Sentences with phrase «pretty much all arguments»

In short, Kellermann concluded, the governor's proposal won't provide «meaningful, long - term relief for municipalities in fiscal distress, and endangers the viability of the pension funds,» which is pretty much the argument others — including Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Miner — have been making for several weeks now.

With «hours» in place of «years» this is pretty much the argument of the captain of the Titanic, who was under enormous pressure to reach New York on time.

That message makes sense, intuitively: Since pretty much all arguments against the basics of climate science are silly, it stands to reason that those who peddle them are silly, too.

Not exact matches

In 1971, I published In Defense of People, the first book - length critique of «the ecology movement» that was then in ascendancy and that pretty much shaped the arguments that continue to swirl around the varieties of environmentalism today.

Once you start swearing and name calling, you pretty much have told everyone your argument can not stand up.

How would any country in the mid east react if I and 30 Christians hoped in planes and took out 3000 people... (I am not Christian and would likely not ride in a plane with that many neurotic people, but for arguments sake... personally I think religion is the fastest road to hell, but that's another debate)... the answer is simple... Jihad... how do I make such a simple 1 word answer... Ayatollah in Iran... he has a Jihad panic button... Osama Bin Laden... he has one too... that dude in Iran that no one knows or cares how to pronounce... has 2... one for the world and one for Israel... and pretty much anyone with keys to a mosque.

That's pretty much every football argument that's ever been had!

In fact, the crunching of numbers to make an argument appear more valid is done by pretty much everyone on this planet.

I'm so tired of the Athiests don't do atrocities argument, as the way I see it, the are pretty much the ONLY ones who do it.

Also Mid I don't feel you are qualified to decide if this is a good argument either for pretty much the same reasons but thanks for the laughs.

Not to mention this entire article and pretty much all of the blog posts are ad hominem arguments, especially people saying «flake.»

However, know that sniffing out only the stories of greed and abuse in the church while ignoring all the stories of actual progress for society that it brings pretty much negates all of your arguments to that of an obsessed critic with nothing better to do than make up facts against the church.

This sentence pretty much sums up the rest of your argument.

Unfortunately, you don't back up much of this article with sources so your argument is pretty thin.

I don't get this argument that he will see how much the Ox has developed after leaving — he looks pretty much the same player to me, flashes of brilliance but still gives the ball away cheaply.

but anyway, argument for another day, for now, just wanted us to point out something... Let's all take a moment to appreciate the fact that for atleast 20 minutes in that game, we had pretty much all our attackers in the pitch and still couldn't get a goal!!!!!!..

Which pretty much ruins your argument about the fan power.

LVG has had 18 months, and whilst anyone can argue we have improved, another valid argument would be that pretty much any manager in the Premier League working with this squad would have United where they are or higher, and playing better football.

I suggest that resorting to premies is pretty much an indication of the LACK of any real argument.

I had an argument with someone on Mothering that was pretty much saying that...

I've posted for a reason, discovered that it was in fact unnecessary, gotten some good info in the process, and pretty much have no reason to continue a ridiculous argument about what seems to you to be the case.

I really did expect this argument to be pretty uncontroversial — after all, it is little more than the systemization of what is pretty much established wisdom on the subject.

@JonathanReez the argument made by the British is pretty much the opposite: they can not control immigration from within the EU, because of freedom of movement and because the EU forces refugees upon them.

It seems sensible to address - as you do - the Blond argument on its own merits, rather than to buy the idea that this is an emerging Cameronism, for which the evidence seems pretty much entirely lacking.

The point being that the biggest argument for controlling marijuana, the claim that it lead to use of worse drugs, was pretty much proven to be false, and most statisticians and researchers seem to agree on that fact today.

It would be a tax on jobs, of course, but Britain's social security rates are still pretty low compared to much of Europe, so minister would have pre-prepared arguments to hand.

The problem is — apart from the immediate problem that Ms Miller has, that she can't so much as assemble the ingredients for a brew without it appearing in the tabs — that you could pretty much make this argument for anyone.

Viewers picked holes pretty quickly in Clegg's «Lib Dems for coalition» pitch to conference, pointing out that his condemnation of single - party rule therefore undermines any argument that Lib Dem majority (or minority) government rule would be preferable, thus making his much - applauded line «In an ideal world, I wouldn't have to work with either of them because I'd be Prime Minister on my own thank you very much — and I'd like to think I'd do a better job too» fall rather flat.

Kevin Keating, Mangano's attorney, whose opening argument ran two minutes shy of an hour, took pains to tease out the difference between town and county operations — at one point saying that in Oyster Bay the town board «was pretty much a rubber stamp.»

The fossa size «is the crux of the argument vis - à - vis cretinism, so pretty much game over,» says William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York state.

«But we can make a pretty good argument that not much of this makes it into the atmosphere.»

Even assuming no other flaws in the argument this pretty much invalidates the whole thing.

My point is simply this: why argue so vehemently against someone who seems to be pretty much on your side of the health argument?

My arguments are based more on ethnography and anthropology than some of Paul's theorizing, but I arrive at pretty much the same place that he does.

For this reasonthe argument about which diet is best is pretty much pointless.

This film pretty much hits every beat in the «why blockbusters suck» argument during its 118 - minute run time.

Pokemon Sun & Moon are a pretty excellent Pokemon package and have pretty much everything you'd want — but it'd be easy to make the argument that the duo were mildly held back by the ageing 3DS hardware.

Meanwhile, James Marsden makes a good argument for why he should be doing comedies pretty much all the time, playing his character with the right amount of self - aware parody to make it that much more endearing.

Pretty much the only valid argument for introducing a test is to ensure that schools step up their game in teaching the national curriculum requirement.

Building a book - length argument around his contention that «the seventeenth century is the moment when one world - view was displaced by another because the scientific displaced that of faith,» Grayling paints a picture of astronomers, mathematicians, medical doctors, and even alchemists often reaching conclusions that even they dearly hoped weren't true — because the answers meant opposing Christian doctrine, unwise if you wanted to keep your job, freedom or head... To my ear, though, the tone of the Grayling's prose is rather flat — think «textbook» and you've pretty much got it — so many of these unexpected sidelights are not presented as compellingly or dramatically as one might hope.

The conventional justification is that high ebook prices are necessary to defend the value of the book — but Hugh H & Data Guy have pretty much blown that arguments to pieces.

The Nook was coming pretty damned close for a while, and I really miss the Kindle vs Nook arguments already, but it feels like they've pretty much given up.

Quiet frankly if you are worried about storage options this pretty much negates any arguments.

Of course, there is an argument that you'd be much better off browsing the Internet and viewing news stories online, where you can pretty much get everything for free.

But Treasury bond interest is taxable at the federal level, and corporate bond interest is taxable at both the federal and state level, so the tax argument is pretty much a wash.

That is true of pretty much every single argument you and anyone else is throwing around to defend this game.

This conversation was pretty much over way back, you never had any proper arguments to begin with.

I watched the video, and pretty much the only good argument is the reticle on the TV screen, but that can also be adapted to.

It promised a certain white - knuckle intensity that the console couldn't quite deliver on with any consistency, and it might have made a pretty convincing argument if you didn't pay much attention to, say, Gradius III.

Hangman's Gambit is pretty much what it sounds like: fill in the right letters to complete a word or phrase that sheds new light on an argument.