Sentences with phrase «argue the point well»

The article is very well written and argues the point well.

badcaleb: I think Jamie Golombek argues the point well — in some cases it would make sense to keep cap gains in unregistered account.

Not exact matches

When I ask which boy could be the next Lionel Messi — Barcelona's superstar, and some would argue the best footballer in history — a staff member points to a lanky 11 - year - old in neon - orange cleats, darting across the field.

Prior to the market correction, which has reduced Tesla's 2018 gain to about 3 % ahead of earnings, there was no real major dip, so you could argue that the staggering losses and the capital obliteration — over $ 1 billion per quarter at his point — are, well, somehow rationally priced in.

Ahead of earnings, there's been no real dip, so you could argue that the staggering losses and the capital obliteration — over $ 1 billion per quarter at his point — are, well, somehow rationally priced in.

«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.

Many good points and counterpoints were argued.

They point to an article that you wrote in March, I think, of 2012 in Policy Options, where you basically said, dirty oil, the tar sands it's called, dirty oil and the future of our country, where you argue that the development of the, as you use the word, tar sands, it's become a political term, by the way, as you know, is basically not necessarily good for the country, in fact it takes jobs away in the manufacturing sector of Ontario.

In fairness, Nick of Sure Dividend uses the Sharpe Ratio and research by Kenneth French to argue on the side of dividend stocks and makes some good points.

As for ProShares, «you could argue from a business point of view that was a good decision because they're now going to get a lot of the [Credit Suisse] XIV refugees.»

The point is that after decades of touting his business acumen, his ability to negotiate tough deals and spot good investments, and after spending this entire campaign season arguing that he's qualified for the presidency based on his skills in the market, Trump nonetheless has an investment record that at best roughly matches and at worst underperforms the market.

In a new collaborative report, «An Underappreciated Disruptor,» Morgan Stanley's Utility and Clean Tech analyst, Stephen Byrd and Shared Mobility & Auto analyst, Adam Jonas, argue that the price of both solar and wind energy, as well as new storage units, have reached a point where renewable energy can finally become a dependable rather than an unpredictable source of energy.

Churches in other nations that are persecuted don't have the luxury to sit around and argue the finer points of theology until they find their depravity getting the better of them.

And considering the impact of religion on society (good or bad) I would argue it is not a moot point for discussion period.

That's a good point, our government is racking up debt faster than locust on a wheat field, and we're arguing about gay - marriage, race and still abortion issues.

You raise a very good point that escapes most theists and that is while they argue against atheists for not believing in their god, they forget that most of those arguments could be applied to them by somebody of another religion.

[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.

Point out verses which rebut that view, and they'll argue, «Well, that can't mean what you claim it does.»

Indeed, he turns the tables by arguing that scientific principles of reasoning point to theism as the best explanation of all the relevant data.

I, (and many biblical scholars and fellow Christians), would argue the point of these passages is not that patriarchy is the best foundation for marriage, but rather that the humility and service of Jesus Christ is the best example for marriage... and any relationship.

It is a strange picture that we are given of Jesus during these first days in the temple: arguing freely with Sadducees, scribes, and Pharisees; parrying more or less subtle attempts to lure him into statements that could be used against him; answering sincere questions and approving good answers to his own questions; pronouncing fiery invectives against influential teachers who opposed him; lamenting the failure of Jerusalem to respond to his challenge; and then calmly pointing out to his disciples the tiny but sacrificial offering of a poor widow.

I'm not saying the unnecessary suffering of animals is good, or moral, but rather pointing out that your perspective on the subject is no more rational, no more based on fact, than that of the people you are arguing against.

A «colossal hypocrite with a chip on his shoulder and a lack of good sense,» no, though others would argue the point.

Pointing to such factors as a low minimum wage, the declining number of well - paying manufacturing jobs, and the continuing segregation of jobs by race and sex, they argue that the central issue is the availability and quality of work.

Ok, now for the first part: It's clear that [laughing] is not well read, because he has argued that people are still reading when clearly my [right turn clyde] point is that people are not.

Up to a point, this way of arguing is itself an act of good liberal citizenship.

If you are going to argue a point, support your ideas with something other than a «good» book.

Now, as Nagel argues, this is not the sort of question that you can answer by looking at a few examples (bats for Nagel, Christians for us) and pointing and saying, «Well, being a bat (or a Christian) is like this.»

Romney has taken the time to inform himself about the issues to the point that he can argue both sides of any issue better than most of his Republican opponents can argue any side of anything.

John Calvin, the great European predecessor of the New England Puritans, working carefully from a basically Augustinian starting point, had argued that a well - ordered nonmonarchical church could operate symbiotically with a well - ordered polity, namely the city - republic of Geneva, to create an ethical social order.

Despite the fact that everyone, at some level, knows this, the point needs to be argued because we are all also partly brainwashed by a theory that suggests that global capitalism strongly supports the overall well being of humanity.

Now you may argue that they're just playing with their minds, but the point is Christians aren't contradicting themselves by associating only good with God.

If you want to make a point about people not having jobs... I think you can do a better job of arguing that CNN and other groups are spending too much time concentrating on a single subject.

However, Albert Scott, one of Rockefeller's advisers and also chairman of the board of trustees of New York's Riverside Church, argued the same point that had been argued by the minority in the Akron meeting at the Williams home — that money, property, and professionalism might «spoil this thing» (DR. BOB and the Good Oldtimers, pp. 134 - 35).

There is no point in arguing with an individual such as scotty, who is so far removed from reality he might as well be on the moon.

This often shapes the conversation in a much better way, because it allows for a personal story someone can take ownership of — and that provides them with a much more genuine feeling than just arguing theological points.

I would argue that it is an important part of recognising the other side of any position as well as one's own point of view.

But although atheists might argue that a «disbelief in the immateriality or immortality of the soul» would not «make a person less caring, less moral, less committed to the well - being of everybody on Earth,» A. F. Christian is quick to point out the evidence to the contrary.

We can go back as far as Kierkegaard to find these roots, but our focus is more well placed in Jean Baudrillard's theories that argue for a heightened abstractness within culture pointing us to the negative side of an intertextual world view where meaning is paradoxically contained in and unbound by deferánce.

There's nothing offensive or against the rules in my comment, but it is strongly critical, and I would like to think, well argued point against Biblical religions.

If, as we shall be arguing in a moment, we may be sure of «objective immortality», the taking into God's life of every good that has been achieved in the creative process; and if, as that understanding of the world order implies, one of the goods is the agency by which these given goods have been achieved, including at this point the human agent as a peculiarly significant focus — may it not be the case that not only the good which has been achieved but the agent who has achieved it (himself good, despite defect and the instances of his failure in this mortal existence) will be preserved beyond the «perishing of occasions»?

[Aside: Anyone who still thinks that good Christians do not pick and choose, and wants to continue to argue this point, must answer the following questions before posting a comment: # 1 Have you sold all of your belongings and given them to them to the poor?

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!

It is the market economist who argues for hope, who points to creativity when others push for control, who recognizes that people are good, in a fundamental, real sense: assets, not liabilities.

I then argue that at that point Guzman has a much better shot at covering the back post.

Good try Budd but an 11 year old could argue a point with greater efficacy.

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

He's been absolutely incredible — you could argue that he's been the best point guard in the NBA in that period.

And I won't argue with your point that Exum is better than Burks defensively; that is absolutely true.

Well at last someone with the courage to argue their point.