# Calm act



## JBeukema (Nov 30, 2010)

yay or nay


Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)




> *S.2847 -- CALM Act (Engrossed in Senate [Passed Senate] - ES)*
> S 2847 ES
> 111th CONGRESS 2d Session *S. 2847*
> *AN ACT*
> ...


----------



## Revere (Nov 30, 2010)

A new bureaucracy to monitor television volume.  Fuck.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Nov 30, 2010)

oh man

Congress actually is voting on weather or not tv stations can turn up the volume for commercials. 

oh yeah, lets stop that evil noise!  Maybe they should mandate that all tv come with the ability to turn the sound off.  We should give it a catchy name, like; The no sound button, or the mute.


----------



## JBeukema (Nov 30, 2010)

loud commercials are irritating, but I don't see how this is congress's business or how we need anything like this. If people are really fed up, they'll but TVs with volume normalization  or look to other media (eg: internet services) where providers listen to their customers in order to make a buck.

It's a baseless growth of federal authority for no good reason.

I vote nay.


----------



## shintao (Nov 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> yay or nay
> 
> 
> Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



A sounding NO!!

This is just government wanting to install some device to shut off the sound on your TV, at their will and control. They could then regulate which channels in the world you can watch or not hear what is going on.

Paranoid? NO. When I was in Vietnam government did their damnedest to control what we could listen to. It elicited an entire underground radio network run off of PRC radios, who could pump acid rock to the troops.

BESIDES, they already have a device for your TV if you want it installed.

Automatic TV Sound Regulator - Gadget specifications and review - Softpedia


----------



## Intense (Dec 1, 2010)

I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.


----------



## shintao (Dec 1, 2010)

Intense said:


> I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.



I am on the Do Not Call List, and that worked fine for years. Recently I changed my phone number, applied to the No Call List, and I get advertising these calls now. Quite irritating.

Phones should be set up to only receive the phone numbers you put on your receiving list, and you know who they would be, because you give them your number. The same principle for email.

I also have my phone blocked so the number doesn't show, and  lot of businesses won't accept those calls. Then I get on my cell phone & they accept it.


----------



## Intense (Dec 1, 2010)

shintao said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.
> ...



Many Government Related entities and, Corporate numbers even get through Anonymous Call Blocking, they have special exemption. Allot of schemes related to privacy abuse. Even personal information available on the Internet. There is definitely too much intrusion into our lives. We get desensitized by it too.


----------



## shintao (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> loud commercials are irritating, but I don't see how this is congress's business or how we need anything like this. If people are really fed up, they'll but TVs with volume normalization  or look to other media (eg: internet services) where providers listen to their customers in order to make a buck.
> 
> It's a baseless growth of federal authority for no good reason.
> 
> I vote nay.



Couldn't you find a better icon than an ant?? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




A sexy girl icon? Sponge Bob? I really hate ants, bugs in general, and rightwinged parasites.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

1) Its a bullet ant. Draw your own conclusions.

2) I don't give half a fuck what you think

3) If you think I'm right wing, you're not just far left-wing, you're standing outside the building screaming at the pigeons to overthrow their human oppressors while the authorities wonder how the fuck you escaped the asyulum


----------



## shintao (Dec 1, 2010)

Intense said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



I agree. You would think one of these hackers who write viruses and such could write a program that would send a virus back to certain email addresses with a warning to desist.

Or a program to bounce back any sender mail not on a private list you maintain, and end junk mail.

Or a virus sent out that destroys viruses. I think the gov. could do that, if not for capitalism & a need to give people jobs.


----------



## shintao (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> 1) Its a bullet ant. Draw your own conclusions.
> 
> 2) I don't give half a fuck what you think
> 
> 3) If you think I'm right wing, you're not just far left-wing, you're standing outside the building screaming at the pigeons to overthrow their human oppressors while the authorities wonder how the fuck you escaped the asyulum



I go with door #2. LMAO!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> yay or nay
> 
> 
> Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



Your search has timed out, search results are for 30 minutes only.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

shintao said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > yay or nay
> ...



Uh...no.

It requires the provider (Comcast, DirectTV, etc.) to put a Limiter on the maximum volume on the content they deliver..

In professional audio, Compressor/Limiters are used.  They are overly used on FM radio stations.  It takes very quiet passages and raises the volume (compression) while bringing down the loudest passages to a lower ceiling (limiting).

I've been wanting television manufacturers to install a simple Limiter in the circuitry for years.  I think a few of them have.  But on the whole, private industry has not done the job on this.  The government (the people) own the airwaves, and we do not need to be aurally abused in our own homes every time there is a commercial break.

I, of course, voted yay.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.



And there in is why you have one brain cell. Dumb fuck, just because one CAN do something does not making the right thing, the correct thing or the prudent thing to do. Or are you to stupid to understand the concept? The question itself does not claim the Government can NOT do it, nor from my reading does the OP make such a claim. So how about you answer the question with a little intelligence and let us know why you think just cause the Government can do something it should?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

How sweet, RGS is dying to know my opinion!

The tv and radio stations that use something that belongs to all of us are the logical ones to put the burden on. And no, it isn't a free speech issue.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> How sweet, RGS is dying to know my opinion!
> 
> The tv and radio stations that use something that belongs to all of us are the logical ones to put the burden on. And no, it isn't a free speech issue.



Never said it was, braindead. The op said it was a waste of time and money. He did not say anything else. You posted that the Government could and so that was your only reason given. You are STILL saying that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 1, 2010)

Actually Ravi isn't saying anything since she did not even vote in the poll. As usual she has no valid opinion worth sharing. I will be sure to remind her when the Conservatives start passing laws she disagrees with that she said that as long as the Government could do it they should.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually Ravi isn't saying anything since she did not even vote in the poll. As usual she has no valid opinion worth sharing. I will be sure to remind her when the Conservatives start passing laws she disagrees with that she said that as long as the Government could do it they should.



I'll bet the reason she justified it that way was because we had a huge debate on this subject about a year ago and that was one of the big points in the debate.

This time around I guess she's just throwing it out there to preempt anyone who might want to argue it.

It's still a ridiculous reason to justify congress wasting time and money.  Right now congress ought to be working on solutions to problems that benefit EVERYONE, not just someone's personal issue with couch potato inconveniences.


----------



## JWBooth (Dec 1, 2010)

No, just another example of the used kotexes in government wanting to interject themselves where they do not belong.

Its annoying, yes, but the circuitry should be part of the TV, and that should be a market solution.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> yay or nay
> 
> 
> Bill Text - 111th Congress (2009-2010) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



Links broken.  But if this is to prevent commercials from jacking up the volume, I say hells yea! 

And I reject the notion that it would be any substantial waste of money.  Once illegal, advertisers will generally stop doing it.  The minimal enforcement necessary will be paid for by associated fines.


----------



## Newby (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.



Which is EXACTLY why we should fight tooth and nail every time the government wants to 'own' anything.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Newby said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.
> ...


 We, as in we the people. It is a fact of live that we as a group of people own the airwaves. The broadcasters do not.


----------



## Newby (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If you think the government is still 'we the people' then that's pretty sad.  It stopped being 'we the people' a long time ago.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Newby said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


No it didn't. It is not we, the peoples fault that some of the people elect assholes.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

This is a corny corny corny corny corny waste of time.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> loud commercials are irritating, but I don't see how this is congress's business or how we need anything like this. If people are really fed up, they'll but TVs with volume normalization  or look to other media (eg: internet services) where providers listen to their customers in order to make a buck.
> 
> It's a baseless growth of federal authority for no good reason.
> 
> I vote nay.



Most TVs have a setting that normalizes volume.

Or you can do what I do and mute the fucking commercials.  Another favorite of mine is to use the DVR and tape what I want to watch then just fast forward through all the commercials.

I don't think we the government involved in this.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 1, 2010)

Ok everybody.  It looks like some of you still walk to the tv to change channels or, like my Dad, have your kids do it.  And some of you may be unsure what that little shiney box that came with the tv does.

I know it has lots and lots of buttons on it, with words or numbers over them.

But if you look 'rreeaall' close and read all the buttons you will come across this word;  'Mute"

Whenever a comercial comes on, push that button and magic happens, the sound turns off or is "muted".  Now hold on to your Lay-z-boy.  When your show comes back on, you can push that magic button again and POOF, the sound returns or is "unmuted".

It's as simple as that and won't cost you a dime to implement, unlike this bs regulation.

Any questions?


----------



## blastoff (Dec 1, 2010)

With all of the special features new TVs come with - most of which I never use - a volume equalizer would be one I'd turn on and forget about.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> shintao said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...




Noone's forcing you to watch the TV


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

Newby said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Yep...if we own it, we can regulate it. And we do.
> ...


The government is the people.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Not here. Not now.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > shintao said:
> ...


What does that mean?  And who the hell is 'Noone'?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


Yes, I realize that wingnuts jump up and down, throwing hissy fits, crying "he's not MY president!!!)


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

It means you're an idiot Statist


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




I actually had a thread proving we're living in a fascist Staat

it mysteriously vanished


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> It means you're an idiot Statist


That's nice.  Statist - it's the wingnut 'insult of the year'.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

You're the one who thinks the government's going to kidnap you, strap you to a chair, and force you to watch commercials at deafening volume.


----------



## JFK_USA (Dec 1, 2010)

I don't mind the level of commercials being at a lower volume. They are ridiculous and an obvious nusiance. I can already see Cable and Satellite companies preventing DVR to fast forward through commercials. They are losing value in Commercials because of DVRs. That is going to hurt their bottom line and either pass it along to customers or find a way to get those advertisements.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> You're the one who thinks the government's going to kidnap you, strap you to a chair, and force you to watch commercials at deafening volume.


The commercials are already at a deafening volume compared to the show.

Do you actually know what this thread is about?  I'm beginning to doubt it.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who thinks the government's going to kidnap you, strap you to a chair, and force you to watch commercials at deafening volume.
> ...


 Don't mind Buttemia, he's what people used to call an hysteric.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Newby said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Rav you know we're cool and all, but this was a stupid post.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Newby said:
> ...


How so?


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who thinks the government's going to kidnap you, strap you to a chair, and force you to watch commercials at deafening volume.
> ...



"_Deafening_"??

_REALLY???_


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Well it's contradicting as hell.  We the people do the electing.  So if there's assholes being elected, it's the fault of we the people.

And considering it takes a majority to elect someone, it's disingenuous to say "some" of the people elect assholes.  If an asshole is elected, MOST of the people elected them.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...


Comparatively, yes.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Most of the people in Kentucky elected assholes.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Point taken.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



That's a sensationalist comparison.  It's a matter of a few decibels.  I don't know the exact spread, but to say the difference is "deafening" is just stirring up shit.

That someone would feel the need for the government to solve this otherwise insignificant problem is pretty pathetic.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Yep. It's about you thinking the governent's going to tie you to a chair and force you to watch loud commercials with a gun to your head.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Yea, that anyone would want money spent on this "problem" when the alternative is to use your fucking volume control on your (already pathetic re:laziness) REMOTE CONTROL.............waste of life.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Don't you get it?  THEY'RE GOING TO RUN UP IN YOUR HOUSE AND _*FORCE YOU TO WATCH TV*_ WITH THE COMMERCIALS BLARING IF WE DON'T PASS THIS BILL


I mean, it's not like you can mute the tv or turn the damned thing off!!!!!11!

we're being forced to watch tv and suffer loud commercials...


the government must act


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

The only time I give a commercial my attention is during the Super Bowl.  And that's only because I'm expecting humor.

Who the hell sits there and lets a commercial play out?  There's 4231786215623784237825890168236162378914527801457890  channels to watch, why the fuck are you watching a commercial?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...




Shame there's no way to just turn the tv off...


or buy a tv with volume normalization


shame noone sells a product designed to solve this problem


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Mine didn't come with volume controls or an off button.  I signed a waiver of rights and once I turned it on I accepted my fate.  

Only the government can save me now.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


When you have your TV up a bit loud because you are watching a show where people are talking quietly, and in a second you have a Billy Mays-type screaming at you, it's more than a few decibels.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Why should someone have to spend money to avoid blaring commercials when those broadcasting the blaring commercials could tone them down for free?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



What rationale would you offer a logical person in favor of spending money on this issue, rather than using the volume controls provided by your television or remote control?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Why should someone have to spend money to avoid blaring commercials when those broadcasting the blaring commercials could tone them down for free?



Hitting ( - ) on the remote control costs nothing.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Why should someone have to spend money to avoid blaring commercials when those broadcasting the blaring commercials could tone them down for free?



All my previous kidding aside, I have grabbed my remote and turned down the TV during a commercial and then subsequently checked my wallet as well as my bank account, and for some reason nothing was ever missing.

I don't know what that means.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Who is spending money?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Why should someone have to spend money to avoid blaring commercials when those broadcasting the blaring commercials could tone them down for free?


You paid for a service. If you don't like the service, don't buy it- or look for services to make it better.

Why should I have to pay for a bumper sticker or a new stereo or a bobble head for my dashboard or a supercharger or rock-climbing tires when i already bought the car?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



basically their argument is this:







NANNY! NANNY! IT'S TOO LOUD!


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Whoever has to watch-dog for compliance of said new rules.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

This is like a nanny-stater litmus test...


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> This is like a nanny-stater litmus test...



I got a tiny giggle out of this, and usually when I say that I'm lying


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Why should someone have to spend money to avoid blaring commercials when those broadcasting the blaring commercials could tone them down for free?
> ...


I was referring to someone else's post about purchasing a new tv with a regulator.

But the point still holds, why must I act to avoid someone else's action?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Why should someone have to spend money to avoid blaring commercials when those broadcasting the blaring commercials could tone them down for free?
> ...


 Apples and oranges. Perhaps the stupidest post you've ever made.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


You spent money on a tv to be effected by the commercials...


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



wtf? Who's forcing you to watch their fucking AD?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



the same people tying her to a chair, taping her eyelids open, and forcing her to watch tv in the first place


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Also, _YOU CONTROL THE VOLUME OF THE TELEVISION. _


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


No one. They are forcing me to avoid their over loud advertising.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



"FORCING ME TO AVOID"

Think about this. I hope you're not serious and just like to argue on teh netz, but come on.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Also, _YOU CONTROL THE VOLUME OF THE TELEVISION. _




not when the evil shamwow guy uses his slapshop's hidden controls to turn the volume up on all the TVs in the world!!!!


why can't the government control the remote _for us_?

that's why we got a nanny in the first place, right?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


whose idea was it to turn the tv on in the first place?

When they surround your house with speakers and Noriega your ass with advertisements for the slapchop, you'll have a valid complaint


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

The logic used to support the government regulating volume during commercials might as well be used to support government regulation of what TV shows are in which time slots.

Because since these are "our" airwaves, I'd like for the government to get Two and a Half Men out of its time slot.  Why should I have to change the channel when that show comes on?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> The logic used to support the government regulating volume during commercials might as well be used to support government regulation of what TV shows are in which time slots.
> 
> Because since these are "our" airwaves, I'd like for the government to get Two and a Half Men out of its time slot.  Why should I have to change the channel when that show comes on?


No, that is totally incorrect. Freedom of speech does not mean that we can regulate speech. Volume is not speech. 

We own it so we can regulate it in this manner.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 1, 2010)

I can't stand the fucking volume automatically turned up 10 decibels just for an ad for something I probably don't want, but even if I did want it, I wouldn't buy it *BECAUSE* they had the audacity to think that I wanted to be blasted out of my chair first.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> I can't stand the fucking volume automatically turned up 10 decibels just for an ad for something I probably don't want, but even if I did want it, I wouldn't buy it *BECAUSE* they had the audacity to think that I wanted to be blasted out of my chair first.


You not buying it because of this reason is a market solution.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > The logic used to support the government regulating volume during commercials might as well be used to support government regulation of what TV shows are in which time slots.
> ...



Really?

So when I'm protesting somewhere on public property, the volume of my voice can be officially regulated by a person walking past me because that person is a partial owner of that property?


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > I can't stand the fucking volume automatically turned up 10 decibels just for an ad for something I probably don't want, but even if I did want it, I wouldn't buy it *BECAUSE* they had the audacity to think that I wanted to be blasted out of my chair first.
> ...



Sure. Like they've done anything about simple complaints directly to the network carrying such ads, the product complaint divisions, and everyone else anyone can think of that might have control over this kind of situation. "The market" does zip as long as it can continue to lie to you and you continue to buy into their crap.

I figure I pay enough in fees for the privilege of watching television programming, and there are enough interruptions by advertising. An hour show is actually only about 40 minutes long. So there ya go. And for that, I don't need 20 minutes of YELLING or an ad that's all heavy metal music, with no dialog at all, and unless your eyeballs are on it, don't have a clue what the fuck THAT'S all about except that it's enough to set me scrambling for the mute button.

I couldn't be happier this is being taken on by the big guns in Washington. It's been one of my pet peeves for years and years. Another thing that annoys me are the popups for future programming that manage to wedge between the characters in a show I'm watching. AND IT STAYS THERE.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Why do some people always have to exaggerate a relatively small thing waaaaaaaaaaaaay out of proportion?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Because they've run out of logic.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



A lot of municipalities have noise ordinances to control the level of decibels coming from boom boxes in vehicles, stereo music in apartment buildings, etc. But a municipality has no control over television advertising. If you want to listen to noise, then that's your choice, but no one should just presume that creating loud noise is some kind of "right." It isn't, and it's a no-brainer.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Absolutely. You've never heard of disturbing the peace?


----------



## Valerie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Or loud and tumultuous...


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> "The market" does zip as long as it can continue to lie to you and you continue to buy into their crap.



Then don't buy their crap?

We're not talking about food or anything here. We're talking about watching the Simpsons- which you can do online.





> I figure I pay enough in fees for the privilege of watching television programming, and there are enough interruptions by advertising.



Hulu...


as I said... nanny-stater litmus test


----------



## Ravi (Dec 1, 2010)

Valerie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


 Private property...big difference.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




The flaw:

If I bother you with my TV, then that's my fault.

If you're bothered by your own tv or radio, that's your own doing.

You choose to turn your tv on.


----------



## Valerie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Just sayin' ...






> The police report offers a different account of the incident.
> 
> Gates refused to step outside to speak with the officer, the police report said, and when Crowley told Gates that he was investigating a possible break-in, Gates opened the front door and exclaimed, "Why, because I'm a black man in America?" the report said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paulie (Dec 1, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Rav it takes a hell of a lot to be shut down for that.  Simply standing in a spot shouting your protests typically doesn't lead to DTP charges, or even being shut down, other than to maybe be directed to what's considered a "designated area".  You have to really start getting out of hand and doing more than just raising the volume of your voice.

Therein lies the parallel.  A commercial being a little louder than regular programming is not "disturbing the peace" anymore than shouting some protests in a designated area is.

There's no freedom of speech distinction here.  If you are inconvenienced by protestors somewhere, I highly doubt you'd be calling your congressman and asking him to enact legislation to lower the volume of their voices.  You'll simply walk away.  

So why not simply change the channel or use the remote and adjust the volume?  

Why don't you just admit that what you REALLY want is a way to stick it to the big businesses who are inconveniencing you?


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 1, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Sorry, but those advertisers are intentionally (operative word) intruding on my private space by assuming I want to listen to their ad in higher decibels than the program I've already paid to watch.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Television programming and their advertising contracts are under the purview of the FTC. Advertisers can't demonstrate how penis enhancement actually works, because it would upset some viewers. They can't use certain descriptive words because it might upset some viewers. So they also shouldn't be allowed to upset viewers by choosing to up the volume of their ads. It's a controversial issue that can easily be resolved. Just don't do it.


----------



## Valerie (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...





Paulie, I think it's just one of those things that people go, _gawd there ought to be a law against that_!  And then realize "we the people" actually do have the ability to regulate such...


----------



## Rozman (Dec 1, 2010)

Bigger and bigger government,more and more regulations,more and more spending,more and more taxes......MORE,MORE,MORE....

It's sad what this regime has done or is trying to do in this short period of time that America has lost it's mind.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 1, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Enough spread to shake me back to consciousness just as I'm drifting off to sleep.

And I wouldn't say I "Feel the need," but if it's on the table, hey what the hell? Why not?  I don't see it as terribly intrusive.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 1, 2010)

Rozman said:


> Bigger and bigger government,more and more regulations,more and more spending,more and more taxes......MORE,MORE,MORE....
> 
> It's sad what this regime has done or is trying to do in this short period of time that America has lost it's mind.



C'mon dude, really?

And since we're talking... Yes America has lost it's mind... Your taxes have stayed exactly the same or went down since big O.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


 I probably watch a grand total of 40 hours of tv a year...so it matters not to me. I am merely pointing out that we are "allowed" to regulate what we own.

Maybe we need a Calm Act to keep you under control.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I'm not arguing that we aren't allowed to.  I'm arguing that it's a waste of time for Congress to focus on now.  Their efforts are needed in important matters like figuring out how to get millions of people off unemployment and welfare and getting them working and improving the economy.  Not figuring out how to help someone fall asleep in peace while their TV is on.

And "it matters not to you"?   

So little so, that you've devoted a significant amount of attention to every thread on the subject.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

Darn!  I thought the Calm Act was where the govt was going to give us free Vallium.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Darn!  I thought the Calm Act was where the govt was going to give us free Vallium.


Paulie will be first in line.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 2, 2010)

Ravi said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Darn!  I thought the Calm Act was where the govt was going to give us free Vallium.
> ...



If I can make it through the food stamp line in time.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 2, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




You bought the TV, you turned it on, you have the volume on and not muted.

Be a big girl and stop crying for the nanny whenever you have to wait for Barney to come back on.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Paulie said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


This bill was introduced back in Spring or Summer.  It wasn't just cobbled together during the lame duck, taking time away from other issues.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

They are about to discuss this with the author of the bill on MSNBC.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 2, 2010)

If this is an issue in your life, you are watching waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much TV.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

I learned from that segment that too loud commercials has been the #1 complaint to the FCC for the past 50 years!

Case closed.  The people have spoken.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 2, 2010)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> If this is an issue in your life, you are watching waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much TV.



It's only an "issue" when it startles me from what I'm in the middle of. Asshole. Which is the whole point. Idiot. Anything else? Stupid?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 2, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > If this is an issue in your life, you are watching waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much TV.
> ...


turn off the tv if its a distraction 



> Asshole. Which is the whole point. Idiot. Anything else? Stupid?


You're acting like a child:
-you can't focus
-you don't wanna turn off Barney
-you can't use the remote
-you're crying 'cause it's too loud
-you want the nanny to fix everything for you
and
-everyone else is a stupid doodie head

Grow the fuck up.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



So by your logic, if your neighbor likes to fire horse shit out of a cannon towards your house, there's no harm done.  After all, you can just move to a new house, right?  You don't want big nanny government to step in then either, right?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Ahhhhh yes.  Replying with a picture of a retarded person.  That's always productive.

Beukama I find that I agree with you more often then not, yet in this thread (in addition to being very childish and trollish) you sound like "The T" or some other dimwit with all this overreaching omnipresent scary government rhetoric.  So I have to ask, exactly how do you describe yourself, politically?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo, I won't behave disagreeable here but could you justify spending Tax-payer money to watch-dog said new regulation.................as opposed to just turning your TV down, especially with our Debt being the way it is?


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



I'm entitled to my personal opinion, freak. Tough shit if you and Saggy don't like it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Ooooh, don't let Sarah see you posting pics like that...


----------



## Sallow (Dec 3, 2010)

Intense said:


> I can think of a few more relevant things to spend money on. How about including everyone on Call Blocking, and the Do Not Call" List, for example. That is a bigger nuisance than commercial volume. Cutting Commercials to 2.5 minutes 4 X per hour on TV and Radio would be nice.



Along with controlling the volume.

And here I thought I was having something funny happening to my ears..


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo, I won't behave disagreeable here but could you justify spending Tax-payer money to watch-dog said new regulation.................as opposed to just turning your TV down, especially with our Debt being the way it is?



How is taxpayer money going to be affected? This is an FCC regulation, not a spending bill.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 3, 2010)

There's a provision in the bill to grant a waiver if it would mean a cable/satellite provider would have to upgrade equipment to make this happen. Ironically, I already see the difference. AARP's ads were one one of the worst abusers--assuming anyone interested in AARP must also be deaf--and their ads the last few days have not increased in sound volume. So the tone-down button must be real simple to operate from their end.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo, I won't behave disagreeable here but could you justify spending Tax-payer money to watch-dog said new regulation.................as opposed to just turning your TV down, especially with our Debt being the way it is?


It's what the people want.  It has been the #1 complaint to the FCC for the last 50 years, as I already posted.

That is reason enough.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo, I won't behave disagreeable here but could you justify spending Tax-payer money to watch-dog said new regulation.................as opposed to just turning your TV down, especially with our Debt being the way it is?
> ...



Adding Regulations costs money in several ways. 

-overseeing that the regulation is met
-debating/voting for it costs money
-providers have to spend money on the part

I don't see how people don't feel like bitches for not just adjusting their volume controls themselves.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo, I won't behave disagreeable here but could you justify spending Tax-payer money to watch-dog said new regulation.................as opposed to just turning your TV down, especially with our Debt being the way it is?
> ...



Not in my opinion, it isn't. I think it's too silver-spoon, to a point of ridiculousness.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



How much per person will this one cost?  I'd be happy to donate 10 bucks.  But my guess is it's closer to a fraction of a penny per person.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 3, 2010)

I've decided to boycott any company who has a loud commercial selling stuff that I don't want.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> I've decided to boycott any company who has a loud commercial selling stuff that I don't want.



This is a more reasonable approach.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



I have no clue, but I'm not willing to give a one thousandth of a penny to something that I feel is beyond the "holy fucking shit" threshold of being lazy.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > I've decided to boycott any company who has a loud commercial *selling stuff that I don't want*.
> ...



I'm _pretty_ sure he was being tongue-in-cheek there, GT.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



ahahah  Missed that.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Write your congressman.

But just to clarify, we're not talking about something that can be rectified simply by "Adjusting the volume."  We're talking about low volume on programming, followed by noticeably louder volume on the commercials.  Unless you can predict the moment such a commercial is going to come on, you can't adjust it for every commercial.

Plus, it's an obnoxious practice used by advertisers and shouldn't have been allowed in the first place.  IMO.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



It doesn't matter if you can predict it or not, when it appears too loud, you click the down button for christ's sakes.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...




Actually, it's true.  I generally have always boycotted all companies that are not courteous enough to sell me things that I want and/or need at prices that I like.  I will just extrapolate my personal policies to the loud companies.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 3, 2010)

Well people when you increase the size of the government like this administration has done - this is the kind of horseshit you can expect.

My solution to the problem...use a DVR.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Or you just say "Hey assholes, that's annoying, can't do that no more."  

The only time it annoys me is when I'm drifting off to sleep.  I've had lifelong trouble sleeping, and background noise helps, god bless the guy who invented the sleep timer.  So as I'm drifting off, BAM "COME IN! DOUBLE VALUE FOR YOUR TRADE! THIS THURSDAY ONLY!"  

Other than that, and this thread, it's not even something I've thought about during my life.

And like I said, I didn't propose the bill nor would I most likely if I were a lawmaker... But since it's on the table, hey what the hell?  Nothing wrong with standardizing broadcast volumes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



That's baloney. The FCC is an agency, and it gets annual funding, period, within which to work. It doesn't ask for MORE money with every new regulation it imposes. As for "debates," the Congress likewise is paid salaries to work and it doesn't matter what they're working on.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



That's a good policy!  I just hate when the bastards trick my relatives.  "Great Christmas gift!"  Yeah, first season of One Tree Hill on VHS.  Thanks.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.



It's not about "laziness," and you're being slightly indignant by continually describing it that way.  It's about tolerance of a nuisance.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I would like to see Congress pass a law prohibiting the sale of crap.

Or better yet, not making SELLING crap illegal, but making PURCHASE of crap illegal.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



I was more along the lines of a "Crap tax," but you're thinkin'.  I like that.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.
> ...



No, I think it's about laziness. Non-tolerance requires pressing a button. Laziness is requiring a company, by law, to meet your personal standards of volume when you already have the means to control it yourself.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Post 130.  In my case, by the time I realize how loud it is, the damage is done.

I don't think we're going to find common ground here.  Unusual.  I can agree it's probably not necessary if you can agree it won't do any harm.  Fair enough?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

I have a question.

A company called Space Marketing, Inc found a way to make an illuminated billboard that could be shot into low orbit over the earth, and would be visible from earth with roughly the size and brightness of the moon.  In 1993, congress passed a law banning obtrusive space advertising, with one commenter noting "It would turn our evening skies into the moral equivalent of the side of a bus (paraphrased)."   (TRUE story!)

Does anyone think that law is an overreach by the government?  After all, if you don't want to see the Pepsi sign in the sky as big as the moon, you don't have to look at the sky, right?

Same thing, albeit different scale.  It's not that people are too lazy to just not look at the sky, it's just that they don't want the nuisance there in the first place.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...





			
				MaggieMae said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -99 reputation points from MaggieMae.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...






Fail. 

Growing up means learning what personal responsibility is and not acting like a child.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I disagree, because it does harm to the the companies effected by said law, it does harm to the morale of those who feel the Government's a little overbearing with its rules lately in a supposedly "free" country, and the consumers already have recourse without the Law and so the Law is a waste of time and money. Not buying the Commercial's products,  turning the volume down or on mute or just changing the channel. I also don't agree there's "damage done" when the commercials come on.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> I have a question.
> 
> A company called Space Marketing, Inc found a way to make an illuminated billboard that could be shot into low orbit over the earth, and would be visible from earth with roughly the size and brightness of the moon.  In 1993, congress passed a law banning obtrusive space advertising, with one commenter noting "It would turn our evening skies into the moral equivalent of the side of a bus (paraphrased)."   (TRUE story!)
> 
> ...



It's not the same thing. With the TV one, you can change the volume. With the sky one, there's only one sky, the integrity of the Global environment is compromised. They're hardly related.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


You are a retard if you think you turning on your tv and your neighbor flinging poo at your house are even remotely comparable

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jbeukema+"I'm+a"+site:usmessageboard.com


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Whatever.

I still want a reply to 143.  Didn't that law "Do harm" to the companies who could have profited by advertising in space?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Why? 

Is she gonna spank me?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Already answered. It's a ridiculous comparison. Your TV is yours, you have control. The sky is everyone's.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Except...you don't *have* control if you are having to adjust the volume constantly.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Because it _IS_ the same thing.  The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others.  But a line has to be drawn somewhere.  OF COURSE it's not the same degree of nuisance, but it's the same argument.

Here's something on a closer scale to what's being discussed.

I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence.  This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing.  Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel?  By the time you're able to change the channel, the kid's already seen the nudity, not?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Ravi said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Adjusting the volume, would be the control.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

The issue's not the money, you twits.

It's the entire nanny-state mindset that says 'We're too mentally deficient to use a remote; we all need some bureaucrats somewhere to run our lives for us'. It's the principle of you idiots- 1/3 of respondents- wanting to always increase the size, authority, and power of the Fed for the dumbest fucking reasons just so you don't have to show some semblance of competence when it comes to life itself. It's not just this bill- it's the same nanny-state mindset that says '_we're too stupid and incompetent to be parents; we should have been sterilized in the first place but now it's too late. Please, Nanny state, tell me what to eat, what music to let my kids listen to, and whether I can buy a can of Four Loko, because thinking for myself and being responsible is too *hard*_'

But I don't suppose you people can grasp such concepts as 'principle' and 'personal responsibility', can you? Too many syllables? Do you need a government agency to to read those big words for you, too?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



flinging poo at your house is vandalism. there's already a law which prevents it.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I dont think there needs to be censorship, at all. 

If you know a channel shows nudity, block it. There's easy child-proofing on TV these days. If all channels show nudity, disallow television. You're the parent, not the FCC.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Scenario A:

*you* buy a tv
*you *buy cable access (optional)
*you* turn on the tv


Scenario B:

*I* fling poo at *your* house

If you still can't see the difference, you should you should remove your sexual organs before you further spread your feeblemindedness throughout the population- you are the reason for America's decline and a great many of the world's ills.





> The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others.


Don't like it? Turn off the TV.


> I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence.  This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing.  Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel?



There's a thread on it. Content and volume are two different things.

Don't like it? Turn off the TV or use a volume normalizer- just as you can use the v-chip to keep the kids from watching the channels/shows that are only for mommy and daddy.

I know, that whole 'personal responsibility' thing is so _*hard*_, isn't it?


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




If only there were some kinda 'shutup, tv' button









I wonder what this button does...


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could understand someone being that lazy that they'd make a rule like this. I just can't.
> ...


It's stupidity and failure as a human being


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



If there wasn't a law, it would be legal, get it?  If you think preventing a nuisance is never OK if it inconveniences somebody else, you are an anarchist.

That's all I'm saying.  You guys keep insinuating that I'm proclaiming the scenarios as equivalent levels of nuisance.  I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that something _CAN_ be illegal to protect the interests of most people, even if it inconveniences others.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Jesus Christ, you're thick 



> That's all I'm saying.  You guys keep insinuating that I'm proclaiming the scenarios as equivalent levels of nuisance.  I'm not.  I'm just pointing out that something _CAN_ be illegal to protect the interests of most people, even if it inconveniences others.




you



are



an



idiot



I think the thread proves beyond any doubt that nanny-staters are mentally deficient


----------



## G.T. (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



There's a difference between nuisance and vandalism.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



You're not terribly clever.  I think we all know there's such a thing as a mute button.  I don't think I should have to employ it every time an obnoxiously loud commercial comes on. I think you're going to find that most of the country agrees with me.

If you disagree, write your congressmen.  Don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...




I should have to change the channel every time some retarded 'reality tv' show some on, either


LET'S BAN THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!


here


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Totally different.  You've elected to watch or not watch a reality show.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


_*As have you*_- you elected to watch the tv

You have the power to turn it off or mute it- if you elect not to, that's on you

do ya get it now or do ya need a new government body to explain it to you?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Where u @ on the space advertising thing?  

"Durrrrrrr you elected to look at the sky..."

There's not any channel or program dedicated to obnoxiously loud commercials.  Nobody chooses to see them.  They're slipped in with other programming; Other programming that you're choosing to watch.

People "Elect" to watch reality.  NOBODY "Elects" to watch loud commercials.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




You chose to watch the channel. Don't like it? Turn off the TV. Or get a limiter. Or get Hulu. Or wait for the show to come out on DVD.

Time to grow up and stop crying for the nanny every time a commercial interrupts Barney.


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Is that your way of saying we agree to disagree?

Condescending prick.


----------



## JBeukema (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...




It's my way of saying 'Grow the fuck up. Either turn off the TV or deal with it. Stop being a retarded and saying stupid shit like "you flinging poo at my house is the same as me turning on my own tv and bitching about the tv being on", you stupid fuck. Show some personal responsibility like a grown adult.'

You waste of fucking life.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 3, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...


I wonder if they'd be upset if we, the owners of the airwaves, forbade broadcasters from using subliminal messaging?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



I'll cry myself to sleep for sure.


----------



## Paulie (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Oh, you mean back in spring and summer when the economy was booming and we were at full employment?

My miss, sorry.


----------



## Intense (Dec 3, 2010)

Ravi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > JBeukema said:
> ...



Then Obama would have nothing to say.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 14, 2012)

This went into effect yesterday.   I noticed immediately that the volume level of commercials is no longer blaring.  First time I didn't have to reach for the remote to lower the volume.  

I heard that over the past decade the FCC received more complaints about the volume level of commercials over anything else.  I wonder did those people complaining also let the broadcasters know?  If so it would appear that the broadcasters (or would that be whoever does the commercials?  not sure) simply ignored the complaints and let uncle make the decision/law.  Too bad.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 14, 2012)

Kooky

with all the crap we waste money, they had to control the volume themselves.

So I repeat


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 14, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> oh man
> 
> Congress actually is voting on weather or not tv stations can turn up the volume for commercials.
> 
> oh yeah, lets stop that evil noise!  Maybe they should mandate that all tv come with the ability to turn the sound off.  We should give it a catchy name, like; The no sound button, or the mute.



what I said earlier.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 14, 2012)

Used to be that there was a limit on commercial time and volume. With no controls, both the volume and number have gone up. 

OTOH, there's always the mute button. I hate commercials so when programming ends, I automatically hit the mute.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 14, 2012)

Magnavox used to make a tv that had Smart Sound, which kept the volume of the commercials low without having to do anything.  Great feature.  Of course they never kept it.  

Too bad the customer got ignored.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Dec 14, 2012)

Great... focused in on all things important.. as usual.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 14, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Great... focused in on all things important.. as usual.



Ah come on, it passed a year ago.  Nothing else to do then, Obamatax was shoved through they just needed something to fill the time.


----------

