She is going to leave this world just like me, without a damn penny
OT - McConnell
- Thread starter DaboSits2PeePee
- Start date
I'm sorry, but this sentence just made me laugh. I've seen double negatives used, but this could be the first triple.
Yes, it is about age. We all have our own anecdotal evidence about people we know. But the bottom line is, science has demonstrated soundly that cognitive decline hits around 70 and progresses for most people. Cognitive decline doesn’t mean you’re unable to function, but there are scarcely few octogenarians who are cognitively as functional as they were in their 30s 40s or 50s. Again, if it makes sense to have a minimum age because of cognitive development, the same logic should follow for cognitive decline.
LOL. Well, English was not my strong suit. Economics was. The only non-A or B I made in college and graduate school was my freshman English class. I would refer to that English professor as a "b_ _ ch". But, I know I deserved the "C", and maybe worse.
Kennedy was alive when Pelosi took office. I was not, yet.
I remember a Billy Graham sermon where he mentioned being at JD Rockefeller's funeral and overhearing two ladies talking and one asks, "I wonder how much he left behind" and Graham said he whispered to them "everything".
Yes, there are people who live on this Earth thinking they are better than this, that or other people, looking down and even hating those people. But as a preacher said at a funeral I attended two years ago preached: "When we die, we all are going to be equal".
I agree. As I said above, 70 should be mandatory retirement age for ALL occupations.
I know of many companies like Boeing, Northrup Gruman, and many software technology firms who found out they can't survive without the 65+ age group employees and have called them back from retirement to save their butts from knowledge evacuation due to mandatory retirement. Thinking they could replace old experience and wisdom with youthful intelligence didn't work out so well for them.
Mind you, this doesn't apply to mentally challenged, money grabbing politicians who are easily replaced.
Dems want McConnell to stay as long as possible because he's working for them and for himself.
The examples you give are simply piss-poor planning by the companies. Bringing back retired personnel on a temporary, part-time basis for consultation purposes is one thing. Bringing them back for day-to-day work 40+ hours per week, is entirely different.
Poor planning or not - it's happening. And many have now raised their mandatory retirement age or eliminated it all together. Several specific cases I know of thought promoting through the ranks would work but are finding the replacements are not as dedicated, reliable or have the problem-solving skills needed and don't really want to do what it takes to learn.
While I agree, there's a small voice in the back of my head asking what type of choice do you really have?
The party decides who runs, who gets the support (money), who is smeared. Meaning, I wonder if the choice is more of an illusion than people think.
Therein lies the real issue. I'm apolitical because I genuinely am disgusted by the majority of what I see from the major parties and their candidates.
I'm reminded when Mark Sanford was elected to the house. He campaigned on supporting term limits. Then he gets to Washington and the weasel changes his mind saying that's not how the system works and you have to develop seniority. I wish he was the only one who would go back on his word but we are talking politicians. My hope of electing enough honest politicians that will make it happen are slim and none.
Incumbency is such a powerful thing.
Primary level is where change is made and if the party is against them, you should probably be supporting them.
Or at the very least taking a close look.
Those old-timers can't beat death. They will be gone for good sooner or later and will be replaced by a younger group. That is unavoidable. Those companies better start improving their hiring practices because 70+ year-olds simply do not have the stamina nor the productivity capacity that they had 40-50 years ago. Yes, there are exceptions. but not generally. So, yes, I believe there should be a mandatory retirement age for ALL occupations. I just hope I don't hold stock in companies that are doing piss-poor planning and hiring.
Forcing productive older employees to retire at a certain age doesn't make sense, as they may be your best employees. Obviously, death is a show-stopper but we have no control, unlike mandatory retirement policies.
I couldn't agree more and have said so for years. Our Founding Fathers were thoughtful to the point of genius, but they could not have envisioned open-ended incumbency anymore than they could have envisioned the atom bomb. None of our self-styled geniuses of today will look all-knowing in 300 years, either. I would say they will look much less so than the great Americans of 1787 and following.
I guess when life expectancy is 45 or 50 or whatever it was in 1776 I don’t think senility or dementia was ever an issue
Really was a unique and rare collection of intelligence
A lot of things could take a person out. But a lot of things hadn't come along yet that have taken many people out since. Franklin (84 at his death), Jefferson (85), Madison (85), John Adams (90) - these men were both high functioning AND durable.
We also recognize that hindsight is 20-20 - but you have to be old enough to have actually gained some hindsight. I doubt the founding fathers understood the science of cognitive development, but they probably intuitively understood the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Attaining the age of 35 doesn't guarantee that somebody has wisdom, but they have at least had the opportunity to gain some.
Yeah. They surely did not understand the science as that was unknown, but they were all smarter than anyone around today. They were geniuses. They were schooled in the fine arts, languages, science, mathematics. Even though they did not know the science behind cognitive decline, I believe they realized there was some sort of essential development that took place through the 20s.
Last edited:
I guess I would say it's up to individual companies to decide, based on the nature of the work.
But there's a reason commercial airlines cannot employ pilots past the age of 65. Air traffic controllers is 60. Many of the Fortune 1500 companies have a mandatory retirement age for CEOs of 65. Many states have mandatory retirement for judges at 70. Doesn't matter if you're still highly cognitively functioning. They realize a need for flat cutoff.
These are professions where you need clear, quick decision-making ability. For the vast majority of people, your brain simply does not operate as well at 75 as it did at 55, even if you're still an active and fully functioning normal individual.
He and Feinstein are way past their expiration date but we South Carolina folks had old Strom and he was worse then these two. Strom was so out of it he had to have an aide stand beside him to tell him what to do. We got 2 possible candidates for President who ought to be put out to pasture.
Yeah, Strom went way past his expiration date. He served 48 years. So far McConnell is at 38, I think, so he has a way to go to catch up to that. There are few a few others currently in office who are at 40 or 41 years, so that's getting into Strom territory.
I am also a Republican and these "frozen" moments are really sad. He really needs to go home and get help. I clearly recall when Sen. Thurmond had no clue where he was the last 10-15 years of his life.
I have a mixed reaction. When I first saw the video, I felt bad for him. But these people, like him and Feinstein, are addicted to power. They are there of their own accord.
As my wife always says, why isn't Pelosi at home baking cookies with her grandkids and living what's left of her life?