Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?
self | self

Posted on 09/27/2003 7:05:03 AM PDT by joesbucks

I've read over the course of the past few months the numerous threads regarding the use of telemarketing and the intrusion it has on our homes.

I had a long discussion with my wife who hates the intrusion. I ask her why did they call her? She had no idea. Well, despite the black eye telemarketers get, it's probably the most effective way to get business. Even Mrs. Me admitted that if they called about something that she had an interest in, she probably would buy. BINGO.

But let's look at if from another perspective. You will see numerous threads about how regulation is driving business from our shores to others. How we've taken manufacturing and moved it to low cost countries. Not because of productivity, but because of emission regulations or community groups that complain about the noise, smell or traffic caused by the facility. Even right to know and safety concerns. Changes necessary would be costly and not enforeced across the border or across the pond so companies locate there.

We seen threads about government regulation taking over our lives. Yet when it comes to a minor inconvience, we run to the government for help from the big bad telemarketers.

What's the difference between regulating out a obnoxiouis telephone call but not noxiouis fumes from the plant next door?

What happens when all the telemarketing jobs get exported to Ireland or India and our laws don't extend to them? And the calls continue cause we can't stop them.

What are we to do with all the folks who try to eek out a living working in a humid cramped call center. Many are the folks we drove from the welfare rolls with welfare reform (a good thing). Many are college students trying to earn their way through college. Others are seniors trying to supplement a fixed income. Or the physically disabled who find work in a sitting position reading a script, possibly from the company you work for or possibly even own. Some are just the slugs of life and a call center is the only way they've managed to find some sort of paycheck. What do you suggest they do for a living that's not immoral, illegal or indecent?

I find it amazing that we would rally all day about government intrusion and regulation on companies, yet we have rallied to stop a few phone calls a week or day.

The other thing to remember is that there are several ways that you will still get calls. They WILL NOT GO AWAY. Doing business with a company? They can call. Done business with them in the past 18 months? They can call. Signed up for one of those free give aways recently? You can now legitimately get a call. Charities. Exempt. Local lib dem candidate? Exempt. Pollsters. Exempt. Probably a thousand other loop holes? Exempt too!


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: telemarketing
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last

1 posted on 09/27/2003 7:05:05 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
I agree with you. We should insist that the law is toughened up to restrict calls from all of those listed in your last paragraph also.
2 posted on 09/27/2003 7:08:50 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
It's this simple: if you do not want *them* to use the phone *you* pay for, you sign up for the do-not-call-list. The government doesn't make you sign up for the do not call list: you do it yourself. They get a smaller pool of people to wade through who are actually interested in telephone solicitation, and your phone is not tied up with their sales pitches. Let these lowlife phone spammers go door-to-door selling their wares.
3 posted on 09/27/2003 7:12:14 AM PDT by Salo (Are friends electric?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
"noxious fumes"

That's a great metaphor! That's exactly what those telemarketing calls are like - noxious fumes!

4 posted on 09/27/2003 7:12:44 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
What happens when all the telemarketing jobs get exported to Ireland or India and our laws don't extend to them? And the calls continue cause we can't stop them

I expect then, we consumers will demand that our local phone service put us on a do-no-connect international calls list. How many of us typically get international calls. Ive maybe had five in the past ten years. If most people put their households on a do not accept international calls list, then internationally based call centers wont be economically viable either.

5 posted on 09/27/2003 7:13:06 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
What's the difference between regulating out a obnoxiouis telephone call but not noxiouis fumes from the plant next door?

Because I do not own the air, nor the plant next door, but I DO own my phone and the privacy of my home. I am the final authority on what come into my home. Were the plant next door to place a hose in my mailslot and pump the stuff into my home, it would be readily resolved.

It's not a very good analogy, because there are serious enough fines and cumbersome regulations that many of these polluting companies have been shut down, and the survivors face such onerous regulations now that they can barely do business. In my state, for example, almost all foundries have been shut down because they were bad neighbors.

Good neighbors do not harass me at suppertime with offers of time shares, and other products that nobody would buy if marketed any other way then by hoping to catch someone drunk or in a weak moment.

6 posted on 09/27/2003 7:14:58 AM PDT by Gorzaloon (Contents may have settled during shipping, but this tagline contains the stated product weight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Oh, but they have 800 capability. Just ask GE who has exported thier collection efforts to India. Sorry, that don't work. And typically the internation call block is for outbound, not inbound.
7 posted on 09/27/2003 7:14:58 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
We signed up for the national registry of the *do not call* list. And we've decided to turn off the phone ringer for a couple hours in the evening. The telemarketers rarely leave messages, and we have peace and quiet.

What **really** makes my blood boil is telemarketer calls on my CELL PHONE!!! I've rec'd 4 in a month. Grrrr.

8 posted on 09/27/2003 7:16:17 AM PDT by mrs tiggywinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
I find it amazing that we would rally all day about government intrusion and regulation on companies, yet we have rallied to stop a few phone calls a week or day.

The question is whether or not the intrusion is legitimate. No one says companies should be completely free from regulation or public oversight. For example, companies can't send you goods or perform services without your consent and then bill you for them. It's perfectly okay for government to forbid companies from contacting people who have declared their desire to not be contacted.

9 posted on 09/27/2003 7:16:57 AM PDT by garbanzo (Free people will set the course of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon
But how about their odors waft through you dining room. A wealthy burb in the community I live in has been griping about the local Busch plant for years.
10 posted on 09/27/2003 7:17:16 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
I find it amazing that we would rally all day about government intrusion and regulation on companies, yet we have rallied to stop a few phone calls a week or day.

This is NOT government intrusion. It is individuals deciding what is right for their household. It would be government intrusion if the government was to decide that we shouldnt be forced to endure the endless calls and put everyone on such a list or banned telemarketing altogether. The government was forced to make the list available because of the DEMAND of the people for relief.

11 posted on 09/27/2003 7:17:17 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
"What are we to do with all the folks who try to eek out a living working in a humid cramped call center."

They can come over and mow my lawn, wash my truck and my dog, paint the house, ........ oh...wait, those jobs involve a level of intelligence.... never mind.

12 posted on 09/27/2003 7:18:37 AM PDT by HighWheeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
But how about their odors waft through you dining room. A wealthy burb in the community I live in has been griping about the local Busch plant for years.

Roundup.

13 posted on 09/27/2003 7:18:57 AM PDT by meyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
It's also a good op. to hone your acting skills, I like to use a character like Roman Moroni from the movie Johnny Dangerously;

"You fargin' icehole, you have violated my fargin' rights. Dis somanumbatching country was founded so the liberties of common patriotic citizens, like me, could not be taken away by a bunch of fargin iceholes like yourselves"

They rarely stay for the second act.....wait, there's more.....

14 posted on 09/27/2003 7:19:05 AM PDT by norraad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrs tiggywinkle
I've seen software with phone numbers on it. Cell phone numbers were exempt, except for when you've purchased something and gave the cell phone number as your primary contact point. The list was then sold to an affiliated company and bingo, you've got cell phone telemarketing calls.
15 posted on 09/27/2003 7:19:40 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: norraad
I like it.
16 posted on 09/27/2003 7:20:46 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
There was a boiler room telemarketing operation selling vacation time shares in my office building for three months. When they were evicted for non-payment of rent--they packed up and moved over the Thanksgiving weekend--they left mounds of garbage, including rotting food (about 30-40 large garbage bags full), a carpet full of ground out cigarettes, urine, feces and vomit, crack pipes, an unpaid $9,000 phone bill (mistakenly sent to my office)--and, just for fun, they stopped up a sink in one of the bathrooms and turned the water on full force, flooding that floor's hallways and flooding into a furniture store on the floor below, causing thousands of dollars of damage to their goods.

Tell me again how nice telemarketers are again.

17 posted on 09/27/2003 7:21:38 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
If you are the business owner, it's government intrusion saying what you can and can't do.
18 posted on 09/27/2003 7:21:45 AM PDT by joesbucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Oh, but they have 800 capability. Just ask GE who has exported thier collection efforts to India. Sorry, that don't work. And typically the internation call block is for outbound, not inbound.

Are you telling me that there is no switch at our shores? Satellite based systems have to have a downlink station. Undersea cable has to come ashore somewhere. Even the old HF links have to have a communications center.

You mention 800 capability. What is to stop the local phone service from blocking all 800 numbers if that is the choice of the customer? If there are a 800 numbers that you do receive calls from, you can put them in as exceptions.

19 posted on 09/27/2003 7:24:56 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
When I want to buy something, I seek it out. I will NOT buy from a telemarketer.

I have 6 lines coming in here at work, and two at home. A couple of calls a day can turn into about an hour a day on the phone of people that aren't making me a penny. Usually, the telemarketer will call 4 or 5 of the lines in a row. Really frustrating.

It isn't a small nuisance, it is a big nuisance.
It is a real bummer when I run to get to the phone at the expense of something I am in the middle of, and it gets ruined also. Then it is a telemarketer!!

If the government wants to make an opt-in list to rid me of the scourge of telemarketers, then it is my choice to join the list or not.
I don't have a problem with that.
20 posted on 09/27/2003 7:26:58 AM PDT by abner (In search of a witty tag line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salo
Let these lowlife phone spammers go door-to-door selling their wares. This is my biggest worry about do-not-call. They WILL go door to door. Instead of an ignorable phone ring during dinner hour, there will be parades of former telemarketers ringing the doorbell. And SCOTUS recently ruled that door-to-door pitches are pretty much unstoppable. I think there are large downsides to do-not-call. I signed up, but I would have preferred something less than this nuclear option. This market will be destroyed, and a new one will emerge. (Actually, this is all moot. SCOTUS will kill do-no-call)
21 posted on 09/27/2003 7:27:17 AM PDT by bobsatwork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
This has nothing to do with government regulating business. It has to do with preserving the sanctity of private homes. It is said that a man's home is his castle. It should stay that way. The private home is not a proper place for businesspeople to make their solicitations.

The "do not call" registry is the phone equivalent of a "No soliciting" sign on the front door. A man (or woman) should have the right to keep his home free of telemarketers invading their privacy.

22 posted on 09/27/2003 7:28:15 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (214.2 (-85.8) Homestretch to 200)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
If the telemarketers organize an effort to stop the government from telling businesses what you can and can't do I'll support them. Until then DON'T CALL!!!
23 posted on 09/27/2003 7:30:06 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
I never enter contests and *never* offer my cell phone number to *anyone* other than my husband and best friend. The only thing I can think of is that the cell phone company sold my number...?
24 posted on 09/27/2003 7:30:23 AM PDT by mrs tiggywinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
"This is NOT government intrusion."

Sure it is, for two reasons.

1--what entity enforces that the members of the do not call list are not called?

2--the law regulation not only exceeds the authority of the regulating government agency, the regulations also violates Amendment I (freedom of speech), Amendment V (property taking without compensation), and Amendment XIV (equal protection under the law).

"...individuals deciding what is right for their household."

I would suggest that as an "individual deciding what is right for their household" that you act as "individual" not as a "collectivist or socialist" and take the "individual" steps necessary for you to stop telephone calls from telemarketers.

25 posted on 09/27/2003 7:31:37 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Thank you, that's my view, it is an attack.

I don't have the knowledge or the wherewithall but I love to see the energy of the computer virus designers create a boiler room call virus.

26 posted on 09/27/2003 7:32:37 AM PDT by norraad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Some would say that the difference is that telemarketers are trespassing when they come on their private phone. Of course they don’t say the same about unwanted commercials on their private television, and they don’t mention they connected their phone to a public network with the implication and understanding that anyone could call.

Some would say that it becomes trespassing when they caller refuses to obey the do not call list. But they don’t address how arbitrary the selection of “just business telemarketers” is when they authorize this new role for the government. They don’t acknowledge that a future administration could assemble a “hate speakers list” or an “intolerance list” and require they check who doesn’t want to be contacted. They could even require websites such as this one to be flagged with that label so that kids don’t accidentally stumble onto this “annoyance”. They also don’t address why if you can require a telemarketer to check your name before annoying you with their “trespass”, someone else can’t tell specific minorities or religions to check a list before trespassing. They don’t say why a solicitor that annoys someone should be treated defiantly than a minority, evangelist or even a charity that someone finds universally annoying.

Despite all of this, I’m not strongly against it, at least this is not the hill I want to die on defending a principle. More egregious violations of the Constitution are practice with less beneficial results.

I don’t think that just because hundreds of thousands of people are employed at something that their employment has value to society. I think that most of telemarketers are rip off artists, and I don’t think that putting them out of business is a bad result. I’m just wary of the unintended consequences. I don’t buy the “privacy” argument for all the reasons above, and I don’t like the scope creep of our federal government’s powers, especially spearheaded by Republicans.
27 posted on 09/27/2003 7:33:10 AM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
What happens when all the telemarketing jobs get exported to Ireland or India and our laws don't extend to them? And the calls continue cause we can't stop them.

Hey, that's an interesting point. I don't know the answer to that one.

I think that things have just gotten out of hand in that industry. It really has become oppressively aggressive. Something will be done. ;-)

28 posted on 09/27/2003 7:34:12 AM PDT by Scenic Sounds ("Don't mind people grinnin' in your face." - Son House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
It's trespassing and harassment. They come into YOUR home
29 posted on 09/27/2003 7:34:50 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Good reply.
30 posted on 09/27/2003 7:35:47 AM PDT by gitmo (Zero Tolerance = Intolerance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Excactly, it's not "stumbling onto an annoyance" like elfman implies.
31 posted on 09/27/2003 7:37:02 AM PDT by norraad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: joesbucks
I hate being interrupted during suppertime by telemarketers.

I NEVER give to charities who call over the phone. And yes, if you do business with them they have the "right" to call, but I changed credit cards when they kept calling me, and have instructed all those telephone company calls to stop calling.

Most cities are allowed to limit door to door solititations, and aggressvie beggars, and private areas now are allowed to limit "free speech". Remember all those people who used to bother you at the airport? Now they are gone. But before they passed the law making airports a private space able to limit such things, people hated them too. THe movie "AIRPLANE!" got a big laugh when angry pilot played by robert stack punches out all of them, one by one...
33 posted on 09/27/2003 7:38:21 AM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politcially correct poor people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Cell phone numbers were exempt, except for when you've purchased something and gave the cell phone number as your primary contact point. The list was then sold to an affiliated company and bingo, you've got cell phone telemarketing calls.

And you have no problem with that?

34 posted on 09/27/2003 7:41:09 AM PDT by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Wrong Question:
Why Is Telemarketing Different Than Any Other Group or Individuals Telling a Business What to Do?

Right Question:
Why is my telephone any different from any of my other property. Do telemarketers have a right to trespass on my property just because the address is published.

35 posted on 09/27/2003 7:41:26 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Well we could always JDAM them into compliance.....
36 posted on 09/27/2003 7:41:36 AM PDT by JimFreedom (My patience is growing thin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
And did they even pay their workers? A local operation, it turns out, did not pay their employees when they skipped town.
37 posted on 09/27/2003 7:44:04 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
If you are the business owner, it's government intrusion saying what you can and can't do.

You don't have to be a business owner for that. Name a business where that ISN'T true...welcome to the real world.

38 posted on 09/27/2003 7:44:26 AM PDT by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
I'm allowed by law to post a No Trespassing / No Soliciting sign at the edge of my property. This then permits me to enforce (at least here in Texas) the exclusion of all unwelcome visitors, both private and commercial.

For there not to be an equal allowance of protection on my phone line is nothing short of asinine.

39 posted on 09/27/2003 7:51:23 AM PDT by Freebird Forever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
A good point. You know, if anyone else calls you repeatedly, you can get a court order to make them stop. So how is a telemarketer any different from anyone else? How can this be a "free speech" issue? Free speech is limited all the time--just ask the tobacco, alcohol and gun companies.

40 posted on 09/27/2003 7:52:12 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
the law regulation not only exceeds the authority of the regulating government agency, the regulations also violates Amendment I (freedom of speech), Amendment V (property taking without compensation), and Amendment XIV (equal protection under the law).

Bull. You have the freedom to speak but there is no freedom to be heard. And there is definitely nothing that says I have to listen to your spiels. As far property taking, no one is taking anyones property unless you are considering your telemarketing database as property. You are still free to call the other 60% that want telemarketing calls to provide some social interaction. Equal protection? Maybe you have a point but if the list is structured for basic telelmarketing, charities and political calls and then citizens are allowed to opt-out for each of those types of calls they want, then that goes out the window.

41 posted on 09/27/2003 7:52:16 AM PDT by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: bobsatwork
They WILL go door to door. Instead of an ignorable phone ring during dinner hour, there will be parades of former telemarketers ringing the doorbell. And SCOTUS recently ruled that door-to-door pitches are pretty much unstoppable.

How about a sign that says "NO SOLICITORS TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT", beside a laminated used pistol target... the use being the object of a couple of loads of the buckshot of your choice from about 7 yards. Seriously I can't believe that the SCOTUS would rule that you must allow folks onto your property that you don't want there. Apartment dwellers may have a problem though, unless the entire building or complex is declared off limits to uninvited salesmen, since the common/public area pretty well extends right to your door. Do you have a link to the decision, or at least the name of the case?

42 posted on 09/27/2003 7:52:49 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
the regulations also violates Amendment I (freedom of speech), Amendment V (property taking without compensation), and Amendment XIV (equal protection under the law).

The term "ignorance is bliss" can apply here Mr./Mrs. telemarketer.

take the "individual" steps necessary for you to stop telephone calls from telemarketers.

That's exactly what signing onto the list does....I-N-D-I-V-I-D-U-A-L-S choosing, "taking the steps necessary", making individual decisions to sign onto or not sign onto the list.

43 posted on 09/27/2003 7:56:54 AM PDT by lewislynn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Anybody that calls into my home that I do not know gets the "Hello… Hello… Hello…" treatment.
44 posted on 09/27/2003 8:02:29 AM PDT by auboy (Many words rhyme with French. For some reason, stench always tops my list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
Telemarketing is one of the number one "service industry" jobs this new service industry economy has provided. What else are people who have lost jobs in manufacturing, computer programming, and the garment industry going to do? There are only so many hamburger flipping jobs out there and they're getting scare. End the "service industry" jobs and what's left?
45 posted on 09/27/2003 8:12:08 AM PDT by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Motherbear
The people who say this is a free speech issue are missing the boat. No one is infringing their right to free speech. But what the telemarketers want to do is force me to listen to their "free" speech.
46 posted on 09/27/2003 8:17:23 AM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Salo
I pay for my sidewalk and driveway and those girl scouts still walk on it to sell those cookies. There ought to be a law! I demand a constitutional ammendment!
47 posted on 09/27/2003 8:17:37 AM PDT by Voltage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
My biggest problem with telemarketers occurs when they will not take a polite "NO" for an answer.

I had an experience with this back in May, you can read about it here. This link (before recent edits) was provided to the entities mentioned below.

The update to the document at the link above is that I reported this incident to my State Department of Consumer Affairs and the Better Business Bureau.

I eventually received a response from the BBB telling me that this was not the type of complaint they handle but they did forward my letter to the home office of the company.

Eventually I got a very courteous and apologetic phone call from the second in command at this company. I was told that after reviewing the situation "Shawn" was shown the door and assured that this was not the way this company did business. I stressed the need for proper training and thanked the company rep.

This is a big part of the problem IMO. The turnover is so high in this business that merely placing another warm body in the chair becomes the prime consideration and adequate training falls through the cracks.

And this is not the only instance in which I have gotten attitude from a TM, its just the worst.
48 posted on 09/27/2003 8:18:54 AM PDT by BattleFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: joesbucks
This is a double win for the Democrats. Not only do they get to vote for bipartisan legislation that is hugely popular but a million lost jobs will be on the books in the 4th quarter. You can bet they will be screaming bloody murder about "Bush's" huge increase in lost jobs without a mention of this bipartisan legislation that directly caused it. It is rare when the government really and truly "creates a job" or "loses a job." but this is it.
 
There is also no easy way to block foreign telemarketing. Using voice over IP (the affordable way to do it anyway) you will now be getting your telemarketing totally unregulated and with a bad Bombay accent. Oh sure, you'll see a big drop off next week and people will talk about how wonderful it is now that the telemarketers are gone, but bive them a few months to get setup and retooled overseas and what do you know the phones gonna start ringing at dinner again.
 
Good intentions - bad idea. Kind of like the Brady Bill, the TSA, Social Security, Prescription drug Medicare benefits... "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem." It's sad to see conservatives get suckered.
 

49 posted on 09/27/2003 8:20:45 AM PDT by azcap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
"As far property taking, no one is taking anyones property unless you are considering your telemarketing database as property."

"I think it probably will hurt some companies, and particularly the smaller operations would have a harder time absorbing the economics of adjusting to the latest regulations," said Brian M. McCutcheon, founder of SoftReach Services of Gilroy, Calif., an independent consulting practice that has helped some companies satisfy the latest government regulations."

Stevens, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 98—963

JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, et al., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT [January 24, 2000]

"...therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property;"

Amendment V

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

In order for this regulation and/or federal law to be constitutional, there has to be a corresponding tax and funding mechanism to satisfy the requirements of Amendment V.

It is precisely why we have an massively intrusive, job destroying leviathan called a federal government that the president, members of congress, and the judiciary freely and expansively use Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3 as the constitutional basis to regulate commerce, but ignore the Bill of Rights, Amendment V, particularily, when enacting such regulations.

50 posted on 09/27/2003 8:23:50 AM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-183 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson