President brute forces Do Not Call into law

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Score one for Bush domestic policy, I guess.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/...call/index.html

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Amid ongoing legal battles, President Bush signed into law Monday a bill giving the Federal Trade Commission the authority to administer a new do-not-call registry -- a move opposed by telemarketers.

 

Bush said the move was necessary to cut down on "intrusive, annoying, unwelcome telephone solicitations."

 

"The American people should be free to restrict these calls," Bush added.

 

Separately, the Federal Communications Commission announced Monday it would begin enforcing the do-not-call rules against telemarketers starting Wednesday. Telemarketers that call numbers on the list could face fines, FCC officials said.

 

In a statement, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said its rules "complement and expand on" the FTC rules.

 

"FCC rules have not been disturbed by recent court cases," Powell said.

 

And the Supreme Court on Monday rejected an emergency appeal from telemarketers seeking to block the FCC from playing a role in enforcing the registry. Without comment, Justice Stephen Breyer denied the request from the American Telemarketers Association.

 

Despite Bush's signature and the FCC announcement, it's not clear the law will stand because of other court challenges to the registry.

 

Lawmakers rushed the bill through the House and Senate last week after a federal judge in Oklahoma ruled the FTC lacked the authority to run the do-not-call registry. More than 50 million phone numbers are on the list.

 

Supporters of the list hoped the bill would clear the way for the FTC to start implementing the rule.

 

However Thursday, in Denver, Colorado, a second federal court, ruled that the rule infringed on telemarketers' free speech rights.

 

U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham agreed with telemarketers who argued the FTC unfairly favors one kind of speech over another since the list applies to telemarketers but not to nonprofit organizations, politicians and pollsters.

 

The FTC filed a notice of appeal Friday and a motion for an emergency stay of Nottingham's order that would allow it to start enforcing the registry.

 

And Powell said his agency -- the FCC -- expects telemarketers in possession of the do-not-call list not to phone those numbers listed come Wednesday.

 

FTC officials also said that several provisions of "do-not-call" rules were not affected by the court's order and will go into effect as planned on Wednesday. Eileen Harrington, FTC director of marketing practices, said those include:

 

• When a telemarketer calls a residence, a person or recorded voice must begin talking within two seconds after the consumer answers.

 

• Telemarketers will be allowed to use recorded messages only for 3 percent of their calls.

 

• Telemarketers will not be allowed to charge customers' credit cards or other accounts without the customer's permission.

 

• And, starting in January, telemarketers will not be able to block their phone numbers on outgoing calls, which will allow consumers to identify them using caller ID.

 

Hurrah.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I love the fact that he basically gave the finger to those idiot judges.

[devo 0]

Score one for Bush. I had a feeling that somebody would try to overturn the ruling, but I didn't think the President would get involved.

[Guest Choken One]

He has to do SOMETHING to look somewhat good going into the election...

 

Not enough but it's good enough for me....

 

If the democrats had a remote idea of what they were doing...they could easily beat the guy but The demos look more fucked up then Bush does...

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Something inside of me is saying this had personal motivations. When GW finally goes home to Texas, he doesn't want those damn people calling right before dinner, dammit.

[Ripper 0]

Yeah this is pretty consistant with the job he has done during his tenure.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah this is pretty consistant with the job he has done during his tenure.

Bush does stuff out of personal interests?

 

Hmm, missed him bombing countries to keep testimony against him to a grand jury out of the papers.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

Yeah this is pretty consistant with the job he has done during his tenure.

Bush does stuff out of personal interests?

 

Hmm, missed him bombing countries to keep testimony against him to a grand jury out of the papers.

-=Mike

Actually that was a shot at putting thousands of people out of work.

 

*rimshot*

 

I kid, I kid....or do I?

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Yeah this is pretty consistant with the job he has done during his tenure.

Bush does stuff out of personal interests?

 

Hmm, missed him bombing countries to keep testimony against him to a grand jury out of the papers.

-=Mike

Enron.

[Cartman 0]

LOL

 

Nice try George, Real nice.

 

You are STILL a jackass, and you are STILL screwed.

 

...and most of all you STILL suck

[Styles 0]

Something inside of me is saying this had personal motivations. When GW finally goes home to Texas, he doesn't want those damn people calling right before dinner, dammit.

So, he's human like the rest of us.

[Justice 0]

LOL

 

Nice try George, Real nice.

 

You are STILL a jackass, and you are STILL screwed.

 

...and most of all you STILL suck

LOL

 

He's got a recovering economy on his side and the War on Terror is generally considered successful so far.

 

You are still a dumbass and you still know jack shit about politics.

 

... And I think I covered all of it up there

 

*Christ, you make it too easy...*

 

And CWM, did they ever find a link between him and Enron? It seemed to die off on it's own rather than GW distracting anyone from it.

[Guest Choken One]

well a war just happened to start as people were talking about Enron...So most people seem to have forgot...Kinda like how people forgot Gary Condit after 9/11...

[NYU 0]

LOL

 

Nice try George, Real nice.

 

You are STILL a jackass, and you are STILL screwed.

 

...and most of all you STILL suck

LOL

 

He's got a recovering economy on his side and the War on Terror is generally considered successful so far.

 

You are still a dumbass and you still know jack shit about politics.

 

... And I think I covered all of it up there

 

*Christ, you make it too easy...*

 

And CWM, did they ever find a link between him and Enron? It seemed to die off on it's own rather than GW distracting anyone from it.

The war on terror is considered successful ? We never caught Osama Bin Laden. We never caught Saddam Hussein. We just continue to hold terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, with justice being given to almost no one there so far. We've lost way too many soldiers in Iraq. We now need to spend $87 billion dollars on rebuilding Iraq, although our own economy is suffering. But yeah, the War on Terror has been a success so far.

[Justice 0]

The war on terror is considered successful ? We never caught Osama Bin Laden. We never caught Saddam Hussein. We just continue to hold terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, with justice being given to almost no one there so far. We've lost way too many soldiers in Iraq. We now need to spend $87 billion dollars on rebuilding Iraq, although our own economy is suffering. But yeah, the War on Terror has been a success so far. 

So far? We've broken up the Al Queda network, have prevented dozens of possible attacks on the US. Capturing Osama is just a figurehead victory since the man himself is constantly on the run and can't do anything himself. Same with Hussein, who lacks the power to do anything right now.

 

We've lost way too many soldiers in Iraq? Christ, people lack the stomach for any sort of military action. We've lost 359 total.. That's it. And this is too much? It's far worth the price to plant a possible democracy in the Middle East, but hey, if you want to pull out now and leave the region dangerously unstable, feel free to do so .

 

The economy is recovering. Everything is showing growth. $87 Billon on Iraq? So more of a deficit that might lower the dollar, eh? That's GOOD. It attracts businesses back to the US and allows us to compete on the International Market, which DOES help the economy. But hey, I only live with an Econ major. How would I know?

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah this is pretty consistant with the job he has done during his tenure.

Bush does stuff out of personal interests?

 

Hmm, missed him bombing countries to keep testimony against him to a grand jury out of the papers.

-=Mike

Enron.

OK.

 

Name ONE thing Bush did illegally for Enron.

 

Just one little thing.

 

Shouldn't be hard, seeing as how he's been -- wait, he's not been tarnished WHATSOEVER when it comes to Enron.

 

Go home until you can name one.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

He's got a recovering economy on his side

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

 

 

You just keep on believing that.

[Guest MikeSC]

well a war just happened to start as people were talking about Enron...So most people seem to have forgot...Kinda like how people forgot Gary Condit after 9/11...

Hmmm, so Bush caused 9/11 to avoid Enron stories that never once implied that he did anything improper?

 

Do you realize how asinine that is?

-=Mike

[Justice 0]

He's got a recovering economy on his side

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

 

 

You just keep on believing that.

Sure. You keep believing Dean has a chance, too.

[Guest MikeSC]

well a war just happened to start as people were talking about Enron...So most people seem to have forgot...Kinda like how people forgot Gary Condit after 9/11...

Hmmm, so, Bush CAUSED 9/11 to happen to keep the press off of Enron stories that had never even attempted to state that he or his administration had ever done anything improper?

 

Ooookay.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm sorry, but Bush & the economy is like Clinton and, well, anything.

 

Marney bitched in one thread somewhere (I think the post where she called Ken Starr a "useful idiot") and complained about how Clinton would look at polls to see what people were concerned about and then declare himself some sort of leader in that cause.

 

That's what's going on right now. Remember "shock & awe"? Remember what everyone was thinking about during that time? It wasn't the war (well, not as much) but the economy. Every poll, news program, opinion column, political cartoon, was a reflection of Americans concerned about the economy while Bush was beating on the war drum.

 

Then, what, two months ago? He finally realizes that the economy is the big issue of the day and now I get all these people talking about how he's got a recovering economy.

 

Don't make me laugh. If the economy was recovering, my area wouldn't be considering installing an Indian casino.

[Justice 0]

Well, Jobber, not to be cruel but you are in California. You got fucked up far worse than we did in Michigan and most other states.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Generally, the arguement for our fucked-upness is "Hey, the whole country is fucked up right now."

[Guest MikeSC]

The war on terror is considered successful ? We never caught Osama Bin Laden. We never caught Saddam Hussein. We just continue to hold terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, with justice being given to almost no one there so far. We've lost way too many soldiers in Iraq. We now need to spend $87 billion dollars on rebuilding Iraq, although our own economy is suffering. But yeah, the War on Terror has been a success so far. 

You've already shown yourself to be lacking intellectually when it comes to simple pro wrestling. You're almost embarrassing yourself here.

 

"We never caught bin Laden"? Umm, SO? Al Qaeda is all but dead.

 

"We never caught Hussein"? Ditto. He isn't in power.

 

To give you a hint, we never caught Hitler, either. I suppose WW II was a failure too, huh?

 

We continue to hold terrorists at Gitmo? Good. Fewer sub-human monkeys to cause problems around the world. Good work. We've lost too many soldiers? Ah, there is that resolve that so many of my generation --- or younger --- are known to have. I used to think that Baby Boomers were self-involved little twits. I now realize that people my age tend to be infinitely worse. "Oooh, I don't want to sacrifice ANYTHING unless I'm guaranteed something really good."

 

We've spent $87B in Iraq. So, you'd rather LEAVE them as they were? The economy is in rebound, much as you hope otherwise.

 

Seriously, until you buy a clue, avoid intelligent boards. You stick out.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I used to think that Baby Boomers were self-involved little twits.

Birthday: 17 June 1975

 

So, uh.. How old are your parents anyway? Or were you raised by animals in the wilderness?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Whoa Mike is old (or I'm just young), and I just noticed that he felt the need to rip Choken twice. He probably didn't realize it either.

 

I've been getting a lot of telemarketer calls recently. I have to find a creative way of fending them off.

[Justice 0]

Um... Motion to get back on the original topic? A question here: Who thinks the Federal Court's opinion will be overturned?

[Guest MikeSC]

I used to think that Baby Boomers were self-involved little twits.

Birthday: 17 June 1975

 

So, uh.. How old are your parents anyway? Or were you raised by animals in the wilderness?

Birthdates of 12/45 and 12/48, so they were Baby Boomers (though hardly the stereotypical ones as they never attended a protest in their lives).

 

But, unlike you, my parents weren't blood relatives, so that explains my lack of problems in comparison to you, Corky.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Whoa Mike is old (or I'm just young), and I just noticed that he felt the need to rip Choken twice. He probably didn't realize it either.

 

I've been getting a lot of telemarketer calls recently. I have to find a creative way of fending them off.

The curse of crappy dial-up connection and tons of problems with my AOL software.

 

Alas.

-=Mike

[NYU 0]

You've already shown yourself to be lacking intellectually when it comes to simple pro wrestling. You're almost embarrassing yourself here.

 

Man, you're killing me here, Mike. The fact that some of your posts today said "The fans sat on their hands during the ladder match ! They didn't care" is not only ignorant, but embarrassing as well. But yeah, it's me.

 

"We never caught bin Laden"? Umm, SO? Al Qaeda is all but dead.

 

Bin Laden was a figurehead for Al Qaeda. He was responsible for 9/11 and, afterwards, we were practically promised his head on a stick. And what happened ? We have some of the most techonologically advanced military equipment in the world, and we couldn't find a man hiding out in the mountains. It's ridiculous. If Bush didn't make it such a point that we would bring this evildoer to justice, this would be a moot point. But the way it is, he made a promise and didn't come through. And Al Qaeda is all but dead ? Awfully big statement to make. No one can predict the future, and no one can truly tell what is going on in Saudi Arabia right now anyway. But *hyuk*, troops captured a whole bunch of dem dere Arab folks, we must be safe. Yes, he did catch terrorists but it is FOOLISH to say that this terrorist cell is all but dead. Extremely foolish.

 

 

"We never caught Hussein"? Ditto. He isn't in power.

 

Same idea here. Don't promise me Saddam's head on a silver platter, and I won't be pissed off. But we were promised Saddam and once again, it hasn't been delivered. What HAS been delivered is a whole bunch of dead Americans and a whole bunch of ungrateful, disrespectful Iraqis. Not to mention the disgust of the rest of the world for going through with a war that nobody even agreed with, including half of the U.S. ! This war in Iraq has done us absolutely no favors, cost us billions and billions of dollars, and the rebuilding is now going on with pretty much no end in sight. *clap* *clap* Great job, Mr. President.

 

To give you a hint, we never caught Hitler, either. I suppose WW II was a failure too, huh?

 

We found Hitler's burned body, and have been assured that he will never wreak havoc on the world again. Bin Laden and Hussein are still at large. Though both look to be powerless, nobody knows if they could be preparing for an attack on a larger scale. Difference again.

 

We continue to hold terrorists at Gitmo? Good. Fewer sub-human monkeys to cause problems around the world. Good work. We've lost too many soldiers? Ah, there is that resolve that so many of my generation --- or younger --- are known to have. I used to think that Baby Boomers were self-involved little twits. I now realize that people my age tend to be infinitely worse. "Oooh, I don't want to sacrifice ANYTHING unless I'm guaranteed something really good."

I agree. I have no sympathy for the terrorists at Gitmo. But start prosecuting some of them, dammit ! Oh, and by the way, good planning with those prison guards. Now we find out we've had traitors over there. NOW I feel reassured in this whole Guatanamo Bay thing. Maybe if the terrorists had been prosecuted right now, and some put to death already, we wouldn't have to deal with treason. But instead, Bush and his cabinet have sat on their asses for the past 2 years and done nothing. This is doing nothing for the country and once again, wasn't what was promised to us.

 

And you selfish piece of shit, excuse the soldiers for not wanting to go fight in a war that was completely unnecessary. We now know that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, had no connection to 9/11, and pretty much had nothing planned for America. But we let 300 and something soldiers get killed in Iraq based on FALSE INFORMATION and GUESSES. This is totally irresponsible and, thanks to the war, we now have 300-something parents, wives, husbands, and children who have had to bury their family members. Yosemite Sam declared war for his own benefit and, to this point, it hasn't benefited anybody. For God's sake, a growing number of Iraqis want us OUT OF THERE and are killing American soldiers to prove their point. But no, let's call those who didn't want to fight "self-involved little twits" Fighting in WWI was necessary. Fighting in WWII was necessary. Fighting in Iraq was a stupid, unnecessary war, and people had to pay the price for it when they clearly shouldn't have.

 

We've spent $87B in Iraq. So, you'd rather LEAVE them as they were? The economy is in rebound, much as you hope otherwise.

 

In all truthfulness, YES ! Yes, I would rather LEAVE them as they were. We have people suffering over here. We have unemployment rising, homeless continuing to grow, a deficit that gets bigger by the day - and we are helping Iraqis that are saying "Leave, you American pieces of scum" Why are we spending $87 billion on this ? Screw political correctness. We have our own problems over here, and we continue to play policeman to the rest of the world - when no one else wants us to.

 

And one last thing, the economy is in rebound ? Yeah, buddy, keep telling yourself that.

 

Seriously, until you buy a clue, avoid intelligent boards. You stick out.

 

Nah, man, I bought my clue. I know my stuff. But you continue to act like a broken record, reitering the same false shit whether it's here or on the WWE board. Congratulations, I now know that you pretty much have no idea what the fuck you are talking about on any topic. *handshake* Good job.