1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Constitutional Right to Free Football?

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by sbark, Dec 25, 2007.

  1. sbark

    sbark Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    3,784 Messages
    278 Likes Received
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/kerry_threatens_nfl_if_patriot.html

    Kerry threatens NFL if Patriots-Giants not on NBC

    by Matthew Hay Brown
    With the New England Patriots now one win away from finishing the regular season undefeated, Sen. John Kerry is stepping up his campaign to get the final game broadcast on national television.
    The contest Saturday with the New York Giants is to air locally in Boston and New York. But outside those markets it is scheduled to appear only on the NFL Network, a cable channel that reaches just 35 million households nationwide while the league and cable operators dicker over pricing and distribution.
    Kerry asked football Commissioner Roger Goodell today to move the game to NBC – and threatened Senate hearings if he does not.
  2. VietCowboy

    VietCowboy Be Realistic. Demand the Impossible.

    2,918 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    guess kerry holds shares in TWC...
  3. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,822 Messages
    1,681 Likes Received
    With all the troubles we have this dink is wasting time on this.
  4. EPL0c0

    EPL0c0 The Funcooker

    5,043 Messages
    279 Likes Received
    John Kerry is a frickin' idiot!

    I'm all for putting the game on broadcast, but bringing about senate hearings? Shut the front door Mr. Kerry. If the last game was Jets vs Cowboys would he be campaigning this hard? No.
  5. BigDFan5

    BigDFan5 In Tebow I Trust

    14,915 Messages
    35 Likes Received
    I say bring on the hearings as long as they are going to make the big cable companies testify as to why they are trying to gouge customers instead of giving customers what they want
  6. superpunk

    superpunk Benched

    26,328 Messages
    73 Likes Received
    Do you think they'd get in trouble for revealing their diabolical plan to turn a profit by carrying the NFL network?
  7. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,619 Messages
    408 Likes Received
    Not much more of a waste of time than bringing in a few ex ball players to grill them as to whether or not they jammed themselves full of beef roids.
  8. Ben_n_austin

    Ben_n_austin Benched

    2,898 Messages
    3 Likes Received
    I'm not sure I dig the term "dink". But OK....



    Well, I perceive it as him exploiting/addressing/politicizing (depending on your perspective) a common social issue that is well known aspect in sociology commonly known as strain theory. It's an attempt to do what most politicians do--gain popularity.

    I agree, though, in a way. The government really does own television, so you see what they want you to see.

    In a sense, Kerry has a point--not a very big one in the grand scheme of things, but it's a point none the less.

    In another sense, you're right. I'm thinking to myself, what a boob. I actually voted for this man, whom is making issue of the tube.But then the objective side of me says, he's doing SOMETHING for the people that a lot of politicians won't touch. Then I say, it's all in vein because he wants to garner positive attention from a certain class of people in his state.

    I will say, that I'll never cast a vote for him, ever, based on him not speaking up/out at about that bad arrest at his "political debate". He's an attorney, and he KNOWS that's a bad arrest. Yet he said nothing regarding the guy who was vigorously questioning him at a "debate".

    I know that guy seemed bizarre, but it's not against the law to be bizarre.

    This whole issue that Kerry is taking does seem "bizarre" from an observers standpoint. But he's merely targeting an audience that may, or may not vote against him in 2012. That's probably his last chance for the Big P.

    If not in 2012, then probably never. He's probably crossing his fingers for a Democrat loss, so he doesn't have to wait - or flop/flop parties :D - until the 2016 year.

    I do kick myself when I think that I voted for that man. Then I have an epiphany as to why: He was the only chance to beat a candidate who was much worse, and so the utilitarian reasoning comes out in me.

    Never the less, I shall not defend this man's actions with such venom as I once did. Now Howard Dean, I believe he is a man of conviction and a victim of the media... so I'll stick up for some of the perceived "odd balls" in the democratic party, since I can identify with their premises more so than the Republicans.

Share This Page