José de San Martín vs. Simón Bolívar
José de San Martín, 1778-1850, and Simon Bolívar, 1783-1830, were two of the primary causes of independence of countries from colonial powers in Latin America. Simon Bolívar is primarily known for liberating Venezuela, and he is called the Liberator of the North. José de San Martín, known as the Liberator of the South, is primarily known for freeing Argentina. Both men are well-known and lived during about the same time period and even met each other. However, their areas of liberation, methods of liberation and motives were very different from each other.
Bolívar and Martín differed in areas of jurisdiction – Venezuela and Argentina, respectively, as well as methods and means of revolution. Bolívar was 26 years old when Venezuela declared its independence in 1811, and under the revolutionary leader he brought back Francisco de Miranda, who had long advocated freedom from the Spanish rule Venezuela was once under, to become Venezuela’s leader. However, after an erratic and unsuccessful leadership, Bolívar captured Miranda (after his rebel army was stopped) and betrayed him by turning over to the Spanish, but the Spanish only sent Bolívar into exile (unlike Miranda, who they imprisoned). After returning from exile, Bolívar taught creoles that they could rebel successfully against 3 decades of Spanish rule, but was then drove out by the Spaniards. After being chased out of Venezuela three more times, while using terror tactics the Spanish had once used against Creoles such as suffocation, while gaining the support of the British and a bond with Haiti, and while declaring that he would abolish slavery as his first official act (if in power), he decided to build a guerilla warfare army in 1817. After defeating the Spanish in New Granada (which consisted of present-day Columbia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama) using guerilla tactics and the help of thousands of mercenaries from Britain and Germany, he met with San Martín and desired to take advantage of Spain’s falling empire (due to political disagreements and an army revolt), but did not collaborate with him on a major scale. Bolívar formed a series of nations called “Grand Columbia” out of New Granada from which he intended to make a “model of strength and aggression from outside and of cooperation inside”, however, this unification soon disbanded itself (Adams, 33). Bolívar’s last battle ended in splendor in 1823, as it was entirely between cavalry with swords and lances.
The US Patriot Act has one big controversy about it. It is the part of it where it states ''other purposes''. While the rest of the act is specifically focused on certain things, the part ''other purposes'' is not specific, and it opens up the door for actions that are not against terrorism. It has been argued that this part of the act is actually enabling the US authorities to act against alleged future criminal activities, and treat the people that they suspect that may do a criminal activity in the future as criminals, despite them having done anything against the law, and using a method that is not a sure indicator by any means.
<span>Suppose the town council predicted the population would grow by x.
According to the question, the population grew by 600,000 which is one-fifth more than the town council predicted.
One-fifth of x = x/5
So, x + (x/5)= 600,000
( 5x+x)/5 = 600,000
6x/5 = 600,000
x = (600,000Ă—5)/6= 500,000
the town council originally predicted the city's population would grow by 500,000.</span>
Answer:
Its denotation is "personality;"; its connotation is "unavoidable."
According to the Sentence, this is TRUE that the denotation is personality and it's connotation is unavoidable.
Nature in here means like for example if you're a High Tempered person, or an "Always Sad Person", so like that nature, that's why, it's personality
Then, I don't I have that much explanation for the connotation, but it's "unavoidable".
so hence, your answer is D.
:D
