Skip to content

Some deluded baseball fans sue MLB, broadcasters over alleged video monopoly

May 10, 2012, 10:32 AM EDT

lawsuit gavel

Blaming the legal system for stupid lawsuits is kinda like blaming guns for gun violence. They’re just tools that, when properly used, have their place.  It’s the idiots who use them recklessly that are the real problem:

A small group of baseball fans is suing Major League Baseball, its clubs and some television broadcast entities, claiming they collude to eliminate competition in the showing of games on the Internet and television … The lawsuit said the defendants possess monopoly power over the market for video presentations of major league games and have used the power to exclude or limit competition.

If I’m the judge that gets this case, my dismissal entry says “Monopoly power? Nonsense. Plaintiffs have every right to broadcast games themselves too.  In the event they have a billion dollars to buy such rights.”

In other news, yes, that first paragraph is an accurate description of my views on gun rights. Figured I’d inject that because I have been caricatured as a cliche liberal far too often around here lately.  When, in reality, I am a cliche liberal who happens to believe that people have the Constitutional right of private gun ownership in this country.

But yes, the rest of the cliche liberal stuff is probably right, so whatever.

  1. nelsonsaint - May 10, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    Insert vitriolic pro- or anti-gun logic here.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - May 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

      without guns, there could be no gun violence

      discuss amongst yourselves

      • Mike Luna - May 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        Without knives, there’d be no knifings. Without fake wooden legs, there’d be no fake wooden leg beatings.


      • Craig Calcaterra - May 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

        And without cars there would be no auto accidents.

        But seriously, yes: I appreciate that guns have a single purpose that cars do not have. At the same time, I can’t pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist. I don’t think that means no regulation or whatever because at some point pragmatism is necessary with all dangerous things. But we can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we feel are enforcable.

        And, pragmatically speaking, we are not going to be able to eliminate the existence of guns.

      • ajcardsfan - May 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

        Not true at all, somebody would just figure out how to create “mind bullets”

      • Ben - May 10, 2012 at 10:57 AM

        Of course we can pretend the second amendment doesn’t exist. We do it all the time with huge swathes of the constitution.
        And this American fetish for the “intent” constitution is unfortunate. Times change, so must the constitution. Also, go read Derrida.

      • thefalcon123 - May 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM

        The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms.

        Does that mean I can have a nuclear bomb? Those are arms. Or scud missiles?

        No…you think the founders couldn’t have forseen that and that’s a bullshit argument? Fine. The founders also couldn’t have automatic weapons, pistols, etc. Therefore, the 2nd amendment guarantees you the right to a single shot musket.


        (Boo-ya will be attracted after many commenters, a’hem, shoot holes in my obviously faulty arguments).

      • 18thstreet - May 10, 2012 at 11:06 AM

        Just pretend that stuff about a well-regulated militia — or the value of said well-regulated militia to the security of a free state — has zero meaning, and, yes, the right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals, as opposed to collective right of people, organized in a well-regulated militia, to keep and bear arms in service of the defense their state.

        If you want to pretend that the security of a free state has something to do with your ability to hunt deer or own a handgun that protects your individual property, sure the second amendment allows you to have a gun. But that’s not what a well-regulated militia, in service of the security of a free state, means.

        The states do, indeed, have the right to have their own chapters of the National Guard. Individuals have no right to own or use a gun. None.

      • Ben - May 10, 2012 at 11:09 AM

        Can I just say that I love this community’s metafights? Usually they’re pretty thoughtful, and even somewhat self-aware.
        Baseball, the thinking person’s sport.

      • Craig Calcaterra - May 10, 2012 at 11:09 AM

        The problem is that the courts have often not agreed with that interpretation. And unless you think that courts have no role in interpreting the Constitution, you can’t just ignore that.

      • ThisIsBaseball - May 10, 2012 at 11:10 AM

        I never bought into the whole pro-gun/Second Amendment argument until a couple weeks ago and it hit me. It prevents the government from becoming overly oppressive.

      • The Baseball Idiot - May 10, 2012 at 11:12 AM

        “Times change, so must the constitution.”

        When the majority of the people want it to.

      • Ben - May 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM

        If you think your little 9mm pistol makes any difference whatsoever in preventing the government from becoming too oppressive you’re deluded.

        @The Baseball Idiot
        The problem with that is the United States has structured itself to prevent change. For example, the US electoral system would be vastly improved by abolishing the electoral college, but it’ll never happen because two thirds of the states won’t agree to it.

      • ThisIsBaseball - May 10, 2012 at 11:17 AM

        @Ben. No, a single 9mm won’t. But when you have the an armed population the size of the US…

      • kopy - May 10, 2012 at 11:18 AM

        “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson

      • Ben - May 10, 2012 at 11:21 AM

        Predator drone vs. 9mm pistol. Fight!

      • The Baseball Idiot - May 10, 2012 at 11:22 AM

        Ben, the Electoral College (which should be discontinued) has nothing to do with ammeding the Constitution. Two entirely different situations.

        The people can choose to get rid of the Electoral College anything time they want. All they have to do it push through a Constitutional Ammendment. It’s happened many times before.

      • kopy - May 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM

        No matter how much technology is accumulated by the government, people can always be feared. Whether it’s through a massive numbers imbalance, or the ability to influence and turn those in the government who have such technology. And don’t forget, the armed forces identify more closely to Joe the Plumber than John the Politician. Can’t piss those guys off too much.

      • Ben - May 10, 2012 at 11:27 AM

        @The Baseball Idiot

        Uhh.. the electoral college is in the constitution. It requires a constitutional amendment. Which requires two thirds of the states to ratify it. I don’t get what you’re saying.

      • cur68 - May 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

        As a gun owner and a Canadian, I often wonder how it is there can be so many Canadian gun owners and so few, compared to the US, gun related crimes in Canada. I’ve come to this conclusion: mos of us’d rather apologize than shoot someone. Sorry, but there it is. No one ever died from heartfelt apology, either made or received.

        I think your constitution has the right idea: I recently read that in countries where the arms have been rounded up and taken away from the average law abiding citizen, gun related crimes have increased (Australia for example). Criminals don’t actually register or turn in their weapons, if you can believe that. Also, state sponsored oppression is much easier once the average law-abiding citizen is disarmed. It was among the first moves the Nazi Party made when they seized power.

        Also, in the event of the Zombi Apocalypse, Rise of the Machines, or Alien Invasion, only we armed will stand a chance. The rest of you are dinner, slaves, body snatched, or dead.

        As far as gun control goes, I take Clint Eastwood’s view on the matter:
        “If there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM

        Yes! We should remove the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminals who will still own guns no matter what laws you create. THIS make sooo much more sense than allowing a legal avenue to protect yourselves and family members. If only this man had actually used his right to bear arms things could have been different. One thing is for sure though. My family won’t be victimized as easily. You holier than thou folks against guns could use some perspective so here it is.

      • ThisIsBaseball - May 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM

        @ cur – The scene in Bowling for Columbine where they show the difference in news reports between Detroit and the Canadian city right across the lake from it seems to go to the mentality you speak of.

      • kopy - May 10, 2012 at 11:45 AM

        Also, gun ownership is a deterrent. You don’t have to shoot a burglar to stop a break-in. If a potential criminal carries around the thought in the back of his head that a homeowner might be armed, he may decide the crime isn’t worth it. Taking away guns removes a large job hazard for a criminal.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - May 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM

        Jesus Christ y’all took that way too seriously.

      • hasbeen5 - May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM

        Exactly kopy, when a burglar hears the sound of a 12-guage being chambered, he may think about turning around and leaving the premises.

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        Copo, any time anyone talks about giving up rights as citizens I hope everyone takes it very seriously.

      • racksie - May 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM

        But wasn’t the second amendment put in place to protect us from invaders, and to supply militias to defend the country? in 1791? Seems like that got lost somewhere over the last two hundred twenty years. Considering most domestic guns are used by Americans, to kill, Americans.

      • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - May 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM

        Copo, any time anyone talks about giving up rights as citizens I hope everyone takes it very seriously.

        I probably should have put a /sarcasm after it, but it was almost a tautological statement that I meant literally. If we didn’t have guns, we couldn’t have gun violence. Like the person right after me wrote, without knives you couldn’t have any knifing incidents.

        Didn’t think it would turn into a referendum on the 2nd amendment. However since we have, I pose this question:

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 3:48 PM

        lol, Bear arms…..

    • bigleagues - May 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

      First of all, the Right to Bear Arms is Constitutional. The Right to Kill is not. Checks and balances people. Can we get better at owning arms? Yes.

      But for a country founded by way of War against its ruling government – far too many Americans are far too eager to put far too much trust in those that run the Federal Government.

      The prison culture, Federal encroachment on civil liberties, over-zealous lawr enforcement and the cultural hysteria of the past 80 years can be directly traced back to one very dark and residually catastrophic period in American history – Prohibition. And out of the ashes of that FAIL to control and influence individuals moral code came a far more sinister and destructive period of prohibition, which we have exported and made global through hegemonic lust.

      Having said all that . . . I’m going to provide you all with a simple formula to solve all your MLB.TV Blackout streaming problems. I will give you the general factors int he formula. You need to do your own research and figure out the specifics:

      HIGH SPEED Broadband Service + MLB.TV Premium Subscription + VPN Anonymizer Service (International & Domestic) = MLB Watching Nirvana

      If implemented properly, no more Blackouts, no more need for Cable TV to watch MLB – all of MLB including Saturday and Sunday afternoon games.

      Not all VPN services are created equally, and if you want to be safe, find a reliable paid service. Avoid the ‘free’ services. Remember you get what you pay for.

  2. Mike Luna - May 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM

    I also heard your dad was a Socialist, Craig.

    • Ben - May 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

      I heard Craig’s dad was Old Gator aka Fidel Castro.

      Jon Heyman hasn’t denied it.

      • 18thstreet - May 10, 2012 at 11:34 AM

        Pedro Gomez can tell, by looking at these comments, who Craig is going to vote for.

      • cur68 - May 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM

        And that he’s on the juice.

  3. mrfloydpink - May 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    Wow, for a fellow lefty, you’ve just made a rather right-wing, anti-gun law argument. The implication of your statement is that controlling the number of guns in a society is not a solution to gun violence, since it’s actually the people who use the guns that need to be controlled. You could practically have copied and pasted that sentence of your post from the NRA website.

    • Craig Calcaterra - May 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM

      Look, the Second Amendment exists. We can’t pretend it doesn’t. The question then is, what do we do about it to make life safer. I think sensible regulation is acceptable (I differ from the NRA there) but not prohibition on legal gun ownership, which I believe violates the 2nd Amendment.

      FWIW: I do not own any guns and never have and I’m not a hunter. Just throwing it out there.

      • racksie - May 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM

        racksie – May 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM

        But wasn’t the second amendment put in place to protect us from invaders, and to supply militias to defend the country? in 1791? Seems like that got lost somewhere over the last two hundred twenty years. Considering most domestic guns are used by Americans, to kill, Americans.

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM

        Who told you that? Maybe it was meant to protect us from fellow Americans? This country was no picnic in 1791 either. People got shot for their boots just as fast back then as people are shot for their Nikes today.

      • yahmule - May 10, 2012 at 11:35 PM

        Like you, Craig, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. I also believe the NRA is an absolutely despicable organization.

        I also think a lot of disgusting soulless valueless scumbags hide behind the Second Amendment to help fuel the out of control gun violence in Mexico. They estimate 2000 firearms are trafficked illegally from the US into Mexico every day. Weapons purchased from the countless gun shops lining the border along the infamous Iron River. The proprietors of these stores cite the Second Amendment knowing full well these guns are going to be used against innocent citizens and law enforcement officials on both sides of the border.

    • mrfloydpink - May 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM

      Further, there is not a single person that I’ve ever heard who denies the Constitutional right to own guns–it is, after all, right there in the Bill of Rights. So, that’s a meaningless assertion–a straw man, really. The actual question, as with any of the privileges in the Bill of Rights, is exactly what limitations can and should be imposed while still abiding by the Constitution. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, even though you have freedom of speech. You can’t marry six women, even though you have freedom of religion. And it’s entirely fair for me to oppose, say, selling AK-47s to private citizens while still honoring the second amendment.

      I mean, you’re a lawyer. Or a former lawyer, at least. I am truly stunned to see you make a legal/Constitutional argument so lacking in nuance.

      • Craig Calcaterra - May 10, 2012 at 10:59 AM

        “Further, there is not a single person that I’ve ever heard who denies the Constitutional right to own guns”

        That’s the strawman. Look up the arguments, asserted both legally and in general rhetoric about the “well-regulated militia” language. There is a whole school of thought and advocacy that believes that individual gun ownership is not Constitutionally protected.

        That said: the regulation is not mere detail. The entire corpus of Constitutional interpretation can be characterized by a determination of what level of regulation constitutes abdridgement of a right. This is an active battle.

        And yes, I agree it is legitimate to oppose, say, the private market for AK-47s, I do not believe that that the burden is on those who think differently from you to say why AK-47 sales are right. The burden is on the regulators to say why it’s permissible under the Constitution. I do not believe that most who propose anti-gun laws believe this, and I believe they are wrong.

      • ThatGuy - May 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

        The AK-47’s avaialable for sale to private citizins are not full auto like Military Spec ones used by Russians and pretty much every where else. They are semi – auto, like any other rifle. They are just a standard rifle.

      • bigleagues - May 10, 2012 at 9:02 PM

        AK-47 just sounds sinister because the Soviets used them and the name contains straight lines, crisp angles and a K for emphasis AK-47.

        OK, well I also once had pointed in my general direction by a corridor of Soviet Army men. That’s how we, as a group of high school students, among the first Westerner’s to tour the Soviet Union under Perestroika (restructuring) and Glasnost (openness), were greeted at the Moscow airport. Anyway that was pretty intimidating. Though not as intimidating as my classmate who was arrested by the KGB for selling his sneakers in a hotel stairwell.

        Anyway, I don’t own any guns, but I want the option available if a true need ever presented itself. And I have no problem with reasonable limitations.

    • mrfloydpink - May 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

      Hm, we seem to be saying largely the same thing (I was writing my post at the time you posted yours). I stand by my assertion, however, that the supposed people or factions or whomever that want to ban gun ownership don’t actually exist.

      • baccards - May 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM

        I am in agreement with the faction of people who think the “militia” clause of the 2nd amendment essentially bans “individual” ownership of guns. That is not to say an individual who is part of a “well regulated militia” cannot own his gun…just that a single individual’s right to bear arms is not constitionally protected.
        I know the Supreme Court has for years not agreed with that view but that does not mean the interpretion won’t change. After nearly 100 yrs of legal precedence for freedom of speech being limited to people, this court has interpreted “corporations’ have the same right as a human being.

    • hasbeen5 - May 10, 2012 at 11:07 AM

      “The implication of your statement is that controlling the number of guns in a society is not a solution to gun violence, since it’s actually the people who use the guns that need to be controlled.”

      That’s pretty much right. Thing is, banning guns would only prevent ownership by those who obey laws, which are generally the people who would be the safest gun owners. Drugs are illegal (which is a whole different story, but I think they should be legal) but people still get them. Do you really think banning guns would prevent criminals from getting them? And at least now there are background checks to weed out some of the purchasers, that would go away if the black market were the only option.

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:20 PM

        Prisoners have built guns. In prison. And they have worked.

  4. illcomm - May 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    hate comcast. u have to have them otherwise u don’t get home games all the time. sucks. its thievery.

  5. sictransitchris - May 10, 2012 at 10:46 AM

    Why do you hate America, Craig?

    • ThisIsBaseball - May 10, 2012 at 11:25 AM

      Disagreeing doesn’t mean you’re any less American. It’s the ability to disagree that makes this country so great.

      • 18thstreet - May 10, 2012 at 12:17 PM

        I disagree, thus making me a bigger patriot than you.

  6. bjavie - May 10, 2012 at 11:01 AM

    I am willing to bet this stems from the whole “FOX Saturday game vs.” in that Fox claims the rights to 4 or 5 games every Satrurday.

    I live in Dallas, so if the Rangers and Phillies are both on the FOX schedule (forget the fact that the Rangers are also shown on local), the Phillies game will be blacked out on even though it is showing NO WHERE in Dallas. So, yeah, there is some sort of Monopoly going on with the FOX Saturday game(s) of the week broadcast rights. So, why is FOX allowed to claim 4 or 5 games a week?

    That’s just dumb.

  7. oms0004 - May 10, 2012 at 11:04 AM

    I understand the frivolous nature of this lawsuit but can’t help but side with the plaintiffs. I live in a town where the local cable company does not carry ROOT sports. In order to view Mariner’s games I would have to own a dish service. However, I live to close to the north face of a mountain and am unable to receive a dish signal. So I take to the package. Oh wait, because I am in the viewing area for the Seattle Mariners I am blacked out of every one of their broadcasts on This is especially frustrating since ROOT is a subsidiary of DirectTV and thus in competition with the GCI (my cable company). ROOT drives up their price to stick it to cable competition. GCI in turn drops ROOT because they won’t be bullied. Who suffers? Me. The fan. Blackouts on are redicuous. Your watching the same broadcast with the same commercial sponsors that appear on tv anyways so it’s not like anyone is losing out on dough. I’m in Alaska for gods sake… How is that ANY teams “home” viewing area?

  8. stultusmagnus - May 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    Really Craig? I think a vast majority of “liberals” believe in the 2nd amendment. I know I do. It think the disagreement is on how it’s defined. For example, I don’t believe an ex-felon should be able to purchase a semi-automatic rifle. I don’t believe you should be allowed to carry guns into a bar. I believe you should have a permit to be able to carry a concealed weapon. I believe in mandated background checks and waiting periods. It’s not about whether you agree in principle with the 2nd amendment, nearly everybody does.

    • hasbeen5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:04 PM

      Felons can’t own guns, you do need a permit to carry, and there are background checks. Now, if I have said permit, I should be able to carry it wherever the hell I go, unless the owner of an establishment expressly prohibits it.

      But again, these things only regulate those who chose to abide by the law.

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM

        Felons can and do own guns actually. This is why it’s important for law abiding citizens to have this right as well.

      • Jonny 5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:25 PM

        I know you support legal gun ownership but i still had to put that out there. As a matter of fact i could build myself a darned good working shotgun in a day given the proper tools. A pistol in about a week.

      • stultusmagnus - May 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM

        Wrong about permits, licenses, etc. I don’t want to look up all the wacko states of the south, this is just from one state. Hint: a congresswoman got shot in the head there.

        Carry permits issued? “Concealed carry over the age of 21 in most places no longer requires a permit as of July 29, 2010.”

        State Permit to Purchase? “No”

        “Assault weapon” law? “No”

        Owner license required? “No”

      • hasbeen5 - May 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

        Jonny, I agree, that’s exactly why I should be able to carry one if I choose.

        Stultusmagnus, I live in one of those “wacko states in the south.” No permit is required to buy a long gun, but you are subjected to a background check.

        Handguns are different. In order to carry one, you must go through a certification class and obtain a permit. If you buy one not for carry, but for say keeping in your nightstand, you do not need a permit. However, you still go through the background check and there is a 3 day waiting period.

        And your example is asinine. If that nutjob didn’t have a gun, he could have made a bomb or used a knife. If he wanted to cause damage, he could have found another way. And further, citing one act as reason for banning something makes no sense at all. Just recently here, someone ran over a person with their car. Should we ban everything that could conceivably be used as a weapon? No more baseball I guess, since they have been known to cause injury.

  9. ih1357 - May 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM

    If these people have a situation like mine they should win. if not go after the cable providers. i live in a city where i have four “home” teams. the reds, braves, nats, and o’s. all i get through my cable are braves games. i also have an subscription, however it blocks out all four teams because i am supposed to get them from my cable provider. its total BS and needa to get fixed

    • antlerclaws - May 10, 2012 at 11:47 AM

      Seems that a simple solution would be for MLB to remove all blackouts from I really don’t see how the blackouts benefit anyone involved–the teams, MLB, the viewers, the advertisers. The blackout policy what is keeping me–and I’m guessing a lot of other baseball fans–from becoming a subscriber to

  10. stultusmagnus - May 10, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    And by the way, I hope they sue MLB to high heaven. There should be no “FOX” blackouts, it’s BS. Only the fans get screwed. I switched to viewing through myp2p a long time ago, I’m done bending over backwards to see a freakin’ game.

    • yahmule - May 10, 2012 at 11:42 PM

      I live in Las Vegas and subscribe (like a sucker) to Extra Innings from DirecTV. Despite the nearest Major League ballpark being over 300 miles away, MLB allows me to be blacked out of games involving the Dodgers, Angels, Diamondbacks and even the Giants and A’s. Weasel bastards.

      • yahmule - May 10, 2012 at 11:44 PM

        Oh yeah, I forgot the Padres. No true home team, yet I endure blackouts involving 20% of the teams in MLB.

      • stultusmagnus - May 12, 2012 at 11:21 AM

        man, that’s just f-ed up and wrong. there’s nothing silly or wrong about this lawsuit like the author implies.

  11. hansob - May 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM

    I think you should do this every post, Craig.

    Next post…. “Adrian Gonzalez has a hangnail. Also, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

  12. underwoodsbeard - May 10, 2012 at 11:46 AM

    Could be worse Craig, you could be Gleeman !


  13. casey5jones - May 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM

    @Ben: I think “the baseball idiot” is saying that the people (constituents) can push the amendment to the constitution by pressuring their representatives and senators to do so. Ideally how government is supposed to work, realistically not how it happens.

    I agree with Craig here; we can’t pick and chose which amendments to support and which to ignore. The constitution says we have a right to bear arms and so we do. We can either chose to “regulate it” or amend the constitution.

    Further, a quick thought. I personally promise, here in front of all, to give up my guns the day all militaries seize to exist and all nations agree to dismantle their nuclear arsenals.

    There’s a better chance of Craig saying he hates Star Wars than me giving up my guns. Just saying.

    P.S it’s actually just one gun, a small one. The other is mostly filled with Vodka and Kool Aid :-)

  14. juicejuicer - May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    This conversation reminds me of the words of one very wise man:

    “Guns don’t kill people. Husbands that come home early kill people” -Larry The Cable Guy

    • hasbeen5 - May 10, 2012 at 12:00 PM

      I quoted him once on this site for this same argument, except miine was “blaming guns for killing people is like blaming your pencil for spelling a word wrong.” Apparently the folks around here did not consider him a legitimate source, for I was ridiculed for citing him.

  15. drewsylvania - May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    “Plaintiffs have every right to broadcast games themselves too. In the event they have a billion dollars to buy such rights.”

    Support the #oligarchy! /smh

  16. drewsylvania - May 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    Guns don’t kill people. Governments kill people.

  17. racksie - May 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM

    Great old joke: One lawyer in a small town would starve to death. But two can make a pretty good living.

  18. randygnyc - May 10, 2012 at 12:50 PM

    Ben, sure a single 9mm would have no effect towards resisting a rogue govt, I’d remind you that there are more than 200 million hand guns presently in the US. 45 million sold just in the last 3 1/2 years.

  19. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - May 10, 2012 at 1:02 PM

    something something Luke Scott! something something…

    If we didn’t have guns, people would just kill each other with hammers. You can’t ban hammers.

  20. Marty - May 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM

    I know I’m dreaming, but I say for the burden of helping finance and support the logistics of a stadium, every MLB city should demand public broadcasting of games, FREE OF CHARGE to residents withing the city limits.

  21. bigleagues - May 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM


    You sound more and more LIBERTARIAN each and every day. Ditch the long corrupted Liberal Democrats and join the free thinkers . . .

    That said . . . if it weren’t true I’d have thought this lawsuit was a farce on the Onion.

    Is there even a lawyer involved in this filing? And if there is, how does he or she not spend anytime attempting to understand the dynamics of private broadcast rights?

    I mean, the Blackout system is a complete joke that allows the regional (sometimes monopolistic) cable operators (Hello Comcast!) to overcharge for services and earn profits that would never be possible if true competition was allowed in each market . . . but to allege collusion is – to be kind – obtuse.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2808)
  2. B. Crawford (2739)
  3. Y. Puig (2472)
  4. G. Springer (2415)
  5. C. Correa (2317)
  1. H. Ramirez (2291)
  2. H. Pence (2276)
  3. J. Hamilton (2229)
  4. J. Fernandez (2151)
  5. D. Wright (2131)