Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WE NEED TERM LIMITS. that is all. how many of these people has made a CAREER of sucking a living off us taxpayers? where half of them are now so OLD we will have to wheel them out on a gawddamn gurney with them giving them heart massages
WE NEED TERM LIMITS. that is all. how many of these people has made a CAREER of sucking a living off us taxpayers? where half of them are now so OLD we will have to wheel them out on a gawddamn gurney with them giving them heart massages
^Remember what you and I were discussing in the other thread about language skills? It's amazing/amusing to me how many posters here claim to be mature adults with decades of experience in...whatever...and yet they automatically dismiss any public figure over age 60 as "old," the implication being that there's a one-size-fits-all category that everyone falls into on their 59th birthday.
Makes you wonder what they're actually saying about themselves, not the people they're talking about.
Poke them with Reagan's age or Trump's (they're obviously fooled by the hairpiece and the bronzer, because they don't realize he's in the same category they dismiss if it's anyone they don't like) and they get very upset.
Senator Graham announced today that he's ending his bid for the Presidency. Sorry to see him go for he is one of the Republicans for whom I have a good deal of respect and whom I think injected some good sense into the race. I cannot say I agree with all his policy preferences, but I can say that the idea of his being president doesn't give me pause.
Does this mean he is out of Senate too? hoping.......
Does this mean he is out of Senate too? hoping.......
^Remember what you and I were discussing in the other thread about language skills? It's amazing/amusing to me how many posters here claim to be mature adults with decades of experience in...whatever...and yet they automatically dismiss any public figure over age 60 as "old," the implication being that there's a one-size-fits-all category that everyone falls into on their 59th birthday.
Makes you wonder what they're actually saying about themselves, not the people they're talking about.
Poke them with Reagan's age or Trump's (they're obviously fooled by the hairpiece and the bronzer, because they don't realize he's in the same category they dismiss if it's anyone they don't like) and they get very upset.
Certainly in industries that predominantly are comprised of partnerships, and particularly those that have "up or out" (at least to the point of becoming a partner/principal) approaches to career development, mandatory retirement is a relatively common practice. It's not universal, but it's plenty common enough.
I'm not going to here go into the details of mandatory partner retirement in partnerships. I'll just say that I see pros and cons for it.
- Mandatory partner retirement and succession planning is a hot issue
- Mandatory Partner Retirement Becomes an Issue at Firms
- It’s Time to Retire Retirement
- Retirement Policies Still Driving Out Star Attorneys - Law360
As the idea of older folks working, I don't have a problem with it regarding many jobs. It's just that the job of President isn't one that I think is ideally held by folks 70 and older. Of course there are exceptional individuals for whom it's not an issue, and Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton may be among them. As I intimated before, only time will tell. I believe that for voters it's a matter of the extent to which they are willing to gamble on any one of those individual's being an exception.
Senator Graham announced today that he's ending his bid for the Presidency. Sorry to see him go for he is one of the Republicans for whom I have a good deal of respect and whom I think injected some good sense into the race. I cannot say I agree with all his policy preferences, but I can say that the idea of his being president doesn't give me pause.
what did he say that you thought was "good sense"?
^Remember what you and I were discussing in the other thread about language skills? It's amazing/amusing to me how many posters here claim to be mature adults with decades of experience in...whatever...and yet they automatically dismiss any public figure over age 60 as "old," the implication being that there's a one-size-fits-all category that everyone falls into on their 59th birthday.
Makes you wonder what they're actually saying about themselves, not the people they're talking about.
Poke them with Reagan's age or Trump's (they're obviously fooled by the hairpiece and the bronzer, because they don't realize he's in the same category they dismiss if it's anyone they don't like) and they get very upset.
Certainly in industries that predominantly are comprised of partnerships, and particularly those that have "up or out" (at least to the point of becoming a partner/principal) approaches to career development, mandatory retirement is a relatively common practice. It's not universal, but it's plenty common enough.
I'm not going to here go into the details of mandatory partner retirement in partnerships. I'll just say that I see pros and cons for it.
- Mandatory partner retirement and succession planning is a hot issue
- Mandatory Partner Retirement Becomes an Issue at Firms
- It’s Time to Retire Retirement
- Retirement Policies Still Driving Out Star Attorneys - Law360
As the idea of older folks working, I don't have a problem with it regarding many jobs. It's just that the job of President isn't one that I think is ideally held by folks 70 and older. Of course there are exceptional individuals for whom it's not an issue, and Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clinton may be among them. As I intimated before, only time will tell. I believe that for voters it's a matter of the extent to which they are willing to gamble on any one of those individual's being an exception.
Medical knowledge and technology have advanced considerably since 1980, and I'd assume any physical examination prior to assuming the office these days would include a battery of cognitive functioning tests.
Whereas I may not agree with Mr. Graham's choices, I trust that he would not have led the country on a "one way journey," so to speak, from which there is no return
Whereas I may not agree with Mr. Graham's choices, I trust that he would not have led the country on a "one way journey," so to speak, from which there is no return
Graham was an idiot. He was proposing at the debate that we send 10k troops into SYRIA! ...For WHAT? So that we can help radical Muslims defeat ISIS?
When you have your two biggest enemies fighting each other, you don't jump in the middle of it!
...There is NO indication that a person loses mental faculties as they get older. Some may, others don't. People are all different. To suggest that people just turn into jello-brains at age 70 is ludicrous. And it doesn't have anything to do with medical technology.
There isn't some required physical exam administered before assuming the office of President! The requirement is 270 electoral votes and it doesn't matter what sort of mental faculties that person has. If they are unable to carry out their duties, the Congress can move to have them removed from office and there is a procedure for that. It's never been done, but it can be. There have been times when the president was incapacitated for a long period and the VP assumed the administrative powers for a while, and they still didn't remove the president. I'm thinking that was the case for McKinley after he was shot..or maybe it was Garfield... one of them was in a comma for a while.
This nonsense about Reagan suffering from dementia in his later days of his presidency is pure bullshit perpetrated by people who hated Reagan and have been trying to destroy his reputation ever since. He contracted Alzheimer's AFTER he was president and withdrew from public appearances. They take that little tid-bit of information and spin it into this unrealistic meme that he was suffering from dementia. It's just pure left-wing insanity.
There is NO indication that a person loses mental faculties as they get older. Some may, others don't. People are all different. To suggest that people just turn into jello-brains at age 70 is ludicrous.
There is NO indication that a person loses mental faculties as they get older. Some may, others don't. People are all different. To suggest that people just turn into jello-brains at age 70 is ludicrous.
Which is exactly what I said.
You might direct your righteous anger at the emotional 12-year-olds on this board who subscribe to that mindset...except for Trump, of course.
Whereas I may not agree with Mr. Graham's choices, I trust that he would not have led the country on a "one way journey," so to speak, from which there is no return
Graham was an idiot. He was proposing at the debate that we send 10k troops into SYRIA! ...For WHAT? So that we can help radical Muslims defeat ISIS?
When you have your two biggest enemies fighting each other, you don't jump in the middle of it!
Does the U.S. truly have two enemies, to say nothing of two big ones? Syria may not be an ally, but that hardly makes them an enemy per se. Aside from ISIS/ISIL being "all up in their nation," what threat do Syrians really pose to the U.S? Seems to me the biggest threat associated with Syria is that of the chaos that nation has become opening the door to ISIS/ISIL's gaining a stronger and larger territorial hold.
The point of sending troops to Syria or to any extent using our armed forces there has not to do with Syria and Assad. It has to do with ISIS/ISIL, and the proof that it does is seen in the Syrian armed forces being unable to literally dispense with ISIS/ISIL as we did with Iraq's force in both our wars there. Syrian forces, quite simply are incapable of dealing decisively with the threats that face them.
The matter of what the U.S., indeed the rest of the world, should do about Syria's civil war that is happening concurrently with ISIS/ISIL undertaking a "land grab" there is one of doing what one can to ensure that the lesser of two evils prevails. For whatever one may think of Syria and it's political regime, one cannot deny that the Syria we've known and disliked for years is nonetheless a better "world citizen" than would be ISIS/ISIL and Islamic State were it to overcome the Assad regime.