This so reminded me of
the arguments against running years ago.
Not exact matches
More generally, I think the strongest
argument against a price - level target is that the absence of long - term indexed contracts suggests that the benefits of long -
run price predictability are not that large.
Ken Ham challenged Bill Nye to a debate, even while Ken Ham continues to
run from me and my proposal that he «come out» and «come clean» regarding his positions relating to my
argument that so many of his followers rail
against but which quite properly is able to demonstrate why it is, in part, that young - earth creation - science promoters have failed in their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.
Perhaps coincidentally, Flake is doing badly
against his Republican primary opponent, even though her behavior is a reminder that the best
argument against conservative populism is the people who
run as conservative populists.
Every
argument he makes
against religious belief
runs up
against a great foggy X-factor called «God» and a useful hedge called «the Fall of Man» and an ace up the sleeve called «grace.»
That
argument worked for Kennedy in 1960 when he was
running for president
against anti-Catholic prejudice.
Specifically he notes how he refused to entertain the
arguments against military action in the
run - up to the Iraq war, even when articulated by card - carrying conservatives, because his hatred of terrorists and liberals outran his reason.
Still, there is a certain awkwardness here, for the
argument just presented
runs against those three passages in Process and Reality where Whitehead does speak of direct prehension of the distant past.
«There's widespread support in the industry for the rebate to be removed from NZ producers, but every time we raise this with decision makers in Canberra we
run up
against the
argument of whether removing that entitlement will have broader ramifications on our trading agreements, not just with New Zealand but with other countries as well.
There are valid
arguments for and
against running Silver Spoon (who, unlike Regret, would have to carry 121 pounds
against the colts» 126 pounds) in the Derby, and Whitney intends to weigh all of them with the meticulous care of a Cape Canaveral supervisor before he orders the button pushed.
I've backed the 68 year - old on a number of occasions, as well as voicing some concerns at times, but as we look destined to miss out on Champions League football for the second season
running, I'm not sure there can be any
argument against giving the reins over to somebody else.
The
argument against, say, Rafael Palmeiro is that his 500 home
runs and 3,000 hits didn't mean as much because they came in the Steroid Era.
It can be argued that the crowds were so good because we were winning regularly, but that
argument is easily countered by our current home form, six wins on the bounce the best
run since the early days of SImon Grayson's time at the helm, and
against a higher standard of opposition.
This cautioned wisdom
runs counter to the popular notion that the media ought to operate on an honours system of self - regulation, the proponents of which tend to hide behind
arguments against the «risks» posed by censorship.
That conclusion, based on a full but complicated analysis of every possible measurement ¬ — complaints to Ombudsfolk, audit reports of all kinds, measurement of times and numbers, review of agency work and outsourcing — stands up
against every possible reservation, such as the
argument that costs and complaints would have risen even more had the reforms not been undertaken, or that social change made it necessary for government to
run faster to stand still.
This isn't the first time the anti-gambling lobby has employed this
argument against the current governor's push to expans non-Indian
run casinos in New York.
Accepting the failures of his leadership as his alone
against a tide of media hostility and so on, and not of his message and policies — not a wholly implausible
argument for those inclined to believe — would give the left's next candidate a much clearer
run, a sympathetic hearing and a wave of righteous indignation to ride.
But unfortunately people who don't have access to open media fail to see the holes in this
argument so many actually believe that no good competition can
run against the great leader.
«[A] few students, belonging to Dalit, backward, minority and left - wing groups, are expected to demonstrate
against the prime minister... but a campus is where feelings and
arguments can and should
run high.
But if you're, you know just for
argument -LSB-'s] sake, if you are 20 feet from the ship, but you're in the same, going exactly the same velocity as the ship, ordinarily well, you would be up the creek, so to speak; because with nothing to accelerate
against you would just parallel the path of the ship until you
run out of oxygen or starve to death, whatever.
Whether it's «something missing» or
running your heads
against the same
argument wall, it can be really liberating to just call a spade a spade and fold your hand (a shoddy poker metaphor but just go with it.)
Your
argument against the agency model
runs precisely both ways.
who is
running for city council — said «the
arguments against income splitting in my mind are baseless, derogatory and wrongly associated with old notions of who earns money in the family.»
The liberal
argument against it is succinctly stated in The Hill's article that
ran the month before the tax reform bill passed: «Morgtage Interest Deduction Mostly Benefits the Rich — End it.»
Likewise, our
arguments for or
against legislation pale next to hundreds of personal stories about the realities of
running a pet store, caring for pets throughout their lives, raising and collecting tropical fish, or creating and shipping food for millions of cats, dogs, birds, fish, small mammals and reptiles.
Consider this comparison: if you
ran a giant food company which produced a particular product for over a hundred years with no basic complaint
against it beyond it not being a staple of a standard daily meal diet, and you found yourself accused in just the last 20 years of both knowing it was cancer - causing and paying dietitian experts to tell the public otherwise — despite the lack of irrefutable evidence of its harm and the total lack of credible evidence that you paid «shill experts» to lie on your behalf — why would you suddenly capitulate to
arguments against your product while not raising any concern about the corruption accusation hurled at you?
A typical straw man
argument used
against wind power is: «No country can
run on wind power because the wind doesn't blow all the time.
In addition to providing good insight into the current state of the law, he makes the
argument that it would be good for society, including employers, if they could get over their basically reflexive anti-free speech reactions, while acknowledging there is little current legal basis to require them to do so, and conceding that freedom increases conflict which
runs against [an] employer's «enduring goals of employee compliance, conformity, complacency and efficiency.»
One of the challenges of the
argument that
runs «ban — or discourage — the niqab because it oppresses women» is to be very sure that the woman who wears one does so
against her will.
In this program, we engage Nesson's key
arguments, focusing especially on Nesson's claim that copyright law's statutory damages regime
runs afoul of constitutional protections
against excessive and / or arbitrary civil damages awards.
Noting that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray has «sloppily revealed the falsity of long -
running arguments against arbitration clauses in financial services contracts,» the American Tort Reform Association today called a newly reported letter from Cordray to President Trump «a desperate attempt to win back plaintiffs» bar support for his possible gubernatorial
run in Ohio»... → Read More: Cordray's Veto Letter to Trump a «Last - Gasp» Effort to Save Possible Gubernatorial Campaign