# Our Tax Dollars "At work"



## Big Don (Dec 25, 2007)

John Kerry (he was in Vietnam...) threatens NFL if Patriots game not on NBC
Could this be compensating for this:


----------



## crushing (Dec 25, 2007)

Big Don said:


> John Kerry (he was in Vietnam...) threatens NFL if Patriots game not on NBC


 
There have been much worse "Patriot" acts.


----------



## AceHBK (Dec 25, 2007)

I am actually with him on this.  I shouldn't be forced to go to a bar or buy a dish to watch these games that only come on the NFL network.  This would be the second major game this year that wasn't on tv.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 25, 2007)

AceHBK said:


> I am actually with him on this.  I shouldn't be forced to go to a bar or buy a dish to watch these games that only come on the NFL network.  This would be the second major game this year that wasn't on tv.


I could not find the Patriots game two weekends ago. It was not on NFL Network either (which I get). I did not hear a huge public uproar, nor Senators flipping out. Would they be in such an uproar if no one could see it? Lots of games can only be seen locally if you pay via the Season Pass (might be wrong name).

If you are a consumer, you can either get networks that have the NFL network, go see the game somewhere that does (sports bar, friends/families house), petition your network to get the NFL channel or buy the game individually. I looked into that for the previous weeks NFL game. Woulda run about $50. If I REALLY cared that much, I would have paid it. I'm just a casual fan.


----------



## AceHBK (Dec 25, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> I could not find the Patriots game two weekends ago. It was not on NFL Network either (which I get). I did not hear a huge public uproar, nor Senators flipping out. Would they be in such an uproar if no one could see it? Lots of games can only be seen locally if you pay via the Season Pass (might be wrong name).
> 
> If you are a consumer, you can either get networks that have the NFL network, go see the game somewhere that does (sports bar, friends/families house), petition your network to get the NFL channel or buy the game individually. I looked into that for the previous weeks NFL game. Woulda run about $50. If I REALLY cared that much, I would have paid it. I'm just a casual fan.


 
Now it is one thing if the game is not in your market and they have to show the game that is in your market.  That I totally understand, it has always worked liked that.

This isnt about local games as much is it about MAJOR games.  This debate came up earlier this year when the Cowboys played the Packers.  I like many others were pissed about how a game touted as a big game (which it was) and all wasn't showed.  The Pats game should be on television for all to see since it could be a historic game.  It isn't about the team as it is the significance of the game which have people upset.

U can't even watch football anymore unless you have cable.  You are already forced to purchase cable or dish.  Why should I be forced AGAIN to either leave my home or pay extra money to see a game that the NFL itself KNOWS and ADMITS that it is a big game for all to see??

This is all about money, bottom line and in the end the fan suffers.  I am not a casual fan, I am a big fan so for me it pisses me off even more.


----------



## AceHBK (Dec 26, 2007)

Well...looks like all is well again.
Game will be shown on NBC and CBS.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3169075

Goddell got this right at least.  It is in the best interests of the fans.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 26, 2007)

sorry, ace beat me to it


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 29, 2007)

You know on some level I do agree with Kerry getting involved, the NFL a long time ago was granted an exemption as a monopoly, but with that, they have to do things that are in the best interest of the fans, no just their pocketbooks....


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2007)

One report last night was interesting, here, some sixty miles North of Foxborough Stadium. This game is going to be like the State of the Union Address. Not only will the game be broadcast nationally on CBS and NBC, but locally, the ABC affiliate has broadcast rights. So, if you are near the television in this area, every station will have the game on. 

Although, I am a bit curious why the original poster called this thread, 'our tax dollars at work'. If I understand it, there is no additional tax money being spent on this issue, other than Senator Kerry making an appeal for wider broadcast. Yes, Senator Kerry gets a nice salary for being the elected representative from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; which does come from tax revenue. 

But, honestly, this is the thinnest of threads by which one could make a claim. One imagines it must be terribly lonely for a hyperbolic Republican in Sanger, California, having only Democratic elected officials to represresent his interests in Washington (Costa, Boxer, Feinstien). The Club For Growth Website tells me that Congressman Costa has never met a pork amendment that he has voted against. Now that is some tax dollars at work ... and much closer to home for the original poster.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> One report last night was interesting, here, some sixty miles North of Foxborough Stadium. This game is going to be like the State of the Union Address. Not only will the game be broadcast nationally on CBS and NBC, but locally, the ABC affiliate has broadcast rights. So, if you are near the television in this area, every station will have the game on.
> 
> Although, I am a bit curious why the original poster called this thread, 'our tax dollars at work'. If I understand it, there is no additional tax money being spent on this issue, other than Senator Kerry making an appeal for wider broadcast. Yes, Senator Kerry gets a nice salary for being the elected representative from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; which does come from tax revenue.
> 
> But, honestly, this is the thinnest of threads by which one could make a claim. One imagines it must be terribly lonely for a hyperbolic Republican in Sanger, California, having only Democratic elected officials to represresent his interests in Washington (Costa, Boxer, Feinstien). The Club For Growth Website tells me that Congressman Costa has never met a pork amendment that he has voted against. Now that is some tax dollars at work ... and much closer to home for the original poster.


My point was, that Kerry's threat, was an unconstitutional abuse of power, and it was.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2007)

Big Don said:


> My point was, that Kerry's threat, was an unconstitutional abuse of power, and it was.


 
There was a point to the original post? In re-reading that post, I don't see any attempt to make a point. What I see, is a attack against a sitting member of the United States Senate, using a graphic that was obviously not your personal property. 

There is no mention in the original post about actions 'constitutional', or otherwise.

In the article, the 'threat' Senator Kerry made was - and I quote - "Senate Hearings". It seems to me that the Constitution tells us that the Senate can make its own rules (that would be Article I, Section 5). One of the things the Senate can do, and it is completely Constitutional, is to hold hearings. I also note that you did not attack the Chair of the Committee, nor the Ranking Member. I will note that the Ranking Member, Senator Spector (R-PA) has long been against continuing the Anti-Trust Exemption for the NFL. 

I suppose it is not as much fun to make fun of a cancer survivor.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 29, 2007)

Where in the Constitution is sporting events covered? How does that promote the general welfare? Spector? He looks like he's been dead six months, but, then he looked like that before the cancer, too.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Where in the Constitution is sporting events covered? How does that promote the general welfare? Spector? He looks like he's been dead six months, but, then he looked like that before the cancer, too.


 
I quote. Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To .... regulate Commerce ... among the several States ...


----------



## Big Don (Dec 29, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I quote. Article I, Section 8
> 
> The Congress shall have Power To .... regulate Commerce ... among the several States ...


You're equating a hissy fit over a football game not being on network TV to regulating commerce? Is the regulation of commerce supposed to compel (that is FORCE against their will) business owners to do business when and where they choose not to? Somehow, that doesn't seem likely to be the founding father's intent... 
Had wanted to interfere with football, should it not have acted to stop the NFL from removing Monday Night Football from network TV? Or to put an end to out of market games?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2007)

Big Don said:


> You're equating a hissy fit over a football game not being on network TV to regulating commerce? Is the regulation of commerce supposed to compel (that is FORCE against their will) business owners to do business when and where they choose not to? Somehow, that doesn't seem likely to be the founding father's intent...
> Had wanted to interfere with football, should it not have acted to stop the NFL from removing Monday Night Football from network TV? Or to put an end to out of market games?


 
So now, instead of this being a 'constitutional issue', as you posited a few posts back, it is now a 'hissy fit'? 

Are you arguing that the National Football League is not a business subject to the legislative rules of commerce? An industry, which  generates almost $6,000,000,000.00 in revenue each year, and is granted an anti-trust exemption by Congress, is not 'commerce'. 

Further, you are trying to obscue the issue by bringing in "the founding fathers'. But, you miss the mark here, as well. It seems to me that the founding fathers *did* address the issue. When Mr. Madison was drafting the Constitution, language was included that said Congression can make a) their own rules and b) regulate commerce. I can not help but wonder which part of those two ideas you find to be outside the situation.

You see, those who drafted our Constitution, knew that things progress and things change. They built into our founding documents the ability to adapt to changing times. So, despite the fact, that the idea of broadcast television was quite probably beyond the wildest dreams of any of the founding fathers (with the possible exception of Mr. Franklin), they were wise enough to understand new ideas and inventions were going to come into existance, and the leaders of our country will need to be able to address those changes. You can find that language in the Constitution as well. See Article I, Section 8

_The Congress shall have Power ... __To__ make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof._


----------



## AceHBK (Dec 29, 2007)

This is a great game and if they didn't show it on network tv .....there would have been cries and all from all ova b/c it has been a great game


----------

