Sentences with phrase «as usual argument»

Not exact matches

Taxing them at higher rates is an increasingly popular argument, but as usual, who knows if anyone is listening to Cuban's blog rants.

As usual, Brown combines erudition with an elegant style and makes his argument readily accessible.

After the usual arguments about what everyone was wearing — my 5YO is as maddeningly stubborn as his sister — we left the house and were on our way.

People weren't as prepared to listen to the argument being played out on television as usual.

A couple random quotes (please note that many predate Bush's election as President and can't even be blamed on «Bush told CIA to mislead every other dumb politician in USA and foreign leader» usual argument):

Attorneys for Silver are making the argument that all of this is business as usual in Albany, and at the end of the day, there are always conflicts of interests that don't amount to federal crimes.

As usual John P Reid you are correct, mostly, but I wish you would marshal your arguments better and use paragraphs.

Mr. Bharara cited the strong response made by one of his prosecutors, Andrew D. Goldstein, who told the jury that such an argument tainted the democratic process by calling corruption «politics as usual.»

Per usual, a great deal of critics have essentially predetermined that Eastwood's politics are more important to harp on than the political substance of his movie, to the point that a few truly moronic writers have labeled it as an argument for the travel ban.

As usual, the authors haul out the «dumb teacher» argument: «Disruption in the classroom tends to increase or decrease with the teacher's skill in providing engaging instruction and in managing the classroom.

Teleread has posted an in - depth piece on how one - star spite reviews continue to plague authors, and as usual, The Passive Voice had a ton of well - formed arguments in favor of the current review system, railing against it, and outright admitting that reviews as a concept are simply flawed.

As for the usual «may not allow argument» may I point out the myriad of NIS RPGs that either are dual audio or single audio in Japanese.

As usual, a lucid, concise and unarguable (for those who care to listen) debunking of the standard global warming sceptics» arguments.

Maybe they would respond to arguments about a business - as - usual world of 2200, 2500, 4000 AD.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

In doing so, the best he can offer from moral philosophy is a reduction of complicated scientific, political, and economic arguments to facile comparisons of «business as usual» to «standing around, watching a child drown».

As usual, when the proponents of CAGW have been unnterly defeated in the scientific argument, they come back to the «appeal to authority».

As usual the global warming alarmists / leftists only look at the tip of the ice berg (pun intended) and neglect the rest of the facts that actually trashes their argument.

As usual you are reduced to picking out typos to distract fromyour completely empty argument.

Over the next week we will examine some of the arguments made in the Prudent Path and NIPCC documents, some of the contradictions therein, and further illustrate why business - as - usual is actually a very imprudent path.

Since your arguments are all highly debatable and several studies show just the oposite as usual.

As dirty energy influence peddlars are pulling the usual economic apocalypse arguments, a recently - released assessment concluded that not following California's plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions and implement clean energy would be the worse economic option.

As usual, lots of hidden zingers and circular assumptions in a warmist argument.

«Dire Predictions» by Mike and Lee Kump arrived in today's mail and I must say its a lot more user friendly than Hurst coefficients and autoregression analysis.It contains some startling graphs, i.e., page 33 showing the recent spike in three of the GHGs, and (so far) contains good summariess to use as responses to the usual skeptics arguments.

The Brixton Pound is billed as a currency that «sticks to Brixton» with the usual arguments of facilitating the local economy, building community, and supporting independent businesses.

«Smokey»: You may well (as usual) have missed anything related to logic, facts, arguments, and three - syllable words, but I fully agree you deserve a laugh about my lack of html skills.

As seems to be usual in these reconstructions, there were a lot of arguments among scientists about the proxies Mann used, and, just as important, chose not to usAs seems to be usual in these reconstructions, there were a lot of arguments among scientists about the proxies Mann used, and, just as important, chose not to usas important, chose not to use.

He also brings up the whole gamut of meritless «scientific» arguments (solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, cosmic rays, nameless «natural cycles,» platitudes about «uncertainty / complexity») as well as the usual conspiracy theories about AGW theory being a commie plot to bring down the west, etc., all of which made it hard for me to take his poverty argument seriously for a long time.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutor - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Try to get oral argument on a motion, even if that's not the usual case, and use such argument as the opportunity to get out your points, perhaps (contrary to general practice) bringing copies of key cases with you to the argument with important sections highlighted and tabbed, and try to give those to the judge or her court attorney.

As a new Supreme Court term officially begins (and with its first argument of the term postponed), we check in with the usual suspects for a preview of the court's docket:

The British Columbia Supreme Court began hearing argument on two motions, one to add the CBC as a party and the other by CanWest to have the case dismissed, presumably as showing no cause of action (the details are scarce, as usual when a lawsuit is involved).

An argument can also be made that if lawyers are required not to take their usual (linguistic and thus conceptual) shortcuts, they may clarify their own thinking as they take the long way around — so both SRL and counsel benefit, and probably the court too.

Mark wasn't being any help, as per usual, and the argument in the other room just got louder and louder.

In the morning you go about your days, hardly saying a word, and as the day goes on, you forget about the argument and go back to business as usual.