Call from Clay County GOP: Obama is a Muslim who'll take away Medicare

[xBiffx]

Whatever the case may be, she is still operating as a representative of the CC GOP. Therefore, they are responsible for her actions. She was trained by them, given a script to follow and a list of phone numbers. She was using their facilities and their equipment and resources. If she was calling from her own house and this was just something she did on the side..then sure, its all her fault.

The fact that she was able to do something that stupid and only get a slap on the wrist says something to me. Nobody should be representing a political party and lying or scaring seniors into voting for them.

So if I show you how to shoot and sell you a weapon then you go and actually kill someone, I am guilty of murder?

 

[SheHateMe]

So if I show you how to shoot and sell you a weapon then you go and actually kill someone, I am guilty of murder?

Now you know this is not the same at what the story in the OP is about.

Next.

 

[xBiffx]

Now you know this is not the same at what the story in the OP is about.

Next.

But you just claimed that the CC GOP is responsible for her actions. So how is this so?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

But you just claimed that the CC GOP is responsible for her actions. So how is this so?

From the article: The call was made as part of a statewide phone bank for Romney’s campaign being conducted by the Clay County GOP.

They conducted the phone bank, so they are responsible for the actions of the callers.

 

[xBiffx]

From the article: The call was made as part of a statewide phone bank for Romney’s campaign being conducted by the Clay County GOP.

They conducted the phone bank, so they are responsible for the actions of the callers.

Says who? You? Just because they conducted the phone bank doesn't make them responsible for all the volunteer's/employees actions. They provided phones, this doesn't mean the people using them have carte blanche authority to abuse them and to blame the CC GOP. Suppose one of them engaged in illegal activity. You think that the CC GOP is going to be held responsible in a court of law just because they provided the phones?

 

[CrackRabbit]

Says who? You? Just because they conducted the phone bank doesn't make them responsible for all the volunteer's/employees actions. They provided phones, this doesn't mean the people using them have carte blanche authority to abuse them and to blame the CC GOP. Suppose one of them engaged in illegal activity. You think that the CC GOP is going to be held responsible in a court of law just because they provided the phones?

Actually, yes, I would think that they would be at least partially responsible.

 

[Schmide]

Says who? You? Just because they conducted the phone bank doesn't make them responsible for all the volunteer's/employees actions. They provided phones, this doesn't mean the people using them have carte blanche authority to abuse them and to blame the CC GOP. Suppose one of them engaged in illegal activity. You think that the CC GOP is going to be held responsible in a court of law just because they provided the phones?

It's a 2 way street, corporations, businesses, LLCs, non-profits, political groups, etc, they all provide indemnity from loss at the cost of accepting responsibility for the actions of their employes. It's the same as a rogue trader going off and screwing up for a major loss. In the end the entity is responsible for the actions of the employee.

They can distance themselves socially but legally they must accept responsibility.

 

[alzan]

Funny, seems to me more than half of the threads you start are about whining about being a persecuted Christian.
You should try thinking before posting, it would make you look a ton less stupid.

No, it wouldn't

The government taxes people too much so I do get angry, is this illegal now?

You should try living in other countries whose tax rates are higher.

Taxes are the price for living in a civilized country. Don't want to pay the taxes, move.

 

[Incorruptible]

No, it wouldn't

Why are you attacking me? I am trying to expose the problems that are going on and leftists like you would rather attack me

 

[CrackRabbit]

Why are you attacking me? I am trying to expose the problems that are going on and leftists like you would rather attack me

By "problems" you meaning posting idiotic whining and rants about Muslims taking over the US government, Christian 'persecution', minorities sucking your tax dollars dry and your inability to use the English language in a proper manner.

 

[alzan]

Why are you attacking me? I am trying to expose the problems that are going on and leftists like you would rather attack me

You aren't exposing anything except your own fears and phobias. "Leftists like me?" Clearly you do not know me, yet you choose to lump me into some non-specific group because of select comments by me on a message board.

And if you don't want to be "attacked" you should probably stay off of Anandtech in general, P&N specifically.

Back to the topic at hand, the woman sounds clueless, or just doing her part to spread disinformation. I don't hold the Clay County GOP completely responsible but they should have better checks on what the phone-bankers are saying. Unless of course they want to be seen as in agreement with birthers and other denier groups.

 

[SheHateMe]

By "problems" you meaning posting idiotic whining and rants about Muslims taking over the US government, Christian 'persecution', minorities sucking your tax dollars dry and your inability to use the English language in a proper manner.

Don't attack him, he has a College education.

 

[Incorruptible]

By "problems" you meaning posting idiotic whining and rants about Muslims taking over the US government, Christian 'persecution', minorities sucking your tax dollars dry and your inability to use the English language in a proper manner.

There is evidence of the mb having influences and there was the woman who took down the subway poster who appears on MSM

Christians are being persecuted in Egypt, are you denying this?

Minorities on welfare are wasting tax dollars

 

[SheHateMe]

Minorities on welfare are wasting tax dollars

But, only the minorities on Welfare. The Whites on welfare can waste our tax dollars. I don't have a problem with this.

 

[xBiffx]

It's a 2 way street, corporations, businesses, LLCs, non-profits, political groups, etc, they all provide indemnity from loss at the cost of accepting responsibility for the actions of their employes. It's the same as a rogue trader going off and screwing up for a major loss. In the end the entity is responsible for the actions of the employee.

They can distance themselves socially but legally they must accept responsibility.

This is why employer's have employee handbooks and codes of conduct. This immunizes them from any legal recourse in the event an employee is engaging in questionable behavior.

If you broke a rule in the handbook or within the code of conduct, the legal responsibility stops at you.

 

[Schmide]

This is why employer's have employee handbooks and codes of conduct. This immunizes them from any legal recourse in the event an employee is engaging in questionable behavior.

If you broke a rule in the handbook or within the code of conduct, the legal responsibility stops at you.

You wish dude. Reality NOT.

 

[Incorruptible]

But, only the minorities on Welfare. The Whites on welfare can waste our tax dollars. I don't have a problem with this.

Whites on welfare are wrong and must be kicked out like the minorities

ANYONE ON WELFARE IS A LEECH

 

[CrackRabbit]

Whites on welfare are wrong and must be kicked out like the minorities

ANYONE ON WELFARE IS A LEECH

So how much welfare do you receive each month?

 

[Incorruptible]

So how much welfare do you receive each month?

$0, Absolutely nothing because I am not on welfare and make enough to survive

 

[CrackRabbit]

Don't attack him, he has a College education.

Are you sure that isn't a collage education?

$0, Absolutely nothing because I am not on welfare and make enough to survive

So your parents make enough to support you, that's nice.
What happens when you finally move out of their basement and actually have to work?

 

[Incorruptible]

Are you sure that isn't a collage education?



So your parents make enough to support you, that's nice.
What happens when you finally move out of their basement and actually have to work?

I live in my own home and work

 

[xBiffx]

You wish dude. Reality NOT.

I don't wish anything. This is the way it works. An employer is hardly responsible for your actions when you are breaking rules that you yourself agreed to and your continued employee status is dependent on following.

You are the one wishing its a 2 way street and you can claim your actions are not your fault but rather your employers just because you are wearing a badge/ID/nametag.

 

[dawheat]

I don't wish anything. This is the way it works. An employer is hardly responsible for your actions when you are breaking rules that you yourself agreed to and your continued employee status is dependent on following.

You are the one wishing its a 2 way street and you can claim your actions are not your fault but rather your employers just because you are wearing a badge/ID/nametag.

Is there a law or history that supports this? While I'm been bombarded by trainings/handbooks/mandatory classes for working in a company that has access to sensitive financial information, I doubt that my completion and acceptance of those clears my employer of all liability if I break corporate policy.

For sure you'd get fired but I don't think my employer would be off the hook.

 

[Schmide]

xBiffx

Regardless of how you wish employers are somehow insulated from their employees. If a person or entity is wronged by a worker while representing a company, they take it up with the company. If the company chooses, they can go after that employee for the mis-actions, but the company is not removed from the dispute.

If you think about the above case. The company provided the means, (motivation?) and methods for this crazy person to contact random people on their list. They are hardly completely removed from the situation. By not properly screening this person, they failed in many respects to protect their clients and or public. They must at the very least share the responsibility for the actions and results. Further; when the employer chooses to keep the person's identity secrete, which may or may not be part of the employee contract, they must then accept full responsibility.

 

[Darwin333]

Actually, yes, I would think that they would be at least partially responsible.

So if you let me, a stranger, borrow your phone for a few minutes and unbeknownst to you I make a drug deal while on your phone you are at least partially responsible for the crime?