I used to work as a telemarketer. I didn't stay at that job for more than a week because I hated it and the way they wanted us to treat people over the phone. And I'm not one who likes to bother people anyway. So I'm actually kinda glad this has gone into effect, because even my family signed up for that do-not-call list, regardless of my previous week-long employment.
It's really not the telemarketers themselves who are the problem. They're ordinary people like you or me who need a little income. It's the way they're trained that's the problem. I was trained to badger people and keep them on the phone as long as possible. I was not to take no for an answer and even if they began cussing at me I was to continue the sales pitch.
Needless to say, management didn't like me much during that week because I wasn't really "trying" hard enough to keep people on the phone. Rather, I tended to take no for an answer when I knew there was no way in heck I'd get a sale out of that person.
What do you think of this news. I'm sure there will be some groups screaming about this, you know, the ones that said it was unconstitutional for this list to be created in the first place, but I think that this is something that needed to be done.
As always I'm open to correction though. Interested in your thoughts.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 805 times:
Well, that was an absolute no-brainer, but I'll save the sarcasm on that cliche. But yes, give the credit where it's due. I think these telemarketers crying First Amendment infringements are lunatics.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 773 times:
What I find amazing is that the telemarketers are claiming First Amendment protection, as they say that the no-call-list is infringing on their right to free speech.
I don't see how the First Amendment comes into this. The intent of the Amendment is that GOVERNMENT is not allowed to silence POLITICAL speech. I'm pretty sure that if Jefferson, Madison & Co. were alive today, they would see nothing wrong with the no-call list.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29352 posts, RR: 62 Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 770 times:
GW does lots of things right, liberals tend not to notice though.
This has got to be the fastest that a piece of legislation has ever made it through the congress. Took care of the first court decision. I am sure that the second will be overturned on appeal.
If I was arguing this case, I would argue that the owner of a lot has a right to prohibit protesters, petioners and sellers on his property. A phone line is a piece of property, and it doesn't belong to the tele-marketers. The owners (Or renters maybe more correct) have a right to ban what types of calls are made to them.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Aloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 15 hours ago) and read 768 times:
I'm not a liberal though, L188. I'm a conservative. But I find several flaws in his policy which are not related to this subject. I still respect Mr. Bush however.
What I am hoping now is that the force of law of the do-not-call list will override any decision by the courts to block the list. This list needs to go through completely.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 8 hours ago) and read 726 times:
Not many more than that, L-188. But if you like an economy gone south, an economy losing almost 3 million manufacturing jobs-more than in any time since the Great Depression, a nation of paranoia and suspicion, fighting a war that shouldn't have been fought, letting industries that pollute write the guidelines for the envoirnment, hiding everything behind a veil of secrecy...well, you get my point, L-188. If these are good thngs, then I'll sell you a bridge cheap in Brooklyn.
Cptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2563 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 7 hours ago) and read 714 times:
I like L-188's argument; a good point that I never thought of. Kudos. I put my number on national list...I wonder if it will actually work? I have heard of others getting telemarketing calls on their cell phones. Have any of you experienced this?...Jack
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38514 posts, RR: 80 Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months ago) and read 676 times:
Two good things in one month.
Threatening aid to Israel and the do not call list.
Still not enough for me to vote for him, enough damage has been done by this bastard for me to ever voter for him.
This do not call list isn't a partisan issue anyway, nothing really ballsy on Bush's part.*
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 666 times:
Alpha,
But if you like an economy gone south,
The economy turned south during Clinton's administration, and is now turning back up again under Bush. Get your facts straight.
an economy losing almost 3 million manufacturing jobs
About the manufacturing jobs, the number is 1.96 million, not "nearly 3 million", according to the Department of Labor. Note also that Manufacturing jobs only represent less than 15% of the total number of jobs in the U.S..
a nation of paranoia and suspicion,
Wasn't it Kissinger who said, "Just because you are paranoid does not mean you don't have enemies."?
fighting a war that shouldn't have been fought,
So you'd rather see Saddam back in power, or would you agree that the world (and Iraqis) are better off without him?
letting industries that pollute write the guidelines for the envoirnment,
At least they are American. I remember that under Clinton/Gore it was the communist Chinese government.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38514 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 661 times:
Cfalk: The economy turned south during Clinton's administration, and is now turning back up again under Bush. Get your facts straight.
So where are the jobs?
All I've been hearing is 'jobless recovery' which is an oxymoron. What difference does it make if those who weren't affected by the economy are doing better?
As of this week, Levi Strauss laid off a few more hundred people closing its last U.S. operations. The company stated there 'outsourcing network in Asia' (sweat shops) will do those jobs.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 658 times:
Did you ever study ecoonomics, Superfly? Not your preferred Marxist economics, but the real stuff?
Unemployment is a lagging indicator. It costs money and prestige to lay off people, so companies will wait until they are certain that they are significantly overstaffed. Likewise, hiring people is expensive, and involves a risk if your additional manpower needs don't solidify over time. For these reasons, unemployment always lags most other indicators by at least 6 months or a year.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38514 posts, RR: 80 Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 651 times:
Cfalk: Did you ever study ecoonomics, Superfly? Not your preferred Marxist economics, but the real stuff?
That was a low-blow and I expect more out of you on these boards.
I did well in my economics class as well as English.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator
Maybe. Considering many people have ran out of there unemployment benefits, it may be a 'lagging indicator'.
It costs money and prestige to lay off people,....
I seriously doubt companies are concerned about there 'prestige' when they lay off people. It's still cheaper to lay off people than to keep them on. Have you heard the phrase 'cut your nose off to save your face'?
It's commonly practiced in the business world.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind) had some interesting comments about this topic a few days ago. It also ties in to that tax cut Bush's friends got.
I'll post it in a new thread.
"Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., says the spending can be paid for only by "extraordinary growth" in the economy. He doesn't rule out paring the tax cuts that are the heart of Bush's domestic agenda.
"We may have to analyze carefully what works and what doesn't," Lugar says.
I certainly don't see any signs of extraordinary growth and I doubt Bush will ever consider paring his tax cut.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4397 posts, 
But yes, give the credit where it's due. I think these telemarketers crying First Amendment infringements are lunatics.
From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38514 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
