Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[drogulus]

     My prediction based on current conditions is Obama will be reelected by approximately the same margin as 2008. It isn't the quality of the candidate any more, it's the quality of the party that will be the issue, though it will not be framed that way by the handicappers, who will blame Romney. But that would be looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Romney's badness is a symptom of the dilemma of running as a 2012 Republican. He is in many ways the pure expression of a party that no longer exists, the old moderate Republican Party of Eisenhower, Ford, Nixon and Bush the Elder. Even Reagan worked comfortably with the moderates and they appreciated that, lip service to the fetus lobby aside, The Gipper was often quite flexible and not as dogmatic in practice as his rhetoric would indicate.

     This is the party that Romney belongs to, but it no longer exists. No wonder he acts like a robot having a nervous breakdown. Someone should hit him with an oxygen tank and put us all out of our misery.

     

     

[mc ukrneal]

May I ask you to list five subjects you taught yourself to proficiency starting from scratch?

I'm not the one you asked, but:
Opera
Other Classical music
Jazz
Excel
How to use the GMG Forum! 

Seriously, it is relatively easy to learn how to use tools - excel, spatula, needle and thread, ladle, etc. It is relatively hard to become proficient with them without some sort of either classroom and/or hands-on teaching/experience (unless the person is a natural, as they say). The classroom stuff helps speed things along (if done correctly) and build a stronger foundation in the subject.

[Florestan]

Opera
Other Classical music
Jazz

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you proficiently self-taught in singing operatic arias or playing piano sonatas and jazz standards?

Excel
How to use the GMG Forum! 

Seriously, it is relatively easy to learn how to use tools - excel, spatula, needle and thread, ladle, etc. It is relatively hard to become proficient with them without some sort of either classroom and/or hands-on teaching/experience (unless the person is a natural, as they say). The classroom stuff helps speed things along (if done correctly) and build a stronger foundation in the subject.

I agree.

[mc ukrneal]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you proficiently self-taught in singing operatic arias or playing piano sonatas and jazz standards?

History of opera is probably more accurate. In Jazz, I played and studied. As to classical, I am self taught as to the music, the history, and most theory (though I must admit to some classes in my youth and I did play classical music as well, so even this is not entirely accurate). Really, the first four were necessary to get to the GMG joke. 

[Florestan]

History of opera is probably more accurate. In Jazz, I played and studied. As to classical, I am self taught as to the music, the history, and most theory (though I must admit to some classes in my youth and I did play classical music as well, so even this is not entirely accurate). Really, the first four were necessary to get to the GMG joke. 

Thanks for clarifying.

Ok, I agree that an adult (i.e. someone who has already had some degree of formal education), if really interested in a subject, can aquire a fairly good knowledge by self teaching (though I'm not sure this is the case when it comes to singing or playing an instrument) but this certainly does not apply to children and teenagers and they really need classes and teachers. Otherwise why not abolish schools altogether and let everyone teach himself what he likes? (This is a question for Greg, not for you. )

[mc ukrneal]

(This is a question for Greg, not for you. )

Uh oh. I got in trouble...

[Florestan]

Uh oh. I got in trouble...

[ibanezmonster]

This may or may not be the case for eight year olds.

For eight year olds, I'd hardly imagine it to be the case for most of them. 

That's exactly why they need classes and teachers, especially when they are very young, as Todd correctly pointed out.

When you're young, it's different- I meant when you get older.

May I ask you to list five subjects you taught yourself to proficiency starting from scratch?

Oh, if I didn't have to work, I could easily list five things with all of the time I'd have.

Music- composing and guitar. I was able to learn so quickly only because I had: time + resources.

Languages- haven't mastered Spanish and Japanese yet because I have no time for them, but will master one day. Although I did take classes of both in high school, that was just beginner stuff which I didn't need to study for, and got As all the way through. Foreign language classes have such a slow pace... if I actually had time to master the languages, it would be at a fraction of the time spent doing the same thing in a classroom. But... one thing I'd have to eventually do at the final level is to get used to speaking it, by moving or something. Right now, I'm just reading any text I can, although the only thing I tend to avoid is old Japanese literature, because the dictionaries usually aren't sufficient for old words.

Computer Programming- even though I've taken so many classes, I could have taught myself this as well. In fact, I have taught myself more advanced programming, doing databases/SQL, server systems, advanced Java, etc. and have built a few cool programs with this. All you need are good books and internet resources and you're on your way.

I used to try to draw, and had progress, but no time to master it. Drawing/art is something one can master by themselves (many have).


EDIT: oh, and I should mention, that I learn math much better when I'm teaching myself. Hopefully, there will be online math classes next semester. Sitting in a room and listening to someone talk is exactly what makes it difficult.

[Karl Henning]

 Quote from: mc ukrneal on Today at 08:02:16 AM

Uh oh. I got in trouble...

 
Ah, something new to be added to Your Permanent Record! ; )

[snyprrr]

Watching Obama at AIPAC!!!

No 'leader' can serve two masters

'when the chips are down, I have Israel's back'


Why is Israel the ONLY thing that seems to matter???


Wow, just look at him bask.



The next president is the one who prostrates themselves the MOST to Israel. They are ALL falling over themselves to declare their undying support for 2% of the American population. Sorry, this is not kosher. This is NOT American!!!!

Israel is a racist, apartheid proto-theocracy with nukes.

Did I mention they have nukes? That we don't allow that? That NO ONE says it?

Israel will not last indefinitely like this. Yea, their economy is a miracle all right.


Basically, Obama is saying that he will be oh most so glad to let the goyim die for Israel in Iran and Syria and wherever we need to make the world safe for compound interest.


How many countries has Iran invaded since 1979?

How many suicide bombers were Iranian?



SHUT UP BARRY!!!



RANT: off

[DieNacht]

Is Santorum being addressed in the US media for his recent remarks on the Dutch health care system (that old people must wear arm strips saying "Don´t Kill Me", since the ("socialist") system have no respect for their lives if they are being hospitalized, and that 10 % of the Dutch are being killed by that system for "compassion reasons" ?  These remarks are being reported and illustrated with sound clips here, accompanied by the anxious "oh", "oh, no !" among his listeners.

(versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands)

[drogulus]

     

Israel is a racist, apartheid proto-theocracy with nukes.

      Yes, in approximately the same way we are. You have to take the bad with the good, I suppose, unless you would prefer to cozy up to the Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians without the Israeli friendship. Would that make more sense? I don't think so, because Israel is a modern democratic state, and strange as it may seem the only way that Palestinians are going to get the kind of political rights that most of us want for them is if they start to want them for themselves. They have to want a Palestinian state even more than they want to destroy the Israeli state. When that happens the pressure on Israel to make the first real deal for peace will be enormous, coming from both within and from the U.S. There will also be pressure from the rest of the world, but since that has always been in the form of "why don't you cut your own throat to prove you aren't Nazis" it hasn't had the effect friends of the Palestinians hoped for.  Can you understand why?

[ibanezmonster]

Israel isn't going to blow up countries any time soon with their nukes. But who could trust Iran?

[eyeresist]

My prediction based on current conditions is Obama will be reelected by approximately the same margin as 2008. It isn't the quality of the candidate any more, it's the quality of the party that will be the issue, though it will not be framed that way by the handicappers, who will blame Romney.

Yes, in a competition between mediocrity and lunacy, most will choose the former

lip service to the fetus lobby

LOL!!!!

[Todd]

But who could trust Iran?

I suppose it depends on how one views the Iranian leadership.  If one thinks they are crazies prone to engaging in nuclear war or wantonly selling nuclear technology, then I suppose one can't "trust" them.  If, however, one views Iranian leadership (meaning the Ayatollahs) as well-educated, sophisticated, cynical, and brutal politicians, then one can surmise the Iranians may be seeking nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent against future unilateral actions by the United States in the region, and as a bargaining chip for dealings with Arab countries, which are prone to an anti-Iranian outlook.  Such an outlook would also lead one to conclude that Iran would be unlikely to use a nuclear weapon since doing so would invite a large-scale military confrontation with the United States, and one that Iran could not possibly win or come away from without serious damage.  In that regard, one might be able to trust the Iranians in so far as they are rational actors making rational choices to enhance their power in the region and secure their interests.  It is certainly not in the best interest of the US or nations directly dependent on Middle Eastern oil for Iran to have nuclear weapons, though.

Basically, Obama is saying that he will be oh most so glad to let the goyim die for Israel in Iran and Syria and wherever we need to make the world safe for compound interest.

And here I thought that the primary strategic interest in the Middle East was oil, and an overriding concern of the US since the Eisenhower Administration has been to prevent any other nation from being able to exercise any degree of hegemony in the region, which would have significant to dire consequences for the rest of the world, or at least those parts of the world that rely heavily on oil.  No, your claptrap makes much more sense.

[snyprrr]

But who could trust Iran?

Again, Iran hasn't invaded ANYBODY since 1979. US and Israel, however...

just sayin'

[Karl Henning]

Heck, North Korea's never invaded anybody. They must therefore be trustworthy . . . .

[Todd]

They must therefore be trustworthy . . . .[/font]

Indeed.  The same could be said about Syria.  Or Sudan.  Or Zimbabwe.  And technically, China hasn't invaded anyone recently.  Complaints by Tibetans and Uighers therefore have no merit. 

I am curious to know if snyprrr thinks the Israeli bombing of the Syrian nuclear reactor a few years ago was a bad idea.  Surely things would be better today were Syria a nuclear power.

[Gurn Blanston]

Is Santorum being addressed in the US media for his recent remarks on the Dutch health care system (that old people must wear arm strips saying "Don´t Kill Me", since the ("socialist") system have no respect for their lives if they are being hospitalized, and that 10 % of the Dutch are being killed by that system for "compassion reasons" ?  These remarks are being reported and illustrated with sound clips here, accompanied by the anxious "oh", "oh, no !" among his listeners.

(versus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands)

To the best of my knowledge, no one but a crackpot minority believes anything Santorum has to say. He is a wing-nut (in this case, a Right wing-nut) and has no credibility in the eyes of the majority of actual Republicans. When the shakeout comes (fairly shortly), he will go with the rest of the dandruff. So I wouldn't be unduly concerned about his opinion of the Netherlander health care system. If he were to actually become president, I would personally be delighted to become one of your citizens and partake of it.

[Todd]

To the best of my knowledge, no one but a crackpot minority believes anything Santorum has to say.

Alas, there are quite a few social conservatives who do believe him.  Not enough to get him the nomination, let alone the presidency.  I can only imagine joy in the Obama camp were Santorum to get the nomination.