So now Congress wants to get involved in the NFL

WickedLou9 · 02-04-2008, 02:16 PM

So Arlen Spector is talking nonsense about needing to hold hearings on the patriots video taping scandal. WTF? Congress has nothing to do with this. This is an internal matter dealing with rules that the NFL created for it's teams. There are no laws being broken here. What possible grounds could the senate have for this? With the baseball steriod thing I can MAYBE see some sort of weak link.. The FDA has authority to regulate drugs and what not.. so I guess if people illegally used contolled drugs, maybe the senate could have a hearing about it... But videotaping? What are these douche rockets thinking? Are they going to ask sammy sosa about his corked bat?

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 02:20 PM

I agree. There is nothing congress should be doing about this. It's an abuse of government powers.

bheld · 02-04-2008, 02:22 PM

This is what happens when you keep voting for the lesser of two evils.

DosEquis · 02-04-2008, 02:27 PM

I don't know what to say. That is so dumb and ridiculous. We have so many vastly more important issues to look at, and they are worried about a football team.

motivez · 02-04-2008, 02:32 PM

Seems like they do have a role:

Simultaneously, the Times learned that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania -- the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has some jurisdiction over the NFL's precious antitrust exemption -- wants to hold hearings on why the material collected in the NFL's investigation was destroyed.

Think Congress has no business investigating sports? Most NFL teams play in publicly subsidized stadiums, and NFL games are aired over public airwaves controlled by federal licenses. The licenses, among other things, prohibit any pre-arrangement or artifice in what is presented as live competition. If a Super Bowl were affected by cheating, that would be a legitimate matter of concern to Congress. Plus, the recent lesson learned via baseball and steroids was that Major League Baseball did not clean up its own house until Congress put some pressure on.

bheld · 02-04-2008, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like they do have a role:

They have real problems to solve first.

Publius · 02-04-2008, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like they do have a role:

Those publicly subsidized stadiums are typically subsidized by the state or local government. If they want to investigate, let THEM do it, NOT the Federal government.

As for the games being broadcast on "public airwaves controlled by federal licenses," that is one of the most retarded reasons I've ever heard. This is basically saying the Federal government has jurisdiction over 100% of the activities of anyone employed by any broadcast network, because they have products being broadcast on public airwaves.

If it were a matter of something being broadcast that directly breaks an FCC rule? Okay, I don't like that argument either but at least it has merit. But "spygate" certainly doesn't fall into that category.

You might want to hand the Federal government that kind of power, but I certainly don't.

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like they do have a role:

What part of what you quoted shows they have a role in this?

motivez · 02-04-2008, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What part of what you quoted shows they have a role in this?

The part I quoted.

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Those publicly subsidized stadiums are typically subsidized by the state or local government. If they want to investigate, let THEM do it, NOT the Federal government.

As for the games being broadcast on "public airwaves controlled by federal licenses," that is one of the most retarded reasons I've ever heard. This is basically saying the Federal government has jurisdiction over 100% of the activities of anyone employed by any broadcast network, because they have products being broadcast on public airwaves.

If it were a matter of something being broadcast that directly breaks an FCC rule? Okay, I don't like that argument either but at least it has merit. But "spygate" certainly doesn't fall into that category.

You might want to hand the Federal government that kind of power, but I certainly don't.

Even still, subsidizing doesn't grant them rights or control over their organization. Nothing the NFL did violated the FCC or any federal law.

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

The part I quoted.

What part of publicly subsidized stadiums and FCC laws correlates to federal powers over the NFL? Stating that they subsidized and broadcast events doesn't prove your point.

motivez · 02-04-2008, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Those publicly subsidized stadiums are typically subsidized by the state or local government. If they want to investigate, let THEM do it, NOT the Federal government.

As for the games being broadcast on "public airwaves controlled by federal licenses," that is one of the most retarded reasons I've ever heard. This is basically saying the Federal government has jurisdiction over 100% of the activities of anyone employed by any broadcast network, because they have products being broadcast on public airwaves.

If it were a matter of something being broadcast that directly breaks an FCC rule? Okay, I don't like that argument either but at least it has merit. But "spygate" certainly doesn't fall into that category.

You might want to hand the Federal government that kind of power, but I certainly don't.

Way to assume my position, I'm just quoting what I've read elsewhere, I always thought it was silly to have Congress investigating steroids in baseball, etc.. but going by what I've read in several places it seems like there's some sort of legitimate interest and not just "Oh lookie, I'm a Congressman and can do what I want" going on.

But I guess if leagues get anti-trust exemption and their ability to broadcast is based on some sort of compliance with league rules, and the league is trying to hide something that violates agreements and so forth..

Of course you're really debating a philosophical difference you have with the way government currently works, but I don't think that's going to change anything this time

motivez · 02-04-2008, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

What part of publicly subsidized stadiums and FCC laws correlates to federal powers over the NFL? Stating that they subsidized and broadcast events doesn't prove your point.

It's not my point, it's someone else's I quoted from an article pasted elsewhere on this site

You can always

if you're interested in a more in depth explanation of why

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not my point, it's someone else's I quoted from an article pasted elsewhere on this site

You can always if you're interested in a more in depth explanation of why

You agreed with it:

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like they do have a role

I'm asking you what role they have based on what you quoted. They have a role in their funding and FCC? What does that have to do with the issue at hand? It's a red herring. It's saying "We have rights over this, so therefore we're going to do something completely unrelated."

thewise1 · 02-04-2008, 02:52 PM

Look at it this way - if they are investigating the NFL, that's less time they have to screw the rest of us!

motivez · 02-04-2008, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Someone who cares more can pick up the ball (hohoho, a pun), I've said what I wanted to.

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Of course you're really debating a philosophical difference you have with the way government currently works, but I don't think that's going to change anything this time

We're not debating a philosophical difference in how the government works. That doesn't make much sense. What we're debating is what right if any they have to do what they're doing. If anything you're debating a further expansion of government powers. What this issue is about is Specter taking the rights he has now and trying to build on them. He has been trying to legislate laws against the NFL regarding private broadcasting and other things for some time. This is no different.

You haven't proven your case, and when asked you've told me to Google

So I don't know how you can accuse someone else of debating a "philosophical issue" as if because he's libertarian he's biased or something. He's not debating how we wants the US to be, he's discussing current laws and regulations.

motivez · 02-04-2008, 03:06 PM

I'm not sure why you're still asking me questions

Originally Posted by motivez

Someone who cares more can pick up the ball (hohoho, a pun), I've said what I wanted to.

Was that not clear enough or something?

JaJae · 02-04-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure why you're still asking me questions

Was that not clear enough or something?

I wasn't aware I had asked you a question. Was I not clear enough or something? I can't respond to a post because someone refuses to back up their position?

Thorgrim · 02-04-2008, 03:12 PM

JaJae you want to argue that New Jersey/New York has a competent state legislature to deal with serious issues that affect the national at large, as has been advocated by the "small government" mentality here?