Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Apparently at 60+ one can't read the following sentence and process the logic of it.
"Also given what life expectancy was back at that time and what it is now, I would argue that those numbers would be even higher if the Constitution were to be drafted today."
Life Exp 1789 - about 50? hold federal office at half of that.
Life Exp 2008 - about 80? half of that is 40ish.
|
And apparently at whatevertherhell age you are, you can't comprehend that the damn age requirement to be a House Rep
HASN'T freaking changed since 1789. It's 25 years old as of right
now, Nevada. April 3, 2008! If anybody was stoopid enough to agree with you, and they sureashell haven't, then the minimum age
now in 2008 would be 40ish. They would have changed it. Or maybe even brought up the idea of raising the minimum age. Nobody has that I've ever heard of. That would tell a normal person something right there, methinks.
Your logic makes as much sense as your original dumb hypothesis.
Thu Apr 03, 2008, 06:04pm
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
