Re: [TSCM-L] {2825} Re: Definition of Honor

From: Rob Hommel <rho..._at_mad.scientist.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:01:20 -0500

>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:19 2024
Received: by 10.214.241.14 with SMTP id o14mr7722705qah.20.1219000800099;
        Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <moor..._at_bellsouth.net>
Received: from fmailhost05.isp.att.net (fmailhost05.isp.att.net [207.115.11.55])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 7si12929047yxg.0.2008.08.17.12.19.59;
        Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of moor..._at_bellsouth.net designates 207.115.11.55 as permitted sender) client-ip 7.115.11.55;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of moor..._at_bellsouth.net designates 207.115.11.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=moor..._at_bellsouth.net
Received: from hppav (adsl-243-163-150.ard.bellsouth.net[74.243.163.150])
          by isp.att.net (frfwmhc05) with SMTP
          id <20080817191958H0500e6r3ae>; Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:19:58 +0000
X-Originating-IP: [74.243.163.150]
From: "moore5588" <moor..._at_bellsouth.net>
To: <TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com>
References: <20080815020120.753141CE825_at_ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080815020120.753141CE825_at_ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: RE: [TSCM-L] {2836} Re: Definition of Honor
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:19:55 -0400
Message-ID: <003501c9009e$3e8f9600$bbaec200$_at_net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acj/RgZi5ZScxctcSaSYSr1M9xm7qABUHQIQ
Content-Language: en-us

Dear R Hommel,

        Wow, that's an interesting as well as original idea. It would
certainly, at least to some degree, weed out individuals whom are intending
to take advantage of the public's trust and power automatically conveyed by
political positions.

        I would add to that the 'ending term of office public vote' be cast
only by those citizens whom actually voted for the individual in question,
thereby generating a true reflection of the opinion of those whom actually
supported and believed in them, and further that the sentence be carried out
immediately without contest via court, pardon or otherwise.

        Perhaps instead of loosing their life they could simply be stripped
of all assets and condemned to a lifetime of living on the streets without
any assistance from any source whatsoever enforced by perpetual monitoring
and emplacement of extreme penalties for those whom would attempt to subvert
the public's judgment, such as similar lifelong penalties. I wonder if some
of our currently serving politicians would be looking forward to living in
the street with no assets or means, ironically convicted by their very own
supporters?

        The problem is, of course, that there is no completely reliable
means to ensure a vote that has not been tampered with in some way. I'm not
certain I could condemn anyone to a lifetime of misery based on results that
may or may not be accurate. So, in a sense the old question which many of us
has pondered time and time again remains the same - Who ultimately could be
entrusted to watch the watchers?

J

-----Original Message-----
From: TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com [mailto:TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Rob Hommel
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:01 PM
To: TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com
Subject: [TSCM-L] {2836} Re: Definition of Honor



Years ago a friend who is much smarter than I once suggested that in the
future, Politicians should be freely elected to office and at the end of
their term there should be a second election to determine if they should
live or die. That may be the only route which would insure an honorable
government.

Now may we please continue with our regular discussion?

R Hommel
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:19 CST