The tea act was created because the East India Company's tea wasn't being bought and was losing money. The East India Company made England money so England took the tax on tea off from theirs while other merchants who sold tea still had to pay tax. This allowed the East India Company to sell their tea for less and got more people to but their tea. This angered Patriots because they still had no say in government and everyone else still had to pay the tax for tea which made less people buy the regular tea because it would cost more.
What Fredrick Olmstead said he needed to be added to large cities to provide the resident's opportunity to touch and view nature are city parks. This is further explained below.
<h3>What
are city parks.?</h3>
Generally, city parks. is simply defined as Naturalistic spaces in urban settings are what city parks are all about.
In conclusion, In order to provide residents a chance to interact with nature, Fredrick Olmstead advocated the creation of municipal parks.
Read more about city parks.
brainly.com/question/25376516
#SPJ1
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.
The correct answer is High-tech sector employees were less likely to lose their jobs
Whereas many businesses stalled and had to fire people, these were mostly people that were easily replaced for someone who could work for a smaller salary. High tech sector employees are usually too much of a benefit to the company to be laid off so their job security was high since nobody could replace them.
The quote “<em>starving in detail for an ungrateful people who did not care what became of us</em>.” was said by a soldier known as Joseph Plumb Martin from Connecticut who wrote what they felt. The quote means that soldiers were pretty low, morals were terrible, rations were poor, and soldiers went unpaid. They also Lost their property most of the time which meant a loss of their rights.
