[object Object]
[object Object]
the gravitional pull from the heavy object was making it fall to the ground faster and at a more radical speed
Assuming you mean the charter of the League of Nations, Republicans objected because it obligated the U.S. to defend member nations if they were attacked.
Utilizing reconstruction techniques can enhance the structural integrity, functionality, and aesthetics of a building or object. It can also extend its lifespan, increase its value, and improve safety standards.
The pronoun 'their' is a possessive adjective, a word placed before a noun to show that noun belongs to a third person, plural antecedent. Example:The Lincolns put a new roof on their house.
First your question should ask "What is the area of an equilateral triangle". What you're talking about is a flat object not a 3d object (triangle is 2d). s=side measurement Rad means radical. (s^2 *Rad(3))/4
They conquered and eliminated their enemies. They based a society on comprehensive ethical and moral laws; many of which we use today. "Monotheism without idols"--a radical concept at the time--you don't need a fancy object to connect with God.
Many Republicans objected to the League of Nations because they believed it would infringe upon American sovereignty and potentially drag the United States into future wars. They were concerned that joining the League could undermine the country's policy of non-entanglement in foreign affairs. Additionally, some Republicans were critical of President Woodrow Wilson's role in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles and saw the League as an extension of his policies.
Mechanical things break because of friction or metal fatigue, and most other things break due to oxidation or free radical damage (such as plastic items sitting in the sun). Some things break or wear out due to abuse or misuse of the object.
[object Object]
That is a question that even some moderate Republicans are having trouble explaining. The Obama Care plan (the Affordable Care Act) is based on the successful Massachusetts plan that Mitt Romney designed, which he now seems unwilling to acknowledge, or claims was only for Massachusetts-- not what he said back then, when he was justifiably proud of it. Further, many Republicans wanted an individual mandate, and under a plan proposed by the Heritage Foundation and promoted in 1993 by Republican Senator Bob Dole, that was part of it. But given the Republican strategy to object to anything Obama wanted, this has forced Republicans to oppose the same plans they had once strongly championed. People who study politics can only conclude the Republican objections are politically motivated. That said, there are some very real questions about the future costs of the Affordable Care Act, and these questions could in fact be debated. But the plan itself is not radical (many of the claims about it are demonstrably false, and have been debunked by fact-checking sites); and the plan itself is based on ideas both parties have agreed with in the past. So the Republican effort to demonize it is puzzling. The GOP had people's interests at heart. This bill is much too expensive, people are losing their coverage because of mandates, and Obama lied about you being able to keep your plan and doctor. Some will, many will not. He continued to lie about this even after he knew that would not be the case!