• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gingrich Suggests Illegally Firing Federal Employees Over Liberal Views

You must be kidding if you think Brown did a good job. He was in way over his head and had no busness as head of FEMA.
You must be ignoring the reality of FEMA and you must be ignoring the ACCEPTED responses of FEMA during the Clinton administration. 4 weeks to respond...acceptable. 3 days to respond...George Bush dont like black people.

No...not kidding at all. do you KNOW who's job it was to provide for those citizens in NOLA? Did you ever bother asking why the mayor abandoned the city, why 800 buses sat unused because he refused to issue an evacuation order, or why the governor didnt engage in the problem? No...of COURSE you didnt consider anything other than the standard gawdIhateGWB mindset.
 
Interesting that you had no problem letting a derogatory term for blacks fly free but managed to keep the respect for the 'Mexicans'...

Im more surpised that moderation let it fly and he got likes from that stupid statement. I guess the liberal like squad is on patrol.
 
That makes me want to vote for him even more.

really? Ideological cleansing of the federal government makes you want to vote for him even more? Do you even realize what you advocate?
 
Don't think so. An affiliation is an official or formal connection.

I don't think that's true under the relevant federal law.

Somewhere, some lawyer out there knows the exact details.
 
I never understood this. Did this mean that only a number of years ago, those Democrats who identified with the New Deal and a large chunk (maybe not all) of the Great Society programs, and considered themselves liberals, were not liberals after all? To me, this is a disingenuous attempt to strike back at the exaggeration of conservatives regarding American liberalism. It's just as silly as watching conservatives dismiss the contributions of other conservatives from the past 40 years because now they think "they were not conservatives."

It's accurate. The country has gone farther and farther right. All you need to do is compare the 70s arch conservative nemesis to today's Democrats. That would be Richard Nixon, who by today's standards is to the left of Barack Obama. Nixon tried to pass a bill that would have created universal health care as a combination of the existing private heath insurance companies and a public option. The liberals didn't want it because it was too conservative. They wanted single payer. The bill Obama signed into law had no public option and was only the regulation and oversight of existing health insurance companies. It's well to the right of Nixon's plan, but is branded as somehow being socialist. The Republicans were united in their view that not everyone deserves health care. That's a far right position that is unique to the United States in the industrialized world. In Canada, Great Britain, and other nations, all the conservatives support universal health care. They just usually want to do it while including private industry, as Nixon did. Yes, the country has gone far, far to the right to where what I said is dead-on. The Democrats are the conservatives. The Republicans are the extremist far-right fascists, with the only exceptions being Kuchinich as the one liberal and Sanders as the lone socialist.

What we're seeing is a parallel to post World War I Germany when desperate economic times and hurt national self esteem was a ripe climate for the support of far right extremism.
 
The only one getting fired is going to be Newt himself.
 
Did you read your own Wikipedia article? According to it, 9 of the 10 dismissed had (R)s by their names. Try again.

Did you read the whole article? Because if you did you'd know that most of them were fired because they either refused to pursue weak cases of alleged Democratic voter fraud, because they were investigating Republicans, or because they weren't perceived as being sufficiently loyal to George Bush.
 
but but but...dont bring up stupid **** when it was your own guys fault...

You guys need to quit fixating on Clinton. Really. It's unhealthy. It's like us bringing up Warren G. Harding every time somebody on the left gets caught with his hands in the cookie jar.
 
i gave no implication of the the letter beside their name.

YOur post makes no sense. YOu are comparing a President firing APPOINTED Republican Offiicals with Newt's threat to fire Civil Service employees who are Democrats.

NOt the worst analogy of the year, but definitely a nominee.
 
The only one getting fired is going to be Newt himself.

And the nice thing is, he'll be fired by the voters of his own party. They are generally dumber than the average American, but not even they are dumb enough to nominate Gingrich.
 
YOur post makes no sense. YOu are comparing a President firing APPOINTED Republican Offiicals with Newt's threat to fire Civil Service employees who are Democrats.

NOt the worst analogy of the year, but definitely a nominee.


seemed like a textbook case of a president firing those that disagreed with him and getting away with it.. pretty much what gingrich implied he would do.
 
You do understand the difference between Civil Service employees and political appointees, right? Let me simplify it for you. If you appoint somebody, you can fire them. If they're hired under merit system rules, you can't. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
 
seemed like a textbook case of a president firing those that disagreed with him and getting away with it.. pretty much what gingrich implied he would do.
no, there is a distinction to be made
presidents have always been able to fire their political appointees
however, the career civil service employees, who were hired based on merit, cannot now be fired unless they are found to violate federal regulations or where the government conducts a reduction in force to reduce the number of employees. such proposed terminations must then follow a defined process
the purpose is to allow the non-appointee government workers to not be subject to political influence as they carry out the work of the public
it is this insulation from political influence/whims that newt proposes to end
his proposal would result in worse government. think banana republic
 
JB thats ok except, if you were to do efficiency studies on what merit employees accomplish in a given day, I bet you could cut the workforce "to the bone" and still have adequate service. Same for administration and management. Id much rather prefer the higher ups get the axe than the rank and file, because lets face it, the heirarchal shape of government bureaucracy is nowhere near as efficient as people would like to believe. The more layers between the top and the bottom the more the system tends to break down. Thats why the red tape has become so insurmountable.

The prupose of government has become to create more and more government. Thats got to change. Governmental mindset needs to change with it or nothing will be accomplished if you DO cut it.
 
JB thats ok except, if you were to do efficiency studies on what merit employees accomplish in a given day, I bet you could cut the workforce "to the bone" and still have adequate service. Same for administration and management. Id much rather prefer the higher ups get the axe than the rank and file, because lets face it, the heirarchal shape of government bureaucracy is nowhere near as efficient as people would like to believe. The more layers between the top and the bottom the more the system tends to break down. Thats why the red tape has become so insurmountable.

The prupose of government has become to create more and more government. Thats got to change. Governmental mindset needs to change with it or nothing will be accomplished if you DO cut it.

if this thread were about the need for more efficient government, such that we could downsize the number of government workers, we would be in agreement
however, this topic is about crazy newt proclaiming that federal employees should be fired for no reason other than their politics being a different brand than his own
no thinking American could agree to that
 
Did you read your own Wikipedia article? According to it, 9 of the 10 dismissed had (R)s by their names. Try again.

As if an R makes you automatically loyal.

You realize that interparty disputes happen all the time, right? Heck, people in Gingrich's own party tried to overturn him as Speaker of the House.
 
Those travel office employees better watch their backs.
 
If Gingrich became president and started firing govt employees for being liberal, it would take 40 years to begin making a dent. Lets face it govt bureaucracies are not exactly bastions of conservative thinking. If you want to stagnate your fed bur career in a hurry start espousing conservative values.

Wasn't T. Jefferson the one that said that we need a revolution every 20 yrs? In his mind you not only threw out the tyrant but all of his ministers and bureaucracy went too. We're about 220 years behind schedule. If this country were a garden the govt would be the weeds, competing for light and water. At this point we can no longer see the tomatoes, peppers or carrots, and the corn is slowly being swallowed.
 
Wasn't T. Jefferson the one that said that we need a revolution every 20 yrs? In his mind you not only threw out the tyrant but all of his ministers and bureaucracy went too.

No, Jefferson said nothing of the sort. He said the opposite, in fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom