Sentences with phrase «debated that question at»

More than 200 Iraqi - American intellectual leaders debated that question at a meeting last weekend in Washington, D.C..

Not exact matches

Employees were debating the question with vigor at the water cooler, making their cases for this animal or that one.

At one point in the CNN debate, the two candidates actually debated who grew up poorer after a question about raising the minimum wage.

There have been just two questions on income inequality asked so far during the debates — one of which was directed at Sen. Rand Paul right before a commercial break (he focused on Federal Reserve policy), and the other which was for Gov. Mike Huckabee (who bemoaned general government incompetence).

Sure, at debates, like last night's great one in Milwaukee, candidates are always asked questions that begin with, «As president, will you...» but we all know that presidents alone can't really do anything but put their socks on or, in more recent years, play a lot of golf.

That ad uses video clip from Trump's attack on Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly in protest of her questioning of him at a debate of Republican presidential contenders last August when he said afterward that blood was «coming out of her eyes, coming out of her wherever.»

Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds to a question during the town hall debate at Washington University on October 9, 2016 in St Louis, Missouri.

But taking a step back and looking at the debate creates a common sense question — Why does everything have to be so extreme?

The pressure is now on CNN, according to Sesno, to ensure that next week's debate questions move beyond America's fascination with Trump's personality to take a harder look at candidate Trump's actual political plans, while also giving his rival candidates more time in the spotlight.

Ken Bone (C), a power plant employee from Belleville, Illinois, waits in the audience to ask a question about energy policy and jobs during the presidential debate between Republican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, October 9, 2016.

However arguments around the «burning question of our time» as Munk Debate moderator Rudyard Griffiths expressed it, was a chance to view champions on both sides of the economic trenches go at it hand to hand.

His questioning of the presumed superiority of prestigious schools — students may fare better at less - elite institutions where their self - esteem takes less of a beating — adds a provocative wrinkle to the hot debate over education.

It's an eternally debated question: Just how much sleep do people actually need to function at their best?

Health care executives from IBM Watson and Athenahealth (athn) debated that question onstage at Fortune's inaugural Brainstorm Health conference Tuesday.

Trump also boasted about his permit to carry in New York at an early GOP debate, when responding to a question about that Oregon shooting.

We at the Bank of Canada are grappling with this question, and it is being debated by economists and policy - makers around the world.

That's the question at the heart of a debate over whether consumers deserve access to free loaner vehicles when their own vehicles are under recall for a safety defec

BlackRock strategists and portfolio managers recently discussed this topic in online responses to questions floated at the BlackRock Investment Institute's daily global videoconference dedicated to debating market trends.

by Anita Anand At root, the debate over whether Canada should have a cooperative securities regulator (or some version thereof) stems from questions about the appropriate institutional supervisory structure for Canada's financial system.

Given the sparse population west of Lake Superior at the time, the need for a subsidy for a large indivisible capital project is not in question but the size of the subsidy has been subject to debate.

This is directed at all the anti-christian posters, The topic at question is not open for debate of if there is a God, or if Jesus existed, He undoubtedly did and DOES.

At the end of his essay, Griffiths gives the impression that Pitstick should have limited herself to a school debate with Balthasar over the merits of his theology of Christ's descent rather than raising the formal question of orthodoxy.

The ordained leaders of the Church, and the laity who are Christ's principal witnesses in the public square, do not enter public life proclaiming, «The Church teaches...» When the question at issue is an immoral practice, they enter the debate saying, «This is wicked; it can not be sanctioned by the law and here is why, as any reasonable person will grasp.»

He was a chronic assailant of English syntax, and his victory over the more articulate Michael Dukakis owed nothing to his skill at debating or answering questions.

The scholarly orgy of debunking has obscured the importance of the facts that such ideals were professed at all, and that debate about them helped to focus the attention of a large, diverse, professional community on the question of what kind of life a lawyer ought to try to live.

God (and faith) doesn't require us to check or brains at the door, and not think, question, or debate.

Applied to the question at hand, the debate thus proceeds on the unquestioned assumption that either human beings definitely are naturally religious, and so religion will always persist in human societies, or they are not naturally religious, and so modernity will inevitably secularize people and society as we shed the accidents of our cultural past.

Even the questions concerning the pastoral care of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics, and of homosexual couples — both topics of heated debate at last October's Synod of Bishops — are in the end based on theological foundations, and deal with the application of doctrine.

2) name usage statistics do not guarantee the miraculous — but they certainly place an author in that immediate context (or at the very least, with direct access to someone who was from that immediate context), which is a MAJOR contingency that has been much debated in the question of authorship... which IS the topic you raised.

First, Tietjen insists that at the heart of the debate was the question of what it means to be Lutheran, particularly within the Missouri Synod tradition.

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 question / point / debate really should be «Do patron's really want the money they spend at Chick - fil - A going to those organizations?»

Yesterday we looked at a famous theological question from the days of Jesus, and I suggested that Jesus hated the question, especially when the person that the debate was about was standing right in front of Jesus with a need that could be met.

As a result religious questions were freely debated at home.

Yes, let the moderator ask that or any other religious question at these debates.

He answered a question about how his religion would affect his presidency at Thursday's CNN debate by talking about the Founding Fathers» belief that rights came from God, as opposed to talking about his Mormonism.

Many questions of observance, ceremonial and other, and even rules of morals, were still hotly debated, and the process did not reach even a relative finality until Rabbi Judah and the written Mishnah at the end of the second century of our era.

(i) the question of gay rights — funny I agree with gay rights, must be a political debate at its heart (ii) a wonan's right to choose — funny I agree with this, see above thought (iii) teaching evolution in school — again I agree (iv) my ability to buy a glass of wine on Sunday — definitely politics here (v) immunizing teens against HPV — got my kids immunized, not even politics here (vi) population control — this is religions fault??? no this is cultural (vii) assisted suicide at end of life — agree with that, still have my religion (viii) global warmning — agree it needs to get fixed, doesn't have anything to do with religion

As I debated with a Muslim about the Bible and Jesus, I was soon surrounded by a large group firing probing questions at me, coming quicker than I could answer them.

The question posed by the title of this book is a simple one, which, on the face of it, fits squarely within the debate over the relation of religion to politics and to conflict that has emerged at the end of the twentieth century.

And everyone — even most broadcasters — agree that the 1988 Presidential candidate «debates» were not debates at all, but a carefully scripted tip - toe of bland questions not being answered by carefully rehearsed candidates, a charade boring rather than enlightening the viewers.

The churches at this point have a great responsibility not to advocate over-all idealistic solutions but to emphasize the distinctively Christian message that is relevant to these issues, to help their members to see the world without the characteristic American ideological blinders, to challenge many of the prevailing assumptions about the cold war and nuclear armaments, and to encourage the debate on public questions about which most people prefer to be silent.

For a vigorous debate of these questions, readers can turn to an essay series at Public Discourse, which finished yesterday, between professors Patrick Deneen (Notre Dame), Phillip Muñoz (Notre Dame), and Nathan Schlueter (Hillsdale).

Jesus himself in gospel passages that I can not even count at this moment — argued and debated with people constantly about beliefs — whether that was in question format or conversation... but it always involved scripture and interpretation.

your question here as.sumes the debate at hand.

At political debates in the New York City area I have often heard angry voices mock pro-life activists with the question, «But who is going to support all those welfare babies?»

I'm not one for these pointless, heated debates that are here, but if you sincerly have questions at all about who Jesus really is... feel free to give me a call.

It seems, moreover, on the basis of public opinion polls, that this challenge is already accepted by a majority of our fellow citizens and thus the question of its establishment as a matter of law has not provoked a debate worthy of the momentous issues at stake.

This was the question at the core of a vigorous #freefromforum debate on 14th April at 11 am, hosted by Food Matters Live, and featuring two key voices and pioneers in the free - from arena — Founder of the FreeFrom Eating Out Awards, Michelle Berriedale - Johnson, and Head Chef at Summergrove Halls, Chris Bridge.

I even thought top clubs were in for him.Some three or 2 seasons back many here were debating why he should be our main striker.As soon as you mention any other strikers name people would come out with stats and many things defending him.Even Wenger has defended him blindly in the past.People say Wenger's stubborn yeah.But don't we know that there's a reason why everything happens?Honestly speaking he's the reason why Arsene Wenger has failed to sign a top notch striker because he still believes in him.The funny thing is we signed Welbeck at that time who to me did nothing before to be the main man here.People keep saying Welbeck is hardworking and that he works his socks off.But the question is was that our reason for signing him.Welbeck being signed to challenge Giroud tells me a lot about Giroud's quality.Even Walcott (no offence to him) who has zero CF qualities was even chosen over him for a string of games and all in all I think he did well but has too many defeciencies for that role.We've compromised as a club and it'll come back to bite us.