Sentences with phrase «out of the debates here»

Not exact matches

But here's the thing of it, and it really goes back to the debate we were all having about QE / inflating our way out.

Hey... on a lighter note folks... check out Chad's defense of slavery and infanticide (also possibly racism, but his passage - laden rant isn't clear) in his debate with Doc Vestibule here:

So yes, the Gentiles were perturbed and tried to run them out of town — But here's one for you if you care to debate history.

Note how you jump to verse 8 when you recite the verse, leaving out the key point at verse 6: «If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, «Let us go and serve other gods,» which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers...» Here the person is not entering into a debate but rather asking you to go and serve other gods — that is when when God is saying watch out.

A lot of people have trouble telling the difference between a debate and an argument but I can as.sure you that I'm here to discuss the ins and outs of religion (especially christianity since this blog seems to attract mostly christians... and atheists).

It's taken me a while out here in the «wild west» of Idaho to even know of the London Debate (January 10).

I even thought top clubs were in for him.Some three or 2 seasons back many here were debating why he should be our main striker.As soon as you mention any other strikers name people would come out with stats and many things defending him.Even Wenger has defended him blindly in the past.People say Wenger's stubborn yeah.But don't we know that there's a reason why everything happens?Honestly speaking he's the reason why Arsene Wenger has failed to sign a top notch striker because he still believes in him.The funny thing is we signed Welbeck at that time who to me did nothing before to be the main man here.People keep saying Welbeck is hardworking and that he works his socks off.But the question is was that our reason for signing him.Welbeck being signed to challenge Giroud tells me a lot about Giroud's quality.Even Walcott (no offence to him) who has zero CF qualities was even chosen over him for a string of games and all in all I think he did well but has too many defeciencies for that role.We've compromised as a club and it'll come back to bite us.

OMG, our mates are strengthening and we here debating how to keep obviously average players like walcot, elneny, wilshere et all, Antonio conte had the balls to tel a world class striker like diego costa to f *** off and we here debating mediocrity, we seem to have short memory as arsenal fanz, thumb me down d way u like, y ’ all gon protest nd moan and groan like last season coz as at now i see no phantom changes, still d same old system, same old players nd d deluded one probably closed for the transfer market after signing just one out of the numerous we actually need to compete.

It annoys the hell out of me anytime I have to read these sarcasms in the middle of meaningful debates... as if you think some of us here have baby brains.

You and your husband are so out of your league here trying to debate people much older, wiser, and better educated than you are.

Douglas Alexander made some similar - ish points at the General Election of 2010 book launch, from a «debates good and here to stay, but need to avoid squeezing out policy scrutiny».

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle and leaders» debates are here to stay.

Ahead of the debate, he took Porter up to the Commons gallery, and told him: «From here you can stare into Cable's eyeballs as he sells out the party's principles.»

Things lightened up a bit for him when he was able to show off his basketball knowledge when addressed by a Phoenix Suns fan (me neither) and he managed to get a few crafty kicks in the PM's shins, calling on Cameron to stop «ducking and diving» on the TV election debates question and agree to them, something analysed here by George Eaton over at the New Statesman, and mocking the PM for «flouncing out of summits and that kind of thing» when asked about Europe.

Rather, I had to mention it simply because it has come up recently in our Movies We Watched column and sparked some rather heated debate among R3ers over on Letterboxd, and if you've been left out of all that because you haven't seen the film, here's your chance to rectify that.

In a speech delivered here — on the eve of a televised debate between the candidates focused solely on schooling — Mr. Boyer laid out a far - ranging agenda for them to follow.

Yet it is here that, for the first time in the history of the West, one of the great education debates of the subsequent 24 centuries is laid out in print.

The idea for the makeover came out of a long - running debate here at MoneySense.

But we're not here to debate the potential success of Punch - Out!!

Especially as the genre itself doesn't seem to acknowledge this disability (or, indeed, do most people working in visual and graphic design, though that's a debate I won't delve into here...)-- out of all the racing games in my collection, the only studio to have also jumped onto the «how about we use two completely contrasting colours in our racing line assist?»

I'm not here to debate whether the indie games coming out of Russia (or out of any country, for that matter) are on par with Tolstoy and Solzhenitsyn.

«Speaking out: Siting the Voice in Contemporary Asian Art», Courtauld Institute of Art and Kings College, University of London 2017 Conceptualism — Intersectional Readings, International Framings Conference, AHRC Black Artists and Modernism project in collaboration with Van Abbemuseum, NL, 7 - 9 December 2017 Trinh T Minh - ha Symposium, ICA London, 3 December 2017 Women in Collections Symposium, Contemporary Art Society / Sackler CPD Programme, Leeds City Art Gallery, 19 October 2017 Deviant Researching Symposium, part of Demodernising the Collection, Van Abbemuseum, NL, 21 - 23 September 2016 Now and Then, Here and There Conference, AHRC Black Artists and Modernism, Chelsea College of Art and Design, UAL / Clore auditorium, Tate Britain, 6 - 8 October 2016 Kung Fury: Contemporary Debates in Martial Arts Cinema Symposium, AHRC Martial Arts Studies Network, Birmingham City University, 1 April 2015 Martial Arts Studies Conference, with Luke White, Cardiff University, 10 - 12 June 2015 How to See the World Panel discussion & book launch, with Nicholas Mirzeoff, Jon Bird, Sonia Boyce, Nadja Milner - Larsen, ICA, London 4 June 2015 (In) Direct Speech: «Chineseness» in Contemporary Art Symposium, University of Lisbon, 16 - 19 March 2014 Thinking with Berger Conference, with Juliette Kristensen, Cardiff Metropolitan University, 4 - 5 September 2014 Mega Events & Culture: Arts & Artists Engagement in Events - based Regeneration, Resistance & Research Regional Studies Association, Research Seminar, Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, 17 June 2014 Image — Movement — Story Conference, University of Roehampton, 14 June 2014 SPSL / A to Y Public Lecture, MAI (Montreal Arts Interculturels / University of Concordia, Montreal QC, 12 April 2013 Inter-Asian Connections IV Conference, in the strand «Contemporary Art and the Inter-Asian Imaginary», Koç University, Istanbul.

I actually responded to an entry made about this post but I thought it was a valid contribution to the general thread of debate here: The general feel I have for services like Twitter is that they provide a very easy and very simple way to get the information and thoughts out there for people who don't want the responsibility of running a blog, want to avoid the invasive data - mining of the social network and very quickly fire off something witty, something silly, something topical or genuinely answer that all important Twitter question... What are they doing?

Standouts include Carrie Mae Weems» holographic narrative about race, sex, and politics portrayed by ghostly characters on a burlesque stage; The Propeller Group's video that draws parallels between funeral practices in Vietnam and New Orleans, along with the collective's sculptures of tricked - out musical instruments, which were also photographed with members of Louisiana marching bands; Glenn Kaino's installation of water tanks that turn military machines into coral reefs; Jean - Michel Basquiat's paintings and works on paper that reference the cultural legacy of the Mississippi Delta and the South; Camille Henrot's video exploration of the universe by way of the storage rooms of the Smithsonian Institution; Tavares Strachan's 100 - foot long neon sign declaring «You belong here» from a barge on the Mississippi River; and Andrea Fraser's monologue, in which she recreated a heated debate by New Orleans city council members during a 1991 vote to racially integrate the Mardi Gras krewes — changing her voice and expression as she dynamically alternated between speakers, both black and white.

So there is a significant issue there, and it is currently being debated under the framework convention on climate change and how to manage it there, but it is also here is the opportunity under the Montreal Protocol to begin to deal with the issue by accelerating the phase - out of HCFCs in developing countries....

I've witnessed heated debates in here when a scientist like Dr. Hansen steps out of his perceived role of «proof finder» to lend moral or personal overview of what will happen if climate change is not addressed NOW.

I'm not really taking sides here, but pointing out that for the underlying support of the «don't worry» argumentation here to be effective, IMHO, the premise must be that the previous 5 extinctions were caused by sentient beings that knew and debated the consequences of their actions, thus everything turned out OK»cause there's still sentient beings around to choose their fate.

I linked to two papers in a reply to tonto52, I'm flagging one here as it may important and anyone who tuned out of the tonto et al debate might have missed it.

We see some of those debating points laid out here.

As the resident expert on losing the debate, and the most ideological commenter here by far, I should remind joelshore that the only reason alarmist scientists are colluding to exclude skeptics [and they certainly are, as shown in the Climategate emails], is due to the immense amounts of taxpayer loot handed out.

How that plays out is one of the things we spend a lot of time debating here.

If it could be carried out on a high plane, like the above comments by Prof Curry, ATTP, ClimateReason, JCH and others in the first half of the comments here, and if we keep the policy debate out of it, then maybe we could get somewhere.

Taken together, the planet levers laid out here give us many opportunities to get serious about climate change without getting bogged down by the distraction of old climate debates or standing by and waiting for politicians.

Its supplemental online interview of the late IPCC scientist Dr Stephen Schneider quoted his opinion about the Global Climate Coalition as being «a coalition of liars and spin doctors to reposition the debate onto the issue of uncertainty, way beyond [what] the scientific community agreed with» (he probably meant to say it was the Western Fuels Association, out to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», an error I note at item 17 here).

Here we have the empirical proof that the positivist should welcome: institutional science is evidentially more easily influenced by politics than are an array of independent researchers, whether or not they are scientifically trained, because they are free to speak out of turn without fear; institutional science can not check itself for political prejudice and deviation from scientific consensus; climate sceptics can and do successfully challenge institutional science; the problems of the climate debate are problems caused absolutely and entirely by the excesses of institutional science and its proximity to political agendas.

Needless to say this has been deeply disturbing to an «ordinary Joe» (with 5 grandchildren) who has made an effort to understand the science and the politics that underlie the climate change «debate», especially since my country has become such an important player in the fossil fuel business with its tarsands and pipeline industries that affect us all, so I've tried to find out more about Judith Curry's recent contributions to the debate, not so much the hair - splitting, angels on the head of a pin, esoteric dissections of graphs and stats that I see here on your website but the ethical stance that you take on the larger issue of «killing» the IPCC and all it represents.

Quite an effort has been made by many people (including Dr Richard Muller) to portray the BEST pre-pre-pre-papers as some kind of death blow against climate skepticism, as if the whole debate had been a sports match with everybody pigeonholed in two opposite camps: here, the noble scientists finding out the world is warming; there, the ignoble skeptics pretending the world is not warming.

Although the First Amendment's talismanic sway in the United States isn't likely to diminish anytime soon, the push and pull between privacy and free speech is increasingly playing out here as the right to be forgotten becomes a bigger part of the debate.

After a few seconds of debating, and an intense staring contest with me, (who was now beating on the door with my fist and yelling «get out of here!