Humanities desk
< December 9	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 10

Question Moved to Languages Desk

Resolved

Can someone kindly tell me how to write the following sentence in fluent, colloquial German?

I have enjoyed having you living here and hope you continue through 2012.

Thank you in advance. Gurumaister (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should really be on ref desk / Languages. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are so right. My apologies - I will move it. Gurumaister (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1930 Census Cook Co, Illinois, USA

How can I search this? Kittybrewster ☎ 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

www.ancestry.com has it digitized and has a nice search engine (subscription). Edison (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Party of Canada counterparts

Does Liberal Party of Canada have any counterparts in the Western World that are major parties in their own nations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.154.206 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberal Party of Canada is a member of Liberal International, which has 104 members. These parties do supposedly have ideological positions in common, so you could have a look at the membership list. Hut 8.5 18:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closest analogue I can think of are the British Liberal Democrats; Canadian parties started out as Liberal and Conservative in parallel with the existing Liberal and Conservative parties in Great Britain. There have of course been many mergers, splits and changes in direction in both the British and Canadian Conservative and Liberal parties in the last century and a half. One interesting result of this year's elections was that the Canadian Liberals stopped being one of the top two parties in the federal Parliament for the very first time, while it was also the first time since World War II that British Liberal ministers joined a formal coalition government. (However, Liberal and allied Members of Parliament haven't formed the largest or second-largest party in the British House of Commons since 1918. British Liberals and Liberal Democrats are used to being a third party, while at a federal level, Canadian Liberals had always been either H.M. Government or the Official Opposition. This difference has had an effect on the structure and policies of the two parties, and probably will now do so in reverse: whether engaging in consistent but somewhat abstract and diffuse criticism or defending a specific and concrete but necessarily inconsistent record.) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Airlines headquarters

Who is the architect of the Saudi Arabian Airlines headquarters in Jeddah? When was the building built? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

republican party vs democrat party (US)

Please explain repulican party vs democrat party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.67.135 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are the two major political parties in the United States. Lucky for you, Wikipedia has very extensive articles on both: Republican Party, Democratic Party. Feel free to come back if those articles don't answer your questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

“The left and right wings of the party establishment — two great pinions of an ancient bird of prey” -Walter Karp.John Z (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the two corresponds very well to commonly-found types of European parties (Social-Democrat, Christian-Democrat, Classical Liberal, Labour, etc.), and both have changed somewhat in philosophy and policies over the more-than-a-century than they've been in existence, but generally and vaguely, the Democratic party is more "left"... AnonMoos (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compared with most other nations, if both parties were real wings on a real bird, that bird would be flopped over on its right hand side. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern American Conservatism, which the Republican Party generally leans towards, and Modern American Liberalism, which the Democratic Party generally leans towards, differ somewhat in philosophy and policies when compared to other Conservative and Liberal political parties around the world. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic Party is for overtaxing and overspending, while the Republican Party is for undertaxing and overspending. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the Democratic Party was for taking money from the people to give to their rich friends while the Republican party was for taking money form the people to give to their rich friends. All in all, both appear to be for using Congress to make themselves richer. If anyone happens to notice that Congress makes the laws, they just point a the President and say it was his fault. -- kainaw ™ 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but over the last ten years or so (and especially in the last few years), the ever-accelerating Washington "establishment" Republican monomaniacal obsession with implementing plutocratic policies has left any Democratic plutocratic tendencies far, far behind... AnonMoos (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party. The use of the term "Democrat Party" is a Republican put down. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a put down? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Democrat Party is sometimes used when the speaker wishes to cast into doubt whether the party is really democratic, or maybe objects to the implication that other parties are not democratic. --Trovatore (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Democrat Party (phrase). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic Party is no longer expected to support democracy. They are expected to oppose self-determination. Similarly, the Republican Party is no longer expected to support a republic. They are expected to promote heredity for political position. Perhaps the practice of promoting old political ties is a partial reason they are often called the GOP. -- kainaw ™ 22:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all of this is somehow new? Do you mean to imply that both parties haven't funded brutal dictators, monarchs, rebels, and occupying forces while overthrowing democratically elected governments (including many republics) in other countries? --140.180.15.97 (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it explained, very generally, that the Republican Party wants things to stay the same or go back to the way they used to be, and the Democratic Party wants things to change. The Republicans tout tradition - religious, family, cultural, linguistic, etc, while the Democrats tend to be more open to cultural changes, other [non-Christian] religions, etc. It's not as cut and dry as that, but it may help a little. Falconus^{p t c} 00:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was easier when I was young. The Federal government had a lot of ideas to help society (really, to help the poor). Democrats were into Federally-controlled programs like Social Security. The Presidents wanted to mandate equality through Constitutional amendments. Republicans were into Federally-funded, but state-controlled programs like Medicare. A big contrast took place between the administrations of Johnson and Nixon. Johnson did a lot for equal rights through Federal programs and mandates. Nixon rejected that and pushed for "new federalism" in which the Federal government would fund state programs, but let the states decide how to administrate the programs. Carter reversed that to a lesser degree by pushing for Federal control over state programs. Reagan then became more well-known for new federalism than Nixon did. Then, from Bush on, it has all been about pillaging the middle class to make Congress (and friends) richer and richer and richer. -- kainaw ™ 00:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today, the basic difference between the two parties is that one (the GOP) believes government is the problem, whereas the other (Democrats) believe government can be a source of solutions. On fiscal matters, Republicans are (today) dead set against government taking any more money out of the economy, through closing tax loopholes or increasing tax rates on anyone. To reduce the fiscal deficit so as to reduce the national debt, they would rely solely on reducing spending, except in the case of the armed forces. Democrats, on the other hand, believe that the solution to the deficit and debt must be a balanced approach to increasing revenues while reducing spending, but that spending cuts should not be at the expense of services essential to the well-being of the less well-off. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]