If you’re going to make the argument that Fox is conservative, you can’t make it very easily unless you diminish my role.
For good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, debate.
Of course I would disagree that there’s a definitive science that has concluded that mankind has turned the earth’s thermostat up and that we can turn the earth’s thermostat down at will, we just haven’t yet found the will. That’s the argument on climate change.
Most umpires are good about letting the argument go, but you can only go on for so long, or go so far. If you don’t leave it alone after a minute or two, you’re in trouble. They want to keep the game moving, so they’ve got to throw you out. I had trouble leaving it alone, I guess.
Our argument is everybody ought to be paying lower rates, and we ought to be focused on growing the economy and rebuilding the middle class.
Our comedy is just falling over, funny faces, arguments, all the comedy basics, really.
A successful argument for a government manufacturing policy has to go beyond the feeling that it’s better to produce ‘real things’ than services. American consumers value health care and haircuts as much as washing machines and hair dryers.
Yes, 85 percent of the art you see isn’t any good. But everyone has a different opinion about which 85 percent is bad. That in turn creates fantastically unstable interplay and argument.
Liberty is a great celestial Goddess, strong, beneficent, and austere, and she can never descend upon a nation by the shouting of crowds, nor by arguments of unbridled passion, nor by the hatred of class against class.
I would sort out all the arguments and see which belonged to fear and which to creativeness. Other things being equal, I would make the decision which had the larger number of creative reasons on its side.
A bit of a theory, more a corner of the eye noticing than an airtight argument: in the course of long artistic careers, women are more likely than men to change form and style, Proteus-like.
We can never allow people who use nondemocratic means, people who use violence instead of arguments, people who use knives instead of debates, we can never allow them to set the agenda.
When I did ‘Bremner, Bird and Fortune’ I think it was accepted that comedians can contest the arguments just as well as journalists.
Sometimes I like to list the strongest arguments I can find to support a point of view I think is wrong. When I have them before me, I am up against a real opponent rather than a hypothetical one that is an easy target for me to hit.
My argument is that there is already an automated machine to make pads. What I did – I reverse-engineered it to ‘simple.’ Anyone who wants to compete will have to come out with a simpler machine.
Even if I was a bad right wing guy, to the extent of whether my arguments are right or wrong, they’re right or wrong independently if I’m right or left.
While it is useful to rebut charges and get your arguments out in circulation, you have to understand that arguments and evidence have little impact on people as long as their feelings tilt them against you.
We all resort to the ad hominem from time to time: in human affairs, it is difficult to avoid it, and probably not desirable. After all, our opponents are human. The proper use of an ad hominem argument, however, still requires evidence to back it up.
‘Fan’ is an understatement. I had the Spider-Man costume, I had bed sheets, toys, you name it. I’ve always had an argument with my best friend that Spider-Man was way better than Batman. I was a massive fan growing up.
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce; murder, yes, but divorce, never.
I’m a politician. I’m not going to get into a whole range of scientific argument with scientists.
It used to upset me – now it makes me sad – to see people use patriotism and our troops as a pawn in their political argument. Because I know personally, growing up in a military family, the sacrifice that is made on a daily basis.
The arguments in the Brexit vote and in the American presidential campaign are about the same. In a friendly way, may I also give some advice to the American people to make the right choice when the moment comes.
Above all, spend time in places where people disagree with you. Reach out. Show up and make your argument. People will appreciate it, even if they are not inclined to vote for you.
There is a definite argument to be made that videogames are becoming an art form put together by artists of different types.
A wise man, when he writes a book, sets forth his arguments fully and clearly; an enlightened ruler, when he makes his laws, sees to it that every contingency is provided for in detail.
In the United States, the government is bailing out banks, intervening in the economy, yet in Latin America, the Right continues to talk about ‘free markets.’ It’s totally outdated; they don’t have arguments; they don’t have any sense.
It’s a tough one for me, politics. I grew up in a house where my father is a Christian book salesman and a Tory, and my mum’s a social worker. So I can always see the benefits of both arguments.
The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
One of the beautiful things about men is that they’re very in the moment. That’s why they don’t want to have an argument about what happened six months ago.
The Gottman Institute’s study about arguments in long-term relationships concludes that couples with the best chance at long-term success are the ones with a low negativity threshold: if something’s wrong, they speak up about it immediately. That’s something I’ve taken on board.
The idea of what’s acceptable and what’s shocking, that’s where I investigate. I mean, you can’t be on ‘Top Gear,’ where your only argument is that it’s all just a joke and anyone who takes offence is an example of political correctness gone mad, and then not accept the counterbalance to that.
We are not won by arguments that we can analyse but by tone and temper, by the manner which is the man himself.
I don’t believe in God because certain reasons and arguments weigh more heavily in my mind than others, not because I have willfully decided to reject my creator, as many religious people seem to think. I could no more simply decide to believe in God than I could decide to like beetroot, just like that.
I spent nearly two decades as a social worker and an educator with kids. So, my whole life has been about helping middle-class families. So it’s just kind of a hollow argument to say I’m not a family person.
I’ve been trying to make this argument that digital comics and print comics are both art, but there are subtle differences.
Science is based on the possibility of objectivity, on the possibility of different people checking out for themselves the observations made by others. Without that possibility, there is no empirical principle capable of deciding between different arguments and theories.
George W. Bush bought the election – period. End of story. There is no argument. You can try to come up with any argument you can, but there is none.
There should be restriction on migration. Some people may criticize me for that. But the future generations will see the merit in my argument.
The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause.
I understand and accept criticisms of my work, provided they are done with professional criteria and arguments.
My argument would be that I don’t think there is much that’s genuinely political art that is good art.
If I’m in a political argument, I think I can, with reasonable accuracy and without boasting, put the other person’s side of the case at least as well as they could. One has to be able to say that in any well-conducted argument.
The fear of failure never goes away. In many ways, you could argue that success multiplies the opportunities for failure. It’s just more of an argument for becoming more comfortable with it.
One argument goes that recessions are good for female artists because when money flies out the window, women are allowed in the house. The other claims that when money ebbs, so do prospects for women.
A novel should be an experience and convey an emotional truth rather than arguments.
In Don Mills in the Sixties, nothing comes close to the humiliation of losing an argument. In our weird little creative circle, no one cares who has faster fists, but to lose an argument suggests inferior intelligence.
One of the essential and most valid objections against the act of faith is that it is irrational, inasmuch as it offends against the syllogistic rule that the conclusion of an argument shall contain nothing more than the premises.
If you are ignorant, you certainly can get into some interesting arguments.
I can make the argument that people who don’t have the biggest ranges but have very unique voices, even if they may be pitchy at times… with the right record that’s really unique and distinct, they can have big hits.
Every argument is incapable of helping unless it is singular and addressed to a single person. Therefore, one who discourses in any other way presumably does so from love of reputation.
