A— Manifest Destiny is pretty much the belief that settlers were ordained to expand westward by God. None of the other answers have anything to do with Manifest Destiny.
Communism power became to decline!
The correct answer is that they granted economic freedoms but not political freedoms. This means that they opened up a bit and became a bit more capitalist, but political freedoms were still forbidden and people would not be able to protest certain things or say certain things out loud or speak against the government and its choices.
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:
Zealots were a political/philosophic movement in first century (what I call) Israel. They were (if I can put it this way) a sort of uncouth bunch who thought the only way to free themselves from Roman rule was to oppose the Romans with force.
That was their platform. They did not take into account that the Roman's were a huge military power that was ruthless when antagonized. As these things go, Rome was a pretty good ruler. At least they knew the difference between meaningful opposition and tolerance of differences.
The zealots did not see Rome that way. They believed that any interference was too much interference.
That's when Rome got upset and the first Jewish War of 65 AD or so began. It was like sticking your arm in a hornet's nest. The Zealots had gained the largely unwelcome wrath of Rome. The zealots were unlucky (in a way). If they had picked a time that a warrior/emperor was not leader, their opposition may have evaporated. It would be like hitting a marshmallow. Rome may have considered it an internal affair. They had up to this point. Even though some of the Pharisee priests supported the Zealots, the alliance was destroyed by the unwillingness to negotiate further.
Anyone who is really dedicated can be termed a Zealot in modern times. I am using the term to describe someone that is Zealous. You could look up Galatians 1:11 - 14 to see how Paul used the term. This connection between Paul and Jewish leaders (including Zealots) is really hotly debated. It's another hornet's nest.
