The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread X

[Birdjaguar]

I need a 15th-century (c.1400-1520) Italian painting from the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City to analyze. Preferably one thats easy to analyze, any recommendations?

Put these in date order and then scroll though until you find one you like.

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_a...sort=1&sortdir=asc&keyword=&fp=1&dd1=11&dd2=0

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm doing a Government assignment on realigning elections, and I chose 1994.

What are some events that caused the Democrats to become disliked enough that Republicans were able to sweep the House?

I already have the Contract With America, and I need two other events that greatly influenced anti-Democrat sentiment enough to allow Newt and his gang to take over.

 

[Karalysia]

I'm doing a Government assignment on realigning elections, and I chose 1994.

What are some events that caused the Democrats to become disliked enough that Republicans were able to sweep the House?

I already have the Contract With America, and I need two other events that greatly influenced anti-Democrat sentiment enough to allow Newt and his gang to take over.

The problem was an degradation of the Democratic party institutions and machine. The Democrats had always been the majority party since almost FDR, when it came to the House and Senate. Thus the party apparatus had been neglected. There wasn't an effective headquarters, wings of the party like the Democratic Party of New York were so bankrupt they existed only in name and didn't have a office, the get out the vote, the volunteer, the grassroots were weak. There were issues with funding, and all sorts of problems.

The Republicans had been reforming their party institutions and apparatus, they had been focusing on the grassroots which the Democrats had been neglecting for some time.

It came as a shock to Clinton and the Democrats when the Republicans swept into office. They were sure that it wasn't a problem with the party though. They just needed to sell the message better to the people. They were wrong. And they were unable to reverse the gains the Republicans made.

Clinton realized too late, and he did begin strengthening the party. Setting aside funding for a new headquaters, focusing on the grassroots, creating a voter database, getting funding to get rid of the debt the party was in. The culmination of all of this was with Obama and his powerful grassroots and his 50 state strategy. So the Democrats eventually did manage to reform.

 

[Tani Coyote]

The problem was an degradation of the Democratic party institutions and machine. The Democrats had always been the majority party since almost FDR, when it came to the House and Senate. Thus the party apparatus had been neglected. There wasn't an effective headquarters, wings of the party like the Democratic Party of New York were so bankrupt they existed only in name and didn't have a office, the get out the vote, the volunteer, the grassroots were weak. There were issues with funding, and all sorts of problems.

The Republicans had been reforming their party institutions and apparatus, they had been focusing on the grassroots which the Democrats had been neglecting for some time.

It came as a shock to Clinton and the Democrats when the Republicans swept into office. They were sure that it wasn't a problem with the party though. They just needed to sell the message better to the people. They were wrong. And they were unable to reverse the gains the Republicans made.

Clinton realized too late, and he did begin strengthening the party. Setting aside funding for a new headquaters, focusing on the grassroots, creating a voter database, getting funding to get rid of the debt the party was in. The culmination of all of this was with Obama and his powerful grassroots and his 50 state strategy. So the Democrats eventually did manage to reform.

Hmm. That makes sense, but were there any specific events between '92 and '94 that greatly harmed the popularity of the Democrats? Think Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky or the Iraq War with Bush.. something that really hurt their polling numbers.

I assume there was something devastating, considering one of the sites I used said that Republicans had won several state and local offices prior to '94, as a result of the "increasing unpopularity" of the Democrats, implying they had done something most people didn't like..

Edit: I'm trying to get the answers here so I don't have to ask my mom for them... she'll be sure to give me my yearly dose of right-wing spin for sure.

 

[Takhisis]

Such as the botched 1979 Iran rescue which made Carter look like a clown and was finally achieved just as Reagan took office?

 

[Cutlass]

Hmm. That makes sense, but were there any specific events between '92 and '94 that greatly harmed the popularity of the Democrats? Think Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky or the Iraq War with Bush.. something that really hurt their polling numbers.

I assume there was something devastating, considering one of the sites I used said that Republicans had won several state and local offices prior to '94, as a result of the "increasing unpopularity" of the Democrats, implying they had done something most people didn't like..

Edit: I'm trying to get the answers here so I don't have to ask my mom for them... she'll be sure to give me my yearly dose of right-wing spin for sure.

It wasn't so much something that the Dems did in the early 90s. It was the culmination of a long trend. What the Dems did "wrong" was the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s. When Reagan was in office in the 80s, Southern and Conservative Dems started to leave the Dem party and join the GOPers. In the 90s that trend reached it's high point. So prior to the 94 election a lot of old style conservatives would have been Dems. After that, few were.

There were other trends as well, like the social conservative backlash gained much more steam and so the far right gained many more votes in rural areas.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Such as the botched 1979 Iran rescue which made Carter look like a clown and was finally achieved just as Reagan took office?

Yes. Something politically-massacring like those.

...I'd never mention Carter around my mom or even my dad. They RAGE against him and turn into bloodthirsty beasts.

And I'm all: "Hey! We're talking politics, not Twilight!"

 

[Karalysia]

There wasn't one big event, the Republicans will tell you healthcare reform, but that wasn't it. It was the ongoing institutional rot in the Democratic party.

 

[Mad Man]

Is the Giant Panda going to be in the Tekken movie?

 

[cardgame]

Why do many (all? ) gay men have voices that make me ?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why do many (all? ) gay men have voices that make me ?

I think most of them have it as a put on. I hate the lisp myself. It just perpetuates the negative stereotype, not to mention it hurts the reputation of people who have a GENUINE lisp.

Seriously, why the need to have a lisp? Why the need to share your orientation with the world? This applies to both straights and gays.

For the record, foxy does not have a lisp.

 

[Yared]

Do not be offended Tani, I've heard your voice and it's sort of light. Is it something subconscious that makes you speak in a little lighter way or is that just how it has always been?

(or it's just me and your voice isn't particularly light and my Swedish-attuned ears are bad)

 

[Kennigit]

Off the top of anyone's head, can a student get out of sex education in Germany due to religious reasons? According to an uncited wikipedia,

"In Germany, high school students are not excused from classes on sexual education and evolution theory on the basis of religion."

Also, what other countries disallow this- I'm interested in Western countries (Canada, Europe, and I guess Russia). I'm not concered with evolution so much as strictly sex ed in public schools.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Do not be offended Tani, I've heard your voice and it's sort of light. Is it something subconscious that makes you speak in a little lighter way or is that just how it has always been?

You called me Tani. X3;

Ahhh, in my Youtube videos you mean?

That may just be the fact my sister's computer sucks in terms of recording audio... when I had to record an audio segment on my mom's computer, it was twice or three times as loud as the audio recorded on my sister's computer...

Unless by light you mean something besides how loud it is.

(or it's just me and your voice isn't particularly light and my Swedish-attuned ears are bad)

Possibly, but I dunno your degree of immersion in English audio and thus can't comment.

 

[Yared]

Off the top of anyone's head, can a student get out of sex education in Germany due to religious reasons? According to an uncited wikipedia,

"In Germany, high school students are not excused from classes on sexual education and evolution theory on the basis of religion."

Also, what other countries disallow this- I'm interested in Western countries (Canada, Europe, and I guess Russia). I'm not concered with evolution so much as strictly sex ed in public schools.

In Sweden, parents are allowed to demand that their children be excused from certain parts of the education that they deem to be "challenging" to their special status or to their home-environment. So the answer is yes, I think.

 

[LightFang]

Why the need to share your orientation with the world?

I cull from your signature:

*is into vore, loves Sonic to death, and is also a gay male. Caution*

The emphasis, as usual, is mine.

Feeling hypocritical today? :S You shouldn't have to hide your orientation from the world.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I know homophobes with lisps, gays without lisps, homophobes without lisps, and gays with lisps.

So I don't know if there's a correlation.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Feeling hypocritical today? :S You shouldn't have to hide your orientation from the world.

...

...



I've been found out!

...Very excellent pwning of me, CivGe- ...er... LightFang(darn April 1st leftovers!). Very well played.

My position is that you need not reveal your preferences and such, but if you do, you should be ready to face the consequences... just like the people who assault you for it should face the consequences of their actions in turn.

I agree, nobody should have to hide any aspect of who they are. In an ideal world, this would be the case.

Unfortunately, humans tend to be intolerant asses in some way, shape or form, and until this trend ends... well, one should be cautious with what they reveal. This is the internet; I probably wouldn't be so open in reality. (granted, I fessed up about vore to my friends and family... still working on the whole "I like boys" thing...)

I know homophobes with lisps, gays without lisps, homophobes without lisps, and gays with lisps.

So I don't know if there's a correlation.

I never said there was. Which makes sense; I don't have one myself.

But there does seem to be a fairly large amount of homosexuals who DO put on the lisp for some reason. I don't see why though myself... can't you just be... I dunno... yourself?

Why the need for pink/rainbow attire, a lisp or some other aspect associated with homosexuals?

It just perpetuates the stereotype and makes it harder for some to accept us. There's nothing wrong with being proud about one's identity, but outright flaunting it has a whole range of problems ready to come your way.

I dunno if this qualifies as offtopic... since I did ask a few questions right there...

 

[Lord Gay]

My position is that you need not reveal your preferences and such, but if you do, you should be ready to face the consequences... just like the people who assault you for it should face the consequences of their actions in turn.

I strongly disagree. There should be no consequences to face, nor should people feel that their sexuality is something that needs to be hidden. I love chocolate ice cream... should I have to hide that, or worry about consequences??

The only people who argue that sexuality should be private are generally religious people, and almost exclusively in regards to non-heterosexuality. Saying that orientation needs to be hidden, or kept private, implies there's something wrong with displaying it. I categorically reject that.

I think there's far too much hate in the world, and not nearly enough love, so I don't agree with sentiments that affection should be limited, or that MY affection is okay but YOUR affection isn't. I think we need more hugs in the world.

But there does seem to be a fairly large amount of homosexuals who DO put on the lisp for some reason. I don't see why though myself... can't you just be... I dunno... yourself?

Why the need for pink/rainbow attire, a lisp or some other aspect associated with homosexuals?

Some gays adopt affects to make their gayness obvious, while some may do it because everybody around them does it, like speaking with a certain accent.

It's my belief that gays who are more flamboyant are so due to how deeply they were pushed into the closet and repressed during life. A person who's been pushed a mile into the closet, will shoot out of the closet when they emerge, while a person who's only been pushed two steps into the closet will only take two steps when they come out.

It's very painful and depressing and horrible to be in the closet, and when a person finally gets the inner strength to emerge, how much hatred and attempts to repress them they've experienced will indicate how much strength they need to come out, and thus how FAR out they will come.

My two cents.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Question: Why does nobody read the actual OP, but posts just by looking at the title?

I strongly disagree. There should be no consequences to face, nor should people feel that their sexuality is something that needs to be hidden. I love chocolate ice cream... should I have to hide that, or worry about consequences??

...That's exactly what I said. That nobody should have to fear revealing what they say... In an ideal world. But we have to accept the current reality that there CAN be consequences until that reality changes.

The only people who argue that sexuality should be private are generally religious people, and almost exclusively in regards to non-heterosexuality. Saying that orientation needs to be hidden, or kept private, implies there's something wrong with displaying it. I categorically reject that.

There is nothing wrong with displaying your identity; I have never said that. I just say that people should accept the reality that not everybody is going to be happy-go-lucky about the revelation. Expecting so is naive.

I think there's far too much hate in the world, and not nearly enough love, so I don't agree with sentiments that affection should be limited, or that MY affection is okay but YOUR affection isn't. I think we need more hugs in the world.

I agree. I think you misread what I was saying and that we're actually on the same side for all intents and purposes...

It's very painful and depressing and horrible to be in the closet,

Tell me about it. *points at signature* Notice the gay part. I may be open about it online, but not in reality.

and when a person finally gets the inner strength to emerge, how much hatred and attempts to repress them they've experienced will indicate how much strength they need to come out, and thus how FAR out they will come.

That makes sense, but it doesn't change the fact one must be ready to accept the consequences of being open about it. It's just a reality that has to be accepted until it finally goes away. Maybe ONE day, people will be tolerant of eachother... but until then... self-responsibility has its place. That goes for both those expressing themselves and those who hurt them for it.

---

Anyway, off topic... I wish these kinds of threads didn't produce such interesting discussions.