Damn those Telemarkerters!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

But what fun is that?

[Skanky Burns]

It increases costs for both the person calling you and the company that hired the person calling you - all for the low low price of one sentence said by you to them. And hanging the phone up half an hour later.

Hit 'em where it hurts - the wallet!

[Gatekeeper]

Apparently one guy went to a hotel that was hosting a telemarketers' convention and proceeded to call every single room in the middle of the night, making sales pitches. I'm not sure when this happened, or if he made any sales, but the anecdote is funny nonetheless. I hope it isn't an urban legend ... frickin' taste of their own medicine!

Gatekeeper

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MrFun
one word . . .

www.dontcall.gov

You guys don't get it -- if you go here, you won't have to complain about telemarketers.

[Skanky Burns]

Didn't you read they ruled against a do-not-call registry?

[MrFun]

But just over a week ago, I saw on CNN that this program was becoming increasingly popular.


And now they threw this out?

[Thorn]

Good News, thanks Congress!

Congress Backs Launch of Do-Not-Call List

By DAVID HO, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A united Congress raced through legislation Thursday intended to ensure that the national "do-not-call" list goes into effect as scheduled next week, allowing people to block many unwanted telemarketing sales pitches.

The House voted 412-8 for a bill making clear that the Federal Trade Commission has the power to enforce the list. The Senate voted 95-0 several hours later. President Bush (news - web sites) plans to sign the measure, his spokesman said.


The legislation was prompted by a federal judge's ruling Tuesday that the agency lacked the power to create and operate the registry.


The list, which is supposed to be effective on Wednesday, had overwhelming support in Congress. But its immediate future remained in doubt after U.S. District Court Judge Lee R. West in Oklahoma City rejected the FTC's request to delay his ruling. The FTC immediately appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Denver.


Even if Bush signs the legislation, the FTC must win its appeal to reverse West's decision. A new law would give the agency considerable leverage in its legal fight.


In debate before the votes, lawmakers from both parties criticized West's response to a lawsuit brought by telemarketers, which claim the list infringes on free speech rights and will devastate the industry.


"Clearly the court's decision was misguided. The measure before us makes crystal clear the commission can and should proceed with the do-not-call list," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. He said the ruling has "served as a rallying cry for the tens of millions of American households who signed up for the registry."


Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he is confident West's decision will be overturned.


"We should probably call the bill 'This Time We Really Mean It Act' to cure any myopia in the judicial branch," he said.


In response to the court ruling, lawmakers quickly wrote the bills and passed them with unusual speed. That underscored the popularity of the list, which after fewer than four months already has nearly 51 million numbers.


"This legislation got to the House floor faster than a consumer can hang up on a telemarketer at dinnertime," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.


Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said no one likes "hopping up and down like jackrabbits to answer the phone and then hear somebody on the phone try to sell you something. It drives you crazy."


The FTC expects the list to block 80 percent of telemarketing calls. Exemptions include calls from charities, pollsters and on behalf of politicians.


The FTC's rules require telemarketers to check the list every three months to see who does not want to be called. Those who call listed people could be fined up to $11,000 for each violation. Consumers would file complaints to an automated phone or online system.


West rejected the FTC's request to block his order, saying the agency offered no additional evidence that would make him change his mind.


The FTC is moving ahead with the list despite the ruling and is encouraging consumers to continue signing up.


Telemarketers say the list would severely harm their industry and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs. Still, the Direct Marketing Association, one of the groups that challenged the registry, said it has asked its members to obey the wishes of those who has enrolled in the registry.





"It is appropriate for marketers to respect the wishes of consumers," said H. Robert Wientzen, the association's president.

Since the FTC opened the do-not-call list for registration in June, people have submitted 31.1 million phone numbers at the Web site www.donotcall.gov and 10.9 million by calling toll-free at 1-888-382-1222. An additional 8.6 million numbers were transferred from existing state lists.

There are about 166 million residential phone numbers in the United States and an additional 150 million cell phone numbers.

[Berzerker]

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-La., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., said Wednesday they were confident the ruling would be overturned and believe Congress did give the FTC the necessary authority.

The Constitution authorises CONGRESS to write laws, not un-elected bureaucrats. The judge ruled correctly and Tauzin doesn't even understand that the Congress is supposed to write laws, not empower bureaucrats to write laws.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Berzerker, please get in touch with modern Constitutional law.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Thorn
Good News, thanks Congress!

See . . .

I was right -- you guys were just trying to mess with my head!

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, please get in touch with modern Constitutional law.

No thanks, I'd rather read the Constitution for myself to see what it says instead of relying on those wishing to impose their ideology on it. Coincidently, the Catholic Church wasn't very happy when the Gutenburg Bible came out, they too wanted people relying on their "interpretations" instead of reading it themselves. Now, why did you say the judge was probably right when according to you, the "new" Constitution allows Congress to give away it's power to legislate?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd rather read the Constitution for myself to see what it says instead of relying on those wishing to impose their ideology on it.

That isn't going to win you ANY prizes for predicting how judges will rule. Your explaination is inadequate because the judge ruled that the admin rule was inadequate because the agency expanded its bounds (Congress gave the right to create a Do-Not-Call List to another agency). But you didn't even read why the judge ruled the way he did, did ya?

[Nubclear]

Umm....Has anyone read my closed thread?

This just keeps getting better and better.....

Revolution is the Opiate of the Intellectuals

That is a really bad quote. For various reasons

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I took it from someone on this site.... I forget who, Mr Fun or some other lefty.

And I quite like it as a quote. I think it's definetly true .

[chequita guevara]

You got it from me.

Comrade Tassadar, it's graffiti on a wall in a British movie, The Ruling Class, with Peter O' Toole.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah that's right .

Sorry, I've had a bit to drink tonight .

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You got it from me.

Counter-revolutionary Che!!!!

I think it's definetly true .

[Imran Siddiqui]

And you don't think the American revolution founding fathers were intellectuals?

[chequita guevara]

The people who started the revolution certainly weren't. The people who co-opted the revolution, however, were.

[Nubclear]

End threadjack

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well I think the people that started the revolution were guided by intellectuals. The Boston smarties were able to push the firebrands.

[Kuciwalker]

Wow, that vote is insane... it's nice to see that our government can actually take action when it really matters.



I'm not sure whether or not I'm serious.

[Berzerker]

That isn't going to win you ANY prizes for predicting how judges will rule. Your explaination is inadequate because the judge ruled that the admin rule was inadequate because the agency expanded its bounds (Congress gave the right to create a Do-Not-Call List to another agency). But you didn't even read why the judge ruled the way he did, did ya?

First, I wasn't aware we were in a competition to predict the actions of judges. And second, I did read the ruling and I'm aware the judge didn't say bureaucrats lack the authority to pass laws...I said they lack that authority (you didn't even read my post )...and they do because the Constitution authorises only the Congress to write laws...

I merely applauded the judge for putting some restraint on bureaucrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I merely applauded the judge for putting some restraint on bureaucrats.

You should know that wasn't the intent of his opinion, and that isn't what his ruling said. So it really doesn't matter worth a damn that he put 'restraints' because Congress just overruled that .

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well I think the people that started the revolution were guided by intellectuals. The Boston smarties were able to push the firebrands.

I was talking about Massachusetts farmers. They had already revolted even before Concord and Lexington. There's a book out that I gave to my lil'bro, Thubbins, A People's History of the American Revolution. It's pretty cool to see it as this organic, chaotic, living thing.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
First, I wasn't aware we were in a competition to predict the actions of judges. And second, I did read the ruling and I'm aware the judge didn't say bureaucrats lack the authority to pass laws...I said they lack that authority (you didn't even read my post )...and they do because the Constitution authorises only the Congress to write laws...

I merely applauded the judge for putting some restraint on bureaucrats.

Look at it this way... Congress wrote a law that basically said "you do what they say, within these bounds". That is the practical effect of giving government agencies regulatory authority. See? Completely constitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was talking about Massachusetts farmers. They had already revolted even before Concord and Lexington.

I was talking about Bostonians, who basically revolted before Lexington and Concord with the actions against the taxes, especially the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre (which really wasn't, but sounds nice).

[Berzerker]

Geez Imran, that's the second post in a row you didn't read. Of course his intent was not to say bureaucrats can't pass laws (again, I said that), just that Congress didn't give the FTC the power to legislate in this area. And the restraint does matter, it's always nice when bureaucrats are reminded that even under the "modern" Constitution there are limits to their power...

Now a second judge (I understand) has reminded Congress it doesn't have the authority either because the 1st Amendment (did you predict that one ) from that "outdated" Constitution protects the freedom of speech.

[Kuciwalker]

Freedom of speech is not freedom to be heard. You have no constitutionally guaranteed right to call me.

[Berzerker]

sky -

Look at it this way... Congress wrote a law that basically said "you do what they say, within these bounds". That is the practical effect of giving government agencies regulatory authority. See? Completely constitutional.

Where in the Constitution did you find a congressional power to authorise other people to write laws? Tis a simple question...