Sentences with phrase «use claims because»

Several summers back, when a straight line windstorm called a derecho came through, we even saw some loss of use claims because the roofs of apartment buildings were torn off by the wind.

Several summers back, when a straight line windstorm called a derecho came through, we even saw some loss of use claims because the roofs of apartment buildings were torn off by the wind.

Not exact matches

On Oct. 15, The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an investigative report that claims the company does not use its own «revolutionary» blood testing technology, called Edison, for the majority of lab testing, largely because of concerns about accuracy.

(One daft analyst even claimed Arlo was worth 10 times Netgear's entire market value because its store of video data could be used for AI training projects.)

Shaich has claimed that Panera has found success because of the company's industry leading focus on tilting food toward healthier fare and using «clean» ingredients and reformulating the menu to remove aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, saccharin and dozens of other ingredients.

Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, and Jim Jordan of Ohio will use the House floor as a platform to raise awareness on the resolution they introduced last week, which claims Mueller's impartiality is compromised because of a separate investigation of Russian nationals during his tenure as FBI director.

In September, he held a press conference with reporters on a Sunday to talk about the latest version of Autopilot, which uses a radar system that he claims could have prevented Brown's accident, which may have been caused when the Autopilot system failed to detect the tractor trailer because of its high ground clearance.

When he was a just 13 he filed his first tax return, taking care to claim a $ 35 deduction for his bike because he used it to deliver newspapers.

I've been using the term fairy tale to describe any investing strategy that isn't focused on low - cost investments because both fairy tales and sexy - sounding investing strategies that claim to outperform low - cost investing have one thing in common — they're fiction.

Waymo said it dropped three of the four claims because they involve designs Uber no longer uses.

And while some marketers are quick to claim nobody uses niche search engines because they've never heard of them, I can tell you from ten years of experience they're wrong.

Annuity experts say that Americans in retirement need the protection and income that annuities afford partly because of fast - disappearing private pensions and the planned elimination next year of some Social Security claiming strategies that can be used to boost retirees» monthly checks.

Speculators claim services like BitPay crash the bitcoin price because not all merchants using BitPay keep any bitcoins.

And hopefully more and more people are getting that message, because the number of people that used to claim Social Security at 62 used to be tremendously high.

 Thatâ $ ™ s because the underlying facts are often so at odds with their claims, the only way they can make these claims is with gross manipulation, highly selective use of numbers, misrepresentation and sometimes also erroneous calculations.

Why did the CFIB use the year 2000 as a starting point? In another example of selecting statistics to fashion your claims, they chose 2000 because that was a recent relative low point for municipal spending.

99.9 % of Religion in this day is like a very bad used car salesmen trying to sell you something to get your money and you drive off thinking you got something nice and you what you are getting is a clunker that will take you just far enough away that the saleman can steal your money because 99.9 % of what all religions claim about God is just a bunch of lies ON God taken out of context.

Same thing with the bible — many gospels were rightly left out, because they were found to be frauds used for social gain by crooked writers many years later, and not written by the actual apostles or their scribes, as they had claimed.

(Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything.

No Woman, lives with a bunch of other feminine men in «groups», and hangs around with his brow beating mother who claims she is a virgin because his dad liked to work with other men's wood, but apparently couldn't use his own with the ladies.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

So your an Atheist, because most atheists don't claim that «a God does nt exist» most use there is no god and other terms as tools to troll with.

Sabio: I read back and I do want to apologize for using the word «annihilation» when I said «by no means do I believe in the annihilation of her thoughts or mine» because it does sound like I was claiming that's what you were saying.

To claim some land should be yours today just because it used to be long ago, before you were conquered, is silly, since those who you conquered could say the same, and so on, ad nauseum.

I made my students read Nazi theology because I wanted to challenge them to see how the Christian legacy of anti-Semitism, which goes back to claims in the Gospel of John that the Jews killed Jesus, had been used to justify the murder of Jews.

I say this because many many many atheists come on here every single day with the same ol drivel they call logic and expect something to change in those that you are claiming are not using logic.

Because despite our best intentions, if used wrong, we are in danger of perpetuating the problem we claim to be fighting against.

They did this because Communism as a religion enabled them the same absolute power that kings used to claim as a result of religion.

Because I take seriously Whitehead's claim that the most fundamental order of reality is aesthetic, and the attendant doctrine that «The real world is good when it is beautiful» (AI, Chapter XVIII, Section III), I want to propose that we use the category of beauty as the norm in constructing our images of person - hood and of personal and communal relations.

Terrorists or dictatorships who persecute innocent people because they claim it's part of faith are not welcomed — their use of Islam as a scapegoat, does not make Islam what they portray it to be, in fact those false persecutors will be punished themselves by God, «God is the only judge.

@Tom — Do you mean is it interesting that HS uses the word «babble» a lot because it's likely the root word comes from the Tower of Babel where the bible claims the languages were confused, much like HS is in every post?

A Catholic publication has the audacity to use this word and as a consequence churches were burned and christians were attacked because moslems claim the word belongs to Islam.

but on the third day using his Power of Resurrection rose from the dead to claim his seat next to God in heaven, I mean next to himself since he was also God and then told the masses that he died for their sins, though oddly enough being God he could have simply absolved them of their sins and he really didn't die because he lives and is coming back to judge man based upon the original sins... but not sure if that would work since man can clearly kill a God with wood and nails... I know, I know confusing and likely to be labeled heresy... but debates about nomenclature and religion... i mean story telling... just don't mix.

It IS funny, because many people who claim that they are «scientific» just blindly accept «Corporate Science» aimed at keeping them logically ignorant, meaning, they can use logic and reason (and even rhetoric if you know your Trivium) to argue well for false ideas.

So for them to think a blogger who has allowed discussion on the issues surrounding Tony as a public figure who used his privilege to control — is going to take it down blog posts simply because those who support the NPD or the NPD himself claims the «court» says so, must think we all fell off the turnip truck.

Some might say that I'm using the word «abuse» too liberally because they would claim that it means a cruel and violent treatment of another person.

For example, in the early 1970s, Eugene Kennedy, using Erikson's psychosocial model of personality development, claimed that two - thirds of priests in the US were emotionally immature because of the absence of women and a stunted capacity for personal relationships.

The popes also used to claim that they were selected by god because if god wanted someone else to run his church someone else would have been selected instead!

While I may use insulting language at times, I in no way say your argument is invalid because of those things, so your ad hominem claim is false.

Any way surely he was killed if he was killed because his family and country given the green light since they feared that he may come and make use of the political moves swarming the MidEast to come and claim the Throne over the Arabian Peninsular...

He made the surprising claim that God used to be a racist (because God favored Israel) but changed his mind.

Then I use it upon claims empirically verifiable but only tentatively because all tests are subject to bias, mistakes and deceit.

A friend of mine, a straight hillbilly type from Arkansas who raised show pigeons, claimed he used to «have no use for qu ee rs», until he ran across several c0c ks and hens that wouldn't mate and then put them in the same cage because he didn't know what else to do with them, and then they started mating rituals with the same $ ex.

You object to any Christian using «the Church» or «the church» to denote his or her own communion, because it implies claims of authenticity or continuity that are impolite to those of other Christian allegiances, and because it is derogatory to the notion of a «universal church.»

Because the claim that the creativity in any one actual entity is the same as the creativity in some other actual entity is meaningless, and because, at the same time, creativity guarantees the particularity of each actual entity, it follows that each actual entity is its own act of existence (to use the Thomistic term), its own subjectivity, its own concreBecause the claim that the creativity in any one actual entity is the same as the creativity in some other actual entity is meaningless, and because, at the same time, creativity guarantees the particularity of each actual entity, it follows that each actual entity is its own act of existence (to use the Thomistic term), its own subjectivity, its own concrebecause, at the same time, creativity guarantees the particularity of each actual entity, it follows that each actual entity is its own act of existence (to use the Thomistic term), its own subjectivity, its own concrescence.

It has been claimed that the gospel can not have been written by an apostle because of its use of Mark; an apostle can not have relied upon a book written by one who was not an apostle.

Also, God must do something about sin because sin is a big deal for Satan, and Satan uses sin to lay claim to our lives, which is something God does not want.

I don't want to burden this post with all of the psychology behind that statement, but you should find a way to get used to that because claims of faith are always under assault of reality.

Physics, in particular, is noted for its ability to use inductive reasoning to posit universal laws such as Einstein's General Relativity, making the claim that experiments and observations on or from earth allow us to generalise a theory into universal law, i.e. a law of physics that we believe must hold everywhere in the universe because this is a law written into the fabric of the universe.

But, uniquely, the rationalists (as we use the term) insist — albeit with the same tentativeness that is required by the fallibility of all human reflection — that some of the elements of an adequate philosophical system are properly speaking metaphysical, i.e., they make claims that are said to apply to any possible world because they are thought to be universally and necessarily true.