Sentences with phrase «not make the same claim»

In contrast, much of the production across North America, home to some of the most expensive oil in the world, can't make the same claim.

But I'm not making the same claim that you are.

But could I not make the same claim for aliens landing?

Carzola can not make that same claim.

Even though they don't make the same claim for ebook deals advertised only on their newsletter, the small fee of 4.90 $ or 9.90 $ (for free and bargain deals, respectively), makes this a worthwhile site to try, considering the size of their newsletter.

You obviously can't make the same claim on both policies.

We are experts when it comes to credit law - most other companies can not make the same claim.

We have tried other «premium» dog foods and can not make the same claim.

And while Zelda can boast that — even back on the NES — all of its dungeons felt unique and interesting AoM unfortunately can not make the same claim.

Where the legal system does not treat parties with dignity — as having a story to be heard — it can not make the same claim to authority.

Not exact matches

The «fib» to which Journal was clearly referring was the government's claim, made repeatedly in those same court filings, that it was only interested in cracking the San Bernardino case, not in setting a precedent.

To qualify for this guarantee: (i) you must have filed your original 2017 federal income tax return through Credit Karma Tax on or before April 16, 2018; (ii) you must be entitled to a federal tax refund from the IRS; (iii) you must have filed an amended federal income tax return using the same Tax Return Information through another online tax preparation service; (iv) your amended return must have been accepted by the IRS; (v) you must submit your complete Max Refund Guarantee claim to Credit Karma Tax no later than December 31, 2018; and (vi) the larger refund can not be attributed to claims you make on your tax return that are contrary to law.

That claim, however, is premised on the idea that a buyer who uses PRIMARQ would have purchased the same home without PRIMARQ, and not have opted for a less expensive home, on which they could more easily afford to make a down payment.

Also remember that the IRS will not allow you to claim different tax breaks for the same expenses (known as «double - dipping»), so make sure you understand which mixture of tax benefits works for you.

Taking into consideration WeWork's Finance Chief's recent statements about not making a profit, seeing WeWork's desperate attempts at attracting new clients to fill up its spaces, and Neumann's claimed sale of shares, the question is: Is WeWork headed in the same direction as Ouvah?

At $ 40 we couldn't have made the same claim.

One can not use a source to prove the claims the same source makes.

you sir are practicing a religion one that means so much to you that you use it as your online name also please show me where I call you a fool or is telling someone not to make a fool of themself the same as calling them a fool which would mean you are very religious as far as Colin he said nothing that related to the debate I was in with you... we are talking about Atheism as a religious view not debating the existence of God now look over the definitions I have shown you and please explain how Atheism does not fit into the said definitions And you claim that evolution is true so the burden of proof falls in your lap as it is the base of your religion.

A Hindu scientist could make the same claim for the Hindu gods but you would not consider them evidence of their gods.

Most Christians don't understand how others might see it as hate when they make the claim that their heaven & heII exists and that those not invited to heaven are going to go to heII to be tormented and tortured for eternity and the only way to salvation is to accept their God as your Lord and Savior... They think to themselves that they are just trying to help by condemning those they dislike and who don't worship the same way they do, but that doesn't change it from what it is, «hate filled».

Before you suggested I either believed in your god or don't so why should I claim is an evil monster and therefore should not make comments about same, is that correct?

c) the problem is, unlike MLK & Wilberforce (who appealed from WITHIN a biblically conservative framework), the g.ay lobby can not make the same hermeneutical claims.

@KatMat: your analogy would begin approaching realism if: — during the pledge of allegiance kids were forced to say «one nation under The Orioles» — our nation's currency said «In Dallas Cowboys We Trust» — if millions were slaughtered, tortured and burned to death because they weren't fans of The Pittsburgh Penguins — if NASCAR fans endlessly attempted to have Intelligent Car Driving taught beside Evolution in science class as a possible explanation for how mankind developed — if «the 5 D's» of Dodgeball (Dodge, Duck, Dip, Dive, Dodge) were constantly attempted to be made into law so everyone would live by the same ridiculous notions, even if those notions knowingly discriminate — if nutters constantly claimed America was founded on the principles of Darts, even though our country SPECIFICALLY calls for a separation between Darts and State because the founders knew the inherent dangers of Darts becoming government instead of staying in the realm of sport where it belongs

(Hence the quotes) Not only is such a declaration false... this poster has made the exact same claim in the past and been corrected, thus revealing an intent to deceive.

It's not that they can't substantiate their position, but rather that, rationally, they don't try to make the same mistake as many theists in making absolute claims.

The claim that actions are «undetermined,» however, is not the same as the claim that there are no identifiable variables that influence the moral agent making those choices.

It is refreshing in an age when Richard Rorty and his followers have told us that we can not speak this way to hear a philosopher doing so, but, at the same time, it is hard to know what to make of such talk in the light of Taylor's other claims.

The kind of science that makes the claim for evolution is NOT the same science that gives us the great quality of life that most of us have everyday (medicine, cars, electricity, airplanes, cell phones, etc).

This way, even when others like me tell you I don't believe in what you call «sin» to begin with, you can still make the same childish claim that I am still a sinner which places me, in your mind, squarely under the umbrella of your beliefs, not mine.

What about all the other gods, all the other religions they make the exact same claim as you without any proof and history has shown over and over again those gods didn't exist either.

In the same vain, to say that GWB spoke «Christianity» (it was his writer that put that phrase in) made him «one of us Christian's is ludicrous — like the Pharisees, he doesn't know how to «walk the walk» and live what he claims to be is his Faith.

At the same time, Frei acknowledged, the gospel story clearly makes claims that are not less than historical.

So, then you are making the argument that you are right because you are just challenging his view then can he or another of Faith just make the same argument that there is a God because you can not offer proof that there is not a God... basically that the Faithful are refuting your claim that there is not a God?

At the same time, a clear case can not be made in support of Habermas's claim that the sciences have so reduced the physical and social contingencies of modern life as to make religious worldviews largely irrelevant.

You are the one who went in about truth and morality are different terms, but since there is truth is an essential part of morality, why did you make the claim about them not being the same thing when I didn't claim that were the same thing but rather that the two are in fact connected?

Don't all religions make the same claim?

How is it that when posters such as Austin claim to have proof of the existence of the Christian God (not evidence, but proof) you do not make the same request?

And even if the religious man makes no claim on God, still he looks down on those who can not show the same correctness of external obedience.

You can say that scripture does not claim that, but then you appeal to scripture to say the same about Christ, who is the Word made flesh.

I am sorry, but when I see a picture of obama with Christian Ministers, or other Christian events, he has the same phony arrogant look on his face as he does when he's reading his teleprompter and blaming Bush, or making claims that Romney's «out of touch» or Romney «doesn't pay tax's», or Romney «personally out sourced jobs to China».

But the claim that I had made, which Hasker quoted, was that the God of traditional free will theism could have created «creatures who could enjoy all the same values which we human beings enjoy, except that they would not really be free» (Process 74).

be mad all you want i could care less if i offend anyone or not afterall the atheists get to say their peace and same with the all knowing scientists who claim that darwin was right - side note - he became a christian a few short years after he made those ridiculous claims - anyway you people can say and believe and choose whatever you want..

It is a point, moreover, where civil religion and civility become much the same thing.2 I do not feel comfortable with the student's question of whether I am a Christian because the claims I make in the name of Christianity, while real, are nevertheless importantly limited.

Special authority for the biblical view can not be claimed on the grounds of its potential utility in understanding life; other sources of potential utility can make the same claim.

I believe it is clear you are making a truth claim about God, and in the same breath saying you can not know anything about God.

However, in spring 2005, when Raymond Bradley, an atheist in Editorial Board for The Open Society journal, wrote an open letter to Flew accusing him of not «check [ing] the veracity of [Schroeder's] claims before swallowing them whole,» Flew strongly responded to that charge in a letter published in the same journal in summer 2006, describing the content of Bradley's letter «extraordinary offensive» and the accusation made by him as an «egregiously offensive charge»; he also implied that Bradley was a «secularist bigot,» and suggested that he should follow Socrates's advice (as scripted in Plato's Republic) of «follow [ing] the argument wherever it leads.»

Claims can not be made on infant formula, but follow - on formulas or processed cereal - based foods and baby foods for older babies are not subject to the same legal restrictions.

Wilshere for all his injuries is far better than both Ramsey and Xhaka.I just don't know the importance of Xhaka in the team if he can't defend.He's the real problem in the squad.Why do fans keep accepting mediocrity?Aren't we tired?It's painful seeing him play every match in our midfield then the same people who claim to love him would come and be making noise about how average he is after a bad match forgetting that he's actually average.I'd easily play Maitland - Niles or Coquelin over Xhaka.They would provide more steel in the midfield.Is it going to take us four seasons to realize how average Xhaka is?The painful things is that by that time many trophies would've have by passed us.

Same people are claiming that Sanchez has made up his mind not to play for Arsenal again, when and where did he say so?

Of course it would be silly to suggest that winning any game, cup or otherwise, isn't good for the club, but let's remember just how problematic FA Cup success has been for this club... I'm certainly not going to suggest I didn't enjoy seeing Arsenal win, I'm a fan of this club first and foremost, but how bad are things when you find yourself secretly wishing that your own team lost so that just maybe real change would finally come... I resent this team for even making me feel such thoughts and it's going to take a lot of effort on their part to earn my trust again... this club has treated the fans so poorly that it has created an incredibly fragile and toxic environment, so much so that a «what have you done for me lately» mentality has emerged... fans rise and fall depending on the results of each game because we don't have faith in those in charge to make the necessary changes to personnel and tactics... each time we win many fans attack any dissenting voices and make unrealistic claims about the players, the manager and the potential for unprecedented success... every time we lose the boo - birds run rampant, calling for heads to roll and predicting the worst... regardless of what side you fall on, it's not your fault, both sides are simply overcompensating for the horrible state of affairs that have been percolating for several years... it's hard to take the long view when those in charge have lied incessantly and refuse to take any responsibilities for their own actions... in the end, we are trapped by the same catch - 22 that ManU faced upon Fergie's exit... less fearful of maintaining the status quo than facing the unknown, which was validated, wrongly or rightly, by witnessing the difficulties they have faced during this transitory period... to be honest, the thing that scares me most is that this team has never prepared whatsoever for this eventuality, which considering our frugal nature and the way we have shunned many of our most revered former players is more than a little disconcerting