Chuck Grassley's old ass can't even read the paper his staffers wrote for him.
We need upper age limits on congress
- Thread starter murox
- Start date
The social liberal has now added ageism to his repertoire. I think he is as confused about what social liberalism is as he is about social justice.
Tier Three, your opinion after your last two failed attempts doesn't hold much weight anymore.
You are the exact opposite of "socially liberal" if you think blacks aren't targeted more than any other group by police; if you don't know what social justice is; if you think it is perfectly fine to call a black an ape; if you think discriminating based on age and gender is acceptable; if you think using gay slurs is fine.
Those arguments are between you and Rox. I was referring to the subject of the OP, that being age limits for public officials.
No, you've entered into this ageism issue. It is very common for some 85 year olds to be more mentally competent than some 65 year olds. You are supporting a system which goes against our democracy and wants to limit who our country can vote to represent them based on an arbitrary number. Do you not think constituents of an area have the ability to judge that? Do you always support bigger government and less freedom?
Lower age limits have long been upheld by the courts, even though there are some 16 and 17 year olds that are more competent and thoughtful than their of-age counterparts. What's the difference in imposing upper age limits?
In many cases, courts can override those age restrictions on individual cases (emancipation). An upper age limit doesn't allow that unless you're now advocating for a test that all people must take at a certain age. Good luck arguing that.
We do have one...it's called "the voters decide someone is too damn old to effectively represent them and votes for someone else".
That's bullsh*t, and you know it. Byrd and Thurmond were walking corpses, wholly incapable of coherent thought towards the end, and people were still voting them in.
You know, this post was mostly in jest because Grassley couldn't read the paper in front of him. But our resident $3000 t-shirt-wearing, white-knighting, virtue-signaling, flag football-coaching, music-producing, jet plane-riding, diamond-wearing altruist couldn't help himself. His inner SJW had to make an accusation of "ageism."
As that retard countryroads would say: LMAO!!!
As that retard countryroads would say: LMAO!!!
There is a reason most corporations require mandatory retirement by their CEOs at age 65...
Sorry, but you're going to need something to support that statement. Otherwise, this is nothing more than your opinion, based on, at best, anecdotal evidence.
I did notice you made certain to include the word "some" in that statement so you could easily backpedal out if/when someone challenged it.
Exactly. But yet Tier Three wants to change our democracy into being more big government and less freedom.
Wait: the guy who firmly believes only property owners (of real estate or slaves) should be able to vote, believes blacks aren't targeted more in any way by police than any other group, made a baffling error about what social justice is, doesn't think there is anything wrong with referring to blacks as simians was just joking about claiming there should be an age limit on Congressional members.
Yeah, sure.
You're trying too hard to appear intelligent.
Of course it is anecdotal evidence. I'm not aware of any studies that have researched the topic. It's pretty damn common sense.
Just like how Tier Three said there are commonly young teenagers smarter and more mature than older teenagers, there are commonly more competent 85 year olds than 65 year olds.
To debate that is simply being a moron.
Federal LEOs have a mandatory retirement age of 57. And before someone starts in about the "physical requirements of the job," even agency heads (aka desk jockeys) have to retire by 60 (the FBI has limited authority to extend until 65 in some cases). Don't know why elected officials can't be subject to the same limits.
I guess you agree with me that democracy can be messy and dangerous.
Hell, maybe people are more satisfied knowing their representative is clinically brain dead rather than just a moron.
Seriously though, at what age would we draw the line? Based on what clinical research? We know that "line" is different for everyone.
I read what the younger members of this forum write here. Age limit indeed. Only it needs increased.
Tier Three doesn't realize that this has as much (or more) to do with the escalating public employee pay scale than it does that a 58 year old isn't allegedly as competent, mentally, as a 50 year old.
What do you mean it has to do with the pay scale? It costs more to pay someone a pension to retire and hire a replacement than it would the higher wage the older employee would command.
Bet your ass a government actuary and economist has figured this out.
A certain MU economics professor once explained to us that, contrary to the general belief of what smoking illnesses cost Medicaid and Medicare, it was actually cheaper for the government for the smokers to get sick and die younger. Yay.
That's false. Many times, getting a person to retire and receive a pension instead of paying them a higher salary and allowing them to work years longer which would increase their pension even more amounts to less than paying a fresh-out-of-college employee.
Many agencies will even pay a substantial "bonus" to entice older employees to retire earlier than expected so that they can hire cheaper, younger employees exactly for economical reasons.
Hey, look! The towel boy, music producer, philanthropist, LSAT taker is also an expert on economics! Is there anything D3 can't do (besides get a real coaching job at a legit football program, that is)?
Also, keep in mind that term limits, regardless of age, would likely resolve most of this.
You don't have to be an expert in economics to have real-world experience to know this stuff. Are you denying that many agencies - from federal agencies to state economies/local school districts - routinely pay bonuses to get older, higher-salaried workers to retire earlier than they had planned in order for save money?
Oh, and lets discuss your claims compared to mine - you went to a substandard law school. You further prove that on a regular basis with your failed arguments on here. I, on the other hand, have coached at both multiple FBS schools and multiple FCS schools including teams that have finished ranked in the top 25 multiple times. I signed offer letter to be an FBS coordinator. My position units have a resume that lead to even morons like the fakin' Jamaican from posting on forums I am not a part of about their success. When you have options, you can pick-and-choose which jobs you accept or decline. When you can only get in substandard law schools, you don't have a choice other than to go tier three.
So, with all your celebrity connections, self-proclaimed intelligence, and mad coaching skills, you choose to coach at SW Oklahoma Community College?
Makes sense.
Does it not bother you that what I say about you is true, but what you say about me is entirely fabricated? Surely, at some point in tier three colleges, they teach you about debating, right?
My first choice is an FBS, in most situations. My second choice, if I take it, is an FCS (in certain situations). Both of those are akin to a tier 1. On the other hand, a tier three is comparable to a JUCO or D3. I've never coached at either.
On the other hand, you went to a tier three.
Well, lets think about it, Tier Three.
In football, there is FBS, FCS, D2, D3, and JUCO.
In law school rankings, there are tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 schools.
Many FCS schools are better than many FBS schools. Based on what the rankings means, no tier 2 schools are better than tier 1 schools.
So where would you suggest FCS schools go? Is it wise to put FBS schools in tier 1 with FCS schools in tier 2 even though plenty of FCS schools can crush plenty of FBS schools? No, that would make no sense, unless plenty of tier 2 schools are better than tier 1 schools, which we know isn't the case.
FBS/FCS = tier 1
D2 = tier 2
D3/JUCO = tier 3 (your stomping grounds)
This is yet another example of an argument from you which supports your tier three acceptance.
Similar threads
