dept of homeland security=the dept of bush leave behinds

[mopinko]

discuss

[Downwinder]

1. Janet Napolitano was not a leave behind.

DHS made great strides under her guidance.

[mopinko]

2. doesnt really refute what i said.

she didnt fire people, did she?

[yesiwasacop]

3. Bush leave behinds probably

and Pres Obama has been happy enough with them to keep them around. Sorry, but Pres Obama owns this now.

If I keep a dirtbag employee around very long (six years is about 5 yrs and 11 months too long) without some re-training or corrective action , I get fired. Why is this not the same in the Secret Service?

[mopinko]

4. because he isnt their boss?

the head of homeland security is.

[KittyWampus]

11. LOL! How easy is it to fire civil servants? Were you really a cop? Then you'd know how hard it is

to fire a civil servant.

[yesiwasacop]

20. not hard

Last edited Wed Oct 1, 2014, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Problem is most got managers are scared to document poor performance and they rarely reward good performance. That being said, when the performance suckeed so bad, they don't have a paper trail to fall back on when they do need to can someone. If you are a good manager, you will document all performance so if needs be you can take corrective action. Whether it be retraining, termination or whatever is appropriate. As for my former employer's track record on terminations, they were pretty good about it. Saw lots of people get pink slips for either commission of a crime, bad job performance or poor off duty conduct. You can choose to believe it or not, but that is the case with my former employer.

[yesiwasacop]

22. Sure it can be difficult to fire one, doesnt mean no one should try if needed

Apparently someone in the fed gov/t is firing civil servants- maybe not in numbers needed, but it is being done.

http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20140623/MGMT/306230009/Federal-firings-continue-drop

[Dreamer Tatum]

5. Weak. Cabinet-level office means direct Presidential accountability

Either he's President, or he's not. Choose which.

[mopinko]

6. seriously?

now we are making him "accountable" for attempts on his life.
wtff?

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. So you're saying he has no ability to remove the Bush leftovers?

Sorry, but that's horseshit.

Obama himself appointed Napolitano and Pierson, so I fail to see how those are Bush cronies, and Obama could hold each accountable.

[mopinko]

8. so you think he should have/could have given orders to fire all the bushies?

has anyone been fired from these agencies?
no?
we know they were stuffed w cronies.

he doesnt have a magic 8ball to see into the hearts of all his employees. there are quite a few, ya know.

i'm not saying he has no ability. i'm saying they are there. and they are behind this crap, from the half assed attitude on down.

are you saying he should have prevented his own attempted assassination?
if this clown had succeeded, would you be holding him responsible for his daughter's death?

follow that train of thought to the end before you get on it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

12. You mentioned DHS specifically and exclusively

AND THE PERSON WHO IS ON THE HOTSEAT FOR JOB PERFORMANCE, AS WELL AS THAT PERSON'S
BOSS, WERE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

You seem in denial about that fact, for which I pity you. Good luck.

[mopinko]

14. because he knows all sees all.

what do you think, he is carnak the magnificent? he sees the things these people risk their careers to cover up?

you seem like you are in the wrong place.

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. Then why haven't those two incompetents been fired? Because you think he can't?

You are seriously going to claim that he can't fire his own hires, aren't you?

[mopinko]

17. you want him to fire napalitano?

make it retroactive, so his daughter is saved, after he flew around the earth faster than the speed of light to turn back time?
that's about how logical you are being.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. You're just being fatuous.

If he's at SUCH risk, then tell me (a) who's guarding him RIGHT THIS MINUTE, and (b) why that is.

I don't like the security lapses, but they can be addressed and I'm sure they will be. If the issues are
due to malice rather than to stupidity, he'd be in a bunker somewhere. If SS is stupid, then he hired stupid,
and he can damn well fire it. Except wait - are you really saying that Obama never makes mistakes or is ever
wrong, so we have to assess the problem under that assertion? Oy.

[KittyWampus]

10. How easy is it to fire a Govt. employee? On the local level it's damned near impossible.

The best you can do is shunt a loser off to a job that limits the damage.

[KittyWampus]

9. There seems to be some validity to that supposition. And it means they are incompetent cronies.

All politicians hire cronies.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is Dems hire COMPETENT ones who are qualified for the job and have some integrity.

Republicans truly don't give a crap and hire anyone no matter how stupid as long as they sent enough money.

Heck of a job Brownie.

OH, and for all those trying the "but no one was fired", think again. Civil servants are not so easy to just fire.

[mopinko]

13. thank you . i was beginning to wonder what the heck was going on around here.

folks saying the man was "accountable" for attempts on his life.
what the hell.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. He's not accountable for the "attempts," of which there have been none.

He is accountable for appointing the people charged with leading his protection, however. Critical difference.

[mopinko]

18. none?

shots hit the truman balcony and a nut could have been in the family quarters if he hadnt missed the turn, and those are not attempts?

[Orsino]

21. That excuse gets weaker every day.

It is not without validity, however.