«If we obtain leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, they aren't bound by their earlier decision,» she tells Legal Feeds, adding she and her colleagues didn't believe stare decisis should determine the outcome since they raised
different arguments from those in Rodriguez.
She told ITV's Peston on Sunday: «He's got
different arguments from David Cameron, of course he has, but he's wanting us to remain in, there's no doubt about that.»
It is a «rubish argument» to argue that because there were warmings in the past, the current warming is not primarilly due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, but that is
a different argument from that which RiHo08 implied.
That's not a particularly controversial claim or complicated argument, but it is
a different argument from the one addressed by Richard on trends in climate variability research.»
Not exact matches
The judge declared that this was an
argument of the «privileged» and said that Ulbricht was no
different than a drug dealer
from the Bronx.
Note we are reviewing these concerns
from a slightly
different argument than the active versus passive debate.
Still, it's not exactly a convincing
argument; acquisitions also incur significant costs: the price of the acquired asset includes a premium that usually more than covers whatever cost savings might result, and there are significant additional costs that come
from integrating two
different companies.
I did read the article, yes — and I am familiar with the
arguments around Bitcoin
from a number of
different perspectives.
One
argument with superficial attractiveness is that the old regimes failed these countries, and therefore something else — preferably very
different from the old regime — will solve the problem.
That's not an
argument for God, but it does tell a very
different story about Him
from the one told by Fry.
His
argument seems to hinge on the idea that capital punishment is so extreme and so
different from all other punishments that it necessarily falls in the category of «high justice»» an attempt to «balance the cosmic books»» an authority which the state can not rightly wield.
Supporting Sharia law is the same
argument the catholic church is making, just
from a
different cult.
The
argument rests on the belief that his Resurrection was not
different in kind
from what they may look forward to through trusting in him.
Your position as the saver or spender will change issue to issue, but the point here is that each side is coming
from a
different foundation of financial values, and those core values feed the
arguments over money rather than the money situation itself.
It seems to me that a lot of theological and philosophical
arguments come
from people trying to say the same thing in
different words.
I would just like to point out that at least as many comments coming
from the supposed religious side of the
argument are just as if not more «hostile and demeaning» towards those of
different or no faith.
Drawing together the various
arguments suggested by these studies, then, we see a view of religion and ideology rather
different from that advanced by Weber.
If one destroyed the Genesis story of creation and substituted the gradual emergence of
different forms as they struggled for survival in their environment, then one destroyed the entire
argument for the proof of God
from the evidence of creation.
Not only is Hartshorne's God significantly
different from the traditional concept of God, but Hartshorne also provides a revised version of the ontological
argument to prove this...
The failure to realize the significance of describing the attributes of God
from two
different aspects is responsible for most of the disputes and futile
arguments with which Muslim books on theology abound.
There's so much more to be said,
from various
different angles: the experience of the Bible coming alive, intellectual
arguments, historical
arguments and so on.
Not only is Hartshorne's God significantly
different from the traditional concept of God, but Hartshorne also provides a revised version of the ontological
argument to prove this God's existence.
Conceived as we now conceive them, as so many fortunate escapes
from almost limitless processes of destruction, the benevolent adaptations which we find in Nature suggest a deity very
different from the one who figured in the earlier versions of the
argument.
Against this latter
argument there is one decisive factor: the fact that the «eyewitnesses» would have had to be quite
different in interest and concern
from any men whose influence we can trace in the synoptic tradition.
According to this account, in contrast to Ricardo's
argument from comparative advantage, the more - developed and less - developed countries benefit
from trade in quite
different ways.
But that is beside the point — the whole
argument to be made here is that Christianity and its messengers both try to differentiate themselves
from the rest when, in truth, they really are no
different.
In analysing such
arguments, one must also note that in writers such as Cyprian, the access to the Hebrew scriptures were not only through the canonical text as such, but also, practically, through anthological collections of texts
from these writings, which circulated in various forms, being used for diverse purposes in
different communities.
Prof. Novak may surely disagree with my
arguments, but that is very
different from suggesting that I have deliberately tried to mislead people» a charge that is both untrue and defamatory.
(I won't shy away
from an
argument, but that, and imposing my will are two
different things)
It follows
from this that to support the rightfulness of euthanasia with a number of essentially
different arguments is to put oneself in the wrong
from the outset by admitting indirectly that no single absolutely cogent
argument exists.
That his concern is legitimate few will deny, and wholly apart
from the theoretical issue noted above, this concern constitutes a strong practical
argument for a liberal polity (which does no more than promote «some kind of equilibrium, necessarily unstable, between the
different aspirations of
different groups of human beings»).
I am here today with a lot of
different thoughts and fears that have stemmed
from all the
arguments, heretic hunting, and finger pointing between the Free Grace position and Lordship Salvation position.
But it is question - begging to use that
argument to defend the very existence of such a deity against the appearances (which is very
different from Whiteheadians using their principles to illuminate the appearances).
I did not mean to upset when I said, «it's only a theory» I just tried to say that the theory is an open, on going, unbiased
argument that is completely
different from religious doctrines out there.
- the cultural relativity
argument which assumes that «the Bible is an old book
from a
different culture, so we can't take it seriously in the modern world.»
The fact of this common use of opsomai, and also the fact that we are able to explain the switch
from crucifixion to parousia reference on the basis of our hypothesis, is, of course, the hub of our
argument for a relationship between John 19.37 and Rev. 1.7, a common relationship to
different stages of a Christian exegetical tradition.
He more explicitly takes up the
arguments of liberals within the mainline church who suggest that conservative histrionics over the inclusion of homosexuals are no
different from the resistance to racial or gender inclusiveness or to revision to the Book of Common Prayer (indeed, conservatives on the issue of homosexuality are in some regrettable company in recent history).
some of it not so good however, because we wanted our relationship to be
different from our parents, we wrote our own service and that process was incredibly valuable we had massive
arguments and really thrashed out what commitment meant to us and that I think has served us through harder times we are very happy and have two wonderful sons they are musicians Ben and Alfie I'd put a link but I don't know how you can just google them though I think you'd like them:)
Arsene Wenger has stated previously saying that the start of last caused the chance of winning the league into vapours and this season is no
different and i believe nothing can't be done and only sacking of the manager is the best possibility available at this time cause Wenger won't be asked what the fans think of him cause he will say some bullshit stats of Coquelin when actually he started playing only
from 2half of the season and if he feels that stats are his only option to win an
argument then he is adamant and has selfish interest cause the fans pay a lot of money to watch Arsenal play.
One of the main
arguments of the book, as noted above, is that GCC states are not much
different from other states and many of the developments they experience are similar to developments of Western states and are beyond Islam and oil.
Then again, I find BOTH sides of this
argument to be illigical idiots
from the ground up, by somehow blythely assuming as axiom that the government owes ANYONE (straight or gay)
different treatment based on nothing more than an agent of government having previously given them a paper statement that these two are now in a special relationship.
Was he drawing a
different tradition or was he developing his ideas through his polemics, kind of making it up
from whatever
argument carried the day?
Leaving aside the
argument that that role may already be played by the VAT, there are some difficulties with this, arising
from the fact shown above that the profits margins that business make differ between sectors and indeed between businesses of
different sizes, as economies of scale can apply.
Everybody would be angry about the drug dealer - the point I was trying to make is that the reciprocity
argument applied to him is
different in kind
from that applied to someone for whom «unearned wealth» accumulates independent of the taxpayer.
«Synthetic
arguments in many ways would destroy one of the greatest assets of this government — people like seeing people
from different parties working together,» he said.
Special relationship After the Bush years, after Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Iraq, this post-Suez
argument may well resonate tonight, though Mr Clegg may not sound very
different from David Cameron on it.
Both parties have strong points for their
arguments and they both have the public as their priorities but
from different angles.
The necessary communication skills, she feels, are quite
different from those that journalists must possess, for, in journalism, her impression is that time constraints and the need to make stories «sexy» often take priority over objectivity and a balanced
argument.
Their
argument rests on examples in which one chimp learns
from another, and on the seemingly arbitrary differences in habits between chimpanzee groups at
different sites.
The main
arguments that Weightman offers for his conclusions are the unlikelihood of similar seismic activity in the United Kingdom — it is 1000 miles
from the edge of a tectonic plate — and the fact that all of its 19 reactors are of a
different design
from those at Fukushima.