Thyroid Checked during Rectal Exam
CHRIS!!!!!!! It only gets better. The DQ only gets better.
For those of you that haven't read, this is what my idiot teacher posted as a
DQ 2: Consider the following hypothetical syllogism and comment on its validity. This isn't a question that needs to go into political discussions because those aren't the point of the post. Before I give you the syllogism, I have to set it up with facts.
Fact 1:
Ex-president Jimmy Carter made many attempts to help establish peace during his term as president of the United States. He has continued with those efforts even after leaving office. His most notable efforts included his activities in the following countries:
Iran
North Korea
The Middle East
Haiti
The results of those activities were:
1 - In Iran he removed the Shah and opened the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini and his regime of terror and oppression and the genesis of radical Islamic fundamentalism.
2 - In 1995 in North Korea he intervened, against Bill Clinton's wishes, and brokered a deal with Kim Il-Sung that was supposed to neutralize their nuclear program. As we have subsequently learned, the North Koreans almost immediately violated the terms of the deal and began their nuclear program.
3 - His Middle East success was getting Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to shake hands and this agreement between the two parties was supposed to usher in peace in the Middle East. Sadat was subsequently assassinated.
4 - In Haiti, Carter backed the wrong man and tried to keep Aristide from running for president, saying he had no chance of winning. Aristide did win by 67%. Our troops were then sent in to shore up the troops who had been terrorizing the people only days earlier under the former regime. When our troops arrived, Carter said that "our troops are working with full cooperation with the Haitian military". This is the same military he had described days earlier as "armed thugs" who have conducted a reign of terror, executing children, raping women and killing priests.
With that record of "good intentions and efforts" the Nobel committee awarded Jimmy Carter with the Nobel Peace Prize in January, 2003, and said the following: "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
Fact 2:
Now, let’s move on to Ronald Reagan. He took office in 1981. Do you remember what the world looked like back then?
1 - The American economy was so bad it was affecting the entire world.
2 - The Soviet Union was building up their military at an alarming rate and millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe suffered under the Soviet yoke.
Russia had invaded Afghanistan
3 - In Africa, the former country of Rhodesia and its people fell into the horrors of Marxist tyranny
4 - Nicaragua was ruled by communist gangsters and El Salvador was headed in the same direction.
Ronald Reagan changed all this. When he left office after eight years,
1 - America's economy was again the envy and engine of the world. Inflation was down, employment was up and international trade was expanding. Income tax rates were reduced from 70% to 28% for the top tier.
2 - The Cold War with the Soviet Union, was "won" without a shot being fired and the first nuclear arms reduction treaty was signed.
3 - The Soviet Union finally collapsed, without a shot being fired, under George HW Bush's administration.
4 - Nicaragua and El Salvador were well on their way to ousting the communist gangsters
So, here is the logical syllogism.
Jimmy Carter had good intentions but none of his efforts ever led to peace, yet he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Ronald Reagan achieved real peace with his "Peace Through Strength" philosophy that led to the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a democratic government in Russia. He was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, nor was he nominated.
We can therefore conclude that actually achieving peace is not one of the criteria considered by the prize committee, they are more interested in intentions and methodology, as opposed to results when they choose their winner.
Post your response in the Main Classroom in the thread , Week 3, DQ 2 by Day 5, Monday. There is some really great stuff out there on this.
OKAY YOU GUYS. Yes. All of his Dq's are that illogical. But, my response. I decided not to shake the waters, bud.
ME: First, to say that this is a compete analogy between the two seems rather odd. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Carter on the basis of several things. His Panama Canal Treaties, the Camp David Accords, and the treaty with the Soviet Union, and others. So, to say that he never accomplished anything seems wrong to me. The argument for Reagan's successes seems off too. When Carter's facts were listed, they were done so in a more personal tone and were much more specific than the simple listing of world issues that had changed that fell under Reagan's time office. Simply put, things changed in 8 years. The facts that were listed tell me nothing about what Reagan himself did. They don't even really give me a good place to start researching. To search under his "Peace through Strength" campaign under Google brings up t-shirts and Navy warship sites. An hour more of searching doesn't yield much else. It would seem that to the people, at least based on the number of popular sites I was able to find for Jimmy Carter and his peace efforts, a search for peace is every bit as important as finding it.
And. Wait for it. Waaaait for it.
HIS RESPONSE:
Alisha
Do you want to know why Jimmy Carter really got the Nobel Peace Prize? He was awarded the prize as a slap in the face to George Bush. The committee chairman admitted that they awarded him the prize as a way of showing displeasure for Bush's foreign policy. No other reason was given. If Carter had any character he would have refused it after learning that, in my opinion.
Here's the excerpt:
"...... the implied criticism of Bush foreign policy was made unexpectedly explicit by the chairman of the Nobel Committee himself, Gunnar Berge.
He told reporters after the announcement in Oslo that the award, which will be formally presented in Oslo on Dec. 10, "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States", Berge said."
Here's just one site and the one from which the excerpt was taken: http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/opinion/op2002_1014_01.htm
LMAO!
For those of you that haven't read, this is what my idiot teacher posted as a
DQ 2: Consider the following hypothetical syllogism and comment on its validity. This isn't a question that needs to go into political discussions because those aren't the point of the post. Before I give you the syllogism, I have to set it up with facts.
Fact 1:
Ex-president Jimmy Carter made many attempts to help establish peace during his term as president of the United States. He has continued with those efforts even after leaving office. His most notable efforts included his activities in the following countries:
Iran
North Korea
The Middle East
Haiti
The results of those activities were:
1 - In Iran he removed the Shah and opened the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini and his regime of terror and oppression and the genesis of radical Islamic fundamentalism.
2 - In 1995 in North Korea he intervened, against Bill Clinton's wishes, and brokered a deal with Kim Il-Sung that was supposed to neutralize their nuclear program. As we have subsequently learned, the North Koreans almost immediately violated the terms of the deal and began their nuclear program.
3 - His Middle East success was getting Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat to shake hands and this agreement between the two parties was supposed to usher in peace in the Middle East. Sadat was subsequently assassinated.
4 - In Haiti, Carter backed the wrong man and tried to keep Aristide from running for president, saying he had no chance of winning. Aristide did win by 67%. Our troops were then sent in to shore up the troops who had been terrorizing the people only days earlier under the former regime. When our troops arrived, Carter said that "our troops are working with full cooperation with the Haitian military". This is the same military he had described days earlier as "armed thugs" who have conducted a reign of terror, executing children, raping women and killing priests.
With that record of "good intentions and efforts" the Nobel committee awarded Jimmy Carter with the Nobel Peace Prize in January, 2003, and said the following: "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development"
Fact 2:
Now, let’s move on to Ronald Reagan. He took office in 1981. Do you remember what the world looked like back then?
1 - The American economy was so bad it was affecting the entire world.
2 - The Soviet Union was building up their military at an alarming rate and millions of people in Central and Eastern Europe suffered under the Soviet yoke.
Russia had invaded Afghanistan
3 - In Africa, the former country of Rhodesia and its people fell into the horrors of Marxist tyranny
4 - Nicaragua was ruled by communist gangsters and El Salvador was headed in the same direction.
Ronald Reagan changed all this. When he left office after eight years,
1 - America's economy was again the envy and engine of the world. Inflation was down, employment was up and international trade was expanding. Income tax rates were reduced from 70% to 28% for the top tier.
2 - The Cold War with the Soviet Union, was "won" without a shot being fired and the first nuclear arms reduction treaty was signed.
3 - The Soviet Union finally collapsed, without a shot being fired, under George HW Bush's administration.
4 - Nicaragua and El Salvador were well on their way to ousting the communist gangsters
So, here is the logical syllogism.
Jimmy Carter had good intentions but none of his efforts ever led to peace, yet he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Ronald Reagan achieved real peace with his "Peace Through Strength" philosophy that led to the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the establishment of a democratic government in Russia. He was not awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, nor was he nominated.
We can therefore conclude that actually achieving peace is not one of the criteria considered by the prize committee, they are more interested in intentions and methodology, as opposed to results when they choose their winner.
Post your response in the Main Classroom in the thread , Week 3, DQ 2 by Day 5, Monday. There is some really great stuff out there on this.
OKAY YOU GUYS. Yes. All of his Dq's are that illogical. But, my response. I decided not to shake the waters, bud.
ME: First, to say that this is a compete analogy between the two seems rather odd. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Carter on the basis of several things. His Panama Canal Treaties, the Camp David Accords, and the treaty with the Soviet Union, and others. So, to say that he never accomplished anything seems wrong to me. The argument for Reagan's successes seems off too. When Carter's facts were listed, they were done so in a more personal tone and were much more specific than the simple listing of world issues that had changed that fell under Reagan's time office. Simply put, things changed in 8 years. The facts that were listed tell me nothing about what Reagan himself did. They don't even really give me a good place to start researching. To search under his "Peace through Strength" campaign under Google brings up t-shirts and Navy warship sites. An hour more of searching doesn't yield much else. It would seem that to the people, at least based on the number of popular sites I was able to find for Jimmy Carter and his peace efforts, a search for peace is every bit as important as finding it.
And. Wait for it. Waaaait for it.
HIS RESPONSE:
Alisha
Do you want to know why Jimmy Carter really got the Nobel Peace Prize? He was awarded the prize as a slap in the face to George Bush. The committee chairman admitted that they awarded him the prize as a way of showing displeasure for Bush's foreign policy. No other reason was given. If Carter had any character he would have refused it after learning that, in my opinion.
Here's the excerpt:
"...... the implied criticism of Bush foreign policy was made unexpectedly explicit by the chairman of the Nobel Committee himself, Gunnar Berge.
He told reporters after the announcement in Oslo that the award, which will be formally presented in Oslo on Dec. 10, "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken. It's a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States", Berge said."
Here's just one site and the one from which the excerpt was taken: http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/opinion/op2002_1014_01.htm
LMAO!