Answer:
Primary Source can be talking to a particpated person in government inform you and secondary source can be studying how history can change, being passed down.
Explanation:
<em>A primary source</em> is first hand. Ex: I experienced the Vietnam War. I tell people about the Vietnam War. its a primary source because it was first hand.The information was given to me first.
A secondary source is second hand. information passed down ,usually the second time. Ex: My friend who had experienced the Vietnam War himself ,told me about the enemies troops.
Hope this helps!!
<span>The religious liberties expand during the era of the republic of texas is letter B which is "</span>Texas gained the right to vote for their religious leaders." Thank you for posting your question here at brainly. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more questions here.
Answer:
Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign was a successful campaign for Reagan and his running mate George H. W. Bush's election and president and vice president of the United States. They defeated the incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter Mondale. Reagan, a Republican and former Governor of California announced his third presidential bid in a nationally televised speech from New York City. He campaigned extensively for the primaries after losing the Iowa caucus to Bush. In a republican debate in Nashua before the New Hampshire primary, when the moderator requested his microphone to be turned off, he furiously replied "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Breen!". In the end, he won 44 states and 59.8% of the vote. He initially decided to nominate former President Gerald Ford as his running mate, but Ford wanted to be given such extended power as vice president (especially over the foreign policy) that their ticket would effectively amount to "co-presidency". As a result, negotiations to form a Reagan-Ford ticket ceased. Bush then selected former CIA director and George H. W. Bush as the vice presidential nominee.
Explanation:
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!
