Hello. You forgot the answer options. The options are:
In the past, the military and the FBI have prevented a number of terrorist attacks. I still remember how it felt on September 11 when our country was attacked by terrorists. Social services cannot provide the sense of security that a strong national defense can. Social services provide food, health care, and other forms of assistance to millions of citizens each year.
Answer:
In the past, the military and the FBI have prevented a number of terrorist attacks.
Explanation:
The outline of the argumentative essay reveals that the essay has as its main theme the role of the government and government institutions in promoting the protection of the population against internal or external terrorist attacks. One way to add a detail that serves as an affirmation and evidence to this theme is showing how the government security agencies have already been efficient in promoting social security against terrorist and criminal attacks. One way to do this is to add the phrase "In the past, the military and the FBI have prevented a number of terrorist attacks."
Answer:
"Share Our Wealth".
Explanation:
Governor Huey Pierce Long, Jr. was a major figure who oppose the "New Deal" policy which was brought forward by the then President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt. The "Share Our Wealth" program was proposed as a means for the lower classes to be at par or even remotely at par with the rich people.
Due to the Great Depression that shook the whole world, the disparity between the rich and the poor was growing rapidly which Long emphasized Roosevelt wasn't doing anything about it. So, to cater to the needs of the lower sections of the people, he propagated this program. This was aimed at recovering the failing economy so as not to be too much of a burden, especially to the poorer sections of society.
Answer:A vassal is a person regarded as having a mutual obligation to a lord.
Explanation:a lord is also someone who rules a land
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
- On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
- On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Happy 2019! :)
The civil war didint brake out in 1642
