Sentences with phrase «already argued against you»

I already argued against getting that British Airways companion pass before this devaluation.

I've already argued against you stats vs stats (Benzema is superior) and included how Wenger himself says THE most important aspect in judging a player is what you see.

Already argued against by numerous philosophers and put to rest a long time ago.

Not exact matches

Two other industry trade groups that have lobbied against the fiduciary proposal — SIFMA and FSI — offer slightly more conciliatory statements, though both groups argue that existing regulations under the SEC and FINRA are already in place to guard against bad retirement advice.

The real estate industry is already in the midst of an aggressive battle against the loss of the state and local property tax deduction that they argue could harm home values.

And if you reply with anything that says that Jesus is a facet or aspect or anything else of God, then you can't turn around and argue against mixing God (s)-- and the theory that Allah, or Yahweh, are other names for the same God, because you've already by < definition argued that God can have multiple aspects — why just the three names for them from Trinity theology?

(I would argue that the baby boom and the suburban explosion which led to the momentary illusion of mainline prosperity through the «50s only superficially ran against a trend already visible in the Depression and the «30s.)

You're just like people who don't believe in unicorns, except you run around all day rubbing it in peoples» faces like it makes you a better person, and while people don't have the head to argue against you, secretly most people wish you would just shut up already.

Those who argue against same - sex marriage on the basis of its potential to diminish the effectiveness of the institution as a solid foundation for social stability have not thought about the price we have already paid for this personal freedom, or the historical reality that most citizens of Western Nations have already chosen to pay it rather than choose the relative social stability / security of tribalistic collectivism.

Which nobody can argue against really, and most people already do give him his fair due on this one.

Scored the winner against Bournemouth in midweek, and will retain his place as he quickly establishes himself among Klopp's key men — some would argue he's done it already.

True wenger messed it up, that i can't argue with you, just how it was done is where we differ, as you think sanogo should have come off when we were a man short, i on the other hand think ozil should have been that player, why, cause defensively, he is our weakest link, and at 10 against 11 you already know your back is against the wall, so defence becomes a priority.

The mayor pushed back against Cuomo's proposal to lift a regional charter - expansion cap, arguing that there are enough slots already in place.

U.S. courts should not play a role in reviewing or restraining targeted killings, argues the Justice Department lawyers, since it would effectively enable them to «supervise inherently predictive judgments» by the president and his national security advisers «as to when and how to use force against an enemy against which Congress has already authorized the use of force.»

You are arguing against something that is already illegal, and investigated.

Mr. Bharara said numerous New Yorkers had reached out to him to express appreciation for his work against corruption, and thus argued he had already succeeded in improving public awareness of the issue.

NIFA member Chris Wright voted against the guidelines, arguing that the changes «gutted» the board's original intent, adding that the county already requires most of the disclosures.

They've formed a coalition called New Yorkers Against Corruption, which argues that a convention would be hijacked by the same political insiders and moneyed lobbyists that already wield considerable power in Albany.

And GOP party functionary Hugh Hewitt is already laying down a line of covering fire for the retreat, arguing that CNN and Youtube are biased against Republicans.

Locally, many officials are already arguing that ripping out pedestrian plazas as a prophylactic against scantily clad women and creepy cartoon characters is like throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water, so we don't expect that to go anywhere fast.

Critics are against evolutionary biologists accepting this money and argue that evolutionary theory already embraces the best of these ideas.

Even though he already has one, I might start to think Geoffrey Rush is the one to beat since it's hard to argue against someone like Rush having two Oscars and if they really like King's Speech but think it's a bit too «traditional» for Best Picture these days... hmm.

A vigorous dissent by three judges, argued, «By erroneously affirming the district court's decision, we allow the State of California to perpetuate discrimination against qualified minority teachers, who are already seriously underrep - resented in the California public school system, and, derivatively, against minority students as well.»

If you're already a Kindle user with a library of Kindle e-books (or movies or MP3s from Amazon) or an Amazon Prime member, it will be hard to argue against the Kindle Fire.

The Oracle Board of Directors, arguing that it does enough to support gender diversity already, recommends a vote against the proposal.

The Toronto Real Estate Board is already pushing back against the possibility of this measure, arguing foreign buyers are a positive force in the local housing market.

I can already hear some younger investors pushing back against this advice: they may argue that because they have many years to recover from a market downturn they don't need to worry about short - term losses.

Arguments in favor of this bill have been inconsistent and senate author Charles Wyrick (D - Fairland) argued in the senate agriculture and rural development committee against rules which he knew had already been removed from the bill.

Third, though the Court already ruled against PETA on the issue once, the PETA employees once again argue that stealing and killing a dog is not outrageous conduct and should not give rise to punitive damages.

We have spent a lot of time arguing against misdirected emotion and false «facts,» appealing to people who have already made up their minds.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

And that's against the background where nobody in their right mind argues that [we haven't] already dumped several hundred gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere.

It argues that investments should start with low - regret options, with measures that tackle the weather risks that countries already face, such as increased investment in water storage in drought - prone basins or protection against storms and flooding in coastal zones and / or urban areas.

I've already spent enough time today arguing against European Socialists.

Holdren argued the scientific peer - review process already acts as a check on bad science, further arguing a red team exercise is a «right - wing» plot against climate science.

Arguing with someone who is against something without understanding how it is supposed to work is... well... technically you don't have to argue with such a person, because he / she declared defeat already

And, will anyone who thinks they've already seen posts arguing against the collection of QC data please quote those posts and explain how you arrive at that interpretation?

Powerful liberal groups have been calling for more ambitious limits to emissions, while more conservative interests argue against the drastic measures already required in the Kyoto Protocol.

One may already stop here to wonder whether the EFTA Court is not making its life too easy speaking of an interpretation of EEA law «in the light» of fundamental rights in the present case; a more thorough reasoning would have had to grapple with the scope of EEA law in the case: Only if Iceland was acting effectively within the scope of EEA law here the fundamental rights standards of EEA law apply under the EFTA Court's supervision; otherwise one could argue that the Supreme Court of Iceland's action ought to be judged against the benchmark of domestic fundamental rights and ECHR standards (compare the rich debate on the parallel problem in EU law which focuses on Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights).

Others still championed LSPs as important for meeting the access to justice gap, but argued against their regulation by state courts on the grounds either it is unnecessary (they are already regulated by consumer protection laws), that it would unnecessarily increase costs, or that regulation would only enable the state bars and courts to exercise their «protectionist instincts» (see this response, this response and this response).

CCLA continues to argue against disproportionate knee - jerk reactions to terrorist threats — such responses overlook the robust broad powers already existing in the Criminal Code and other laws in place — and argue for more and more state powers and new offences which may cast a far - too - wide and ineffective net, while simultaneously threatening to normalize exceptional powers.

[98] Some respondents championed LSPs as important for meeting the access to justice gap, but argued against their regulation by state courts on the grounds either it is unnecessary (they are already regulated by consumer protection laws), that it would unnecessarily increase costs, or that regulation would only enable the state bars and courts to exercise their «protectionist instincts.»

In fact, Apple is currently arguing that exhaustion bars the infamous troll Lodsys» claims against iOS app developers because Apple already has a license to Lodsys» patents.

-- It will cause already vulnerable people into further despair â $ «The Archbishop of Canterbury is against the proposals, saying he believes it could drive people â $ œinto a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair.â $ He argued that people who are already genuinely struggling to find work and struggling to find a future do not need their unfortunate circumstances turned against them.

CREA has consistently argued that a variety of services and prices already exists in the Canadian real estate market and that its rules and regulations did not discriminate against non-traditional business models, including those which offer «a la carte» real estate services.

Industry experts don't argue against consumers saving money or spending domestically, but the retail industry is already undergoing great changes.

City officials argue that state and local law already build in protections against abuse.