Sentences with phrase «argued the point for»

Both Christopher Nelson and Jake Holmes argue their points for each of their cars.

Led out of the firm's Birmingham office by the «very hands on» Edward Sunderland and assisted by practitioners spread across the regional network, including Leeds and Manchester, Pinsent Masons LLP is «highly experienced in the field» and «whether acting for borrower or bank, is focused on getting the deal done and not arguing points for the sake of it».

Not exact matches

But the startup community points to the already tough climate for funding, and argues the need to find a workable model for equity crowd funding is urgent in Canada, as the U.S. is already moving ahead.

They argue that without proper (and expensive) preparations for the reintroduction of borders, such as customs points and truck parks, the U.K. has no fall - back position if it can't agree a settlement with the EU.

And I'd argue that point is a lot sooner than many people want it to be, or are ready for it to be.

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.

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.

Others will point out Brady's fantastic skill, his natural leadership ability, and his incomparable experience as reasons for his success last night — and I'm not arguing that.

The tipping point came in 1917, when President Wilson made the decision to enter World War I. Suffragettes argued that the effort to «make the world safe for democracy» (Wilson's words) ought to begin at home by extending the franchise.

The primary point that people are missing, he argues, is that money being pumped into Spain from Europe is going to the banking sector through the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, a government - sponsored organization that will now be overseen by the IMF, and not the Spanish government itself.

«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.

This, Klosterman argues, is how it has always been (for a while we were certain the Earth was flat until that was proven incorrect), and from that starting point, he attempts to explore which ideas or truths we believe today may be seen as woefully incorrect 100 years in the future.

Skeptics, however, point to the robust secondary market for the tokens to argue the tokens resemble shares of a company's stock.

A few times during the session Kogan made a point of arguing that data audits are essentially useless for catching bad actors — claiming that anyone who wants to misuse data can simply put a copy on a hard drive and «store it under the mattress».

We have long argued that it is vital for investors to filter out the noise that creates short - term flash points and instead stay focused on the secular themes that are driving valuations over the longer run (such as demographic trends and technological innovation).

Zuckerberg was asked by US lawmakers last week what kind of regulation he would and wouldn't like to see laid upon Internet companies — and he made a point of arguing for privacy carve outs to avoid falling behind, of all things, competitors in China.

At this rate it would take 25 years for disposable household income to raise by 10 percentage points of GDP, which I would argue is the absolute minimum consistent with real rebalancing.

Imbalances can continue for many years, I argue, but at some point they become unsustainable and the world must adjust by reversing those imbalances.

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.

Both points argued against a purchase: continuing to sell to other companies removed the only plausible strategic rationale for buying the company instead of simply buying robots, but to stop selling to Kiva Systems» existing customers would be value - destructive.

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.»

My recollection is by this point in the book he'd had to substitute a proxy scaled market, and argue for the applicability of the measures over short time scales, so this suggests to me a major re-jig of my portfolio would be premature.

In addition, pure - play broadcasters are valued from 6 - 9x EV / EBITDA and one could argue that MEG deserves a valuation closer towards the mid point or higher for its peers when factoring the disposal of newspapers and accounting for the high quality locations of its key stations.

Reaching a Point of Absurdity: Illegal immigration has been embedded in American society for so long «that we have forgotten its intrinsic contradictions,» argues Victor Davis Hanson.

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.

The banks will argue hey are existing loans simply rolling over so we may not know the answer for a while on this point.

In a widely shared story in The New Yorker, Adam Davidson argued that Trump's presidency has reached a turning point toward a broad consensus that the president has been a disaster for the United States.

For Wood, the bottom line is for Crescent Point to embrace the dissident and argues that an «elegant solution» would be to take the four nominees on as directoFor Wood, the bottom line is for Crescent Point to embrace the dissident and argues that an «elegant solution» would be to take the four nominees on as directofor Crescent Point to embrace the dissident and argues that an «elegant solution» would be to take the four nominees on as directors.

Be that as it may, the point of this talk is to argue against the proposition that a particular type of demand management policy was responsible for growth achieved over a couple of decades.

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self - replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the «givens,» but leave them implicit in their calculations).

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

I became one of those aggressive seven point Calvinists that argued for argument's sake.

A reasoable point to argue, I suppose — I will add this: If this is NOT what Islam brings to the table, then where are the throngs of Muslims speaking out to explain that this is NOT what their religion actually stands for?

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.

The movie served to give me a different platform to discuss faith from, not to argue that my belief system is right and someone else's is wrong, but instead to point out that the world is hungry for questions about the soul and what we don't see right in front of us.

Again, my concern at that point was to argue for profound transformation, not to argue against continuity.

I do like the fact that when arguing for rationalism you decide to be totally irrational and throw out extremes like Pink unicorns and magical Blue socks but it doesn't make your point, it's just showing that you're trying to yell the loudest to cloud the issue.

Martin points out, for example, how Evans argues «on faith» that Jesus possessed foreknowledge, but then endorses an interpretation of a New Testament story in which Jesus expected something that did not happen.

I'll argue the same point for the WLC, albeit with less certainty.

My point is that maybe the bible needs reinterpretation for more present times (and is not a perfect work that will hold true always), because how am I going to argue with a woman who wants to abort that tells me that the god in the bible has also killed babies?

But though I will argue for this teleological view of nature and human nature from empirical premises and from reason, my purpose here is not to debate or attempt to prove this point, but rather to illustrate how some teleological understanding of nature and human nature is a necessary premise for the idea of environmental stewardship.

You said «I do like the fact that when arguing for rationalism you decide to be totally irrational and throw out extremes like Pink unicorns and magical Blue socks but it doesn't make your point, it's just showing that you're trying to yell the loudest to cloud the issue.

I'll leave the first point for someone else to argue, but the one about a continuum is surprisingly rare.

Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy (Harper & Bros., 1948), p. 266, makes this point in a chapter on «Ritual, Symbol, Sacrament» which, in dependence on C. D. Broad, develops a doctrine of real presence similar to the one argued for here.

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.

He suggests two other points of view, and proposes that the chaplain be their advocate in the professional mix: a focus on meaning, arguing that the mentally ill have lost or have never found meaning in life (Tillich, Frankl); and a focus on morals, suggesting that a violation of moral obligation or social responsibility accounts for mental distress (Mowrer, Boisen).

The people who simply wanted to argue about anything and everything would have stoned her to make a point, except for one thing: Jesus asked each one to judge himself before he judged her.

For example, Moses Stuart of Andover Seminary in Massachusetts (who was sympathetic to the eventual emancipation of American slaves, but was against abolition), published a tract in which he pointed to Ephesians 6 and other biblical texts to argue that while slaves should be treated fairly by their owners, abolitionists just didn't have Scripture on their side and «must give up the New Testament authority, or abandon the fiery course which they are pursuing.»

I never argued whether the resurrection was true or false (that's a matter of faith and people die for their faiths all of the time), but the fact that he lived was my point.

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.