Julia Pierson hire. Affirmative action at its best. (Congress, weapons, Clinton)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It isn't unreasonable given the latest failure to question her qualifications. In fact it should be expected that people want to know why this person was chosen for the job. I don't care male or female, a gross failure like this demands a few answers. The woman was a public employee, if we are hiring people aren't qualified to do a job as important as her job was, we need to question the vetting process for other heads.
Please.
You don't know squat about what her qualifications are, or what qualifications are required for the job.
It's akin to me sitting here and saying that you aren't qualified for YOUR job.
It's an administrative position. I'm sure she didn't just leave her position as the mop slinger at Kroger.
You don't know squat about what her qualifications are, or what qualifications are required for the job.
It's akin to me sitting here and saying that you aren't qualified for YOUR job.
It's an administrative position. I'm sure she didn't just leave her position as the mop slinger at Kroger.
Things happen in every organization. Big deal.
This crap doesn't just happen. It happens when a system is broken. I haven't said squat about her qualifications. I simply asked what the vetting process is.
Things happen is a the lame excuse losers use to explain why there is a failure. Presidential security should depend on more than the whim of things happen. I haven't blamed your god Obama for anything so why are you so defensive? Unlike many, I get that he doesn't hire for every position, but someone selected this person. This person struggled to answer yes no questions. This person had a gross failure on her watch. This isn't a case of too many agents were assigned by mistake, or the wrong color tie was picked for the day. This was a gross failure.
You are correct I don't know her qualifications. Obviously who ever picked her didn't either because security of the President and his family is supposed to be a priority. They got lucky the maniac wasn't better armed, trained or prepared. I am no fan of Obama or his policies, but the man is our President. I take it very personally when someone threatens our President or his family. An attack on him is an attack on our nation as far as I am concerned. I want our President protected. Would you be saying big deal if Obama or one of his daughters were harmed? I hope not. They got lucky and that is an embarrassment.
Prove that she wasn't. I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 year old.
I was asking you to prove it first. If you are going to make accusations, back it up with some facts, prove it to me. If not, then it is not me behaving like a 5 year old.
True. There is this to consider. When someone makes this kind of accusation, and there is no proof behind it, this can be concluded from it.
1) Deep-seated anger at women being in positions of power.
2) Deep-seated anger at the President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Accusations often say more about the accuser than anything else.
To give some of you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you have not seen affirmative action in the workplace, or ever been knowingly touched by it. Just like I can have an opinion on being a sailor in the Navy, but no experience with what it is to serve. Needless to say I'd defer to those with real world experience.
My point is simple. Many of us who have dealt with the ills of affirmative action know all to well that high minded liberal ideals of the way things should be, cause many more problems than they ever envision. There are certain jobs women tend to be better at generally, and certain jobs men tend to be better at generally.
Sure there can always be exceptions, but you do not set up a forced hiring or promotion policies based on the exceptions. And you certainty do not decide perceived problems must be changed immediately without any significant planning on how to implement it.
A classic example is the Miami River Cops that were all hired under an affirmative action related consent decree. They basically took anyone who applied who was a under represented minority to meet quotas. They were so desperate to reach the quota numbers by a stipulated date, they hired applicants with previous criminal records.
It was almost like something out of the movie "A Clockwork Orange".
Sure enough these AA hires went on to be criminals behind badges, dealing drugs, extortion, and even murder. Yet even though it was a direct result of the hiring practices brought on by AA, the liberal news media rarely covered it from that angle. Even in the new movie Cocaine Cowboys Reloaded playing on Showtime, they talk about the fact there were cops that never should have been hired, but do not go into detail as to why they were.
The bottom line is that this woman was hired in the early 80's without a stellar resume, likely due to AA. Just because she stayed with the service for 30 years in no way meant she was qualified to head the agency, and even liberal Obama supporters are coming to that conclusion now that all the incompetence is being exposed.
The thing they are reluctant to admit is that many of his choices are incompetent, which is a direct reflection on him. Yet I'd bet dollars to donuts they were very vocal against Bush and his choices.
Julia Pierson hire. Affirmative action at its best.
I got one better for you----Obama. Plus many said they wanted to be a part of having a black man elected president in their lifetime. Well they got it, gee I hope they are happy now. Symbolism over substance never works.
I was asking you to prove it first. If you are going to make accusations, back it up with some facts, prove it to me. If not, then it is not me behaving like a 5 year old.
Facts have been provided. Here's a fact. The only woman ever appointed to the position failed miserably and there were better qualified males.
Can you prove Pierson got there because of Affirmative Action?
Actual facts are considered to be frivolous by most here. Rhetoric as proof, on the other hand, is a good as gold. Really, if you are running the show you get to be the arbiter of what serves as facts or "facts".
A few days ago here, I just read of bullet point list of emotionally charged rhetorical reasons why the outgoing AG has broken the law. That's what was produced when the poster was challenged to state what laws the AG had broken.
you are not being fair.
the people that nailed the ft polk shooter and tackled the white house invader were both women.
bite your tongue.
your beef cake boys were out eating donuts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
