B. Freedom of Expression. All the others have to do with the US law system and the like, which is not involved in the most basic of rights. But Freedom of Expression is the one not like the others.
Who led the Solidarity movement in Poland was Lech Walesa, an outspoken electrician. He gave voice to the workers demands for the legislation of independent labour unions
Why did loyalists opopose separation from England?
- They feared a loss of property.
- They were worried about mob rule
The loyalists were the colonists that opposed the American Revolution, instead, they supported Britain. They believed that the colonies should remain loyal to Britain and the Parliament. Also, they were afraid that a war would lead to many deaths. Most of the Loyalists worked for the British government so they also had interests with being connected to the crown.
What "unalienable rights" are included in the Declaration of Independence?
- Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States says: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”
Which event happened first?
- The Battles at Lexington and Concord
The Battles of Lexington and Concord happened in April 1775. It was the first battle of the American Revolutionary War, this battle was the result of years of tensions between the colonies and the British authorities that started with the series of measures and taxes imposed by the British Parliament on the colonies.
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
