Sentences with phrase «argument for it yesterday»

We think they should, and API President and CEO Jack Gerard made a compelling argument for it yesterday at the second State of American Energy event in Washington, D.C.

Not exact matches

Like I wrote yesterday, even the most impressive and seemingly perfect arguments for or against God are limited.

I was reading the book reviews of a certain Christian book on Amazon yesterday, and stumbled upon the most astounding argument for the truth of Christianity I have ever read.

Since our conversation yesterday looked at Matthew Vines» argument that lifelong celibacy is not biblically mandated for gay and lesbian Christians, I wanted to make space here for another perspective.

When Samuel commented on why it was wrong to sell Lucas Perez you brought up stats between Walcott and Perez and in that you proved using the stats why Walcott is better.If Wenger didn't have blond love for some of his players then why did he keep benching Perez when he was performing yet the average guys always got a look in the squad.So if there are stats which prove Walcott is better aren't there stats which also prove Perez is better?Think about that.You also said Perez is not as good as some of us make out.The funny thing is yesterday we had an argument on Giroud and I also tried to imply that Giroud is not as good as we make out and you opposed.You always kept bringing stats up to defend him.Do you know if Bendtner or Chamakh had scored 25 goals for Arsenal in any season they'd still have been regarded as average.You know why?Because quality has nothing to do with stats and is just a kind pf talent or state.It seems to me that you think you know it all.You also denied the fact that Wenger likes French players and that if Perez was French he wouldn't have been out in one season stating other players as examples.It seems to me that you deny things which are clear for everyone to see.If you think you know better than everyone go and teach Wenger how to win the trophy this season.

Dom Raab MP made similar arguments in a superb piece for yesterday's Telegraph.

The Telegraph reports David Davis as saying that Parliament should not be recalled on the back of yesterday's events but that there are arguments for MPs debating the Israel - Hezbollah - Lebanon conflict.

There were arguments at an Assembly roundtable yesterday both for and against ride - sharing, an airing of concerns about worker protections and insurance coverage as well as pleas from business leaders to do something about current taxi service in the state Capitol.

President Barack Obama's appalling and imbecilic speech at the UN yesterday employed his usual eloquence for an argument which he will refute with his own actions.

And it also shoots holes in his argument — made just yesterday — that it would be inappropriate for him to back anyone in the hotly contested Democratic mayoral primary in New York City because he's registered to vote in Westchester.

Federal prosecutors, bent on telling a story of public corruption, used cherry - picked evidence, untrustworthy witnesses and innuendo to build a case against former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos and his son, Adam, lawyers for the men said in closing arguments yesterday.

In their letter, the members of Congress echoed many of Mr. de Blasio's arguments yesterday, pointing to his expansion of universal prekindergarten and increased funding for under - performing schools as evidence of what is possible under mayoral control.

After closing arguments yesterday, the jurors only deliberated for about a half hour.

Here is a selection of the arguments that Tory MPs made during yesterday's debate on limiting the increase in benefits to 1 % for each of the next three years.

Peers had been widely expected to reject the proposals and send them back to the Commons, but yesterday speech after speech lambasting the arguments for increased detention gave some idea of the depth and breadth of opposition.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday reheard oral arguments in the case of an Indiana college math instructor who was allegedly denied promotion and ultimately fired for being a lesbian.

A federal judge for the District of Columbia yesterday rejected a legal argument used by the Bush Administration in 2008 to argue that the polar bears are threatened but not endangered.

However, we are also able to cross-reference that inference with context: how does the student usually respond to lessons, what is going on at home, what are you noticing in the general social dynamics of the classroom, did they get in an argument with their best friend this morning, did they eat breakfast, did they sleep well, was a new video game released yesterday, is it particularly humid in the building today, what's going on in the general school culture right now, has this student been taking tests all day, are elements like depression or anxiety potentially relevant, or is it just an «off day» for a great student?

Named for one of the student plaintiffs, Beatriz Vergara, the case heard closing arguments yesterday.

I know at this point, I've seen enough conflicting «evidence» that has been «proven» to be incorrect on both ends (and yes, the sites I was sent to yesterday for research have some pretty convincing arguments), that I'm not willing today to say I think that AGW is either accurate, or as devastating as is predicted, but I'm also not willing to say it isn't accurate or as devastating either.

She said, «If someone's making that old, tired argument that what's good for the environment is bad for the economy, can you remind them that that's so yesterday?»

The paper, Law Firms, Ethics, and Equity Capital: A Conversation, published yesterday by Georgetown Law School's Center for the Study of the Legal Profession, collects correspondence among MacEwen, Georgetown law professor Milton C. Regan and University of Illinois law professor Larry E. Ribstein, in which they discuss whether current ethics rules would permit firms to sell financial instruments and debate the arguments for and against.

«Aipac Judge Orders Open Arguments on Government Proposal»: The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, «A federal judge in the trial of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said yesterday that a government proposal for keeping classified information out of the public record has «no precedent,» and he ordered open arguments on the matteArguments on Government Proposal»: The New York Sun today contains an article that begins, «A federal judge in the trial of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee said yesterday that a government proposal for keeping classified information out of the public record has «no precedent,» and he ordered open arguments on the mattearguments on the matter.»

The post from Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports on yesterday's Supreme Court argument in which the state of Arizona and the federal government argued for — and got Justices supporting — the broad proposition that police who encounter someone in a public place should have the authority to frisk that individual any time they fear he may be «armed and dangerous,» even if they have no suspicion that any crime has been or is being committed.

By yesterday morning, in fact, Mr. Bush's arguments for keeping Mr. Libby out of prison had become an unexpected gift to defense lawyers around the country, who scrambled to make use of them in their own cases....

Yesterday's oral argument in D.C. v. Heller, addressing the issue of whether the District of Columbia's expansive handgun ban violates the Second Amendment, provided plenty of ammunition for law bloggers to discuss.

Professor Zywicki, who testified for the umpteenth time in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, lays out a compelling — and infuriating to this consumer — argument that even though overwhelming majorities of both houses continue to approve this legislation, it has been sidelined by four Congresses and consumers have yet to benefit.

So while it may be unusual for a government to sue to challenge the activities of one of its own agencies, as a University of Calgary law professor interviewed by the Calgary Herald conceded yesterday, it's «not a bad argument.»

Confirming an important point conceded by Deputy SG during last Term's oral arguments, the Government's Gall brief states repeatedly that policy disagreements with the Guidelines can be a valid basis for a variance — even though many circuit have held otherwise (like the Tenth Circuit in a split ruling yesterday) and even though many lower court briefs filed by the Government have argued otherwise.

Justice Ginsburg asked at the same argument yesterday whether the 10 percent rule created an incentive for black students to stay in black school districts.

Yesterday the Federal Circuit heard oral argument on the mandamus petition filed by TC Heartland in an underlying case lodged in the District Court of Delaware (The underlying case is Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. TC Heartland LLC, case number 1:14 - cv - 00028, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware).

Two slightly different houses on the same street can vary in sales price by tens of thousands of dollars yet where the Realtor is willing to accept say 2.5 % on $ 500,000 yesterday, there is no logical argument to be made for being worth 2.5 % on the $ 550,000 property across the street or 2.5 % on the $ 400,000 condo around the corner, tomorrow.