what is the difference between a troy and a whig?
397472
The Tory Party and the Whig Party are two political parties. I believe the Tories tried to meet the needs of the upper class, while the Whigs tried to meet the needs of the lower class. In the American colonies, the Tories were Loyalists and the Whigs were Patriots.
968244
it probably relates to the greek horse which was a gift to the city of troy . . \n\nsolidiers were hidden in the horse and let the Greeks into the castle during the night, and the greeks eventually won the war.
787544
the question of "States rights" was one of the divisive issues facing this nation at that time. which one should be supreme, the States or the Federal government. the Whigs were AWOL on that issue, truth be told. the Republican Party was actually founded on a States rights platform
691919
nearly impossible question to answer accurately unless you defined 'ehtical lapse' and then researched it over the past 200+ years.  I'd tend to say it is about even and there are definitely examples of corruption in both major parties.
752162
yes, i know alot about henvy VIII, like the previous answerer, i suggest you go and get a book and read all about it.\n\njust to get you started a bit...\n\nin henrys time people were often beheaded for minor crimes.\n\nsocial class difference includes things like eating roast swan and whole pigs for an evening meal for the upper classes and for the lower classes there was maybe some bread and whatever seasonal vegetable or game/meat was available.\n\nedward the 6th came after edward the 5th and was he the one who was really sickly?  or was that another one?.....you'll have to find out yourself dude!
657402
31.1034768 g\n\nFrom attached article:\nA troy ounce, the only currently used unit of the system, is 480 grains, somewhat heavier than an avoirdupois ounce (437.5 grains). A grain is exactly 64.798 91 mg, hence one troy ounce is exactly 31.103 476 8 g, about 10 per cent more than the avoirdupois ounce, which is exactly 28.349 523 125 g.
641167
Louis XVI was a blue blood, a member of the Royal Bourbon family. Napolean was a very low level artistocrat. Nap however gained power through his genius, while Lou gained it through his family.
816067
top of my head:\n- the material lining the barrel (friction)\n- the tightness of the fit of the spud inside the barrel (air leaks)\n- the length of the barrel (longer is generally more powerful)\n- the gas compression mechanism (higher presser is better)\n- the release/firing mechanism (faster is better)
20845
The main difference is defense. Castles, which usually date from an earlier time period, were built mainly with the idea of keeping other people out. Although they could sometimes be very lavishly decorated, particularly the keep, which was the castle holder's private residence and the last hold out in invasion, castles were primarily military instillations. They were hugely expensive to build, and so became quite a status symbol, but they were primarily military. \n\nAs gun powder became more common in Europe (this answer refers to European castle; non-European castles are a whole other thing) it became a waste of money to build thick walls and high towers, only to have them brought down with an explosion. By that time, armies were becoming larger and borders were better defended, royalty was becoming more powerful, and were able to enforce the peace so their nobles didn't have to worry about defending against EACH OTHER. The aristocracy was also becoming more wealthy and wanted to show it. Palaces really reappeared with the Renaissance. Earlier, people who had had palaces were the most powerful--Emperors, Popes, during the Classical period, Roman Senitors and generals. Basically people who could afford some other line of defence, so they could show their wealth--and security, because wealth BOUGHT security--by opulence.
657459
Both are supposed democracies.  Both allow divorce.  Both allow women to own land.  Both are devoted to luxury (especially for the wealthy).  In both, polititians try to buy votes.  Both promote blood and death as entertainment (in Rome's case the gladiatorial games, in the USA's case, it is television.).  Both try to control the world and send their armies throughout the world.  Both control religion within the nation.  Rome fell ... someday, so too will the USA. (Yes, I am from the USA, but those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.)
261581
Generally Republicans believe that business if left alone serves society. Democrats believe that people sometimes need assistance from the government. Republicans are more rugged individualists and Democrats believe we have a moral duty to help each other out. Republicans tend to rely on business to cure societal ills and Democrats tend to rely on government.
540004
Born Micah Levar Troy in College Park, GA, Troy, 24, was the son of a drill sergeant-turned-pastor who laid down strict household rules and made sure his son was introduced to the church at an early age.  But like most kids on his block, the young Troy was also exposed to street life.  It is that dichotomy, that contradiction of influences that continues to be reflected in his music today: the respectful preacher's kid who knows better but can't resist indulging his naughty side; the gentlemanly boy next door who seems oblivious to the wiles of his street corner friends but, in actuality, is far craftier than they could ever be.
58366
You can read about both of them on Encarta. Don't just take my word, they are different, learn why they are different there.
1159037
what's a liberalist? I'm not familiar with that term.\n\nThe Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. It was integral to the Second Party System and operated from 1832 to 1856 and was formed to oppose the policies of President Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party he had founded. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Executive Branch and favored a program of modernization and economic development. Their name was chosen to echo the British Whig Party, which had opposed a strong monarchy, just as the American Whigs were opposing a strong presidency. The Whig Party counted among its members such national political luminaries as Daniel Webster, William Henry Harrison, and their pre-eminent leader, Henry Clay of Kentucky. In addition to Harrison, the Whig Party also counted several war heroes among its ranks, including Generals Zachary Taylor and Winfield Scott.\n\nIn its 26-year existence, the Whig Party saw two of its candidates elected President of the United States—-Harrison and Taylor—-and saw both of them die in office. Four months after succeeding Harrison, Whig President John Tyler was expelled from the Party, and Millard Fillmore, Taylor's Vice President, was the last Whig to hold the nation's highest office.\n\nThe party was ultimately destroyed by the question of whether to allow the expansion of slavery to the territories. Deep fissures in the party on this question led the party to run Scott over its own incumbent President Fillmore in the U.S. presidential election of 1852. The Whig Party never elected another President. Its leaders quit politics (as Lincoln did temporarily) or changed parties. The voter base defected to the nativist Know-Nothing Party, the anti-slavery Republican Party, various coalition parties in some states, and even to the Democrats.
586174
I got a Troyan Virus from downloading using limewire...be aware of it, ok?\nyourmp3.com is another choice...
215336
One of the most major differences (speaking more officially/ideologically, and leaving out de facto differences which are obvious enough today) is with respect to what the role of the state, and in particular the relationship of the state to individual liberty, should be. In general, republicans want as little government 'interference' as possible, and tend to be anti-taxation (to take one obvious example), on the grounds that 'It's my money and I should be free to do what I want with it; I know how to spend it better than the government does.' Democrats, on the other hand, tend to be more open to a system in which we all pay in, in the form of taxes, to fund social services like health care, education, and welfare.\n\nIf it clarifies things for you (or perhaps simply as a suggestion for further reading), I'd say that Robert Nozick, a libertarian, is a very good example of republican-style thought, whereas John Rawls would be much more of a democratic-style thinker -- major contrast between the two of them.
511754
Troy.. it kinda sucked!