Sentences with phrase «if arguing»

They explain that the practice of law includes very little «arguing» in thje conventional sense and «if arguing is really why you want to go to law school, save your money and start a blog about American politics where you can shout into the echo chamber of imbeciles all you want without bothering anyone smart who has shit to do.»

If arguing gravity and magnetic fields don't work for them, they can always fall back on postulating disturbances in the luminiferous aether.

You have no idea if arguing is breaking out, if someone is throwing sand, or if a kid is about to take a 10 - foot plunge from the monkey bars.

In a meeting at the White House, Mr. Sessions informed Mr. Trump that he would not defend what he considered an unconstitutional order in court, according to people familiar with the conversation, and officials at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security have made the case to the president that his administration would look foolish if it argued in favor of preserving it.

Really, the only way you can make that argument is if you argue that Romney is an empty suit and a liar.

Even if you argue there is a need for a supreme being, It doesn't mean that it is the god you have chosen.

If you argue the universe must have a first cause, which god was the first cause?

If we argued the definition in the dictionary your ideas wouldn't hold up # 2 Morals = 1.

If you argue that the machine's impact could still remain after you destroy it, eventually, everyone will die and everyone's machine will be destroyed and forgotten.

If you argue that had they known the grace of Christ they would not have done such things, look at all of the violence committed in the name of Christianity.

Both are weighty issues that deal explicitly with «high cosmic justice,» so if he argues that a government overreaches its authority to execute justice by attempting to «balance the books of the universe» in repaying blood with blood, then does that mean there can never be any just criteria for one nation to retaliate against another after an unprovoked attack» an attack that in essence would repay blood with blood?

If you argue that god simply exists, and was not created, then things can exist without being created and there is no need for god to explain the existence of the universe.

Read those books and your thoughts are likely to be more clear and your words more coherent, no matter if you argue for or against the existence of God.

The problem is that, if you argue that the soul enters at conception, then what happens when there is a split after conception?

If you argue for mind being a synonym for soul in Mark 12.30 could not spirit be a synonym for soul in 1 Thes 5 23?

The editors of America would be on more solid ground if they argued that faithful Catholics might be «precluded» from high office if they are Democrats.

If you argue that «something had to create the universe» then I say the same applies to your imaginary friend.

My take is that if we argue about the existence of God, it will get us nowhere.

I could accept critical objection if you argued in the context of scripture but you're just tossing around opinions and assumptions, cleverly disguised as «expert knowledge».

Mr. Fitzpatrick says that «we would not react patiently to a German who excused his reluctance to use force in 1942 to free concentration camp inmates if he argued that he was convinced at the time that he could do more good by working within the system to end Nazi control than by risking his own arrest and imprisonment in an armed strike to free a few dozen inmates scheduled for the gas chambers on a single morning.»

And if we argue that God needed the blood of an innocent victim in order to remove the stain of sin from the world, the critic wants to know how killing an innocent victim is not a sin itself, and how the blood of such a victim can actually do anything for the sin of all people throughout all time.

If I argue they make note of it.

See, if you argue the facts about Jack Morris, you're not just making a case; you're turning Morris into a whipping boy in the midst of your over-the-top crusade.

If you argue this point there is nothing I can say.

This will serve as a reminder for next time that if they argue, they will need to do chores as a result.

I suggested that Mr. Davis use immediate one - minute time outs every time someone cursed, and to encourage compliance, he should increase the time if they argued, refused, or continued to curse.

If you argue and never really talk about it afterwards only to argue about a similar thing in the future, you're not really resolving the main issue which is lack of communication.

(It goes from one to two minutes if they argue, two to four if they still refuse, and ten if you are forced to put hands on them to get them there).

It's been discredited no matter how much Laffer twists his argument (see: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html) Even if you argue it's still a misrepresentation of the Laffer Curve to automatically equate it with the New Right, Laffer himself can reasonably take some of the credit for that, having been closely aligned with the discredited economics of both the Nixon and Reagan adminstrations (see: http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2007/11/supply-side-economic-tax-rich) But the point is this: if Cameron decides to implement tax cuts on the basis of the Laffer Curve — in the belief that this will top up the government coffers - we're in trouble.

[49] The IFS argued in favour of the NIC rise, claimed the original pledge not to increase tax had been unwise.

The IFS argued that the allocations has made it difficult for government to carry out some critical expenditure due to the unavailability of the needed funds.

In other words, if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions.

However, if you argue or they are liars, those are bad dates.

True, some of these very early split vote scenarios are a coin toss — so even if you argue that the Great Ziegfeld vs. Mr. Deeds Goes to Town might have been a good example of 12 Years winning Picture and Cuaron winning director it really isn't — one is a «big» movie.

If you argue that this was an underwhelming year for film, the counterpoint remains to simply see more movies.

Even if they argue against us.

Say, if such a case goes to court — what if they argue that they sent a revised paper statement and I am claiming that I did not receive it to take advantage of the first statement?

Even a married couple, a pit bull will take sides and attack the other if they argued.

Even if you argued that it's too small, when would it not be too small?

For the most part I'd call this a great example of how to pull it off right (even if some argue that the ending was awful).

He would have had to make a more convincing case for me, if he argued for me - and I don't know that he did.»)

Often journalists ask us if we argue or we fight.

If you argue that all known forcings must be jettisoned, that comes to nearly 2 w / m2.

And if you argue that all modern species are adapted to Pleistocene glacial cycles, then logically, to stop the cycles will also be to upset the supposed plans of Nature.

He also appears to be willfully ignorant of what has been exposed by Climategate if he argues that peer review is working well in climate science.

The only statement I'm prepared to make about the future is that if you argue more soundly in future I will be thrilled.

If you argue its unimportant then why all the resistence to just doing the sensible thing.

I can define my wife even better, but if I argued that by doing so I'm in any way better or superior to her she'd put me in my place straight off.

And if you argue government's spent too little on fusion research in the past seventy years, you've been living under a rock.

If you argue differently, I'll listen.