Sentences with phrase «usually arguments like»

Not exact matches

The argument usually goes something like this: «I lost a lot of money on my financial stocks during the crisis.

Defending the argument is only necessary because the stupid an unsubstantiated claim that «atheists killed more than Christians» is repeatedly made, and usually done so with imaginary figures like «Mao killed 800 million people».

The main argument his fans usually have for keeping him around is that the lad bleeds red through and through... Well looks like the lad bleeds blue too!

break - on - through I don't want to start an argument here cause I usually like what you have to say Arsenal wise but your comment it uncalled for

Listen you obviously like him and he has a heart breaking back story regarding his kidney failures and family life but when in a moral argument all you can do is say someone else is worse you are usually on shaky ground.

He's usually everywhere like you would want Ozil to be able to do... your argument sounds like a fanboy's one.

Usually, I find accountants, like economists, better at hindsight than insight and although I am not convinced by the Vysyble arguments (or at least what was reported of them) I would agree with another of their conclusions that we will, sooner or later, end up with a European Super League.

The cornerstone of that argument, and the way Cuomo sees himself as different and potentially more viable than more obvious 2020 prospects like Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown or even home - state Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has always been that Cuomo gets done what other politicians — usually legislators — simply talk about.

Even the argument that Rockstar is busy with developing Red Dead Redemption 2 shouldn't be an issue because: (1) the company is comprised of multiple studios, and not all are working on RDR2; and (2) even if all studios are running at max capacity, the remaster could be outsourced (like remasters usually are).

However, we are also able to cross-reference that inference with context: how does the student usually respond to lessons, what is going on at home, what are you noticing in the general social dynamics of the classroom, did they get in an argument with their best friend this morning, did they eat breakfast, did they sleep well, was a new video game released yesterday, is it particularly humid in the building today, what's going on in the general school culture right now, has this student been taking tests all day, are elements like depression or anxiety potentially relevant, or is it just an «off day» for a great student?

They usually make arguments that rely on people like Buffet or Lynch that show you can beat the market and that the market is not efficient.

Many, many people have legitimate arguments against the game, but those people usually also concur that it's still a good game, just one that they didn't like personally and that it perhaps wasn't deserving of the many maximum scores it got, rather than just trying to validate their dislike by declaring it to be terrible.

I figure a ton of people already see this, but I usually pull this comic out whenever people get into arguments / comments about sentience and the like.

A phrase like» A weaker jet stream is unable to maintain the cold where it usually is and accordingly the hot air will move abnormally» is difficult for such people to understand — I am not sure I fully understand your argument.

Many opponents of climate change policies argue that countries like the United States should not have to reduce their ghg emissions until China reduces its emissions by comparable amounts because China is now the largest emitter of all nations in terms of total tons, yet such an argument usually ignores the historical responsibility of countries like the United States which the following illustration reveals is more than twice as responsible for current elevated atmospheric ghg concentrations than China is.

When you explain, for example, that Energy Star is voluntary, they usually counter with the argument that [whatever they don't like] is just the first step in a vast left - wing conspiracy... Change is hard.

Like biodiversity, another key word from Rio, sustainability is thrown into the argument to block development and growth, to conjure up a return to an imagined, usually rural, Utopia.»

This argument is usually code for «rich, developed countries should be able to pollute as much as they like».

It's a truism that whenever I write about the solid fact that the Earth is warming up, that post will get comments that make it clear that denialists — and please read that link before commenting on my use of the word — are like religious zealots, writing the same tired long - debunked arguments that are usually debunked in the very post they're commenting on.

In the narrower legal context, this Hayekian - Rawlsian debate usually manifests itself in arguments about whether the law should protect «negative rights,» that is, protect persons from government encroachment on their inalienable rights — like private property and free exercise of religion, or whether the law should foster «positive rights,» that is, promote the rights of people to receive tangible things like free health care or housing under the auspices of equal treatment under the law.

Local counsel can usually tell you whether the judge has tried many cases like yours, something about his or her demeanor, his or her tolerance for outsiders, along with a sense of what arguments work.

It usually looks something like this: John and Sue are frequently getting into arguments that result in John storming off and giving Sue the cold shoulder.

Most of them feel that, no matter what they do, they end up engaging in the same arguments over and over again, and each member of the partnership usually feels like his or her needs are not understood or met by the other.