Sentences with phrase «even argue points»

Even argue points and issues with respect, but sadly it is very hard to find people like that here.

If they do not care or belive, why even argue a point that they do not believe.

And without wishing to state the bleeding obvious — wtf point is there even arguing the point, it is done, history, move on.

We've had the same basic Charger around for quite a while now — yes, engines have changed, as have transmission options, body panels and suspension... everything except the fundamental bones (and Chrysler execs have even argued that point with me).

I know far too many investors will focus on this (management) metric, to the exclusion of all else, so let's not even argue the point... because it's really not going to help the cause anyway!

Not exact matches

Bitcoin loyalists argue that Ethereum's fatal tradeoff is that it's not as secure, and they point to the DAO hack as Exhibit A. Even in the Bitcoin community, though, there's some envy for the flexibility of Buterin's creation.

Meanwhile, the two companies have also been the subjects of merger rumors, with Fortune even arguing at one point that DraftKings and FanDuel could join forces to defeat their legal problems and not have to also focus on competing with one another.

Other executives including Discovery Communciations CEO David Zaslav have taken a different point of view, arguing that there will be even more cable consolidation and that content companies will follow suit.

«I would argue that the good companies that trade at expensive multiples are better quality companies and deserve a higher multiple,» she says, pointing to the example of retailer Dollarama Inc. (TSX: DOL), which trades at 28.8 times current - year earnings — seemingly rich even for its sector — with an enterprise value - to - EBITDA ratio of 19.8.

So it's hard to argue that we're even close to approaching any sort of market saturation point.

Not only would it be starting ahead of schedule, he argues, but even at the market lows of a year ago the stock valuations were never as low as they typically get at turning points in secular market trends.

[101] Sanders points out that the author would regard the gospel as theologically true as revealed spiritually even if its content is not historically accurate [101] and argues that even historically plausible elements in John can hardly be taken as historical evidence, as they may well represent the author's intuition rather than historical recollection.

To spend even a minute arguing this point, is to take away from the future of the children.

scot will argue a point until even HE realizes he is starting to sound foolish... then he reverts to insults.

(It could be argued that because God's authority is intrinsic everything he does MUST be correct, even to the point of defining correctness).

A second crucial point came when Gordon Kaufman of Harvard argued that there is a metaphysics implicit in Buddhism, even in Zen.

It is beside the point to argue that Sankara's treatment of these questions is irrational, since from Sankara's standpoint the very putting of the questions reflects an even more profound expression of irrationality.

No point in arguing something which, even though we have some evidence, people just don't believe.

One might argue (as does Vischer) that the more specific intent of the text is to point out how the original fall or original sin gives rise to a primal murder, though it is impossible to ascertain what is genuinely historical in this saga, nor should this even be attempted if we are to remain true to the central thrust of this passage.

Even I, although I have argued throughout this chapter for understanding the ministry basically from a monoepiscopal point of view, have sometimes been nostalgic about the first century, where everybody seemed so keen and enthusiastic (literally filled with God) that things got done and «offices» were not established.

I intend argue the following three points: First, these maintained schools are, in general, not even attempting to teach the integral Catholic faith, let alone successfully doing so.

I need only to ask: if you wash your feet before prayer, and when the last stoning was that you attended: to get my point across... but you did say I had to answer in a coherent manner...:) Yes, the jesus story... one of those that many love to argue about, even me at times in my life have i taken the position of «he never existed»... but most of us know he did, the only real question is his divinity.

I have yet to see you even come close to making this point except to somehow argue that the only way to tell right from wrong is if someone is prepgrammed by a deity.

And yet, the very grounds on which these controversies have been fought — arguing for the «scientific» basis of creationism, making use of the «rational - legal» procedures supplied by the modern court system, and drawing on social scientists for «expert testimony» — all point to the considerable degree to which even religious conservatives have accommodated to the norms of secular rationality.

he even argues at one point based upon a single word alone.

One of my own teachers told me a long time ago to be sure to understand all sides of an argument (and my extension is even to the point to argue in FAVOR of the other side).

However, to the author's point, we as Christians grieve the Lord when we argue for 2nd ammendment rights with the same — or even more rabid — fervor than sharig the good news of Jesus to those around us!

They somewhat argue that the journey of faith doesn't really begin until a person recognizes the existence of God, but even then, this point of faith is long before a person actually believes in Jesus for eternal life and becomes what we might call a «Christian.»

As such, it hardly warrants rousting the philosopher Hubert Dreyfus to argue about acuity being discursively codified — and perhaps the point is even weakened by this erudite reference.

And it's even more embarrassing to argue about, and have to Point Out things.

Even if many still wish to argue that Monreal is the better left back, it's a fair point to make.

Even before his last few games and I've argued this point with you previously.

I'm happy to argue about whether is was a 3, 2, or even 1 point round.

In one particular comment I argued about the dangers of losing even a single match to a «Lucky 13» team, my theory was that you needed to compensate with 2 wins or at least four points from the Top 6.

At this point, even the most dedicated of conspiracists will get bored of arguing with ineffable and uncaring forces, and be forced to move on with their lives.

This could create the real negotiating sticking point in any Stanton talks, as teams trying to acquire Stanton won't want to give up too much for a player they could have for three seasons, while the Marlins can argue that even just three seasons of Stanton should be atop everyone's holiday wish list.

Even Roberts mentioned that when jbl came back he had changed, why are we so quick to point the finger at the one guy who argued back in character instead of the community that publically shamed ranallo for having difficulty immediately before he started having health issues?

Even here in whatever - city - USA, nothing a baby can or can not do makes sense except in light of the mother's body, a biological reality apparently dismissed by those that argue against any and all bedsharing and what they call cosleeping, but which likely explains why most crib - using parents at some point feel the need to bring their babies to bed with them — findings that our mother - baby sleep laboratory here at Notre Dame has helped document scientifically.

When I pushed back and pointed out that 1) some women experience supply issues if they attempt to restrict calories enough to allow weight loss, even when they really * want * to lose weight and 2) not everyone is, in fact, overweight, and those women will indeed need to eat more to produce enough milk without causing nutritional problems for themselves they instead argued that it's such a small amount of extra food that it's inconsequential.

It's been discredited no matter how much Laffer twists his argument (see: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html) Even if you argue it's still a misrepresentation of the Laffer Curve to automatically equate it with the New Right, Laffer himself can reasonably take some of the credit for that, having been closely aligned with the discredited economics of both the Nixon and Reagan adminstrations (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/11/supply-side-economic-tax-rich) But the point is this: if Cameron decides to implement tax cuts on the basis of the Laffer Curve — in the belief that this will top up the government coffers - we're in trouble.

Reiterate a point I made during the original presentation: a national newspaper or evening news headline is still important, and it would be foolish to argue otherwise.

I'm pretty sure even he would argue against you on that point.

Liz Kendall pointing out the Tories will latch on to former labour voters, by portraying Corbyn as too left wing, arguing that although we in is our perceive the Tories as on the right, they're not that far from the centre ground, as we don't recognize the centre ground is closer to them, then too us, even 7 years ago.

De Blasio says New York City is the safest big city in the United States and pointed to overall crime being down, a 93 percent drop in the use of stop and frisk policing, his neighborhood policing initiative and argues that marijuana possession arrests have gone down even as critics note an increase.

They called it a synestia, and argued that most planets and even some stars might form these oddities at some point in their lives.

In their article, Ellis and Silk pointed out that in certain areas, some theoretical physicists had strayed from this guiding principle — even arguing for it to be relaxed.

In fact, he used a variation of this routine to train for that 500 pound bench press - along with a 600 pound Squat and 300 pound Behind - Neck Press - all before steroid use entered into bodybuilding (and don't even think about arguing that point with me, I've spent years researching steroid history).

«To reiterate, I'm not flipping to the other extreme and arguing that there's no point of the diminishing returns for exercise, or even that there's no possibility of heart damage associated with extreme ultraendurance exercise.

This is Not a Film certainly doesn't abide by standard filmic traits, even those of a documentary, so it could definitely be argued that Panahi's title is on point.

Because as much as my mother argues she can't figure out how to use dual analog sticks — valid — it's worth remembering that at one point none of us knew how to use dual analog sticks, or even the N64's single analog stick.