Sentences with phrase «point attempt with»

Not exact matches

A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA's first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department's expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

At some point during that time, Scotland could attempt again to breakup with England, or other countries could try to follow Britain out of the EU.

When Coinbase surprised markets in December with an attempt to immediately roll out trading of bitcoin cash, critics pointed out the price of the bitcoin offshoot rose into the announcement.

On the show's opening night, with thousands of attendees and reporters in the audience and video cameras rolling, an Emotiv team member named Zachary Drake attempted to move a cube and more, which by this point was something anyone at Emotiv could do in his or her sleep.

Despite liking the doll, the panel noted concerns with the doll's $ 84.99 price point, and failed attempts from larger companies who have tried to take the multicultural approach with their own dolls.

Understandably, with huge sums having been lost (and in some cases gained) in the blink of an eye, pointed questions are being asked about the sell which first triggered the process and whether it was an attempt at market manipulation.

Attempting to have a discussion with you, only to have you totally sidestep and ignore my very valid points and come back with more baseless declarative statements is becoming very tiring.

At this point in my life I want to be with individuals and communities who are at least trying to learn the art of invitation and attempting to shed the disease of demand.

I say that because if someone is attempting to prove a point by using a math equation that doesn't align with observable reality, then I think that qualifies as a retreat into mysticism.

And the problem with praise music is that, in its attempt to be «approachable» to all, it becomes monotonous, tepid and uninspiring by comparison (at least from the point of view of someone who can sing and sight - read).

But despite their best attempts to reconcile their discoveries with the Bible, their findings kept pointing in the other direction: namely, the earth was several billion years old, not 6,000.

Reality, Do not attempt to argue your point with the Bible.

In Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More, lord chancellor of England under Henry VIII, attempts to reassure his wife and daughter (who are rightly concerned for his safety) by pointing to himself with the words, «This is not the stuff of which martyrs are made.»

The point that emerges from Anna Foa's researches, however, is that the question of access to this huge archive has quite wrongly dominated the whole controversy of what the pope did or didn't do for the Jews for many years, with frequent insinuations that the archive's inaccessibility was motivated by attempts to suppress the shameful secrets it supposedly contains.

It attempts to point to God with its crooked...

Bishop Barron attempts to offer a few strategic points of contact with those who have declared themselves to be «unaffiliated» to any religion.

The problem Brigitte, when you go on these long philosophical journeys, is that you show not the slightest ability to pay attention to (or even comprehend it seems) the very valid points being made by all the commenters who have attempted to reason with you.

You can't argue the point, Piddler, so now you are attempting to pretend that you are just too polite to argue with an «elder».

For instance, when in the course of discussion it is clear that the one receiving such admonishment actually disagrees with the point being made, then continued dogging attempts to force the other party to change does indeed become «manipulative coercion».

I agree with Gary's point: «when in the course of discussion it is clear that the one receiving such admonishment actually disagrees with the point being made, then continued dogging attempts to force the other party to change does indeed become «manipulative coercion.»»

It is a strange picture that we are given of Jesus during these first days in the temple: arguing freely with Sadducees, scribes, and Pharisees; parrying more or less subtle attempts to lure him into statements that could be used against him; answering sincere questions and approving good answers to his own questions; pronouncing fiery invectives against influential teachers who opposed him; lamenting the failure of Jerusalem to respond to his challenge; and then calmly pointing out to his disciples the tiny but sacrificial offering of a poor widow.

Rather it attempts only to point out the logical and cosmological congruity of these unobtrusive formative factors with nature as understood by science.

The post was not ad hominem, which you would know if you had attempted to prove your point with valid reasoning.

The point I was attempting to make with Michael is that his claims of some sort of visual (substantive) evidence for his particular brand of faith is baseless.

But regardless of that, might I suggest that this brief exchange between us proves the point that even with the attempt to «clean the lens» agreement isn't straight forward.

What's the point of a religious person attempting to create equivalence with atheism?

I see no point in attempting to reason with such a perspective.

In a moment I shall defend my account from this charge, but let me first point out that Cobb's theory of regional inclusion leads to a position that is equally as absurd as the conclusions with which he attempts to saddle my presentation.

But, as Rubin points out, this attempt to create a post-human hunter - gatherer who lives in mystic harmony with the whole remains deeply reliant upon the blessings of civilization, especially the peace secured by the Enlightenment.

The same is true of many media reform efforts: by attempting to get people excited about liberal bias in the news, or nudity or profanity in a particular program, or the ideological bent of a certain series, or whether a network is «Christian,» concerned leaders have diverted the attention of viewers from the most important problem, the basic point, namely, that the whole process - of - television is providing us with a worldview which not only determines what we think, but also how we think and who we are.

Collingwood interprets this characterization as follows: «In Whitehead the resemblance is more with Hegel; and the author, though he does not seem to be acquainted with Hegel, is not wholly unaware of this, for he describes the book as an attempt to do over again the work of «idealism,» «but from a realist point of view.»

It's possible — and I may defend this at some point — that he was using the philosophical vocabulary at hand to explain some of the same phenomena that Mr. Morton is attempting to solve, albeit in very different ways and with very different presuppositions.

The point is that, even today when we attempt to develop a conceptual scheme for the understanding of man, we ordinarily bring to our task an understanding of concepts and a set of concepts which arise in our dealings with the external world as mediated by sense experience.

Perhaps less attempts at flowery pose, combined with an actual point might make these posting be of greater value.

Sayer's biography has more detail than Wilson's, disagrees with Wilson on some points, is not as readable or as witty and does not attempt to probe Lewis's psyche in the way Wilson does.

Emil Fackenheim has pointed out that «all attempts to link the precarious present with the absolute future are themselves precarious....

«This was a deeply misguided attempt by the City Council to attack free speech simply because they disagreed with our point of view.

But at this point it is sufficient only to point out that in the chapter of I Corinthians 15 itself, Paul actually discusses the nature of the general resurrection and attempts to answer the question, «With what kind of body do they come?»

Good point and I agree (Especially with the ass part... lol) But my qualifier of «rabid» is my attempt to point out where they differ from basic fundamentalists.

So my point is, no matter what you do, there are going to be the homophobic people out there, attempting to hide their prejudice behind a veneer of holiness, who are going to find a way to degrade any sort of relationship that an admittedly gay Christian has, regardless of whether it has anything to do with sex or not.

At this point there always arise a number of traditionalist movements, attempts by those with rigid personalities or with much at stake in the old order to insist that the solution to the current disorder is to adhere more strictly to the old beliefs, values, and behavior patterns.

In what follows I will not attempt to answer his arguments in detail, still less to score points against him; the matters we are concerned with are too difficult and too crucial to admit of such treatment; I shall therefore merely try to indicate where and why I still venture to differ from him.

Working along with science, theology is obliged at least to attempt some response to them from the point of view of whatever intelligibility is discerned by faith in revelation.

A notable attempt to bring moral values to bear on international politics was President Wilson's peace program at the end of the First World War, with its famous Fourteen Points.

I'd offer that it seemed Jesus learned this lesson for himself when preaching in the synagogues and winning favour with people until he got to Nazareth and talked of a prophet being without honour among his own people at which point an attempt was made to throw him off a cliff.

We begin at this point because we are seeking to move inward from the periphery to the centre — that is, we begin with the attempt to understand the ethical teaching of Jesus as it appears within the framework of the thought of his contemporaries.

Michael Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) points out that there is abundant evidence for «microevolution» (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn't exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to «just - so - stories.»

I am pointing out that there are some attempts with certain members / leadership that use this as a means to influence votes.

Mind you that wasn't the only thing you said in that particular thread that led me to the conclusion that attempting to have any real dialogue with you was pointless and I was already well on the way to that point from the countless encounters of you avoiding questions and offering nothing more to support your stance than «I'm right and you're wrong» or «read it again, it's clear».

Having pointed out the failure of Hasker's various attempts to show the apparent advantage of process theism with regard to moral evil to be illusory, I turn to his attempt to show the same with regard to natural evil, understood as evil not caused by human agents.