"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:45:48 -0500, DSK wrote:



swatcop wrote:


Hmmm. WHY won't they submit to fingerprinting? If they've got nothing
to
hide, what's the problem?

Because it's an invasion of privacy and it's humiliating. I would not be
part of
any organization that insisted I be fingerprinted.

this is a contradiction. being a member of the auxiliary is voluntary.
it's not an invasion of privacy to have a background check when you're
handling classified materials. do you think everyone should have this
type of access?

I believe that citizens should be respected in their homes and in their
persons.
If the gov't cannot abide by that agreement, then we need to either rip
up the
Consitution once and for all (and many would say "good riddance") or else
get
the gov't back on the right track.


being a member of the auxiliary is not a right, it's a privilege. it's
not unconstitutional to have a background check.

Thanks for helping to meke my point, Bob. But I think this guy is a moron. I
replied to his last attempt at a reply, but I'm not going to reply to any
more of his posts unless he comes up with something intelligent that
actually applies to the topic. I think we're wasting our time.
--
-= swatcop =-

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

"swatcop" wrote in message
m...


If the "mentality" exists in other government organizations, it's
somewhat
less meaningful because it doesn't involve human lives. There's always a
place for people who are only comfortable in church committes, where the
blame for mistakes is diffused. But, it has no place in the military.

So basically what you're saying is that you've never served in the
military
and are relying on hearsay from 1 individual to form an opinion about the
entire organization? (No disrespect to your father, he's entitled to his
opinions). Well, I HAVE served in the military in a U.S. Marine infantry
unit. My opinion differs from yours.
--
-= swatcop =-

I believe the word "clusterfu*k" is most often used by ex-military people,
at least based on my experience with the word.

But in all fairness, I come to this discussion with a heavy load of bias.
When something needs to be done and I know I can do it, and someone puts a
list of prerequisite requirements between me and the task, I have a tendency
to check off most of the list very quickly as crap, if it does, in fact, fit
that category. And, I'm very vocal about it, which is why I haven't lasted
long in team-based jobs unless the team consisted of either two, or two.

I will say, however, that I'm far from unusual in that regard. Quite a few
effective people cannot function on a team, including a couple of the best
managers I've worked for. You know the type: "You think it's a good idea,
then just do it. You don't need to ask me. That's why I hired you. We think
alike".

Meanwhile, the committee disease is spread at a young age. Wanna here a
story about a Boy Scout trip from Rochester NY to Hershey PA (285 miles)
that took 11 hours because 3 knuckleheads wanted to drive as a convoy? :-)

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:59:27 GMT, "swatcop"
wrote:




"Bob" wrote in message
...

being a member of the auxiliary is not a right, it's a privilege. it's
not unconstitutional to have a background check.

Thanks for helping to meke my point, Bob. But I think this guy is a moron. I
replied to his last attempt at a reply, but I'm not going to reply to any
more of his posts unless he comes up with something intelligent that
actually applies to the topic. I think we're wasting our time.
--

what's amazing to me is how so many people think ANY kind of check is
an 'invasion of privacy'. do they think guys from saudi arabia who
spent time as jihadists in afghanistan should be allowed to fly planes
because, if we checked on their backgrounds, that's an 'invasion'? and
these are the same people who complain about the lack of diligence on
the part of defense agencies to protect the country...damned if you
do, damned if you don't.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

When you guys are done with your goose-stepping and sniffing each others butts,
you might consider dragging yourselves back to the original point:

"why would anyone not choose to join a volunteer organization that required them
to be publicly (or at least semi publicly) finger printed?"

My answer to this question has produced nothing but insults. Thank you for making
my point. Your type of intelligent procedure is certainly going to do wonders for
national security.

DSK



"swatcop"
wrote:
Thanks for helping to meke my point, Bob. But I think this guy is a moron. I
replied to his last attempt at a reply, but I'm not going to reply to any
more of his posts unless he comes up with something intelligent that
actually applies to the topic. I think we're wasting our time.

Bob wrote:
what's amazing to me is how so many people think ANY kind of check is
an 'invasion of privacy'. do they think guys from saudi arabia who
spent time as jihadists in afghanistan should be allowed to fly planes
because, if we checked on their backgrounds, that's an 'invasion'? and
these are the same people who complain about the lack of diligence on
the part of defense agencies to protect the country...damned if you
do, damned if you don't.

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

"DSK" wrote in message
...
When you guys are done with your goose-stepping and sniffing each others
butts,
you might consider dragging yourselves back to the original point:

"why would anyone not choose to join a volunteer organization that
required them
to be publicly (or at least semi publicly) finger printed?"

My answer to this question has produced nothing but insults. Thank you for
making
my point. Your type of intelligent procedure is certainly going to do
wonders for
national security.

DSK

I usually like what you have to say, but I'm still not clear on whether
"publicly" and "fingerprinted" belong together in a complaint. What
difference does it make who's watching? I was fingerprinted for my pistol
permit in a room with several people who were doing administrative cop
things, and a couple of other guys waiting on a bench 10 feet away. Only the
cop who printed me was close enough to matter.

Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be
keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me.
:-)

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:47:18 -0500, DSK wrote:

When you guys are done with your goose-stepping and sniffing each others butts,
you might consider dragging yourselves back to the original point:

"why would anyone not choose to join a volunteer organization that required them
to be publicly (or at least semi publicly) finger printed?"

My answer to this question has produced nothing but insults. Thank you for making
my point. Your type of intelligent procedure is certainly going to do wonders for
national security.

meaningless response. your knee jerk paranoia that every single
security check is done by the sturmabteilung speaks for itself.


---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

swatcop wrote:

Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.


This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented
themselves as being in law inforcement.

-- Charlie


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"swatcop" wrote in message . ..
"Capt Lou" wrote in message
...
When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland
Security,
so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be
fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs,
they
have to pass a security background and criminal check. I know an
auxiliarist
friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel
that
the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen
volunteers?

Absolutely not. If you're volunteering to be part of a government
organization that has certain grooming standards and other rules that
separate the professionals from the people who say "would you like some
fries with that," then obviously you have to comply with those standards. If
you don't want to comply, then you don't belong there. See ya.

What about the auxiliarist who has been volunteering for the past 15 or 20
years? Is he or she a security threat?

I don't know, is he/she? They probably didn't run any criminal history
checks on volunteers 15 or 20 years ago, and who's to say that he/she hasn't
committed a crime in the last 15 to 20 years? I don't know about you, but I
think that the U.S. has been too lax on some of their security issues
(evidenced by 09-11). I think I'd rather have intensive screening of ALL of
our country's government employees regardless of their time in service to
avoid any domestic terrorist issues. If thev've got a clean record, then
they've got nothing to worry about.

Maybe it is time to consider the U.S.
Power Squadron and tell the USCGAUX enough is enough! I hear that 60% of
the
auxiliarists in my division will not submit to the fingerprinting. That's
a lot
of dues paying members dropping out!

Hmmm. WHY won't they submit to fingerprinting? If they've got nothing to
hide, what's the problem? I fingerprint people on a daily basis. You know
how long it takes? About 2 minutes. Maybe there's a reason they don't want
to be fingerprinted, and if that's the case, then good riddance. Being a
police officer assigned to a tactical unit and a former Marine, I take
security very seriously. It's about time our government did, too.



As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing
"fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public.

"Charles" wrote in message
...


swatcop wrote:

Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.


This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented
themselves as being in law inforcement.

-- Charlie

Yeah, but it's true. In various news stories over the years, I've heard that
enlisted people are missing a few rights in criminal proceedings. It's just
accepted as part of the deal.

On 16 Jan 2004 10:55:42 -0800, (Mad
Dog Dave) wrote:

As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing
"fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public.

no one is forcing anything on anyone. membership in the coast guard
auxiliary is voluntary. it does not involve the public in any way,
shape or form.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field