Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TomGuy

43 back then was about life expectancy - making it the equivalent of 75 today.

Yes, by the standards of their times, they were old.


160 posted on 02/11/2012 8:27:02 AM PST by C. Edmund Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: C. Edmund Wright

Both ought to stay in, and both ought to ignore the he** out of Romney and just take the fight to Obama — We need them in the fight NOW against him, not only on the campaign, but just by keeping pressure on him in general.

Make Romney come in third, fourth — make HIM drop.


163 posted on 02/11/2012 8:29:56 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Yeah, the whole age thing is entirely irrelevant as people live much longer now.

Remember Reagan in 1980 was 70 years old and one of the single greatest issues in that campaign was his age and how he would be the oldest President ever elected.

Today Newt is 68 and Hillary if she ever ran would be about 70. Ron Paul is 75. Age just isn’t an issue anymore.


168 posted on 02/11/2012 8:34:50 AM PST by SteveAustin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Wow,,,how do you explain Ben Franklin then?


190 posted on 02/11/2012 8:53:43 AM PST by Craftmore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: C. Edmund Wright

Exactly.


334 posted on 02/11/2012 11:37:03 AM PST by UKrepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson