In the 1970s, the supply of gas was affected by price controls imposed by the Nixon administration and then by an oil embargo by Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
As a political move aimed at pleasing voters, President Richard Nixon announced in 1971 (prior to his reelection campaign of 1972), "I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.” The wage and price controls the Nixon administration sought to put in place interfered with natural market forces and oil supplies were reduced. That problem was magnified in 1973 when oil exporting countries in the Arab world imposed an embargo on supplies to the United States due to US support of Israel in a war that Israel was fighting against a coalition of Arab states.
Both factors -- lingering efforts at price controls and continued control of the oil and gas market by OPEC nations -- played into the long lines at gas pumps seen in America in the 1970s.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
They passed the Truman<span> Doctrine.</span>
Answer:
they are equal because they share common line
