Sentences with phrase «argument has since»

However, this argument has since been countered by the APC team on the ground that maturity is not in age but the state of mind.

This «personally opposed, but» argument has since been the moniker of many a Democratic Catholic politician.

Not exact matches

And, ever since I encountered it, I've wanted the glass - cliff argument to be wrong.

Using the savings from those benefits to reinvest in American business — of all sizes — through reduction in taxes (and, since we're making the argument, reducing some of the regulatory burden to boot) would help business owners to grow their operations, increase sales and, yes, hire workers.

I think everyone, anyone who's ever made an argument in, since arguments began, has chosen evidence to support their arguments.

But as law professor Eugene Volokh notes, the First Amendment argument is a strong one, and the Supreme Court would likely hear the case since it involves striking down a federal statute.

There's an argument to be made, and has been made for years, that Apple needs to transition iTunes — which makes money via individual transactions — to a subscription model, since that's what consumers are increasingly preferring.

And so the economic argument against it has been framed ever since.

These arguments were compelling at the time, but now Apple is now trading at $ 176, and investors have almost doubled their money since this article came out.

The main argument appears to be that the loopwhole allows the corporate professional to earn the same amount as an employed individual since a corporate professional does not have paid vacation or an employer pension.

This is pretty important, since it confirms the Liberal and NDP argument that the federal government has to find other resources to finance corporate tax cuts or deficit finance them.

For example, some time back HFT was blamed for higher volatility in the cattle market, even though such trading represents a smaller fraction of cattle trading than it does for other contracts, and especially since there is precious little in the way of a theoretical argument that would support such a connection.

This has given little edge to either the bull or bear argument on a technical basis since last week's drop.

Buffet has been recycling the lack of intrinsic value argument since 2014, when he first dismissed Bitcoin as «a mirage» on CNBC.

Their argument is this: Companies have largely exhausted the benefits of cutting costs and improving productivity since the recession.

Is an increase from 2.6 % of GDP in 1981 to 3.1 % of GDP in 2012 unsustainable?  Yes, I suppose so, if this rate of increase continues for another few centuries. The same argument the CFIB makes for municipal spending could be made for corporate profits but far moreso. After adjusting for inflation, corporate profits have increased by 245 % since 1992, doubling as a share of GDP and growing at a rate of ten times Canadaâ $ ™ s cumulative population growth of just 23 % since 1992.

Lou Mercer: Or we're always taught the market does not like uncertainty, but you can make an argument that since the election, we've been more uncertain than ever.

Based purely on long - term cycles, a successful argument could be made that we have been in a secular commodity bull market since the turn of the century in 2000.

Since January, DeMoss has spent about half his time making such arguments, stressing to clients that the work is not official firm business.

But, not only have there been strong arguments since 2008 that maintaining individual currencies may not have been a bad thing (you can't have currency union without fiscal union)...

She seems content to rehash John Bosewell's long since refuted arguments and pretend as if Christian scholarship has not already handled these bad arguments.

These are basic arguments, are you legitimate in saying you have never heard the other sides arguments or that since they run contrary to your own views that you tune them out every time?

It's a logical argument on the surface, and one Christians have been using since the days of Prohibition.

Since most modern thinkers began with the premise that God exists, these philosophers have used their great philosophic arguments for the existence of God.

The struggle for the freedom of the press and freedom of ideas has, up till now, been mainly an argument within the bourgeoisie itself; for the masses, freedom to express opinions was a fiction since they were, from the beginning, barred from the means of production — above all from the press — and thus were unable to join in freedom of expression from the start.

I wish rather to call attention to a peculiar aspect of one of the arguments used to support the latter view, since I think it betrays an inadequacy in all current Whiteheadian views which has not been appreciated.

This is a weak argument, but interestingly, since I wrote the article, is seems that nearly every book I read has ideas which parallel the content of my research.

Seriously... your arguments are some of the weakest I have encountered since I left the VERY BLIND fundamentalist church.

This year marks 200 years since the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of evolution has caused as many religious arguments as it has scientific ones...

Her attorney, Saif ul Malook, based the appeal on the argument that the person who brought the case against Bibi, a local cleric, should not have been allowed to do so since he didn't hear the blasphemy first - hand.

Since then, this conception of metaphysics has given way to one of metaphysics as the study of most basic or general presuppositions, and of the metaphysical argument as hypothetical in the manner of a scientific theory, but on a level of higher generality.

I haven't heard that argument used for movies since the early days of pornography when hard - core pictures were preceded by a warning from a man wearing a doctor's smock about the terrible things viewers were about to witness.

I have «heard» this argument often before, but it is disappointing since it leaves out a crucial passage.

Father Neuhaus» argument is to read these reprobation texts as «suggesting a destiny of separation from God,» while reading other texts (Colossians 1:19 «20, 1 Corinthians 15:20 «28, Romans 5:18, 11:33 «36) as «suggesting the redemption of the entire cosmos,» leaving us free to choose between these mutually exclusive alternatives, since the Church in her wisdom has not pronounced on the matter.

Bless me, Father, for I have sinned; it has been one day since my last confession.Three times I participated in an argument about trigger warnings.

As an agnostic atheist, I have had arguments against both extremes, but the arguments with hard - line atheists have been easier since that's probably closer to my belief.

I know you'll bring up your false causal chain argument again, but since you do not know what caused the Big Bang, nor do you know the conditions prior to the Big Bnag, you can not use that argument... it has no basis.

The cause - and - effect argument only makes sense to us since we live in a linear time domain, and we have no reason to assume there was linear time before the Big Bang.

If more States had adopted the ACA and set up their own sites the Federal site would not have been overloaded which is what Fox and the conservatives are all upset about now since their ideology argument failed so badly, now all they have is «The Websites Broken!

I'm sure that you've seen my logical argument concerning the existence of God / Jesus — and since you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, you don't have any logical reason to claim that God doesn't exist.

That is a big assumption on your part since you nor anyone has ever provided evedince that God does not exist, and spare me the argument that the burden of proof lies with the believer because both sides are making a definative claim.

Especially when we have since seen that these controversies have resulted in a litany of violence, hatred, and even killing on both sides of the argument.

When I have debated with members of SIMS the question of whether TM is Hinduism or a religion at all, they have employed a most peculiar argument which they attribute to the Maharishi: since TM does not demand that one be a Hindu or even religious to take lessons, therefore TM is neither Hinduism nor is it a religion.

The argument has and will always be that the separation is that since the English Crown was the head of the church that the separation is so that the government can not interfere with the churches.

The logic of Johnson's argument would seem to be that, since one or more major accommodations of the gospel were accepted in the past, the accommodation that feminists propose must also be accepted.

First the «born in sin» I would suggest is a weak argument since we are talking about the unborn and also would be offensive to parents of children that died prior to birth (me being one of them).

The red - hot Turkey issue The argument has raged for 45 years over whether Turkey should become part of Europe, ever since it signed an Association Agreement in 1963 as a first step toward membership.

Keep in mind that since you and nonono have been capitalizing the «G» in reference to this being, I expect specific arguments in favor of the existence of yours and not some run - of - the - mill god.

Ever since Thomas Kuhn popularized it with his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the notion of a «paradigm shift» has led to fascinating arguments about whether this or that break with previous scientific understanding counted as one.

I would take great pleasure in a discussion with Hutchison on this point, but I will restrain myself since that was not actually part of my argument.