Answer:
They should stay in.
I didn't know if you wanted an explanation on why or just my opinion.
Bryan was the last of the Great Political Orators in some ways. He could speak at great length on any topic, using powerful imagery, often of a religious nature, to audiences raised on such language and imagery.
Unfortunately, the telegraph already was encouraging economy of language, and the radio would make long speeches less useful than shorter ones which reached the point quickly. People in churches no longer spent hours listening to a single sermon, and those who followed the earsteps of Abraham Lincoln learned that eloquence was not a matter of length, but of substance.
The “Cross of Gold” speech which he thought would propel him to the Presidency would not work today.
The only orators today who speak interminably tend to be dictatorial in nature, in love with their own voice, and whose followers dote on every word, no matter how repetitious. Bryan was leagues above that, but someone who seeks his skill will learn why society has passed the skills of the long-sermoned preacher by.
<span>C. The United States was mostly untouched by the devastation of the war
</span>
This is a very poor question - your teacher, clearly, understands very little about the collapse of the USSR and Gorbachev and his reforms.
<span>These 'provisions' are not what Perestroika was about - your teacher, and possibly your text book, has confused two completely separate and distinct Soviet reforms - Perestroika and Demokratizatsiya (democratisation). All of the 'Provisions of Perestroika' that you have listed are, in fact, parts of the Demokratizatsiya reforms. </span>
<span>Perestroika was the restructuring of party and state organisations, but particularly enterprises, factories, mines, collective farms and other 'means of production'. It sought to re-structure the command economy making it more efficient and better able to compete globally and to meet the needs of Soviet consumers and other end users. </span>
<span>What Perestroika demonstrated was the gross inefficiencies of the Soviet Command Economy, and that the economic base of the country needed frastic and radical reforms - not that the Communist system itself was failing. </span>
Answer:
the stamp act was a tax on stamps? true
