We are focused on using the powers of our Scottish Parliament to invest in the future, rather than re-running
the old arguments of the past.
Not exact matches
I sometimes find myself in the comic position
of publicly debating liberal Catholics and suddenly realizing that they are consorting with the
old liberal Protestant strumpets
of my seedy
past, while I am setting forth their own traditional
arguments from their magisterium.
Moreover, if the
argument from synchrony is to decide, what is to be done with the fact that the religious age par excellence would seem to be
old age, when the uproar
of the sexual life is
past?
I have not had to appeal to that
oldest and best
argument for the institution
of academic tenure, the unqualified freedom
of a scholar to move as his or her research and thinking lead, without being bound by
past assumptions or present colleagues.
Does this website need perspective — you keep regurgitating the same
old argument for the sake
of clicks — or am I just stuck in the
past?
Honestly, when one
of the debates in the film turns into an all - out brawl because one candidate brings up a story the other wrote when the opponent was 8 years
old and calls it his «Communist manifesto» (See, one character in the story gives a pot
of gold to a leprechaun, and that, according to the first candidate, is an example
of his foe's innate belief in the redistribution
of wealth), we're laughing in part because we've heard
arguments of this variety before and with seemingly more frequency in the
past few years.
I don't think the verification or otherwise
of 15 year
old predictions should be counted as a major
argument in favour (at the same time, I don't think that the skeptics assertions that
past GCMs have been hopelessly wrong are worth anything).
There will be all sorts
of old arguments that you may be tempted to bring up, but try not to let
past events interfere.