It might benefit investors to consider these arguments more closely, and with greater focus on a century of economic evidence than
on the verbal arguments of enthusiastic talking heads.
Not exact matches
as much as I hate arsene, that was very childish and classless, their are more classy ways to hurt arsene, I can't believe fans are fist fighting, PEOPLE WE ARE BROTHERS AND SISTERS, let's attack the real enemy, whilst we lash out and pummel each other, those rich fat snobs (arsene included) laugh there way to the bank, let's show them who owns the club, abandon that stadium and they'll be holding emergency meetings with arsenal care group
on how to fix the problem, we'll have them eating out of our hands,
verbal arguments are fine, I never badmouth arsene or arsenal in front of a chelsea supporters but when I'm with a gooner I vent my frustration and that's perfectly fine, that's why this website exists.........
Yet after all your
verbal gymnastics, I have yet to see a «dignity»
argument from your side calling
on sugar babies to accept broke sugar daddies who can't pay much of an allowance.
Never rely
on verbal agreements, and don't leave anything open to interpretation or
argument.
For backup support, it seems to me that one area that needs shoring up is textbook material
on climate change, because a teacher who can point to a text source is better equipped to handle studen / parent resistance than one who can merely repeat
verbal arguments.
There are signs such changes are starting to occur, both in formal inquiries like the Muir Russell report and United Nations review of the climate panel's procedures, but also even
on the blogosphere, where informed individuals with varied views
on climate and energy policy are no longer simply throwing
verbal bombs at each other in endless rounds of contradiction and instead shifting to constructive
argument.
Monckton's
verbal acrobatics can be entertaining as he tries to simultaneously obscure his flimsy
arguments and showcase his «towering intellect» through wacky insults, but I won't bothered wasting my time
on the underlying debunked garden - variety nonsense.
This is a variant of ontological
argument, and like all such
arguments, is thereby immediately suspect because they all are based
on verbal trickery instead of sound reasoning.
Verbal arguments were common but the complainant alleged that throughout the marriage F.L. was verbally and physically abusive and
on one particular day, that F.L. threw a salad bowl at her and her mother.
In the fast moving world of handshakes and
verbal contracts, not everyone takes the time to enshrine day to day deals in writing; however, there's nothing like having well - documented facts
on your side to prove your
argument or to avoid conflict all together.
Arguments supporting this perspective primarily focus
on nationally representative, community - based, parent and child self - report survey data and draw
on findings of increased rates of
verbal versus physical aggressive acts and similar instigation rates across sex (Agnew and Hugeley 1989; Browne and Hamilton 1998; Ibabe and Bentler 2016; McCloskey and Lichter 2003; Nock and Kazdin 2002; Pagani et al. 2004, 2009; Straus et al. 1980).