Anyone want to be a Mole?

[scoobii]

http://change.gov/page/s/application" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Purplehood]

I sent in my application just now.

[jimlongley]

I think if I apply they will detect my internet postings and I'll be the first one in front of the firing squads - of course that may happen even without an application.

[Purplehood]

I like to live dangerously.

[bpet]

I've decided I don't really need a "job". The way I see it, I'll probably start getting a regular check from the Government without doing a thing. So,..... why bother working?

[The Annoyed Man]

I know that you started this thread kind of in jest, but I just wanted to express the following:

Since I'm self employed and work from home, I can carry my pistol on the job. My employee manual permits me to carry my firearm anywhere it is legal to do so. If I went to work for an Obama administration, I could no longer carry at work. In fact, it is highly likely, given Obama's stated intention to enact a national no-carry law, that the fact that I have a Texas CHL appearing on my FBI background check would render me ineligible for employment by a democrat dominated federal government. Lastly, as an employee, I would feel compelled by my personal code of ethics to do the best job I could do. That means that I would, however unintentionally, be advancing the success of an Obama presidency - and that would counteract my personal goal of fighting him tooth and nail every single step of the way until he is driven from office in disgrace.

Also consider this: Once a federal job has been created, it almost never goes away. If you don't fill it, someone else will. And it will continue that way so long as there is a federal government because it enlarges some minor bureaucrat's rice bowl. Do you really want to contribute to that?

Now, as a struggling new business (started on May 1st of this year), I am broke. REALLY broke. I never know where or when my next project is going to come from, and I am barely squeaking by. In fact, this is only possible because I am married to a good woman who has gone back to work as a dental assistant, a mother-in-law who lives with us and contributes some of her retirement income to the family budget, and a son who is working and contributing to the family's needs by becoming more and more self-sufficient. But I am, by golly, free. Having a regular job would make my life easier and less worrysome, but it would be far more restrictive. I prefer the temporary hard times that I have to slog through until my business is built to the point that I have some measure of security from it instead of the mind-numbing ease of serving time in a government job; if that means that I don't have to submit my personal ambitions to a hide-bound bureaucracy. Call it dumb pride or not, but at 56 years old, I just can't bring myself to submit to someone else's workplace authority anymore - particularly when I see them being inefficient and morally compromised. So I lean on God's grace, and He continues to provide for me and my family, and I firmly believe that He will honor my efforts, in His timing, and my business will survive and bless my family and me.

I'm not having any government job. I want to be part of what drives the economy, not part of what hampers it.

[M9FAN]

I've decided I don't really need a "job". The way I see it, I'll probably start getting a regular check from the Government without doing a thing. So,..... why bother working?

I'm with ya', bpet! There are just too many governmental incentives NOT to work than the other way around...

[Wildscar]

I guess number 13 rules most of us out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/po ... terstitial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bdickens]

Wow. And I thought that overreaching and Unconstitutional adgenda that mysteriously disappeared was intrusive. This guy is absolutely over the top.

[bpet]

I guess number 13 rules most of us out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/po ... terstitial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried to look but was stopped by a "login/register" page. Just couldn't bring myself to submit ANY of my personal information to the NY Times or give them even a single extra subscriber/reader statistic (even if it's internet). Any chance you can tell us what #13 says?

[SCone]

"The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law."

Pretty words, but why the "prohibited by law?" Why not just leave it at we don't discriminate for any reason?

[stevie_d_64]

Are you a U.S. Citizen??? No

Are you eligible to work in the U.S.??? No

--The possibilities and opportunities with this application are endless...

[longhorn_92]

"The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law."

Pretty words, but why the "prohibited by law?" Why not just leave it at we don't discriminate for any reason?

That sure did not stop them from their sexist remarks about Sarah Palin or their age discrimination remarks about John McCain being too old....

[Wildscar]

I guess number 13 rules most of us out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/po ... terstitial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried to look but was stopped by a "login/register" page. Just couldn't bring myself to submit ANY of my personal information to the NY Times or give them even a single extra subscriber/reader statistic (even if it's internet). Any chance you can tell us what #13 says?

That weird cause I didn't have to register to see the link. Basically it asks if you have ever posted any electronic communication such as e-mail, text message or instant message that can be viewed as a conflict of interest. Or if you have kept a diary for basically the same thing however they want you to list it on the app.

[bpet]

I guess number 13 rules most of us out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/po ... terstitial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I tried to look but was stopped by a "login/register" page. Just couldn't bring myself to submit ANY of my personal information to the NY Times or give them even a single extra subscriber/reader statistic (even if it's internet). Any chance you can tell us what #13 says?

That weird cause I didn't have to register to see the link. Basically it asks if you have ever posted any electronic communication such as e-mail, text message or instant message that can be viewed as a conflict of interest. Or if you have kept a diary for basically the same thing however they want you to list it on the app.

Thank you. I guess if I say no, and I make it as far as an interview, I can assume I'll be connected to a polygraph. I saw on the news last night that there's also a question about gun ownership. If I say no on that, they probably won't need a poly, they will see my face turn bright red and my back tense up.

Too bad! I was really looking forward to moving to D.C. and making my contribution to the success of the new administration.