Sentences with phrase «argue for why»

But it does not argue for why investors need to tune out «Stocks for the Long Run» admonitions and lower their stock allocations at times of insane overvaluation.

That means the government has never actually had to argue for why he should be detained.

Gibney argued for why that's easy, as well as shed new light on what happens inside the firm, and what its road map looks given that it has more money to invest than ever before.

In her column yesterday, Washington Post «s Ruth Marcus argues for why having Sarah Palin in high public office is a «terrifying prospect.»

This year's set features Samantha Peters tackling cultural competency, Monica Befa introducing us to the ethics of tweeting, Valerie Akujobi considering the challenge of advertising for women lawyers, Lindsay Carbonero addressing the importance of treating mental health as a professionalism issue and Cathleen Brennan arguing for why the proposed LSUC restrictions on judges returning to practice do not go far enough.

In litigation, by contrast, all parties and their attorneys have to do is put on their «best case» for the Judge where each party asks for all of the things he or she wants in the divorce and argues for why they should each have what they want, even over the objection of their spouse.

Not exact matches

He argues for the primacy of economic factors to explain why some states achieved great power status.

For years economists — not to mention everyday Americans hanging out on bar stools or on Twitter — have argued about why even mediocre CEOs get paid such ridiculous sums of money.

At the same time, Fisman and Sullivan take on some of the favorite punching bags of modern office culture — meetings, middle managers, expense reports, and the cubicle — and argue why there's good reason for them.

This is why, he argues, I've been a successful entrepreneur for most of my life and, despite trying, he never has.

A financial analyst - turned - writer argued in a recent Quartz piece why all workers should be investing their 401 (k) plans with the goal of growing their income for retirement.

That's why, after such a tumultuous year, Giustra argues that, yes, it's more important than ever for the wealthy to write cheques, but it's also essential for them to refine their giving to reflect changing needs.

«Why should I argue with him about who is or isn't a terrorist, if I can argue with him about what we're going to eat for lunch?»

The Trump administration's main justification for weakening fuel standards — less - than - expected consumer interest in efficiency due to lower gas prices — is actually the reason why the nation needs more stringent standards in the first place, The Conversation argues.

In The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Malcolm Gladwell argues that for us to understand why some products succeed, we must think of each as part of an epidemic.

Employees can argue that an area's market value for a role has increased, which would cause the team to re-evaluate the formula's values, or explain why they believe their experience level has increased.

That's why some, including Fortune's Shawn Tully, have argued that Snap made a potentially fatal error by pricing its IPO at $ 17, well below what the market was willing to pay for it (above $ 24 a share its first day trading).

When asked on a conference call on Wednesday morning why it made sense to split up Kraft and Mondelez, and then argue for the merits of the Kraft - Heinz tie - up, Cahill said: «I think scale works when you operate it well.»

Critics have argued that Twitter only allows such behavior because it is desperate for engagement and user growth, which is similar to the argument for why Facebook doesn't care about fake news.

Dramatizing their eagerness for the coveted flights, companies argued why they were best suited for the routes in memos that at times were critical of one another.

In today's National Post, the Fraser Institute «s Mark Milke argues that there is, and that «the ethical oil tag is useful shorthand for why Canada's oil is preferable to that extracted elsewhere.»

I would argue that this is exactly what President Xi seems to be doing, and why even before he was formally in power he sought to consolidate power, undermine and frighten potential opposition, strengthen his relationship with the military, and unify the country's policymakers behind the need for reforms.

In «The Dangers of an Extended Period of Low Interest Rates: Why the Bank of Canada Should Start Raising Them Now,» published by the C.D. Howe Institute, Masson argues there is urgency for the Bank to act in view of the economic distortions and financial risks low interest rates pose for Canada.

The voluntary split makes it harder for Liveris to argue why he's resisting activist pressure to do the same.

Citing the paper «Why Some Futures Contracts Succeed and Others Fail», Kemp argues that the third key element to a successful futures contract — public policy should not be too adverse to futures trading — could be the stumbling block to the Chinese crude futures, while the new contract could easily meet the other two criteria for success.

I sympathize with what NAFA [National Association for Fixed Annuities] is arguing: Why are certain things inside the regulation and certain things out?

I find it interesting that everyone wants to argue why the position is wrong, rather than read it for what it is — a clear position on how you feel.

Which is why DeMoss was in front of the North Carolina delegation at the convention Monday morning, arguing that it's unfair for some Republicans to insist on a presidential nominee with whom they agree about everything.

Why waist time fighting and arguing when time should be spent preserving what little things we have, not only for us, but the future people of our small earth.

Jake2 all I meant is that if they are using University space (like inside of a building occupying a room) then that room is paid for by student fees yes but by ALL student fees which is why the University argues that that group should be open to all students.

poor this rich that church here politics there why argue about church an politics its the same funny how people loose there jobs but churches an politicians pockets keep getting bigger but nobodys crying about bet that new guchi shirt impressed the preachers wife you wore on sunday but you argue for the poor, ol lutz says 25 k die a day well then why worry about charitys they collect 10,25 % just like churches an line thier pockets, so why argeu you stoopid sheep

I will not argue whether or not the bible is the word of a god translated by man, my only question is, why would you follow a book that supports and idolizes a single deity who seems to have intentions of converting the world to his worship alone (for if there are no other gods, why then would Yahweh require that you «hold no other gods above him» — he just confirmed their existance) when said deity's followers have proven that their purpose in life is to grind any opposition to their «holy law» into dust?

why its ironic that you use reason to argue for its dismissal?

I don't understand why you would make an adulteror a hero to argue for your cause?

Why Honey why do nt we have any more gays here arguing for My rights we just have these imposters who sound cute but are not gWhy Honey why do nt we have any more gays here arguing for My rights we just have these imposters who sound cute but are not gwhy do nt we have any more gays here arguing for My rights we just have these imposters who sound cute but are not gay.

But where are the public contexts for understanding why a tradition argues the way it does?»

Science and God can coexist... for those who choose to believe I can't begin to argue with you about the existence of God because you have closed your mind to Him... I won't argue why God allows bad things to happen... because you don't even want to see the good things...

Which is why Thomas argued for a supernatural self - revelation of God that corrected reason's errors and gave it a more complete and intellectually satisfying account of the world as God's creation.

Jeremy since we are talking about satan casting out satan heres a question for you.Have you ever wondered why Jesus helps satan at times or at least it appears that way.Mat 8:28 - 34 Why would he do that in the case of the demonic man the demons requested that Jesus cast them them into the pigs which he allowed it seems that not only did he help satan to have his way in destroying the pigs but destroyed the livelihood of the people in that area.You could argue at least it saved one man but is it acceptable to save one life but affect the lives of mawhy Jesus helps satan at times or at least it appears that way.Mat 8:28 - 34 Why would he do that in the case of the demonic man the demons requested that Jesus cast them them into the pigs which he allowed it seems that not only did he help satan to have his way in destroying the pigs but destroyed the livelihood of the people in that area.You could argue at least it saved one man but is it acceptable to save one life but affect the lives of maWhy would he do that in the case of the demonic man the demons requested that Jesus cast them them into the pigs which he allowed it seems that not only did he help satan to have his way in destroying the pigs but destroyed the livelihood of the people in that area.You could argue at least it saved one man but is it acceptable to save one life but affect the lives of many?

But Laura argued, «Why should I ask the church to change its words for me?

why feel the need to argue for an objective morality if you don't believe in the objective in the first place?

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?

Remember that one time you and I discussed in the car when I had not seen you for five years, and you explained to me why legalistic Christianity was good as opposed to the more liberal Christianity I was arguing for?

Why did so many argue that Charlie's doctors were the proper authorities for deciding whether or not he merited medical treatment?

Why are they arguing even now for RELIGIOUS freedom, or separation of CHURCH and state?

But, I would argue, there is no intrinsic reason why, for example, pupils should not be able to read and enjoy the whole of Bede's History of the English Church and People when studying the Anglo - Saxons, or a Plato dialogue when studying philosophy.

So, if the Bible, history, psychology, and nature all argue for marriage being between a man and a woman — why is there such a controversy today?

This is the Lord's decree for all living men; why try to argue with the will of the Most High?

If you care to apply the proper word (believe) to how you feel about or toward your god, then we would not even be having this discussion, for why would I argue against your accurate description of what you believe?

If you care to apply the proper word (believe) to how you feel about or toward other minds and evidence, then we would not even be having this discussion, for why would I argue against your accurate description of what you believe?