Suffrage

[jackson33]

C1ay; If you believe in a 'Representative Democracy' then your ideas would be correct and representation to the Federal, dependent on current public opinion. But you cannot have both, where that representative both abides and reject public opinion. As a 'Representative Republic' both ideas are encompassed into the total, with the publics opinions voiced through the House and National Interest voiced through the Senate as well the Executive and Judicial Branches.

 

In the case of 'Drill now, pay less' or under any other polling data, government has been set on previously understood facts, where elections and individuals with corresponding ideas were elected. I understand these ideas were faulty and developments were predictable and that these same officials should have been concerned long ago, but they were not. House members, those that are obligated to start action which half the Senate and the entire executive have been pleading for years for action and with the apparent apathy of the House, to me means the system has worked. The House will meet in a couple weeks, no doubt pass something and the Senate deadlocked on the issues, as well as vested interest in Novembers elections, will no doubt table any action. These same things occurred in the first days of the country and will again, ahead of any major election. All parties looking for that mandate from the elections.

 

 

Like it or not, in the past as today or into the future, public opinion and arguments on the 'General Welfare' of all people will be discussed and acted on for the non-achievers in this or any society. I have always opposed liberalism/nanny state or subsidizing failure in any form, but realize there are as many in favor of these actions. I base my opinions on 'personal responsibility' and the effects on a society which rewards this failure, knowing its not always any persons fault, who accepts these rewards...

[Michaelangelica]

i am just reading abook about Isabella and Charles of england in the 14C

The macinations and politicing that goes on is astounding. Between individuals,sexual perverts, factions, countries, groups, warlords, thieves and scoundrels.

 

I began to think that the same thing happens most likely now, just that no one tells us about it. I think education is one cornerstone to democracy. everone shold be trained in civics and hopefully politics as well

I was severely shocked when teaching a group of forty reasonably educated adults (average age about 35 90% women) when I discovered almost no one know the structure of our government (Local Council, State, Federal -It ain't rocket science) God knows who they voted for. Probably a "party" who there parents voted for.

so if this is your average elector (and rember in Oz 50% have below average intelligence) what chance is there of making ministers and public office holders responsible. Why should they respect the options of a bunch of fools -so they just get on with feathering their own -very lush- nests.

 

We do have an "Independent Commission against Corruption", this has helped weed out some of the very worst abuses of power. We recently put away a couple of state politicians-one for sex offences.

But I am not sure what you do after that. I think the US and Oz systems are relatively corruption free compared to SE Asian governments. So thank God for small mercies.

But I don't know what the answer is. Staying alert, complaining, writing letters to the press or elected members, becoming involved, joining pressure groups,or even a party, posting information that needs a wider audience on digg or stumble etc, . Subscribing to alternative (non-Murdock press). Perhaps these could be some answers. Then you need to keep a sense of humour otherwise it would send you round the twist.

But back to Isabella, it seems lousy government has been around for a long time and will be with us for a long time unless someone can invent & implement some better 'checks and balances'.

[jackson33]

MA; I look at apathy toward federal government/politics, somewhat different than most, at least in the US. The lack of interest, for the most part IMO, is a sign of satisfaction in what is or if you prefer the 'status quo'. For whatever reason a person does become interested, he/she will search out relevant information for that interest, even to the point of origin. Said another way, even those that bother to vote and those that don't for the most part are just not interested in how/why they have what they do have or the process to that end. I'm not sure its societies responsibility to mandate its citizens into understanding and that most folks are informed by sound bites or peer influence.

 

I see your still obsessed with Murdock and still not convinced he or his organization is viewed by, by choice. Not to mention the many opposing choices available. As with Fox News in the US, where responsibility for content is 99.9% the responsibility of Roger Ailes, I feel your media in Australia, comes from some local person, not the organization. I would concede the choice for that person was made on criteria that person expressed or that some compliance to the general theme should be or was involved, as it should be.

 

Checks and balance, of any system IMO, must come from a basic principle or concept of principles. It should also reflect that society, traditional and cultural practice of its people. In adding a balance, your ICC or any of our agencies for oversight or agenda it can only reflect current conditions and should be subject to change, none of which permanent to those basic principles.

 

On cultural change, the evolution of democracy and specifically the 14C society of England (corruption), remember that followed the 13C 'Magna Carta' (1215) and the cornerstone for modern democracy. Societies require time for change and any drastic change or the attempt to change, can and has been destructive to the then current society.

[Michaelangelica]

I feel your media in Australia, comes from some local person, not the organization. I would concede the choice for that person was made on criteria that person expressed or that some compliance to the general theme should be or was involved, as it should be.

Murdock is an Australian.

We know him

He became an American (USAan?) to make more money & power and control more minds.

I agree his is not TOTALLY evil.

 

I feel most people are just absorbed with the problems of putting food on the table, an education for their kids, being safe, and having a roof over their heads. Often this leaves little time for anything else.

 

Friends of mine create their own worlds. They just don't want to know.

The problems of the world seem too huge.

Remember 50% of Americans have below average intelligence.

 

I don't know how to respond to the rest of your post.

[questor]

Clay, I agree totally with your view of universal suffrage. I think the whole

system of governance is misguided and inefficient. Concerning the vote, you might ask, who should NOT be allowed to vote. Perhaps all those incarcerated for felonies, those who are adjudged mentally incompetent, those who pay no taxes, those who are under age 21, and those who are totally unaware what the system is about and what the candidates stand for.

Shoudn't a person know what and whom he is voting for? The election system could be changed so as to eliminate lobbying influences. Each voter could pay $1. to be used to finance the election. In 2004 around 112 million

votes were cast. This money could be divided equally among the major candidates to finance the election. This way no outside money is allowed and no debts are incurred. The candidates should be vetted by a non-partisan

group and the major issues of the day should be addressed clearly and in writing by the candidates. The government itself is by far the larger problem for the people. It is run as a giant entitlement program for its employees. That is a subject for a different thread.

[Buffy]

I think the whole system of governance is misguided and inefficient.

Do you think efficiency should be a goal? Why?

...all those incarcerated for felonies

These folks are already disenfranchised. I suppose if you believe that the criminal justice system is 100% efficient, then this is a reasonable prohibition: at least its been agreed to by the majority!

those who are adjudged mentally incompetent

You know, typically these folks don't get out too much. Do you think we really need to go out of our way to prevent them from voting?

 

On the other hand, there has been a concerted effort to allow any voter registration activities at Veterans Hospitals....

those who pay no taxes

So are you saying that if we eliminate the unquestionably unfair Alternative Minimum Tax, that those who pay exhorbitant corporate taxes, but through no fault of their own will end up paying no personal income taxes should not be allowed to vote?

 

Should people who are pillars of our capitalist society be disenfranchised? Why?

those who are under age 21

So you believe that Richard Nixon was wrong? People between the ages of 18 and 21 are somehow incompetent? Or is it simply that they tend to be more liberal than their elders? Does their belief in the possibilities of bettering the world world make them incompetent? Or do you believe that everyone under 21 is magically over-influenced by their "liberal professors?"

those who are totally unaware what the system is about and what the candidates stand for.

Should we have a test that you have to pass before you get to register?

 

Do you realize that the average liberal is far more "politically educated" than the average conservative?

 

Who would write the test?

Shoudn't a person know what and whom he is voting for?

Gee will they ever tell us? All I know about McCain is that he was a POW and he has all sorts of nasty things to say about Obama. On specific issues he's changed his mind so many times it makes me dizzy. Is he Pro-Choice, or is he going to let the social conservatives drive the issue because he wants to be elected no matter what he has to say to get there?

The election system could be changed so as to eliminate lobbying influences. Each voter could pay $1....

McCain is the first Republican to take advantage of the *existing* public funding mechanism (even though there's ample evidence to accuse him of having abused it already), but of course, money is not the problem: apparently, the vast majority of McCain's paid election management staff are themselves "lobbyists."

 

So you'd agree that Mr. McCain should fire most of his staff?

This way no outside money is allowed and no debts are incurred.

So you're all for abridging the First Amendment simply because a person happens to have the funds to speak out? Are you aware that that's the exact opposite of "strict constructionism" and is associated with "judicial activism" that's usually associated with the "looney left?"

The candidates should be vetted by a non-partisan

group and the major issues of the day should be addressed clearly and in writing by the candidates.

Well, this being a science site, I'm at pains to stand up for the folks who rail against the "tyranny of the majority." Assuming you were even alive back in 1980, you may have known that Ronald Reagan was initially considered a lunatic even by the leaders in the Republican Party.

 

How are we ever going to have any change if some "mutually agreeably committee" appointed by the idiots who are currently in charge get to say who passes muster?

 

You're kidding right?

 

Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status, :coffee_n_pc:

Buffy

[questor]

Buffy, I am reluctant to joust with you since it usually leads to a censure or suspension, however I will give my opinions.

''Do you think efficiency should be a goal? Why?'' I cannot think this is a serious question. Should the reverse be the goal?

Concerning voters rights for felons: ''These folks are already disenfranchised. I suppose if you believe that the criminal justice system is 100% efficient, then this is a reasonable prohibition: at least its been agreed to by the majority!''

Time to restore voting rights to felons, empower young people - The Daily Voice - Black America's Daily News Source

This is one of many liberal initiatives to give felons the vote.

Your quote: ''So are you saying that if we eliminate the unquestionably unfair Alternative Minimum Tax, that those who pay exhorbitant corporate taxes, but through no fault of their own will end up paying no personal income taxes should not be allowed to vote?

Should people who are pillars of our capitalist society be disenfranchised?

Why?''

 

I am referring mainly to those who pay no taxes because they do not contribute to the national economy.

 

Your quote: ''So you believe that Richard Nixon was wrong? People between the ages of 18 and 21 are somehow incompetent? Or is it simply that they tend to be more liberal than their elders? Does their belief in the possibilities of bettering the world world make them incompetent? Or do you believe that everyone under 21 is magically over-influenced by their "liberal professors?" ''

Some of the above I agree with. I think a person should be mature enough and informed enough to vote intelligently upon the issues. A person of 18 could be intelligent or even well informed, but lacks in life experience. If 18 is OK, how about 16?

 

Your quote: ''Should we have a test that you have to pass before you get to register?

Do you realize that the average liberal is far more "politically educated" than the average conservative?''

 

Yes to the first question. As to the second question, I would probably get an infraction for making this sweeping statement with no proof offered. What does ''politically educated '' mean? It seems the basic difference in the liberal and conservative is the conservative wants to do it for himself and the liberal wants the government to do it for him. What type education does one need to pick between these differences?

 

I'm sure you are aware that McCain has fired a couple of lobbyists on his staff. If you want to learn more about McCain, why not google his name? Do you think he has a more secret past than Obama?

 

Your quote: ''So you're all for abridging the First Amendment simply because a person happens to have the funds to speak out? Are you aware that that's the exact opposite of "strict constructionism" and is associated with "judicial activism" that's usually associated with the "looney left?"

Where have I called for abridgement of free speech? Each candidate would get equal face time.

 

Your quote: ''How are we ever going to have any change if some "mutually agreeably committee" appointed by the idiots who are currently in charge get to say who passes muster?'' What ''change'' are you looking for? Obama runs on this word, but no one has ever explained it. You are the one defending the status quo. If we continue as we are, we will have ever more expensive

elections, ever more lobbying influence and ever more confusion in the minds of the voters.

[Michaelangelica]

Clay, I agree totally with your view of universal suffrage. I think the whole

system of governance is misguided and inefficient. Concerning the vote, you might ask, who should NOT be allowed to vote. Perhaps all those incarcerated for felonies,

This is the situation in Australia as of last year.

Court overturns prisoner vote ban

 

August 30, 2007 11:06am

Article from: AAP

 

THE High Court today overturned changes to federal government legislation made last year which bars prison inmates from voting.

 

However, the court upheld earlier legislation which stipulated any prisoners serving a jail term of three years or longer could not vote.

 

The challenge to the legislation was launched by Vickie Lee Roach, a woman jailed for five years in 2004 and ineligible for parole until August 2008.

Has anyone legally challenged your ban of voting in prisons?

It might help to lead to some prison reform and save you a bit of money seeing you have so many banged up for so long.

 

those who are adjudged mentally incompetent,

Like Prs. Bush?:naughty:

those who pay no taxes,

You mean Murdock and the other super rich with Swiss Bank A/C ?:eek2:

those who are under age 21,

so you can fight or be conscripted at 18 but not vote?:eek2:

and those who are totally unaware what the system is about and what the candidates stand for.

I think you, in the USA, have a better programme of teaching the structure and mechanics, history and civics of politics to your citizens- or at least I hope you do. ( Even if it is romanticised and Didneyfied just a tich ?:D)

Here everyone is paranoid about left-wing teachers "indoctrinating young minds" Which is rubbish. I think many politicians would prefer "an ignorance is bliss" approach. A dumb, ill-informed electorate is easer to manipulate.

Remember, whatever you do, 50% of the population still has below average intelligence.

 

A good friend taught the complicated Australian preferential voting system to some well-healed, young 16-17 YO, conservative, male students one year. They were very uninterested. So she set up a classroom election. When preferences were distributed student's jaws dropped in shock as they had elected the Communist candidate. I hope they became a little more interested in the system after that.

 

Shouldn't a person know what and whom he is voting for?

How would they not? I don't understand this?

The election system could be changed so as to eliminate lobbying influences. Each voter could pay $1. to be used to finance the election. In 2004 around 112 million

Here the person you vote for gets about $00.75c per vote and if he/she gets a certain % of the vote can claim back much campaign costs. (Every candidate has to submit a " spending-return" a little like a 'tax return'; which then tells you a lot about who donated what and what was spent. One high profile math challenged, conservative was recently jailed as her figures where not adding up.

 

All donations to politicians and their parties are supposed to be in the public domain.

They are not. Both major parties have "trusts" you can donate to which in tun funnels your money to the party anonymously. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has said he will fix that. If he does nothing else that would make him a hero. However I think Hell freezing over is more likely.

Often companies or execs will help out by putting mail though their own in-house mailing system etc. There are many clandestine ways of helping without money changing hands. Although many of these are now being scrutinised by the ICAC (Independent Commission Against Corruption)

 

So the short answer is -you are unlikely to stop political payola JUST by publicly funding elections.

 

This page has a lecture on the idea of compulsory voting in Australia.

It starts with a joke I am sure many Yanks will enjoy

The Samuel Griffith Society: Volume 15: Chapter Eight

[Buffy]

So are you saying that if we eliminate the unquestionably unfair Alternative Minimum Tax, that those who pay exhorbitant corporate taxes, but through no fault of their own will end up paying no personal income taxes should not be allowed to vote?

Should people who are pillars of our capitalist society be disenfranchised?

Why?'

I am referring mainly to those who pay no taxes because they do not contribute to the national economy.

So its not really about paying taxes, its about people who are unemployed? If someone is currently unemployed, then they shouldn't get to vote?

 

How about folks who are retired and are living off of cash? Should they be disenfranchised too?

 

This is what the Law of Unintended Consequences is all about. Or if you're from the Karl Rove school of "any voting practice that might benefit Democrats should be prosecuted as voter fraud," then on principle you should do anything to keep groups that are potentially liberal from voting....like disabled veterans....

Should we have a test that you have to pass before you get to register?

Do you realize that the average liberal is far more "politically educated" than the average conservative?

 

Yes to the first question. As to the second question, I would probably get an infraction for making this sweeping statement with no proof offered. What does ''politically educated '' mean?

Interestingly enough, correlating Intellectualism with hating Democracy/Capitalism is an article of faith among conservatives, and you've made references to it yourself from time to time!

 

There are lots of ways to define this, but here are a couple:

..........

Social Conservatism Level

...................

High....Med....Low

College Grad

........

18%....30%....52%

Some College

........

29%....28%....43%

High School

.........

33%....38%....29%

Source:

Pew Research, 2006

..........

Current Affairs Knowledge

.................

High....Med....Low

CNN

...............

40%....30%....29%

Fox News

..........

35%....30%....35%

Source:

Pew Research, 2008

...and according to a separate Pew study: "fully 51% of CNN's regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans....Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are Democrats..."

 

And of course there's the University of Maryland survey that found when asking questions concerning Iraq's possession of WMD in 2003, Saddam coordinating with or directing al Queda and aiding in the 9/11 attacks found that Fox viewers were "three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions. In the audience for NPR/PBS, however, there was an overwhelming majority who did not have any of the three misperceptions, and hardly any had all three."

 

You can quibble, there's lots of fuzzy, inconclusive data, but none of this is the point: the real point is that it is disenfranchisement by education. Jefferson wanted to solve this by ensuring that every American is educated enough to participate, and give suffrage to everyone. You want to disenfranchise huge chunks of the population based on a necessarily subjective "test."

 

While we're at it, why don't we bring back Poll Taxes?

I'm sure you are aware that McCain has fired a couple of lobbyists on his staff.

Impressive. Out of 160 lobbyists currently on his campaign payroll! Wow! He's really cracking down!

So you're all for abridging the First Amendment simply because a person happens to have the funds to speak out? Are you aware that that's the exact opposite of "strict constructionism" and is associated with "judicial activism" that's usually associated with the "looney left?

Where have I called for abridgement of free speech? Each candidate would get equal face time.

Again you seem to be unfamiliar with the popular conservative argument: if I have my own money that I want to spend on promoting the candidate of my choice, passing a law saying that I cannot do this is an infringement of my right to free speech!

 

It is a horrible infringement if the Walton family makes a board decision to spend Wal-Mart corporate profits on supporting candidates who will increase their profits...on the other hand its unconscionable to allow Unions to similarly spend money on candidates who will support labor laws...

 

Depending on who's in power, see how "fair" the restrictions on donations or independent spending might be?

'How are we ever going to have any change if some "mutually agreeably committee" appointed by the idiots who are currently in charge get to say who passes muster?'

What ''change'' are you looking for? Obama runs on this word, but no one has ever explained it.

There's no need to explain what "change" is, because the kinds of restrictions you advocate in this particular point are exactly those that ensure that there is never any change. If this were 1993, that "mutually agreeable committee" probably would have been packed with Clinton backers (by at least a one vote majority as virtually all House/Senate committees are set up), and you'd never see any change because they could effectively stack the deck for the future elections.

 

This is exactly what has happened in Iran where the Mullahs can basically keep all those who might be out of the party line from even being able to participate.

You are the one defending the status quo. If we continue as we are, we will have ever more expensive elections, ever more lobbying influence and ever more confusion in the minds of the voters.

Actually I am for many of the things that you're advocating here, including reasonable limits on funds spent, and full transparency of donations (i.e. if you spend money to promote a cause, your name and the amount of money you're spending has to be public information).

 

The only interesting thing to me is that so many of these ideas are loudly denounced by conservatives....except where--like McCain--they can hypocritically take advantage of them....

 

I'm just really glad to see that you've seen the light and have become such a progressive! Congratulations! :eek2:

 

One who, professing virtues that he does not respect, secures the advantage of seeming to be what he depises, :naughty:

Buffy

[questor]

If I were to deny suffage it would be to felons serving time and those who could not answer a few simple questions: not an essay, not questions with

subjective answers, just a few questions showing the individual is aware of what they are voting for.

You said: ''Interestingly enough, correlating Intellectualism with hating Democracy/Capitalism is an article of faith among conservatives, and you've made references to it yourself from time to time!'' This is hogwash in my opinion. I don't know any conservative who hates democracy, I know many who criticise the way it is performed by our leaders. I know of no one who hates capitalism except progressives (liberals)who are never pleased with any system that doesn't offer them something for nothing.

You said: ''...and according to a separate Pew study: "fully 51% of CNN's regular viewers are Democrats while only 18% are Republicans....Currently, 39% of regular Fox News viewers are Republicans while 33% are Democrats..."

What data do you have showing that watching CNN has anything to do with intelligence? Or that being a liberal has anything to do with intelligence?

You said: ''You can quibble, there's lots of fuzzy, inconclusive data, but none of this is the point: the real point is that it is disenfranchisement by education. Jefferson wanted to solve this by ensuring that every American is educated enough to participate, and give suffrage to everyone. You want to disenfranchise huge chunks of the population based on a necessarily subjective "test."

Can you imagine a few simple questions that are NOT suggestive? Such as,

''What type election is this?'', or ''Do you know the names of the candidates?''

You said: ''While we're at it, why don't we bring back Poll Taxes?'' YES!

That is what the $1. per voter is for. 112 million people voted in the last election. This money would be divided among the candidates for the following election. This would help end the horrendous cost of presidential elections plus the quid pro quo expectations of large donors.

Election cost: $4 billion and climbing - Politics - MSNBC.com

Do not count me in the progressive movement, because as I understand it,

that calls for more government regulation and less emphasis on personal responsibility. Larger personal and corporate taxes. A more punitive environment for businesses, leading to more offshore movement and out sourcing of jobs. Evening the playing field by never offering constructive criticism to those who need it most and dumbing down America with our dysfunctional education system slanted to the non achievers.

[Doctordick]

This morning I woke up thinking and couldn't go back to sleep so I got up and looked at hypography.com. Having no responses to my latest posts, I looked around a little and found this thread. Thought I might make a post. I will say it is worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

Years ago, I used to worry about government and how it should be run (I think all kids do once they get a little education). It seemed that there were advantages and disadvantages to every type of government man (and/or woman) has ever come up with. I used to chew out the prospects in my mind all the time. And then one day it dawned on me. There exists but one kind and only one kind of government. The system permeates all organizations; all the way from families, clubs, businesses, universities, nations and even religions. What one must first realize is that government means to govern: i.e., to control the actions of others. As such, government is inevitable; if you didn't have one, someone down the street would decide that there was a need for him to govern you and you would have a government.

 

So, it is the power to control people which is the essence of government and people have the power because there exist people who will support them who have power. That's it; the whole megillah. On the small scale, as in a family or small club, individuals have the power to control themselves and they support the people in charge. On a large scale, it is just a pyramid of power: each level has power because the people who support them have power. When that exact structure is not evident in the defined structure of a government, that government is a sham and the real power structure is behind the scenes.

 

So I say, everyone should do what they think is the right thing to do; but don't expect it to turn out the way you thought it would. The most dangerous man in the world is the guy who thinks he knows what ought to be done.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

PS Hi Buffy, I was glad to see you back.

[questor]

Dr. Dick, you are correct. The art of politics is the art of having others do what you want them to, frequently against their will and against the urges of human nature. Modern politics is blatant in this regard and is mainly directed

to enriching the politician--especially since the punishment is so trivial.

[Michaelangelica]

So, it is the power to control people which is the essence of government and people have the power because there exist people who will support them who have power. That's it; the whole megillah.

So its all about the chicken yard pecking order?

[Thunderbird]

So its all about the chicken yard pecking order?

Just seems so. You really want to effect long term change , change the way people think on a deep level. write a best seller book or an article about relevant issues that resonant truth to people., or effect change on the grass roots level that filter up to the top.

Actually Political leaders by their very nature are followers of trends that bubble up from the people's collective ethos. Real power is and has always been in the hands of the people of a democracy. Politicians come and go the collective evolves over time. A 'leader' is only that because he or she temporaly taps that, and can only be effected in the short term though manipulation of that stream of information. Truth is very consistent however, it builds up at the ground level in a democracy and finds its way into the collective. Some are just slower than others.

 

However...

"Personally, I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions of society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism, we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level--there's little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until the major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy."

 

Noam Chomsky

 

[Doctordick]

So its all about the chicken yard pecking order?

To a great extent, you are right. :lol: :lol: :lol: I am sure you are aware of that joke response to "is there intelligent life in other places in the universe": "first show me there is intelligent life on earth!"

 

Someone I was reading not too long ago displayed two graphs. One was a graph of the population of yeast as a function of time. The population was quite constant until sugar was added to the mix; at that point the population began to grow at an exponential rate up to a peak and then fell off to zero along a similar path. Of course that was the creation of alcohol (something we do because we like alcohol). :)

 

The second was a graph of the human population of the earth. The population was not exactly constant but growth was certainly quite slow until petroleum was added to the mix; at that point the population began to grow at an exponential rate clearly similar to the growth of those yeast. He asked, “are humans actually smarter than yeast?” When I saw it I had a slightly different question, “exactly what is it that god is after?”

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Thunderbird]

When I saw it I had a slightly different question, “exactly what is it that god is after?” :)

 

Have fun -- Dick

I've ask that same question. What is the function of higher thinking animals that do not seem to fit into the food chain ? Maybe we are just food for the Gods, and they have an apatite for our memory? Brrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnsssss !!!!!