"DSK" wrote in message
...
(snip)
As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing
"fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public.

swatcop wrote:
Ah-ha! See! You've made my point for me as well! We're not talking about
the
PUBLIC. We're talking about government employees

wrong. We are (or at least, we were last time I looked) talking about
volunteers.

Well, you better look again. Volunteers, yes. But what KIND of volunteers.
United States Coast Guard volunteers, maybe? Ring a bell? Ding ding ding
ding!



who have access to
classified information! If I was John Q. Public, I wouldn't want to be
fingerprinted for no good reason either.

AHA! See? Now maybe you "get" the reason why so many of the volunteers
said,
"Thanks but no thanks, bye."

Good. Then they shouldn't be there. Employ someone who is able to follow the
rules and comply with the screening process.


But, if I (John Q. Public) was
employed by the federal governmant that required me to be fingerprinted,
I'd
either follow the rules or find another job. Thank you for inadvertantly
proving my point AGAIN.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

You're employed by a place that deliberately hires stupid people? In law
enforcement? What are you, the bait?

Um, NO. You misinterprated what it means. If it wasn't for stupid people
(quite like yourself), then I'd be unemployed (due to the lack of need for
law enforcement because if there were no stupid people there would be less
crime).

--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."