Word: arguments
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...more joined them. Their disagreement was silenced when one baby snorted a great throaty wad and spit it right into another baby’s face. The babies all spat at each other and then turned, and thumping loudly on the board, they implicated the audience in their argument, spitting at the crowd which stood ten feet away. This spit sequence was followed by a painfully loud pout session in which six babies gradually turned whimpers into sobs, and then into wails. The noise music score by Mark A. VanMiddlesworth ’10, who is also a Crimson Arts...
...anyone who has a minute's time that the markets can go down for a nearly infinite number of days if the decreases get smaller and smaller. For investors who want to get a small fraction of their investments back sometime in the next decade this sort of academic argument may be didactic, but it has no practical use. What is likely to happen to the market is that it will fall another 15% or 20% and then trade sideways, perhaps for several years. That is what happened from 1965 to 1981.There were peaks and troughs during that stretch...
...court can take up to 90 more days to issue its ruling, and questions during oral arguments do not always accurately reflect the thinking of individual justices. But Thursday's three-hour session did indicate that the primary argument advanced against Prop. 8 faces big hurdles in the court. Even the lawyers who are asking the court to declare Prop. 8 invalid because it is more like a constitutional revision - which would require approval by lawmakers as well as by voters - conceded, when asked by the court, that there is essentially no precedent in the court's history that directly...
...second argument, advanced by Attorney General Brown, is that the most important rights found in the constitution are inalienable and not subject to changes by a simple vote of the majority, because they are too important. That argument, too, seemed to suffer under scrutiny from some justices, who asked how the court was supposed to figure out how to draw the line between rights that can't be taken away and those that are subject to amendment...
...hearings did offer hope for the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who have already married. Starr argued that the language in Prop. 8 means that no gay marriages, even those performed when the practice was legal, can be recognized by state authorities. That argument brought a bristling reply from several justices, who said such a ruling would violate basic notions of fairness. Still, such opposition doesn't guarantee that the court won't strike down the existing marriages. Given that three justices voted against gay marriage in the first place, it may be that all Starr needs...