It's Not Just One IG, At Least 3

[Newby]

what part of "serves at the pleasure of" confuses you?
they're usually fired for political reasons. they belong to the wrong party.

So the president can fire an AG for refusing to have sex w/ him? Or refusing to give him $10,000?

first of all, it's u.s. attorneys, not AGs-there's only one AG.
and yes, the president can fire them for any reason s/he wishes or no reason at all.

as far as that goes, the same goes for the AG.

you should get out more.

The more he talks the more he shows how he just follows the talking points and doesn't understand the content.

 

[twogreen2c]

If he's still being paid for the next 30 days, it doesn't matter that his stuff was packed, IMO. And if this is true, then one would understand why he'd be out....

Yes, it does matter. The POTUS cannot remove these IGs until after the 30 days has expired. The law is clear, counselor.

And as to the smears Obama has put out on Walprin being "confused" and maybe even senile? No dice, he passed the test on that just yesterday.

And even if so, Jillian, he now has a ADA claim does he not? Yes, he does.

Not to sway from the topic, but when you consider Biden is your VP, they have a lot of nerve implying Walprin maybe be confused and even senile.

 

[Nik]

first of all, it's u.s. attorneys, not AGs-there's only one AG.
and yes, the president can fire them for any reason s/he wishes or no reason at all.

as far as that goes, the same goes for the AG.

you should get out more.

Wtf? You are actually saying that the president can fire a US attorney for refusing to have sex with him? You really aren't this stupid, are you?

and we come back to what part of "serves at the pleasure of the president" confuses you? certainly, the us attorney in your ridiculous example would have recourse, but s/he wouldn't have a job.

or do you think when clinton had reno fire all the us attorneys in 1993, every single one of them was fired for cause?

pull your head out of your ass and take a deep breath; your brain is clearly starved for oxygen.

Theres a difference between being able to fire someone not for cause, and being able to fire someone for anything and everything.

 

[Nik]

I see a lot of assertions from you without any evidence. I'm afraid I can't offer any opinions without that. I'm kind of funny that way.

As for an ADA claim, how do you figure?

First off, I posted the LAW earlier. The one that spells it out clearly, these IGs cannot be removed until AFTER the 30-day notice has expired.

Under the Americans with Disabilities act, dementia and senility -- and even AGE -- are protected. The employer is required to attempt to make accommodations. This applies to the hiring process as well as to the termination process.

Here's an account of the firing, from Walprin himself:

Gerald Walpin speaks: The inside story of the AmeriCorps firing | Washington Examiner

Here's Hot Air's take on the test, not that you'll read it or watch the video:

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Sweet: Glenn Beck gives Gerald Walpin a senility test

I know none of you Obamaphiles really care what Obama does. That's a given. But my own optimism of the human being allows me to at least try to get your brain cells working again. Because I am optimistic that you still have them, somewhere in the foggy haze of Obama cult worship.

How stupid. I don't suppose it occurred to Glenn Beck that Mr. Walpin might have been SOBER when he took the silly test, and a little tipsy during meetings. He wanted to work from home? Hmmm... Why? Does Beck even remember that he once didn't know the time of day?

Here's another news flash: Early Alzheimers patients would also be able to pass such a childish test.

There's more to this story than meets the eye[balls] of Glenn Beck and the other foxhounds.

Seriously. Just because someone can pass an ADA test, that means they are competent to be an IG?

 

[del]

Wtf? You are actually saying that the president can fire a US attorney for refusing to have sex with him? You really aren't this stupid, are you?

and we come back to what part of "serves at the pleasure of the president" confuses you? certainly, the us attorney in your ridiculous example would have recourse, but s/he wouldn't have a job.

or do you think when clinton had reno fire all the us attorneys in 1993, every single one of them was fired for cause?

pull your head out of your ass and take a deep breath; your brain is clearly starved for oxygen.

Theres a difference between being able to fire someone not for cause, and being able to fire someone for anything and everything.

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

 

[elvis]

and we come back to what part of "serves at the pleasure of the president" confuses you? certainly, the us attorney in your ridiculous example would have recourse, but s/he wouldn't have a job.

or do you think when clinton had reno fire all the us attorneys in 1993, every single one of them was fired for cause?

pull your head out of your ass and take a deep breath; your brain is clearly starved for oxygen.

Theres a difference between being able to fire someone not for cause, and being able to fire someone for anything and everything.

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

Hey, please don't insult Ace Frehley like that.

 

[Nik]

and we come back to what part of "serves at the pleasure of the president" confuses you? certainly, the us attorney in your ridiculous example would have recourse, but s/he wouldn't have a job.

or do you think when clinton had reno fire all the us attorneys in 1993, every single one of them was fired for cause?

pull your head out of your ass and take a deep breath; your brain is clearly starved for oxygen.

Theres a difference between being able to fire someone not for cause, and being able to fire someone for anything and everything.

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

If one case you can fire someone for refusing to have sex with you. In one case you can't.

Well, that was easy. Of course you are likely too stupid to be able to comprehend that simple difference, but ah well.

 

[Nik]

Theres a difference between being able to fire someone not for cause, and being able to fire someone for anything and everything.

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

Hey, please don't insult Ace Frehley like that.

Sup poodle?

 

[del]

Theres a difference between being able to fire someone not for cause, and being able to fire someone for anything and everything.

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

If one case you can fire someone for refusing to have sex with you. In one case you can't.

Well, that was easy. Of course you are likely too stupid to be able to comprehend that simple difference, but ah well.

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

 

[Nik]

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

If one case you can fire someone for refusing to have sex with you. In one case you can't.

Well, that was easy. Of course you are likely too stupid to be able to comprehend that simple difference, but ah well.

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

So you acknowledge that there is a difference then? Good, congratulations on acknowledging reality.

We were talking about the law, not about how hard or easy it is to prove the laws been broken. But nice attempt at backtracking there though.

 

[del]

If one case you can fire someone for refusing to have sex with you. In one case you can't.

Well, that was easy. Of course you are likely too stupid to be able to comprehend that simple difference, but ah well.

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

So you acknowledge that there is a difference then? Good, congratulations on acknowledging reality.

We were talking about the law, not about how hard or easy it is to prove the laws been broken. But nice attempt at backtracking there though.

no, i'm not, but feel free to declare victory and run along.

 

[Newby]

what would that difference be, ace?

this should be weak.

If one case you can fire someone for refusing to have sex with you. In one case you can't.

Well, that was easy. Of course you are likely too stupid to be able to comprehend that simple difference, but ah well.

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

He sounds naive and young enough that I'm guessing he hasn't experienced much of the 'real' world yet.

 

[Nik]

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

So you acknowledge that there is a difference then? Good, congratulations on acknowledging reality.

We were talking about the law, not about how hard or easy it is to prove the laws been broken. But nice attempt at backtracking there though.

no, i'm not, but feel free to declare victory and run along.

No your not acknowledging reality? Well thats a shame. And you were so close as well.

 

[Nik]

If one case you can fire someone for refusing to have sex with you. In one case you can't.

Well, that was easy. Of course you are likely too stupid to be able to comprehend that simple difference, but ah well.

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

He sounds naive and young enough that I'm guessing he hasn't experienced much of the 'real' world yet.

Elvis, you found a poodle friend!

 

[elvis]

ahh, but you can fire someone for not having sex with you. you just have to be intelligent enough to give a different reason, or no reason at all.

if they can prove the firing was illegal, which is highly unlikely, they may get a monetary settlement or if it's a civil service job, they may get their job back.

you ever been to the real world?

He sounds naive and young enough that I'm guessing he hasn't experienced much of the 'real' world yet.

Elvis, you found a poodle friend!

Maggie's not my friend.

 

[Nik]

He sounds naive and young enough that I'm guessing he hasn't experienced much of the 'real' world yet.

Elvis, you found a poodle friend!

Maggie's not my friend.

Maggie doesn't follow me around like a poodle either. Nice guess, but unfortunately you got that one wrong.

Care to guess again?

 

[del]

So you acknowledge that there is a difference then? Good, congratulations on acknowledging reality.

We were talking about the law, not about how hard or easy it is to prove the laws been broken. But nice attempt at backtracking there though.

no, i'm not, but feel free to declare victory and run along.

No your not acknowledging reality? Well thats a shame. And you were so close as well.

careful, you're dripping irony all over the other posts.


acknowledging reality

 

[Newby]

Elvis, you found a poodle friend!

Maggie's not my friend.

Maggie doesn't follow me around like a poodle either. Nice guess, but unfortunately you got that one wrong.

Care to guess again?

Did you ever consider that maybe you're just too easy of a target to pass up???

 

[Nik]

Maggie's not my friend.

Maggie doesn't follow me around like a poodle either. Nice guess, but unfortunately you got that one wrong.

Care to guess again?

Did you ever consider that maybe you're just too easy of a target to pass up???

Yeah, but then if that were the case you/elvis/etc might actually win an argument once in a while, so I figured that couldn't be it.

 

[MaggieMae]

See Nik, education is a good thing. Get off of the Huffington post and really understand the issues, maybe you'll learn something.

Yes, we should all be glued to FoxNews, Limbaugh, and read WorldNetDaily. Stuff is beginning to emerge about Wilpin (sp) displaying a few screws loose in meetings leading up to his firing. Of course waiting to see if there are VALID reasons for replacing these people isn't part of this latest witchhunt. Imagine that.

Yeah, I'm sure there are. Funny how stuff is 'now coming out' to discredit him, and people like you and your fellow libs will eat it up and spew it everywhere you go as fact. Someday that tactic is going to stop working or backfire, just because you say something over and over again doesn't make it fact. The lemmings on the left are very predictable tho, all the elite have to do is get it out there on the right blogs and it spreads like wildfire and none of you give a damn as to whether there's any truth to any of it, you'll just continue to spread it.

You people are seriously funny. You act as though the rabid rightie Obama haters never would dream of making mountains out of molehills, taking a snippet of information and building an ENTIRE case for chattering heads 24/7. Hilarious, simply fucking hilarious. Did I just see the word HYPOCRITE applied to "Obamabots-or-whatever" just a moment ago posted in BIG FONT?! May I suggest you fools make the word in the biggest font available, cut it out and paste it onto a mirror and then on your fucking refrigerators.