"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"swatcop" wrote in message
...

You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most
colleges. Why don't you try one.

Either there are two people who've used the nickname "swatcop" here in
the
past month, or you're having woman problems, because you don't sound like
the same mellow guy who was thanking almost everyone for marine law
enforcement suggestions a month ago.

Oh, I'm the same guy. I'm just tired of arguing with this idiot. First he's
totally against being fingerprinted, then he makes my point FOR me about the
difference between civilians and military, then he disagrees with himself,
and when he becomes confused he reverts back to square one or tries insults.
What an idiot. Sorry if I'm not the same "mellow" guy asking about Police
Marine Patrol units, but this guy is enough to make you want to reach
through the computer monitor and choke the **** out of him.
--
-= swatcop =-

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

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

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

There you go... 'employ'

Yes, EMPLOY. You know, "give a job to." You twist everything that I say,
don't you?


Thanks for spending more of our tax money, so that you can be a bullying
asshole
with your subordinates as well as any average citizen that has the bad
luck to
catch your eye.

Now I'm a bullying asshole because you have a problem with reading
comprehension? Um, no. Oh, and I don't spend your tax money, YOU do. And
you're not an average citizen, either. Judging from you poor reading
comprehension skills, I'd place you in the UNDER average category.



... if there were no stupid people there would be less
crime).

But there would still be small souled men who enjoy putting down others
when
they can get away with it, and of course they gravitate to any job where
they
can indulge in that. Look in a mirror, you'll see what I mean.

Yep. Just looked in the mirror. I said "mirror, mirror, on the wall - who
the dumbest one of all?" You know what it said? "That idiot who goes by the
initials DSK on the rec.boats newsgroup."

Well, it's time to say farewell, dip****. You've just earned youself a spot
on my "blocked senders" list. So live it up, post whatever you want. I'll
never get it. Take care now, bye-bye then. Oh, and I really would check into
those remedial classes if I were you.

--
-= swatcop =-

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

"Bob" wrote in message

our charter as the auxiliary comes from congress. it would, literally,
take an act of congress to militarize the auxiliary.

You're right, Bob. The Aux, by congressional charter and subsequent
legislation, is specifically defined as "non-military". As such, we are
excluded from participation in any CG function that is purely military or
that involves direct law enforcement. These areas are particular provinces
of the active and reserve CG.

JG

(Bob) wrote in message
our charter as the auxiliary comes from congress. it would, literally,
take an act of congress to militarize the auxiliary. although the aux.
was armed during ww2, there is no plan to do so now and it's unclear
how it would be done.


Thank goodness for that. As a conservative, I'm concerned enough about
the spread of police-state powers in this country recently. The idea
of being involuntarily boarded or given "orders" by the USCGA is
absolutely repugnant, as is the idea of fingerprinting volunteers.
It's bad enough when the Power Squadron/USCGA types confront you at
every boat ramp and marina for permission to snoop around your boat.

I'm really out of step with today's conservatives. Real conservatives
want to strictly limit governmental powers. Many of today's
conservatives apparently are enjoying watching us evolve into a police
state.

The USCG can be transferred to the DOD. CG were in Viet Nam. Also the
Persian Gulf during Gulf 1 and probably 2.

"Hewel" wrote in message
...
I was looking at some photos of Coast Guard vessels. I'm puzzled, why do
Aids to Navigation vessels like the Juniper Class buoy tenders have
"provision for 25mm Bushmaster" chain gun? That's a lot of gun! I'd bet
every one of them is armed with the 25mm and then some, right now. I've
seen other buoy tenders, icebreakers and tugs with 12.7mm machine guns
and/or 7.62mm machine guns as well. Keep in mind these ships were
commissioned before the Department of Homeland Security in most cases.
The Coast Guard while having some military and law enforcement missions
was under the Department of Transportation. I look at a buoy and think
why would you need to shoot it?
I can see that those non-military and non-law enforcement
responsibilities returned to the DOT as civil service jobs at some
point, but would that mean these boats would have to become unarmed?
They don't let other civil service employees have weapons. Where does
that leave the Auxiliary? I wonder if it will end up becoming
militarized at some point. I hope not. It would be an easy step for
someone to take in Washington, kinda like a floating militia.
The job of the Coast Guard has become very complex. Perhaps there are
elements that should remain as military units and some that should be
pushed away from their military ties?

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

"Listen to the live broadcast of 'Nautical Talk Radio' with Captain Lou
every
Sunday afternoon from 4 - 5 (Eastern Standard Time) on the web at
www.959watd.com or if you are in Boston or Cape Cod set your radio dial
to
95.9FM.

It's bad enough when the Power Squadron/USCGA types confront you at
every boat ramp and marina for permission to snoop around your boat.
Ok, this has come up twice in this thread...I've been boating all my life
and have never been "confronted" by anyone from the USCGA or US/PS at any
time. I have, on occasion, been approached in a polite and neighborly manner
for boat safety checks. This is absolutley voluntary! In addition to
enhancing everyone's safety, vessels that are found to be properly equipped
get a decal that gives the regular Coasties notice that you're operating a
safe boat...thus decreasing your odds of an on the water stop & check.
Where. pray tell, is the problem in that?

James

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:53:11 GMT, "James W. Sloan"
wrote:

It's bad enough when the Power Squadron/USCGA types confront you at
every boat ramp and marina for permission to snoop around your boat.

Ok, this has come up twice in this thread...I've been boating all my life
and have never been "confronted" by anyone from the USCGA or US/PS at any
time. I have, on occasion, been approached in a polite and neighborly manner
for boat safety checks. This is absolutley voluntary! In addition to
enhancing everyone's safety, vessels that are found to be properly equipped
get a decal that gives the regular Coasties notice that you're operating a
safe boat...thus decreasing your odds of an on the water stop & check.
Where. pray tell, is the problem in that?

James

excellent point. the CG aux doesn't 'snoop' around folk's boats.
thanks for the update...
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The USCG can be transferred to the DOD. CG were in Viet Nam. Also the
Persian Gulf during Gulf 1 and probably 2.


that's true but the DOD can not overrule congress. if the CG is
transferred to DOD, the aux will still be prevented from military
operations.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

Was referring to gun mounts on CG boats / ships. Only gun mount on a aux
boat, may be for a shotgun, the owner owns.
Bill

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

The USCG can be transferred to the DOD. CG were in Viet Nam. Also the
Persian Gulf during Gulf 1 and probably 2.


that's true but the DOD can not overrule congress. if the CG is
transferred to DOD, the aux will still be prevented from military
operations.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

swatcop wrote:


Oh, I'm the same guy. I'm just tired of arguing with this idiot.

I thought you were do tired of it that you weren't going to post any more?

First he's
totally against being fingerprinted,

And, when push came to shove, it turns out that you would prefer to not be
fingerprinted yourself. Talk about "making your point for you."


then he makes my point FOR me about the
difference between civilians and military, then he disagrees with himself,

Sorry, I did not disagree with myself. Better review... my posts have been
consistent all along.


and when he becomes confused he reverts back to square one or tries insults.

Better review again. You were the first one to start hurling insults.


What an idiot. Sorry if I'm not the same "mellow" guy asking about Police
Marine Patrol units, but this guy is enough to make you want to reach
through the computer monitor and choke the **** out of him.

If you were a cop in my town, you'd be out of a job. An attitude like that is no
way to approach police work.

DSK