Sentences with phrase «anyone disagreeing with him on»

If Jeremy doesn't want anyone disagreeing with him on his blog, then he should say so.

Not exact matches

A settlement means that we're going to not chance it to the jury to make a decision, we agree to disagree on whether anyone did anything wrong but we're making a practical business decision, we're going to pay this much to be done with this case and not test the waters.

Well, I don't know if Obama has any tattoos, or skims money off the collection, or told anyone lately that they're evil and going to hell just because they disagreed with them, or has ever cheated on his wife with another woman, or man, so maybe he isn't your typical pastor, is that what you're saying?

I respect anyone who disagrees with his or believed stance on in this case being anti-gay.

I love how the Christians on this thread have decided that anyone who dares disagree with their fanciful tale is bitter and a jerk.

Disagreeing with the emphasis on choice — «I have never known anyone who is homosexual by choice» — Gebhard added that the die is cast early.

The fundies believers on this blog have no tolerance for anyone that disagrees with their belief system.

Your spiritual experience is valid to me, and most Pagans don't think of other religious traditions as being «wrong»; we just disagree with anyone who thinks they have a stranglehold on the truth.

Besides, are you suggesting that we suppress anyone's right to free speech because if you are than you need to move to one of these bass ackward countries where a less than middle school quality production of a total farce can insight people to act as a pack of rabid dogs blaming America for why they live in dirt... We are LUCKY and BLESSED to live in a land where we can smile and walk away from an opinion that we disagree with... that South Park can but Jesus in a boxing ring against Satan and depict Moses as a glowing spinning dreidl... and these nutcases want to burn and pillage because one lunatic makes a childish and stupid play on videotape?

Though I disagree with Kerry Trotter about her (admittedly biased) speculation that perhaps Catholics understand humor best of all because they have «suffered better than anyone,» her example of St. Lawrence does shed light on a....

But, you on the other hand are merely following the playbook of the Left, which is to personally destroy anyone who disagrees with you.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you (fundementally at least) on that point.

fishon — Of anyone on here, I might be the one who has disagreed with you an rebutted you most fervently.

It is easy to pick on anyone with whom we disagree and read articles showing their flaws.

Jesus would use his golden uzi to go all rambo on anyone who disagreed with him.

You come on threads like these, making claims and pronouncements, and simply telling anyone who disagrees with your position that they are «wrong» without providing a single shred of support.

Can't say as I can disagree with Mr. Hawking on this point, although I highly doubt that anyone alive can dispute the existence of an afterlife, since none of us has actually died (and stayed dead).

Can you point me to some articles where Obama has sicc «ed the IRS on ANYONE who disagrees with his agenda?

Literally three top, top managers have made him key components in their systems on every world stage and you have the arrogance to say with 100 % confidence, and act as if anyone who disagrees with you is «in denial» or «clueless» that Mourinho or Pep wouldn't want him at Chelsea or Bayern??

Incredible to me how anyone can possibly disagree with your spot on post.

You have a very big issue with MO (so very big that I can't but help notice you find it impossible to comment or have an opinion on any other AFC matter without bringing it up), fair enough — but what possesses you to think that gives you carte blanche to extend your quest / obsession to launching in to anyone who disagrees with you?

Let the record state that while I have often disagreed with your point of view and for me unfounded optimism, I have never insulted you or anyone else on this site in nigh on 10 years of visiting and posting here.

I happen to disagree with him on this, but please stop trying to drown out anyone who voices a smidgen of critism for the NHS, especially when they're proposing alternatives.

At a Fabian Society meeting, Chuka Umunna took aim at those on the left of the party who called out anyone who disagreed with them as red Tories.

It is a tough task to challenge such fascism crimes; As a victim of a series of fascism crimes associated with Udacity cofounder Sebastian Thrun along with this criminal suspect Gabriele Scheler, and the likes, what I posted on the web are no more than facts, facts those fascists I challenged dare never officially deny, either publicly or in private; I bet such of their fascism crimes would not be tolerated anywhere in human society; If anyone disagree, especially those in my public challenge, please give us a candid answer right here on this board, which part in my statements is not base upon facts?

He could make a welcome return to the cabinet and frontline politics after making such a spirited contribution to the party over the years of opposition by sitting next to Blair on a Europhile platform, calling anyone who disagreed with such a stance headbangers and underming successive leaders.

Speaking to BBC Radio Five Live following his election, Murphy said that while he disagreed with the «branch office» theory, he would not be consulting London on policy:» [t] he days in which anyone needed permission from the Labour Party anywhere else in the United Kingdom to make a decision about what happens in Scotland are gone and they're gone for good.»

This is a major part of the solid science you will need to know if anyone seeks to disagree with you when you share this information; this study is really the foundation that triggered the massive emphasis on low - fat diets and the flawed belief that cholesterol and animal fats are so pernicious.

And while I may disagree with some very smart people (and yes this makes me nervous) about how they should be used (I lean towards principals using them on a micro level, districts and beyond using them at the macro, ie not to evaluate individual teachers, but schools, districts, etc) I don't think anyone can disagree on this hard fact: not every K - 12 classroom will be tested every year in a way that is rigorous or consistent enough for value - added analysis.

I have made no personal attacks on anyone, and anyone who spends time reading my blog (which has had over 6.5 million page views in the past 17 months) will discover that I try to model civility, even when writing about those with whom I disagree.

As for the anger comment, anyone who posts their opinion on on social media shouldn't whine if someone disagrees - can't deal with a discussion, don't post!

I have to disagree with anyone who would put Kill Zone on this list.

You just may find yourself screaming out «OBJECTION» to anyone who disagrees with you on something.

Therefore, if anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

What The Science Says: If anyone claims to be part of the 97 %, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

Human failings and their personalities often get in the way of this, and sometimes lead to excess on their part, but by and large I can not see evil intent on anyone's part, much as I may disagree with them.

-LSB-...] • Silencing the Scientists (and anyone who disagrees with the Harper Government — also see this post) • Lifting the 40 year ban on tankers on B.C.'s -LSB-...]

Go on social media and listen to the young people out there who have no qualms about fascist tactics to deal with anyone they disagree with.

If anyone claims to be part of the 97 percent, it means they disagree with the contrarian argument that humans are having a minimal impact on global warming.

It's being applied to anything and everything, and is increasingly used to slap the anti-science label on anyone who disagrees with the «science du jour.»

He and his coconspirators are so desperate to discredit anyone who disagrees with their alarmist views on man - made global warming that they are willing to lie, steal, and even defraud their own friends and allies in the media.»

Let me ask you — is there anyone who you disagree with on global warming who has not been seduced by fame, ideology, or closeness to power?

If you had taken the trouble to read the all the post, you would see that the mechanisms of how innate skepticism detects collective deception, or incorrectly triggers on characteristics that are not indicative of collective deception, are completely independent of what the topics at issue are (i.e. work the same for any), and indeed these detection mechanisms are framed using principles that themselves stem from evolution / cultural evolution (so not from contested topic domains such as CC etc. that I or anyone else agrees or disagrees with).

Anyone who disagrees with the current scientific consensus on climate change should do what any other dissenting scientist would do: publish in a scientific journal — not write a book for the popular press!

Your statements on climate science are based on nothing more than your own personal beliefs about people you have never met, upon scientific reports you don't understand, and upon personal incredulity that anyone could disagree with your «consensus».

Not very reassuring.Also on abandoning cover letters — at least half of the coaches disagree with you, claiming it's a glaring, cavalier omission that does away with any chance of bringing subtle strengths and combination skills to anyone's attention.