Sleeping in your office?

[gekaap]

3323332What a sanctimonious prick thou art.

I'm not. And calling me such will not distract from the fact that you have been completely incapable of addressing the substance of my arguments. All you've done is name calling the whole time, and have nothing of substance or merit to offer to support your position.

D) The Congress Person or Senator has family responsibilities and chooses to spend his income taking care of those responsibilities instead of making himself comfortable in an apartment.

This notion is nonsense. It's kinda a false dilemma. You're keep trying to frame the debate in terms that are without founding. It has nothing to do with making one's self comfortable in an apartment. They can sleep on a bed of nails if they want to avoid being comfortable. It's about providing for your own housing needs, instead of taking advantage. And even by the very explanation you attempt to use here, they are taking advantage. If the money they save is intended to be for the benefit of their family, that is still a benefit to themselves as well.

Sleeping in an office is not a comfortable lifestyle. Choosing to do so demonstrates self-discipline and frugality

You present this like it's the ONLY possible interpretation, and that is simply false. It is sufficient to simply be lazy, undriven, cheap, or unable to pay for your own living arrangements.

to serve more important goals than one's own immediate comfort.

You are desperately trying to paint this issue in a hero's light. But your premises are unfounded. If these people really are so "heroic" they would pay for their own living arrangements, still get to work on time, and still provide amply for their family. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a conservative, no? Since when were conservatives supposed to become apologists for the government?

 

[boedicca]

Why does someone choose to sleep in their office when they have such ample means unless they are either A) poor at money management and despite having such ample means cannot find a way to actually afford to take care of themselves, or B) an unethical free loader who just wants to get what he can out of his government office, or C) has a general lack of self respect and drive to get himself out of bed early enough to get to work on time.

In either case, I find these qualities to be quite opposite to what it takes to be a good Congressperson or Senator.

What a sanctimonious prick thou art.

The actual situation is one that wouldn't even register in your silly worldview:

D) The Congress Person or Senator has family responsibilities and chooses to spend his income taking care of those responsibilities instead of making himself comfortable in an apartment. Sleeping in an office is not a comfortable lifestyle. Choosing to do so demonstrates self-discipline and frugality to serve more important goals than one's own immediate comfort.

yea ....my brother-in law sleeping on my couch and mooching his meals is showing fiscal responsibility also

It's not equivalent. The members of Congress are not sleeping on your couch.

And if you don't have the sack to kick your borther-in-law out of your house if you don't want him there, then more's the pity.

 

[boedicca]

3323332What a sanctimonious prick thou art.

I'm not. And calling me such will not distract from the fact that you have been completely incapable of addressing the substance of my arguments. All you've done is name calling the whole time, and have nothing of substance or merit to offer to support your position.

D) The Congress Person or Senator has family responsibilities and chooses to spend his income taking care of those responsibilities instead of making himself comfortable in an apartment.

This notion is nonsense. It's kinda a false dilemma. You're keep trying to frame the debate in terms that are without founding. It has nothing to do with making one's self comfortable in an apartment. They can sleep on a bed of nails if they want to avoid being comfortable. It's about providing for your own housing needs, instead of taking advantage. And even by the very explanation you attempt to use here, they are taking advantage. If the money they save is intended to be for the benefit of their family, that is still a benefit to themselves as well.

Sleeping in an office is not a comfortable lifestyle. Choosing to do so demonstrates self-discipline and frugality

You present this like it's the ONLY possible interpretation, and that is simply false. It is sufficient to simply be lazy, undriven, cheap, or unable to pay for your own living arrangements.

to serve more important goals than one's own immediate comfort.

You are desperately trying to paint this issue in a hero's light. But your premises are unfounded. If these people really are so "heroic" they would pay for their own living arrangements, still get to work on time, and still provide amply for their family. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're a conservative, no? Since when were conservatives supposed to become apologists for the government?

The desperation is all on your side, you sad sack of silliness.

The President just proposed a budget with a deficit of over $1.6T and spending at 25.3% of GDP, the highest level since WWII.

But let's focus on a few members of Congress who have decided to sleep in their offices, which are lawfully assigned to them, instead.

You're pathetic.

 

[gekaap]

It's not equivalent. The members of Congress are not sleeping on your couch.

Just because you fail (or intentionally are choosing to fail) to grasp the comparison. The comparison is on the person sleeping on the couch. How are they different, whether it be one's brother in law sleeping on one's couch, or a Senator sleeping on a couch in their taxpayer provided office? Both are avoiding taking responsibility for their own self and their needs by freeloading off of what has been provided for other purposes and with funds not their own.

And if you don't have the sack to kick your borther-in-law out of your house if you don't want him there, then more's the pity.

Wait a second, you said that I have no place to say anything about what these Congresspeople and Senators are doing. But inasmuch as the buildings and property all belong to the government, they belong to the public. Therefore, according to your own argument, we the people need to grow the sack to kick them out.

 

[rightwinger]

What a sanctimonious prick thou art.

The actual situation is one that wouldn't even register in your silly worldview:

D) The Congress Person or Senator has family responsibilities and chooses to spend his income taking care of those responsibilities instead of making himself comfortable in an apartment. Sleeping in an office is not a comfortable lifestyle. Choosing to do so demonstrates self-discipline and frugality to serve more important goals than one's own immediate comfort.

yea ....my brother-in law sleeping on my couch and mooching his meals is showing fiscal responsibility also

It's not equivalent. The members of Congress are not sleeping on your couch.

And if you don't have the sack to kick your borther-in-law out of your house if you don't want him there, then more's the pity.

Talk about sack...

We need the sack to kick out these mooching Congressmen

 

[boedicca]

It's time for y'all to start bashing Palin and Rush.

 

[gekaap]

The desperation is all on your side, you sad sack of silliness.

If you wish, you can keep trying to distract from your inability to provide meaningful support for your position by calling me names. But I will only re-pointing out your lack of meaningful and substantive argument.

The President just proposed a budget with a deficit of over $1.6T and spending at 25.3% of GDP, the highest level since WWII.

You can spend all year trying to drag the debate away in a completely unrelated direction in order to distract from the fact that you have no substance to your arguments. But I will just keep re-pointing out that you continue to fail to support your position.

But let's focus on a few members of Congress who have decided to sleep in their offices, which are lawfully assigned to them, instead.

Listen, if you don't want to talk about this subject, of if you think it is unworthy of attention, why did you open the thread in the first place? Why do you keep coming back into it? Nobody is forcing you to do so.

You're pathetic.

Again, you can keep trying to distract away from the fact that you cannot provide a substantive and meaningful support for your position by calling me names. But I will just keep re-pointing out the fact that you have yet to provide anything of substance to support your position.

When the debate gets tough, the ignorant get abusive.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What does where they sleep have to do with job performance? They probably are getting more sleep because they're not spending time commuting.

Why does someone choose to sleep in their office when they have such ample means

They already have one household to take care of in their home states. Try taking care of 2 and you'll find that a congressman's salary doesn't go very far.

unless they are either A) poor at money management and despite having such ample means cannot find a way to actually afford to take care of themselves,

As I see it they are taking very good care of themselves both physically and financially. By not spending a couple hours commuting everyday they can get more sleep AND spend more time in their offices doing their jobs. The money they save can be used to better take care of their families at home.

or B) an unethical free loader who just wants to get what he can out of his government office,

The office is there and is given to the congressman for his use it costs us nothing if he sleeps in it.

or C) has a general lack of self respect and drive to get himself out of bed early enough to get to work on time.

Or he takes his job for the people so seriously he wants to spend as much of his time as possible being productive for his constituents.

In either case, I find these qualities to be quite opposite to what it takes to be a good Congressperson or Senator.

Yes fiscal responsibility and a good work ethic are poor traits for a politician aren't they?

 

[gekaap]

They already have one household to take care of in their home states. Try taking care of 2 and you'll find that a congressman's salary doesn't go very far.

They make a minimum of $174,000 a year, with leadership positions making more. If that "doesn't go very far" then they do not have the fiscal responsibility that we should all want from our elected officials. There is no reason to hold them to a lesser standard than any ordinary American would be held. They should be expected to provide for their own needs. If it's too difficult, then they should consider a new line of work.

As I see it they are taking very good care of themselves both physically and financially. By not spending a couple hours commuting everyday they can get more sleep AND spend more time in their offices doing their jobs.

If they don't like the hours they have to work, or cannot keep up with them, then they need to consider other lines of work. I work long hours at times. Hell, I remember several years ago when I worked at a restaurant in downtown San Antonio, we had a busy extended weekend ahead of us. I had to work from 8am to 2am every day for five straight days. I wasn't thrilled about it, but I didn't once think that I should somehow have some kind of right to sleep at work in order to gain some extra sleep and be at work on time. I left each night, I came back each morning, on time and ready to go.

The office is there and is given to the congressman for his use it costs us nothing if he sleeps in it.

It's not provided for personal use. It's provided for official use. Big difference.

Or he takes his job for the people so seriously he wants to spend as much of his time as possible being productive for his constituents.

Then he should continue to do that by providing his own housing needs, and being at work at such times as duty demands, without regard for where he is living.

Yes fiscal responsibility and a good work ethic are poor traits for a politician aren't they?

Another apologist? If freeloading and bringing your personal needs into the workplace are what you call "fiscal responsibility" and "a good work ethic" then I'd really love to come work for you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They already have one household to take care of in their home states. Try taking care of 2 and you'll find that a congressman's salary doesn't go very far.

They make a minimum of $174,000 a year, with leadership positions making more. If that "doesn't go very far" then they do not have the fiscal responsibility that we should all want from our elected officials. There is no reason to hold them to a lesser standard than any ordinary American would be held. They should be expected to provide for their own needs. If it's too difficult, then they should consider a new line of work.

As I see it they are taking very good care of themselves both physically and financially. By not spending a couple hours commuting everyday they can get more sleep AND spend more time in their offices doing their jobs.

If they don't like the hours they have to work, or cannot keep up with them, then they need to consider other lines of work. I work long hours at times. Hell, I remember several years ago when I worked at a restaurant in downtown San Antonio, we had a busy extended weekend ahead of us. I had to work from 8am to 2am every day for five straight days. I wasn't thrilled about it, but I didn't once think that I should somehow have some kind of right to sleep at work in order to gain some extra sleep and be at work on time. I left each night, I came back each morning, on time and ready to go.



It's not provided for personal use. It's provided for official use. Big difference.

Or he takes his job for the people so seriously he wants to spend as much of his time as possible being productive for his constituents.

Then he should continue to do that by providing his own housing needs, and being at work at such times as duty demands, without regard for where he is living.

Yes fiscal responsibility and a good work ethic are poor traits for a politician aren't they?

Another apologist? If freeloading and bringing your personal needs into the workplace are what you call "fiscal responsibility" and "a good work ethic" then I'd really love to come work for you.

When my wife and I started our business, we slept in the reception area at night while we were remodeling the property.

i suppose you think we were being irresponsible by not spending more money to rent an apartment right?

It's no big deal where anyone sleeps. It costs us nothing if a congressman sleeps in his office. It has absolutely no effect on you. It has no effect on his job performance and if he is not your congressman it's none of your business. If he is yours you get to vote against him in the next election.

And wouldn't you call throwing away tens of thousands of dollars renting a place where all you do is sleep for a few hours a night wasteful?

I would.

 

[FA_Q2]

I fail to understand the problem that has taken 16 pages to argue about when a senator decides to sleep in his office costing us nothing, taking nothing, causing no harm and all around meaningless. There is nothing that is harmed by a senator sleeping in his office and, as a matter of fact, I find it rather pleasing that a senator would care enough to sleep in his place of work rather than wasting time commuting. Come to me with something about abusing taxpayer dollars like abuse of private jets and we can talk. This trivial bullshit hurts no one and costs nothing. You have to reach quite far if that bothers you.

 

[gekaap]

When my wife and I started our business, we slept in the reception area at night while we were remodeling the property.

i suppose you think we were being irresponsible by not spending more money to rent an apartment right?

You're talking about a private business that you own. We're talking about government property owned by the public.

It's no big deal where anyone sleeps. It costs us nothing if a congressman sleeps in his office. It has absolutely no effect on you. It has no effect on his job performance and if he is not your congressman it's none of your business. If he is yours you get to vote against him in the next election.

Regardless of what districts these people represent, they are still violating rules about using public resources for personal use. Everyone in the country has business to question such things.

And wouldn't you call throwing away tens of thousands of dollars renting a place where all you do is sleep for a few hours a night wasteful?

I would.

Since when was taking responsibility for one's self and one's needs considered wasteful? Everything you and what's-his-name are saying stretches good sense into frayed absurdity.

 

[gekaap]

I fail to understand the problem that has taken 16 pages to argue about when a senator decides to sleep in his office costing us nothing, taking nothing, causing no harm and all around meaningless. There is nothing that is harmed by a senator sleeping in his office and, as a matter of fact, I find it rather pleasing that a senator would care enough to sleep in his place of work rather than wasting time commuting. Come to me with something about abusing taxpayer dollars like abuse of private jets and we can talk. This trivial bullshit hurts no one and costs nothing. You have to reach quite far if that bothers you.

After all of that, one wonders why you even bothered to open this thread, since you obviously find the matter trivial and unworthy of attention.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When my wife and I started our business, we slept in the reception area at night while we were remodeling the property.

i suppose you think we were being irresponsible by not spending more money to rent an apartment right?

You're talking about a private business that you own. We're talking about government property owned by the public.

It's no big deal where anyone sleeps. It costs us nothing if a congressman sleeps in his office. It has absolutely no effect on you. It has no effect on his job performance and if he is not your congressman it's none of your business. If he is yours you get to vote against him in the next election.

Regardless of what districts these people represent, they are still violating rules about using public resources for personal use. Everyone in the country has business to question such things.

And wouldn't you call throwing away tens of thousands of dollars renting a place where all you do is sleep for a few hours a night wasteful?

I would.

Since when was taking responsibility for one's self and one's needs considered wasteful? Everything you and what's-his-name are saying stretches good sense into frayed absurdity.

So it's not good sense to save money to better take care of one's family obligations? And one does not need to rent a room with a bed in it in order to sleep a few hours a night. As far as I know congressmen still pay for their meals, transportation, dry cleaning etc.

I would rather send the tens of thousands you would want me to waste on a room with a bed in it to my family back in my home state.

The office is there already. it costs us nothing and save the congressman thousands of dollars that he can use to take care of his family in his home state.

Only controlling busybodies think this is a problem. People who realize that a penny saved is a penny earned and who know the value of thrift think it's commendable to sacrifice creature comforts in order to save money.

 

[gekaap]

So it's not good sense to save money to better take care of one's family obligations?

That is a straw man, as nobody has said anything of the sort that you are trying to debunk. The question is not whether it saves these people money. Obviously it does. The question is whether it is appropriate for these people use government facilities in ways they are not meant, in ways that are not considered acceptable to anyone in the public, in their own personal desires to save money.

And one does not need to rent a room with a bed in it in order to sleep a few hours a night.

You're right. I don't need to even bother having a house because I could just sleep in the Capitol building and save money. I think I'll start doing that. But somehow I don't think that you'll find it acceptable for me or anyone else to do that. Apparently only Congresspeople and Senators are permitted to use government for their personal needs.

I would rather send the tens of thousands you would want me to waste on a room with a bed in it to my family back in my home state.

If this is how you feel, then I advise that you do not take any kind of position such that your needs increase to include secondary housing. But if you do take such a position, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide for your own needs. If you fail to do so, you are failing to be responsible. If it is not within your means to provide for such, then that is your own fault and problem, and any such inability will not excuse your irresponsibility.

The office is there already. it costs us nothing and save the congressman thousands of dollars that he can use to take care of his family in his home state.

And like I said before, it "costs" my employer nothing for me to sleep at work. Nor would it cost anyone anything for me to sleep at the Capitol building. Yet these are considered unacceptable. And nothing you have said establishes any good reason why Congresspeople and Senators should have some kind of special consideration extended to them. Especially considering the fact that Congress's own ethics rules prohibit personal use of that which is provided through public funds.

Only controlling busybodies think this is a problem.

Simply untrue. Attempting to paint me in a negative light will not detract from the fact that you have done no better a job at supporting your position than the others who agree with you.

People who realize that a penny saved is a penny earned and who know the value of thrift think it's commendable to sacrifice creature comforts in order to save money.

I never said there was anything wrong with sacrificing some comforts in order to save money. But your own arguments claim that it's okay to do this because it saves money that can be then spent on their families. Thus, you are contradicting yourself all while you try (and fail) to reconstruct the issue into different terms. It's not about whether these people are saving money, or if they need to save money. It's about them violating ethics rules by using government property and resources for personal benefit. The fact that they save money, which you hold up as a sign that this is acceptable, is exactly what makes it unacceptable.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So it's not good sense to save money to better take care of one's family obligations?

That is a straw man, as nobody has said anything of the sort that you are trying to debunk. The question is not whether it saves these people money. Obviously it does. The question is whether it is appropriate for these people use government facilities in ways they are not meant, in ways that are not considered acceptable to anyone in the public, in their own personal desires to save money.

So if an employer allowed some people to sleep in their offices you would have a problem with it?

And one does not need to rent a room with a bed in it in order to sleep a few hours a night.

You're right. I don't need to even bother having a house because I could just sleep in the Capitol building and save money. I think I'll start doing that. But somehow I don't think that you'll find it acceptable for me or anyone else to do that. Apparently only Congresspeople and Senators are permitted to use government for their personal needs.

Tell you what. You get elected to congress and you too can sleep in your office at absolutely no expense to the taxpayer.

If this is how you feel, then I advise that you do not take any kind of position such that your needs increase to include secondary housing. But if you do take such a position, then it is YOUR responsibility to provide for your own needs. If you fail to do so, you are failing to be responsible. If it is not within your means to provide for such, then that is your own fault and problem, and any such inability will not excuse your irresponsibility.

I work for myself so I have no problem there. But what if a person took a 2 year assignment in another city and the business owner let him sleep on a cot in his office. I suppose you'd want to tax that as a benefit right?

And like I said before, it "costs" my employer nothing for me to sleep at work. Nor would it cost anyone anything for me to sleep at the Capitol building. Yet these are considered unacceptable. And nothing you have said establishes any good reason why Congresspeople and Senators should have some kind of special consideration extended to them. Especially considering the fact that Congress's own ethics rules prohibit personal use of that which is provided through public funds.

Only controlling busybodies think this is a problem.

Simply untrue. Attempting to paint me in a negative light will not detract from the fact that you have done no better a job at supporting your position than the others who agree with you.

It is not unethical to sleep. What is the congressman gaining at our expense? Nothing.

People who realize that a penny saved is a penny earned and who know the value of thrift think it's commendable to sacrifice creature comforts in order to save money.

I never said there was anything wrong with sacrificing some comforts in order to save money. But your own arguments claim that it's okay to do this because it saves money that can be then spent on their families. Thus, you are contradicting yourself all while you try (and fail) to reconstruct the issue into different terms. It's not about whether these people are saving money, or if they need to save money. It's about them violating ethics rules by using government property and resources for personal benefit. The fact that they save money, which you hold up as a sign that this is acceptable, is exactly what makes it unacceptable.

Sleeping on a cot is nothing of value therefore they are not gaining anything at our expense.

Reasonable people realize this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not what you are doing though. You are accusing them of being fiscally irresponsible. If you just had a beef about them misusing government property you would not be using the terms you are.

Okay, that is just a bunch of milarkey. Discussing the matter rightly will include any criticism and explanations of the stance which a person takes. Otherwise, it's not discussing at all, it's just pointing out an occurrence and ending there.

Your comment becomes all the more ludicrous considering the fact that I did not bring up the subject of fiscal responsibility, or the lack thereof. That was someone else who opened that door. Your comments essentially boil down to saying that any criticism is an attempt to control other people's lives, and that discussion can only be neutral at worst, if not outright praiseful.

You know what, I am not going to go through this thread to see who brought up fiscal responsibility first. That is actually irrelevant because you continue to insist that it is fiscally irresponsible to sleep in an office because it prove they cannot manage their finances to provide for their own needs.

Why do people need to keep two homes? In fact, why does anyone even need to keep one home? You are trying to manage their lives by dictating how they spend their money. That is simply fact. there have been a few people here who oppose them sleeping in their office that did not resort to attacks on their lifestyle or finances, which proves that it is actually possible to have this discussion without doing so.

The simple fact that I am not accusing them of trying to control anyone's life disproves the rest of your post.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really?

So, if you are stopped by the police and they decide to confiscate all your money because they say you are a drug dealer you are getting due process because it is legal.

Glad to know you are completely ignorant about due process and what it means.

Actually, YOU are ignorant about it.

Let me explain to you how this more or less would go. If a cop stops me as I'm driving down the street, has a legitimate reason for the stop, and then finds legitimate reason for an arrest relating to drug possession with intent to distribute, finds several hundred dollars worth of money on me, and I'm subsequently found guilty in a trial that confirms to all legal requirements, then yes the government can seize that money. If all of those things are done within legal guidelines that protect my rights, then I have received due process of the law.

On the other hand, if a cop pulls me over just for shits and giggles, searches me illegally, finds something which makes him suspect I'm a drug dealer, and then confiscates my money on the spot under that allegation, then no, that would not be due process of the law BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LEGAL. If it's legal, then you've received due process.

You should probably do a little reading on the subject.

A commitment to legality is at the heart of all advanced legal systems, and the Due Process Clause often thought to embody that commitment.

Thank you for making my point for me.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.

"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."

"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.[/FONT]

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

All they need to take your cash is the fact that you have it. Period.

Just in case you think drug dogs are accurate.

Grits for Breakfast: Expert: Drug dogs wrong 48% of the time

You get the same odds flipping a coin.

 

[gekaap]

You know what, I am not going to go through this thread to see who brought up fiscal responsibility first. That is actually irrelevant because you continue to insist that it is fiscally irresponsible to sleep in an office because it prove they cannot manage their finances to provide for their own needs.

Not quite. I said that if maintaining their secondary residence really is so difficult, as has been alleged, then THAT is the sign of fiscal irresponsibility.

Why do people need to keep two homes? In fact, why does anyone even need to keep one home?

EXACTLY! We should all be allowed to move in to the Capitol building and save money. Right? One of the cornerstones of my position in this is that Congresspeople and Senators should not be afforded special consideration for what would be considered appropriate from a societal point of view. If you want to hold that whether a person provides for their own housing needs does not meaningfully reflect on their being self responsible, then even though I would disagree with that point, I would concede to you that you are not being inconsistent.

You are trying to manage their lives by dictating how they spend their money. That is simply fact.

No, it's not fact, not by a long shot. I'm not trying to dictate how they spend their money, I'm simply evaluating their character traits based on observed behavior.

there have been a few people here who oppose them sleeping in their office that did not resort to attacks on their lifestyle or finances, which proves that it is actually possible to have this discussion without doing so.

I am not attacking their lifestyle or finances. I am pointing out that their behaviors are indicative of certain character traits and skills relevant to their job. If you think that this is somehow inappropriate to do, then I suggest you wake up and meet the world.

The simple fact that I am not accusing them of trying to control anyone's life disproves the rest of your post.

What? That doesn't even make any sense.

 

[gekaap]

Thank you for making my point for me.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]On May 28, 2003, a Nebraska state trooper signaled Gonzolez to pull over his rented Ford Taurus on Interstate 80. The trooper intended to issue a speeding ticket, but noticed the Gonzolez's name was not on the rental contract. The trooper then proceeded to question Gonzolez -- who did not speak English well -- and search the car. The trooper found a cooler containing $124,700 in cash, which he confiscated. A trained drug sniffing dog barked at the rental car and the cash. For the police, this was all the evidence needed to establish a drug crime that allows the force to keep the seized money.

Associates of Gonzolez testified in court that they had pooled their life savings to purchase a refrigerated truck to start a produce business. Gonzolez flew on a one-way ticket to Chicago to buy a truck, but it had sold by the time he had arrived. Without a credit card of his own, he had a third-party rent one for him. Gonzolez hid the money in a cooler to keep it from being noticed and stolen. He was scared when the troopers began questioning him about it. There was no evidence disputing Gonzolez's story.

Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."

Judge Donald Lay found the majority's reasoning faulty and issued a strong dissent.

"Notwithstanding the fact that claimants seemingly suspicious activities were reasoned away with plausible, and thus presumptively trustworthy, explanations which the government failed to contradict or rebut, I note that no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records were recovered in connection with the seized money," Judge Lay wrote. "There is no evidence claimants were ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor is there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of
drug use or distribution."

"Finally, the mere fact that the canine alerted officers to the presence of drug residue in a rental car, no doubt driven by dozens, perhaps scores, of patrons during the course of a given year, coupled with the fact that the alert came from the same location where the currency was discovered, does little to connect the money to a controlled substance offense," Judge Lay Concluded.[/FONT]

Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

All they need to take your cash is the fact that you have it. Period.

Just in case you think drug dogs are accurate.

Grits for Breakfast: Expert: Drug dogs wrong 48% of the time

You get the same odds flipping a coin.

And what do you think you've proven here? You apparently haven't the slightest idea what due process of the law means. When all procedures follow lawful methods, then the person has received due process of the law. Violation of due process does not mean "I was charged with a crime I didn't commit." Due process means that if you're suspected of a crime, police do not violate your rights when investigating and gathering enough evidence to have probable cause for an arrest. And that when you are charged, you receive a lawful trial with all your rights intact. A violation of due process cannot occur when everything has been lawful. Due process is only violated when lawful procedures break down in favor of violating your rights, etc.