The correct answer is <span>George Washington. I believe you wanted to say primacy. The idea is that there should be a strong national government and it doesn't get any earlier than him since he was after all the first president of the United States. He didn't like the idea of parties because he believed they would split the people and the government.</span>
Answer:
Napoleon Bonaparte can be viewed as both the preserver and destroyer of the French Revolution. While he certainly, institutionalized the core values of the French Revolution such as legal rights through his well known Napoleonic Code, his personal traits such as the need for conquest and power resulted in tyranny across Europe. Napoleon kept true to the revolution in the sense that his laws and codes solidly abolished the old regime and monarchy in France. At the same time however, one can argue that his rule was marked by his own self interests. That he chose which ideals of the revolution he would keep or leave out in order to maintain his power over Europe.
Explanation:
Survivors were affected economically because the tsunami destroyed lots of infrastructure that was crucial to the functioning of the economy, such as telephone poles, water works, etc. It affected them socially because it is obviously devastating to endure that kind of loss of life. It affected them environmentally because lots of raw sewage was leaked onto the streets, leading to health issues.
<span />
<span>china sought comunist revolution, it now seek global economic xpansion. As a result African continent has been the major area of chinese foreign economic investment. Numereous studies of china africa policy have appeared in recent years, a number of which accuses china of exploiting resouses rich african states or behaving like a imperial power in the continent, most notably peter hitchens's assertion that china is building a slave empire in africa.</span>
Answer:
As long as the enemies of The Bible accept the truth of the Bible, it is relatively easy to turn back attacks on the Bible simply by quoting chapter and verse to prove the Bible correct. Some critics, although not necessarily enemies of the Bible, describe this as circular reasoning, because it relies on the Bible to be correct, in order to prove it to be correct. One response to this is to take biblical passages that are confirmed by non-biblical sources, and use this evidence to prove the entire Bible correct and wholly inerrant. Unfortunately, some critics persist and say that no one ever claimed the Bible is never historically correct, just that it is not always so and furthermore that there is no evidence that it is spiritually correct.
Although we can never actually prove the Bible to be spiritually correct, we can seek to divert these attacks by pointing to prophecies in the Bible. If prophecies can be shown to be true, then the Bible must have been inspired by God. The rub is that believers accept the prophecies to be true, but time and again sceptics point to reasons to doubt the very fact of those prophecies.
In the end, we can use the Bible and faith to disprove biblical criticism in our own minds, but we can never really disprove these attacks in the minds of a well-informed critic.
Explanation:
hope this helps!!
