Oct 27, 2008

Newspaper editor ridicules campaign volunteers


As somebody who has spent countless hours phone banking and knocking on doors for political candidates over the last four years, I was both disturbed and offended at a recent opinion column by the General Manager of the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus.

At the end of an opinion column by Rich Perlberg that covered a number of different topics, he tells us how he handles political volunteers who call his home advocating for their candidate:

The family gets a kick when a telemarketer calls our house, especially when its for a political family. Lately, I interrupt the scripted sales pitch to tell the caller how much we appreciate having our dinner conversation disrupted. It's not like we were talking about anything important.
Then I tell the caller that his or her boss (or political party) supported a law that makes it illegal for my company to make the very call that they are still allowed to make. If they are still listening, I tell them how I feel about politicians who make laws that they don't have to follow.
They generally hang up before I can tell them that their call has persuaded me to vote for their opponent.
It always breaks my family up. We are easily entertained.

Now, for full disclosure and before I am called a disgruntled former employee, I once worked for this company for six years, but I was let go four years ago.

But this really bothered me. I have been on the receiving end of those calls, I have made them and I have been a journalist covering politics. In 2006 I spent two days a week in Monroe, a battleground county, calling people for eight hours a day and then knocking on doors in the evening for another four hours. So I know how it feels to be insulted and called names on the phone. It’s not as bad at people’s doors, but it does happen. It takes an enormous amount of patience and self-control, but there is no better way to get your candidate elected than personal contact.

Here’s the difference, Rich, between a volunteer advocating for their favorite candidate and an out-of-state telemarketer you hire and pay to make more money for the corporation that happens to own the newspaper at the time.

The person calling on behalf of the political candidate is giving up their time to volunteer - unless it’s a robo call or push poll - to become involved in their community and wants a better place to live for them and their children. That goes for both political parties. Republicans are wrong on 99 percent of the issues and I question their tactics, but I know they love their country just as much as I and other liberals do. I will never be rude to a campaign volunteer who calls my home or come to my door, no matter who the candidate is.

I would suggest to Mr. Perlberg that if in the future a dedicated campaign volunteer calls his home, just politely say no thank you before they go into their “scripted sales pitch” so they can go on to the next person. Why waste your time and theirs if you are not interested? I would also suggest that if a paid telemarketer calls to do the same, so they can go on to the next person. After all, they are just trying to make a living.

Your family will have to find some different entertainment.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't speak for Mr. Perlberg but I sympathize with him...and I doubt he will change his ways because of your suggestion. Nor does he have to.

You don't want to get his response? Don't call him. The call was an UNINVITED intrusion into his home. I get those calls too...they are either exaggerated lies about a candidate (usually a negative shot at an opponent) or they are a plea for money. Or both. Guess what? I decide on my own if I will give money to a politician...I don't need my dinner interrupted by some monotone reading a script that they likely don't understand. (I've asked some for details when they make a claim...about 75percent are stumped and admit they don't know what they are talking about.)

Here's the thing. Lawmakers, including King Dem Dingell, passed a law that made such telemarketing illegal...except they exempted political fundraising calls. How convenient. How hypocritical.

One more thing. For a number of these calls, you can't tell them you aren't interetest because they are ROBOCALLS. Automated intrusions into a private home. If you are going to traffic in such lowbrow behavior, then you have to expect negative responses.

If callers don't like Mr Perlberg's response, quit calling him. He never asked for the call. Quit bothering him.

Communications guru said...

I never said he had to take my suggestion. Hell, let’s just ban democracy and campaigning. God forbid people like you and Rich should refrain from being rude because a volunteer took 30 seconds out of your busy schedules by people who dare to care enough about their community to be willing to put up with abuse by small-minded people.

If you are getting “exaggerated lies about a candidate,” brett, then you must just be getting calls from Republicans. The fact is most calls are simply to ID that person’s party affiliation. Once that is established most political parties will not call people who are strong supporters from the opposite party, so I don’t know where these alleged lies are coming from.

Here’s the thing, a telemarketer trying to sell you aluminum siding is far different from people supporting and furthering democracy.

I’m not fond of robocalls either, but they are even easier to deal with than real volunteers calling. Just hang up. You don’t even have to be polite for the required five seconds it takes to say no thank you. Just hang up.

Anonymous said...

You unwittingly make a point. There is a difference between an aluminum siding salesperson and a political caller. If I tell an aluminum siding salesperson I don't want anymore calls, he has to stop or he's breaking the law. In fact you can (and I do) sign up for Do Not Call and it's illegal to call me the first time. Not so for political candidates. Last election season I politely and repeatedly told the political organization calling me that I didn't want to be called. No luck. I still got the calls.

It's both arrogant and foolish for you to say that my desire not to be bothered by these calls is an attempt to ban democracy. It's my home, my peace and quiet time and my vote. I'll decide how I want to vote and how I want to learn about the candidate. I can't think of one valuable thing I've learned from political telemarketing. It's either a get out the vote push (I can remember to vote quite well enough on my own); a smear campaign (which I don't need to hear); or a boilerroom effort to shake down people for money who made the mistake of outwardly supporting your party.

Here's a deal. Just extend Do Not Call to politicians. Those who want to get those calls can still get them; the rest of us can shut them out. Same penalties for violating the law that tax-paying businesses face.

Freedom of choice..that's still all right, isn't it. Of course, that means politicians would have to live under the same laws they pass for others. Not likely.

I choose to not want to have them call my house. You say I don't have that right. Who is against democracy and freedom here?

Keith said...

First you say these people calling or going door to door are volunteers, then you say they are just trying to make a living. Confusion abounds.

Anonymous said...

Keith...do not expect consistency from Communications Guru. He has a simple rule...if it supports Democrats or his version of what is right,then it's a good and noble argument. If it doesn't, then you are racist, stupid and want to ban democracy.

This is, remember, the same guy who wants to lionize Elliot Spitzer because he resigned after being caught red-handed paying thousands of dollars to a hooker.

Communications guru said...

Again, there is a difference between an aluminum siding salesperson and a volunteer participating in the kind of democracy that made this country great. It's sad you can't see the difference. Add to the fact that you can tell the salesperson to stop the calls all you want, but if you filled out an entry form to win free aluminum siding at some home show you forgot about they can call you all they want because they have an "established business relationship."

I don't think its "arrogant" or "foolish" to say you want to ban democracy by banning phone banking. In fact, arrogant and foolish are good words to describe it, and I would also add selfish.

Do Not Call should not be extended to politicians. If you feel that way then write your Congressperson.

You do have the freedom of choice. You have the freedom to not answer the phone, or to politely say no thank you and hang up. Who is against democracy and freedom here? Apparently you, brett.

Communications guru said...

Thanks for posting Keith. Let me clear it up. I said in the original post:
"I would suggest to Mr. Perlberg that if in the future a dedicated campaign volunteer calls his home, just politely say no thank you before they go into their “scripted sales pitch” so they can go on to the next person. Why waste your time and theirs if you are not interested? I would also suggest that if a paid telemarketer calls to do the same, so they can go on to the next person. After all, they are just trying to make a living."

The first sentence was referring to a campaign volunteer. The last two sentences were referring to people making telemarketer calls. I just don't see the point or pleasure in ridiculing or being rude to either one.

Communications guru said...

Thanks for that "explanation," brett. Like always you are wrong, and you purposely misrepresent comments as usual.

I already explained to Keith the alleged inconsistencies. I forgot you have a reading problem.

As for your Elliot Spitzer lie. You asked me what Democrats took responsibility for their actions, and I said Spitzer because he had the good sense to resign. That is far from "lionizing" him. That's in sharp contrast to Republicans like David Vitter who did virtually the same thing but did not resign. Now you have Ted Stevens who was convicted of corruption by a jury of his peers, but he refuses to resign.

Anonymous said...

Thank goodness, Guru doesn't let facts get in the way of his arguments...otherwise, what would he write about?

Despite your all-knowing nature, you are wrong about companies being able to call you "all they want" if they have an "established business relationship."

Yes, if you do business with them, they can call you even if you are on the Do Not Call list. But, if you say just once that you don't want the calls, they have to stop. In fact, they have to keep a list separate from DNC list to keep track of such folks. I've used this tactic and it works, because there are steep penalties for violating this law

Unless, of course, you are a politician. I ask them every time they call (except for Robo Calls) to quit calling me. It never works. I have no recourse except not to vote for them. And at least I have the courtesy to tell them that their call is changing my vote. (Of course, they seldom hear me because they have hung up...so much for their interest in freedom of speech. And I'm polite, by the way, but I'm telling them something they don't want to hear.)

Write my congressman? I have. I've told him personally. Guess what? It was Congress that wrote the law that exempted them. They want other businesses to follow a law that doesn't apply to them. And you are totally good with that. Amazing.

These callers may be volunteers or they may be paid. In my experience, they don't know much. My favorite example is when I asked a caller to explain what she meant by her question. "I don't know what I mean," she said. "I'm just reading from a script." I give her credit for honesty.

Communications guru said...

Funny, I don't see you ever presenting any facts, just your opinions.

However, you are partially correct about the established business relationship after I researched it. I was wrong for going on just my memory alone.
"A telemarketer or seller may call a consumer with whom it has an established business relationship for up to 18 months after the consumer's last purchase, delivery, or payment - even if the consumer's number is on the National Do Not Call Registry." (https://www.donotcall.gov/faq/faqbusiness.aspx)
"A company may call a consumer for up to three months after the consumer makes an inquiry or submits an application to the company. And if a consumer has given a company written permission, the company may call even if the consumer's number is on the National Do Not Call Registry." They must not call if you ask them not to, but I wonder how many consumers know that; or what constitutes "written permission." But again, there is a huge difference between an aluminum siding salesperson and a volunteer participating in the kind of democracy that made this country great.

Let me see if I understand one of your statements. Because they hang up and refuse to take your abuse, they are "not interested in freedom of speech." Wow. You are really spinning that. They have the same freedom as you, brett. You can hang up and not listen, so can they.

Yes, write your Congressman. I did, and I tell him not to place political speech on the Do Not Call registry. I have met few paid phone bankers. Even though I'm a paid staffer, all the phone banking I have done has been off work hours and voluntarily. I'm sure a few campaign mangers make calls, but 98 percent are volunteers.

Well, brett, if in your "experience, they don't know much" then you are getting too many calls from Republican volunteers. I give them more than credit just for their honestly, I give them credit for caring so much about the election process and their candidate that they put up with abuse from people like you and Rich Perlberg.

Keith said...

This sounds alot like big brother dictating phone etiquette to people that pay for their phone lines only to be interrupted by sales people and politicians using personal phones to be intrusive to people's homes.

Is this another new directive of the almighty barack? Are we now told to be polite to all or we'll start suffering consequences?

When a politican or his underlings call me I laugh at them and say you've got to be kidding. I will never vote for a socialist nor a marxist nor anyone wanting to oppress my freedoms nor anyone that wants to take my hard earned money to blow on their numerous failed programs. If they haven't already hung up, which is being rude that you insist I am not able to be any longer, I then thank them for interrupting my time with my children.

Communications guru said...

"Big Brother?" What this is about is a suggestion that people treat dedicated volunteers with a little respect. I never said you have – or even to suggest – you have to listen to the person. Just politely say no thank you and hang up. I don't possibly see how anyone can call this "Big Brother." I also fail to see how calling someone's home to urge them to vote or to vote for their favorite candidate can be labeled "intrusive to people's homes."

The "almighty barack?" Do you mean soon-to-be President Barack Obama? No one but people like you have called him the "Messiah" or the "almighty." Nor is being polite any "directive."

I also will not "vote for a socialist nor a Marxist nor anyone wanting to oppress my freedoms nor anyone that wants to take my hard earned money to blow on their numerous failed programs."

I don't see how taking 5 seconds to politely say no thank you and hanging up takes away from your children. I also never "insisted" you can no longer be rude. I just don't understand why you would want to. It seems that's a better lesson to teach your children.

Anonymous said...

As a volunteer who has spent the last several days making calls on my own time, I heartily thank "guru" for his support. I AM doing it because I care about my community and my children's future. I know it can be annoying to some, but amazingly, I have also encountered a number of people who were unsure of who they were going to vote for and appreciated the info I could give them about the candidate I'm supporting.

Communications guru said...

Thanks. I do it for the same reasons as you, but I also include my grandchildren's future. A co-worker and I, who also has a lot experience phone banking, were talking about this, and he said he is never rude to the opposition party. When the Democrat calls he makes it a point to thank them and give them a pep talk. I know when I get someone who is friendly and polite, it wipes out off of the rudeness of people like brett and the editor and I'm ready to dial the next number.

Anonymous said...

I do not want them to call my home. But I can't stop them, even though it's against the law for anyone else to make those unwanted calls.

If you don't see the problem with that, then you are the problem.

Communications guru said...

If you can’t be polite for five minutes and support democracy then you are the problem.

Anonymous said...

I don't need a mindless robocall or scripted telemarketer calling me to "support democracy." Do you? That's pretty lame.

I get tons of information from many sources on my own. It would be just as silly to say you must be a socialist because you don't support telemarketing from private companies. I mean, gee, you can't take 5 minutes to listen to a pitch for aluminum siding?

It's this arrogance that democrats like you possess without even understanding it. You've decided what is acceptable to "support democracy," so I have to abide by that decision. I don't want these calls in my home. It's that simple. If you want them, knock yourself out. I would never think of interfering. But you don't give me the same courtesy. All it takes is expanding Do Not Call to political calls. Then each and every individual could make his or her choice.

Or is that too much democracy for you.

Communications guru said...

First, it’s not “a mindless robocall or scripted telemarketer calling me to "support democracy.” You apparently have not read anything I posted. No, I don’t need a call because I’m the one making them. If you read my comments, you will remember most calls are ID calls or GOTV calls. No volunteer makes robos calls. Apparently, you don’t even know what they are. The bottom line is if you can’t see the difference between an aluminum siding salesperson and a volunteer participating in the kind of democracy that made this country great then you have a problem.

You have called me many things worse that a socialist, brett, but when have I ever said I don't support telemarketing from private companies? The answer is never. It wouldn’t bother me if there was not a Do Not Call List. However, I will never support censoring political speech. Like I said before, I politely say no thank you to the “pitch for aluminum siding.” It’s you that says it’s OK to ridicule and be rude to a volunteer.

What crap. How do you possibly reach the conclusion that I’m arrogant or don’t understand; what I don’t even know. You don’t have to abide by any decision, just politely say no thank you. Yes, I do want them, and I will fight to keep small-minded people from banning political speech. What it will come down to is the only way to get the word out about a candidate is through TV ads, and only the candidates with the most money will win elections.

Grassroots efforts will be dead.

Tell you what, brett. You do what you can to ban political speech and expand the Do Not Call to political calls, and I will fight it.

Good luck. I’ll use everything at my disposable, including phone banking.

Anonymous said...

Again, you miss the point. Or maybe not. Maybe it's on purpose.

You..and this seems to be a democratic trait...want to decide matters for me. I have absolutely no quarrel against political telemarketing, even robocalls. I just don't want them coming to my home.

Since you are so big on democracy, why won't you allow me that right? And others? Let us have a Do Not Call list for political calls. You don't want that because a vast majority might sign up...and you don't want them to have that choice. At the very least, though, with a political DNC list, those who equate telemarketing with democracy can still get calls. What could be better? Unless you think you are better equipped to run other people's lives than they are.

My guess is that you are pro-choice. Me, too. I choose not to get these mindless calls from strangers. You save I have to receive them and politely hang up. Thanks for trying to run my life, but I politely decline your offer.

I actually support democracy. You support the right to make personal decisions for others.

By the way, Mr. Democracy and free speech, weren't you the guy who criticized the paper for letting so-called minor-party candidates from appearing at a debate? Gosh, where is that free-speech and democracy when you need it?

Communications guru said...

No, I'm sorry you missed the point. You cannot ban political speech, and once again there is a difference between an aluminum siding salesperson and a volunteer participating in the kind of democracy that made this country great.

"A Democratic trait." I disagree. I don't see how someone calling your home is this major deal. You will recall, the original post was about the editor choosing to ridicule and waste a volunteer's time for daring to ask him to support the candidate he feels so strongly about. What campaign strategy do you want to ban next because it may bother you? No yard signs because the colors clash? No door knocking because it bothers you? No TV ads because it takes away from the football game you’re watching? So we should also ban political polls because they have to call homes to get a sampling?

You also keep calling this a Democratic law and referring to the DNC. When this was passed in 2003, the Republicans controlled both the House and Senate in the 108th Congress, so this has bipartisan support.

I do not consider a political phone call from a volunteer a "mindless call." I actually support democracy, and I don't "support the right to make personal decisions for others." What I am is not going to allow you or anyone else ban political speech because you apparently don't like to hear your phone ring.

Yes, I am the guy "who criticized the paper for letting so-called minor-party candidates from appearing at a debate." Perhaps you can tell me when was the last time a third party candidate won a Michigan House Seat or a U.S. Congressional seat? Tell you what, you changed my mind about that. But, they would reach more people by phone banking.

Keith said...

People trying to sell me on a candidate or to sell me on voting are intrusive. My phone number is unlisted because I don't want calls from people that I don't give my phone number out to. A person with a political persuasion that is obviously biased is not going to be successful in telling me to be polite to people that are using my phone when I didn't want them calling me in the first place. Maybe when they start contributing to the cost of my phone bill I'll consider listening to them and not being rude. But I consider them rude for calling me when I've gone to lengths to prevent calls coming to my home from people that I'm not interested in.

Communications guru said...

Perhaps you're right, Keith. Voting, being informed and learning about the candidates are intrusive. I know people have fought and died for the right to vote and civil rights workers have been murdered for registering people to vote, but it's all just too intrusive and we shouldn't be bothered with stuff like people urging us to get out to vote and advocating for candidates.

Talk about spinning here. I'm not sure what this sentence means: "A person with a political persuasion that is obviously biased is not going to be successful in telling me to be polite to people that are using my phone when I didn't want them calling me in the first place." I will assume I am the person "with a political persuasion that is obviously biased." I'm sure you are aware that both parties rely on volunteers to phone bank. Again, perhaps you are right, and you simply can't be civil for the 5 seconds it takes to say no thanks.

I just think political speech is too important to be banned just because somebody is annoyed because their phone rings. There's this thing called the 1st Amendment in something called the Bill of Rights. Perhaps you have heard of it?

Anonymous said...

Good comments, Keith. You can tell that guru is losing this argument badly because he is more irrational than usual.

So, Guru, just how am I or anyone else trying to ban political speech? These folks can say anything they want. I just don't want them calling my home. Give me the right to put them on a DNC list and I'm a happy person. Your rant about banning yard signs and TV ads is just plain stupid and not at all on topic. I love yard signs, and even if I didn't, so what...as long as they don't put them on my yard. (By the way, if I don't want a political yard sign on my property, am I further banning political speech? just wondering.)

Believe it or not, there are ways to be informed without a telemarketing call.

Why are you so scared about letting the individual decide if he wants to get such a call? Seems pretty clear cut to me. I don't think it makes me uninformed if I don't take the call, but even if it does..it is still my choice. Or...do you advocate forcing people to watch debates, study web sites, etc. Otherwise they are uninformed and don't care that people died for their freedoms. Quit waving that false flag.

As for the debate, how does not winning elections deny a candidate the right to speak? How else does he get his opinon out? (Oh, I know, he should call strangers on the phone.) You've spent forever arguing about the need to get information out, but you want to deny it to a third party candidate. My guess is you are afraid they will gain ground the county county's No. 2 party...the Democrats.

Based on your criteria, though, Democrats shouldn't be allowed to speak at Livingston County debates...after all, how long has it been since one has won a state House, state Senate or Congressional race in Livingston County?

But back to the point. The law allows political telemarketing only because politicians didn't want to lose out on a great source of fundraising...so as long as it's legal to invade my home with their call, I can answer them any way I like...If they don't like it, don't call me. No one is holding a gun to their head.

volunteermom said...

Wow... do either of you nay-sayers volunteer for anything??? I hope if you have children, you don't allow them to see you being rude to your neighbors on the phone-it's kind of a bad example.

Keith said...

People that bother me on the telephone for political reasons are giving only their point of view. I know the issues. I know how I'm going to vote and I don't need nor do I want to receive calls from political volunteers, paid employees or anyone else with an opinion on politics. In answer to the question from volunteermom, it's nobody's business if I volunteer or not. It's called "voluntereering". Making a choice to contribute to something that I'm interested in. As it happens my volunteer efforts are in the prevention of child abuse. But even with that group I draw the line when they start getting political. If they want to try to have laws passed requiring people to contribute to their organization or hospital by taking tax money they don't get my help. I have seen too many incompetent people that work for the state with Child Protective Services and the Friend of the court in different counties. The local state and federal governments are not the way to make a dent in child abuse. Now I have a question for you volunteermom. Do you have any other judgemental questions for me?

Communications guru said...

Really? I’m losing the argument? Says who? You, brett? Show me where I’m irrational.

You don’t think banning people from phone banking is banning political speech? I do, and there’s your example. They have a right to call; you have the right to not listen. That’s pretty cut and dried. “My rant about banning yard signs?” It’s relevant. Phone banking is a time-honored campaign tactic that is effective, or campaigns would not do it. I hate doing it because of rude idiots like you, but it’s important enough to me to put up with it. Like I said, it’s an effective campaign tactic, so it’s not such a leap to see a ban on door knocking and yard signs. I have even seen condo associations and the like call the police to try and stop people from canvassing. Your yard is private property, but I don’t believe the phone lines are.

I am well aware there are other ways to be informed without a telemarketing call, but the fact is it’s one way and perhaps the most effective way for a campaign to get the word out.

Why am I “so scared about letting the individual decide if he wants to get such a call? “ Because it’s censoring political speech. And again, you don’t have to accept it. Politely say no thank you, or let your answering machine pick it up. It seems pretty clear cut to me. If you make 100 phone calls to get one vote it’s worth it.

As for the debate, post your comments here.
http://liberalmedianot.blogspot.com/2008/10/newspaper-sponsors-debate-with-third.html

As I told you already, you write your Congressman asking him to include political calls on the Do Not Call list, and I’ll write mine telling him not to. Here’s another thing to consider: banning political calls is unconstitutional. There’s that pesky 1st Amendment.

You’re right, you can be rude. People like you are just rude idiots, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

volunteermom said...

Keith- you think I'M judgemental? That's pretty funny. The reason I asked about whether you volunteer is because you seem so insensitive to how it feels to do something you care passionately about, and then have people treat you so rudely. In your efforts to fight child abuse, do you never do any fundraising for your cause? Or do you leave that difficult "calling" part to others? If I take your approach, I guess all those kids who come to my door asking me to buy a candy bar, plant, oranges, etc. for softball, band, scouts, should have the door slammed in their face. After all, it's my property and they are intruding on my personal time. I understand that you want political calls banned. You could volunteer to start a petition. The conversation that guru started was about decency. Since the calls are still allowed, why be nasty to the volunteers? (and believe me, a personal phone call is probably a volunteer- and maybe someone who lives in your neighborhood) As guru said, just politely say no, thank you.

Communications guru said...

Thank you, volunteermom; very nicely said. I could not have said it better myself. People like keith and brett are just the price you have to pay for caring so much, but I, and most people, am willing to pay it. They shouldn't have to, but they are willing.

Keith said...

Politicians do not fall in the same category as children trying to earn a trip, or trying to earn a prize for sales to help their organizations. Children are trying to earn their way to some goal. They aren't in the habit of lying about what they are trying to do. They don't call me on the phone. They learn to step up to a door and knock and ask for help. Politicians and their volunteers are sticking their personal beliefs into my face whether I believe in their positions or not. If a person chooses not to vote, that's their choice. So far, that choice is still available. People don't need to be sold on a candidate. They need to learn the issues, figure out those issues will affect their lives. Not the lives of their neighbors but their own lives and decide for themselves if they want to participate. Politicians should not be trusted. Case in point. Obama has lowered his tax cut from $250,000 to $200,000. Joe Biden has lowered it to $150,000. If it's 95% at $250,000 that will get a tax cut is it still 95% at $150,000? There you have it. Politicians can't be trusted. I don't want dishonest people on my property, at my door, nor on my telephone and if the only way to get them to hang up quickly is to tell them to get back on the short bus and go home then I have that right and should not be berated for it. Guru here is very rude to anyone that disagrees with him. Maybe when he practices what he preaches I might consider his and your positions.

Communications guru said...

Well Keith, I only give what I get. Second, you are incorrect on Obama's tax plan. You're beginning to sound like Grampy McSame constantly misrepresenting Obama's tax plan. All those who make less than $250,000 will get a tax break.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html

Actually, politicians and the Democratic process should take precedent over everything. It effects children and every other facet of American life. Are you honestly saying people who support their country and love Democracy are dishonest? If you want to get them off the phone, politely say "no thank, I'm not interested." It takes just as much time to be polite as to be rude. You don't even have to add that you don't care enough about your country to bother to vote. I don't get the crack about the "short bus." I know what the implication is, but I don't see how it applies here.

Anonymous said...

So, if it's time-honored (according to you) it has to be okay. At one time slavery was time honored (unless you were a slave), so I guess you would have supported slavery in your time.

I detest people like you who cheapen the concept of free speech by falsely crying censorship whenever they aren't allowed to do something they want to do. I advocate nothing that probits free speech. I do advocate keeping unwanted calls from using my phone line.

A political Do Not Call list totally supports freedom. It let's people make calls and it lets people exempt themselves. Why does that scare you? Because, perhaps, you fear the majority of people will put their names on the list? How terrible would that be...letting people make their own decisions instead of letting Guru decide for them.

I don't want their calls. I asked them politely over and over not to call. They always agree but the calls always continue...sometimes the next day by the same organization.

Tell you what. You and Volunteer Mom publish your phone numbers here and say it's all right to call at any time day or night. When you get calls, politely say you aren't interested. Anything else would be censorship...right?

Keith said...

If you people really cared about this country, you wouldn't be conceding defeat in Iraq. You've been wrong every step of the way. First it was a quagmire that we couldn't win. Second Harry Reid said we'd already lost. Third you all said the surge wouldn't work. Fourth you said that it had to be a political solution. It turned out that the quagmire wasn't true. The surge did work. You can't have political solutions without getting the peace, and just this past week the 13th of 18 provinces were turned over to the Iraqi security forces. The improvement since the surge has created the ability for the administration and the Iraqis to start looking at a deal to get out of Iraq in the next two years. Harry Reid was wrong. We are coming home victorious. Unfortunately Joe Biden was right too. If Obama is elected he will be tested. How many dead Americans is acceptable to you liberals to have the most inexperienced person on either ticket as President? On Obama's tax plan, you should have watched his infomercial last night. He again said those under $200,000 would get a tax break. If you're going to lie for the most liberal candidate in history it might be a good idea for you to keep up with his most current lies.

volunteermom said...

Keith-my phone number is published. When someone makes a reference to the "short bus", it tells me all I need to know about them- end of discussion.

Communications guru said...

Comparing slavery to advocating for people to vote is utterly ridiculous. It's so stupid that I won't even address it.

You are wrong, brett. You are trying to censor political speech. Why does it scare me? Easy. No one should start banning political speech because it inconveniences them. What's next? Banning door-to-door campaigning because you have to answer your door? When that happens, only the candidate with the most money to buy TV time and slick mailers wins.

By the way, it's not me deciding for them, it's the people (Congress) making that decision, and it's a good one. I will challenge you again. Get your Congressman to change the law. Good luck.

My phone number is published, and I do get calls. But I don't get calls "at any time day or night." When I get them and actually pick up the phone – which is not often – and am not interested, I simply say: "Thank you, but I'm not interested."

Wow, that took a lot out of me.

Communications guru said...

Oh Keith, you just went off the deep end. No one has ever "conceded defeat in Iraq." The fact is, you can't even tell me what victory means. How many dead Americans are acceptable to me? None. But why don't you ask the same question to the idiots who got us into that unnecessary war that has absolutely nothing to do with the security of this country or furthers our interests.

I'll concesde the $200,000 remark, but the fact remains that under President Obama's tax plan, 95 percent of Americans will get a tax break instead of the upper 1 percent getting all the breaks. It's easy to find out what your tax break will be. Here's a link: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

I don't lie, first. President Obama is not the "most liberal candidate in history." I wish he was, but it's simply not true. That would make him an even better president it were true.

Keith said...

Yes I always hear that liberals don't know what victory in Iraq means. I'm sorry that you aren't bright enough to understand what victory is. Victory is Iraq is simple. When the Iraqi's can provide for themselves and protect their own victory will be achieved. This has been stated repeatedly. The comment Biden made had nothing to do with Iraq, the Iraq war, nor the reasons for going to war with Iraq. What he meant and said that within six months Obama would be tested. Terrorists or Russia would create an international incident. He wasn't talking about McCain. He said a 47 year old President would be tested. McCain is not 47. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Then he admitted that Obama would make the wrong decisions and his poll numbers would plummet. I really love Volunteermoms comment. It says it all about him/her. "end of discussion" is the same as saying my mind is closed. I didn't need to be told that. I've seen the closed mindedness of the liberals here.

Communications guru said...

They can provide for themselves now, and they could provide for themselves before 2003 when we invaded because of the weapons of mass destruction and they were an immediate threat to the U.S. None of that, by the way, was true. And what the hell does "protect their own victory" mean?

Communications guru said...

Yes, yolu idiot.