Answer:
Rome was important in the Renaissance for two reasons. First and foremost, ancient Roman learning provided the impetus for new developments in science, art, architecture, and political theory, to name but four fields of study. The rediscovery of the wisdom of the past considerably broadened the horizons of European men, opening up vast new intellectual vistas that had previously lain hidden for centuries. The rediscovery of Roman ideas, in particular, allowed Renaissance men to reconnect with a culture and a heritage long thought to be lost forever.
And that leads us on to the second reason why Rome was so important to the Renaissance. The example of Ancient Rome was a reminder to Italians of the glory that had once been their patrimony. The strength, vitality, and dominance of Rome stood in stark contrast to the weak patchwork of warring states that formed the basis of Renaissance Italy.
Renaissance thinkers like Machiavelli lamented the decline of Italy from the glorious heights it had achieved under the Roman Empire to the appalling depths it had plumbed as a political plaything of hostile foreign forces, most notably France. Rome acted as a reminder of what once had been and could be again; it set before the Italian people an example of what could happen if they set aside their differences and came together as one.
It would be several centuries before such an ideal were realized, but right throughout the Renaissance it continued to exercise a powerful hold on the imaginations of millions of Italians.
Of the list, the best answer is C) Automakers on the verge of collapse. GM, Chrysler and Ford (the Big 3 United States Automotive companies) were bailed out in 2009 following their request for a rescue bailout. This was controversial because, like other corporate bailouts that occurred at the time, the concept of "fairness" felt at best subjective and at worst disregarded. Some companies were rescued while others were not, and the American people did not have the privilege of an enormous bailout.
Some action was taken to insure sub-prime mortgages, and thus to help protect homeowners struggling following the housing crisis, but this was less controversial and also did not happen on such a large and immediate scale.
Answer:Both are elected by the citizens
Both serve four year terms
Explanation:
I got it right
The simple answer to your complex question is NO. This is assuming that you live in a country where there are good laws (remember that history is full of bad governments that implemented bad laws) and that law enforcement is effective. Simplisticly, you should only ask yourself this question when your or your families life is being threatened and law enforcement is not around. Your response must still be within the constraints of your laws or you will find yourself in hot water. I'm not even going to try to discuss the ethics and morals that can apply as the situation can vary immensely. Keep it simple - don't operate outside the law, rather fight against unjust laws.
Answer:
the army face many problems with organization, money and transportation
