EmeraldBullet wrote:What bothers me, is that when the funding is coming from the fed gov, it's really coming out of our pockets.
c_hawkbob wrote:Those are pretty low numbers for the advertising they are getting too; compared to $5M for a single 30 second Super bowl ad it's not much more than operational expenses.
It'd feel more warm and fuzzy if there we no dollars involved, but IMO this is more a politician seizing an opportunity to get his name in the paper than a real issue.
HumanCockroach wrote:Sorry I simply don't see a problem with the NFL "charging" for advertising a product. Don't kid yourselves guys, this is zero different than an army ad on CBS or Fox. All businesses that advertise are going to "charge" to promote your product or company, the way It's always been, and the way it will always be.
I can somewhat understand a vet being surprised by it, but offended? Why. They grew up in this country right? They should know how the country works by now I would think.
c_hawkbob wrote:You're not really vilifying the NFL for making a bigger deal out of it that was paid for are you?
If it's something planned and executed in conjunction with the DOD (which I guarantee you it is) they can't call it a tribute if there's any DOD money involved? Would you prefer that the NFL only gave the DOD only the amount of advertising content any other corporation would get for the same amount of money and not use the word tribute?
c_hawkbob wrote:Sorry man, I see what you're saying but I just don't agree. At all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 133 guests