering how the situation will be handled. Teams will be fined by the league if players on the field aren’t standing during the anthem.

Seattle coach Pete Carroll says "I was kind of liking the way it was going," and now some of the control has been taken away from the coach and players.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/football/nfl/s ... them-rule/

 

[HawkGA]

I'm not really liking the policy, but I will also say that if Marshawn could be fined for not talking to the media then this seems at least consistent.

And in case it isn't clear, I wasn't a fan of Marshawn being fined either. But he was fined because his actions were viewed as negatively affecting the revenue that was shared all all players and teams. The military hoopla the NFL does is paid for so the protests have the same potential revenue effects (probably more) than Marshawn's.

 

[OkieHawk]

I'm not really liking the policy, but I will also say that if Marshawn could be fined for not talking to the media then this seems at least consistent.

And in case it isn't clear, I wasn't a fan of Marshawn being fined either. But he was fined because his actions were viewed as negatively affecting the revenue that was shared all all players and teams. The military hoopla the NFL does is paid for so the protests have the same potential revenue effects (probably more) than Marshawn's.

But the "military hoopla" as you called it is paid for by the DoD. So if the NFL decided to stop doing flyovers and such, it wouldn't be that big of a hit to them.

Personally, I feel that such displays at sporting events are a giant waste of tax payer funds.

 

[HawkGA]

I'm not really liking the policy, but I will also say that if Marshawn could be fined for not talking to the media then this seems at least consistent.

And in case it isn't clear, I wasn't a fan of Marshawn being fined either. But he was fined because his actions were viewed as negatively affecting the revenue that was shared all all players and teams. The military hoopla the NFL does is paid for so the protests have the same potential revenue effects (probably more) than Marshawn's.

But the "military hoopla" as you called it is paid for by the DoD. So if the NFL decided to stop doing flyovers and such, it wouldn't be that big of a hit to them.

Personally, I feel that such displays at sporting events are a giant waste of tax payer funds.

That's what I meant, though. The NFL is being paid for it. So deviations affecting a sponsor (like Kaep wearing Beats Headphones, or whatever it was) went against the financial interest of the league. That financial interest is something all parties share in. So one person harming it, for whatever reason, harms the whole. The league and the players are in a collective arrangement (largely by choice). That brings a lot of benefit but it also comes with costs. And it's rather discussion genuois for them to bitch about the costs but still wanting to enjoy the benefits.

 

[OkieHawk]

That's what I meant, though. The NFL is being paid for it.

I wasn't sure if you knew who was paying for that though.

The players didn't even start standing on the sidelines until 2009, and at least as early as 2012 (maybe even 2010 but I haven't found good data on that) is when the DoD started paying the NFL for military patriotism to be part of the games. This was money that, in my opinion, could have been put towards the VA and making it better for disabled service members.

 

[HawkGA]

That's what I meant, though. The NFL is being paid for it.

I wasn't sure if you knew who was paying for that though.

The players didn't even start standing on the sidelines until 2009, and at least as early as 2012 (maybe even 2010 but I haven't found good data on that) is when the DoD started paying the NFL for military patriotism to be part of the games. This was money that, in my opinion, could have been put towards the VA and making it better for disabled service members.

I highly doubt the issues of the VA would be solved with more money. But that's for an entirely different forum. I think the DoD paying for all of this is silly. But the fact is the payers are effectively getting paid for it.

 

[Sox-n-Hawks]

Keep your focus on the field Doug. Bring solutions, not problems.

 

[Rocket]

Protesting the anthem or flag are not effective protest paths. Arguably they made a poor choice and stepped off the path and into a minefield.

Just pick a different method for protesting the inequalities of race relations in America, one that doesn't piss off so many people, one that doesn't effect your employers revenue stream.

This isn't rocket science. Pissing off the opposition may give you giggles, but in the long run you'll lose.

 

[OkieHawk]

Protesting the anthem or flag are not effective protest paths. Arguably they made a poor choice and stepped off the path and into a minefield.

Just pick a different method for protesting the inequalities of race relations in America, one that doesn't piss off so many people, one that doesn't effect your employers revenue stream.

People keep using the narrative that they are "disrespecting the troops", which is incorrect. The thing is, the vast majority of veterans and AD service members don't care. We understand that it's their right to protest, and if taking a knee is that protest then so be it.

The only thing that bothers me is the fact that the NFLPA wasn't consulted on this. Their is a CBA for a reason, and to disregard that means that they potentially violated federal labor laws. If the decision is upheld, then it's an employer/employee dispute and has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Quick question, how many of you stand for the national anthem when it's played at home or at a bar when watching a game? I know I don't. To me, those that bitch and don't stand while at home or bar are hypocrites, plain and simple.

 

[Rocket]

Arguably they're disrespecting their country. Arguably that's Kaep's goal. See link.

https://www.colorofchange.org/campaigns/kneel-with-colin-kaepernick/

People in general seem to have a visceral reaction to other people disrespecting the National Anthem.

As to standing at home or at a bar, tradition doesn't dictate how one behaves at home nor in a bar. Tradition does, however, dictate behavior at sporting events. Why? I dunno, but it's tradition, and generally expected.

This video is a recent unplanned spontaneous rendition by a crowd at a high school softball game. This is why it would be a good idea for the NFL protesters to use a different method.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fresno...at-game-sings-it-anyway-star-spangled-banner/

As a side note, I recall Marshawn sitting on a bench during the anthem, more than once, and it did nothing for me in terms of resent or anger nor anything else. I recall thinking "that's just Marshawn". I'm not sure why, but sitting on the bench doesn't bother me at all, but taking a knee bothers me.

 

[OkieHawk]

Arguably they're disrespecting their country. Arguably that's Kaep's goal. See link.

https://www.colorofchange.org/campaigns/kneel-with-colin-kaepernick/

Anytime one uses "arguably" to start something, it's their opinion and nothing more. You used it twice to emphasize some point, and one that is faulty logic. Try and state why you think they are actually disrespecting the country with facts, not opinion.

People in general seem to have a visceral reaction to other people disrespecting the National Anthem.

As to standing at home or at a bar, tradition doesn't dictate how one behaves at home nor in a bar. Tradition does, however, dictate behavior at sporting events. Why? I dunno, but it's tradition, and generally expected.

Irrelevant, it's still the national anthem.

This video is a recent unplanned spontaneous rendition by a crowd at a high school softball game. This is why it would be a good idea for the NFL protesters to use a different method.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fresno...at-game-sings-it-anyway-star-spangled-banner/

This has nothing to do with the protesters, more along the lines of those who oppose what the players are doing. Not sure what this has to do with the debate.

As a side note, I recall Marshawn sitting on a bench during the anthem, more than once, and it did nothing for me in terms of resent or anger nor anything else. I recall thinking "that's just Marshawn". I'm not sure why, but sitting on the bench doesn't bother me at all, but taking a knee bothers me.

It's semantics though on if they take a knee or sit. It didn't bother you because Marshawn was on our team. FYI, he did it in Buffalo as well.

I've stated this before, and I'll go on the record again. It is their right as Americans to protest peacefully. It doesn't bother me at all as a 20 year AF retiree if they do this, or if they decide to burn a flag on the field before every game. That is their right, and one that I gave the bulk of my adult life for them to be allowed to do so.

 

[Rocket]

It is their right as Americans to protest peacefully.

Try and state why you think they have that right, in the new NFL rule context, with facts and not opinion.

Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say anything about Employer shall make no rule.

 

[OkieHawk]

It is their right as Americans to protest peacefully.

Try and state why you think they have that right, in the new NFL rule context, with facts and not opinion.

Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say anything about Employer shall make no rule.

I already stated my opinion in this very thread! Learn to read.

The only thing that bothers me is the fact that the NFLPA wasn't consulted on this. Their is a CBA for a reason, and to disregard that means that they potentially violated federal labor laws. If the decision is upheld, then it's an employer/employee dispute and has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Dammit, just noticed I misspelled there...I'm leaving it.

Also, maybe you should read this and be up to date on what you should do when the National Anthem is played. Note that this doesn't specify when nor where.

 

[Rocket]

It's foolish to demand facts and not opinion and then declare an opinion was already stated.
Slip-sliding one's demands from opinion to fact and back to opinion is what I meant by giggling.

I'll wait for another. Thanks.

P.S. Thanks for your service. It was selfless.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Keep your focus on the field Doug. Bring solutions, not problems.

Yep love you as a player. Do you really think I should judge you on you're political discourse? You are just an NFL player, not a politician (ironically are one the most despicable human beings on earth). Guy is way out of bounds.

Its like voting politics in high school. Who is the most popular. What are you're policies you want to advance Doug? Let's drop the emotional arguments and give us some sound proof backed ideas that you have. Or do you just want to have a conversation? If it is the latter piss off.

 

[OkieHawk]

It's foolish to demand facts and not opinion and then declare an opinion was already stated.
Slip-sliding one's demands from opinion to fact and back to opinion is what I meant by giggling.

I'll wait for another. Thanks.

P.S. Thanks for your service. It was selfless.

Here's the thing though, I did say opinion, but it was actually fact based. My word choice was poor, but you still haven't provided ANY factual evidence to back your claim about his protest.

Guess I'll be the one actually waiting. :2thumbs:

 

[RastaHawk12!]

Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say anything about Employer shall make no rule.

Exactly.

Most employers have regulations around keeping religion and politics out of the workplace. Employers are allowed to dictate what you do and don't do while you are on the clock. Shoot.. I don't get to protest abortion or anything else at work. Work is where you work. If we proactively do things at work that cost the employer a ton of dough... we get to lose our job.

I don't see the difference.

 

[chris98251]

Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say anything about Employer shall make no rule.

Exactly.

Most employers have regulations around keeping religion and politics out of the workplace. Employers are allowed to dictate what you do and don't do while you are on the clock. Shoot.. I don't get to protest abortion or anything else at work. Work is where you work. If we proactively do things at work that cost the employer a ton of dough... we get to lose our job.

I don't see the difference.

Not true anymore, any social media posts that could tie you to a employer, or if it gets leaked your a employee of and your employer does not look at them favorably now can also get you canned, even when your not at work.

 

[RastaHawk12!]

Note that the first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law", it doesn't say anything about Employer shall make no rule.

Exactly.

Most employers have regulations around keeping religion and politics out of the workplace. Employers are allowed to dictate what you do and don't do while you are on the clock. Shoot.. I don't get to protest abortion or anything else at work. Work is where you work. If we proactively do things at work that cost the employer a ton of dough... we get to lose our job.

I don't see the difference.

Not true anymore, any social media posts that could tie you to a employer, or if it gets leaked your a employee of and your employer does not look at them favorably now can also get you canned, even when your not at work.

There's truth to that. But I still feel a little more at ease posting personal opinions on the net than I would be holding an anti-abortion sign in the driveway at work.

It is interesting to me. The same people who are all for sitting for the anthem are probably the same ones that would be freaking out if it were an anti-abortion protest. Just a thought. I suppose I would feel the same if it were reversed, so I can't bitch, lol.