What is the difference between a formal sanction and an informal sanction

that's conceptually impossible.

if i wrote it, it wouldn't be a 'shakespeare' sonnet.

read this passage from the crisis. what rationale is paine using for going to war with great britain? my own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light. not all the treasures of the world, so far as i believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for i think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am i to suffer it? what signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? if we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other.

it is waged war against an army of countrymen

it would lead to independence from britain

it would be an offensive war

it would be a defensive war

kennedy creates personal credibility by saying he is more than fit to lead. he talks about the sixty day period that he constructed administration, and says based on that he will be an acceptable leader.

jfk has a great reputation as an american citizen. he fought in wwii, and earned the navy and marine corps medal. he saved several men on his pt-109 patrol torpedo boat after an attack by the japanese navy. he also served in congress for the 11th congressional district for massachusetts, and served three terms in the house of representatives.

explanation: