I can't ARGUE my WAY out of a PAPER BAG.

Who of English SPEECH, bred to the TRADITIONS of his race, does not recognize HAMLET in his 'inky cloak' at a glance? Not to know him would argue one's self untaught in the CHIEF glories of his language.

I had the good fortune of speaking with Orson Wells many DECADES ago and he SAID 'Success is PRIMARILY luck ANYWAY.' And I have been very lucky. Of course, Orson Wells was enormously talented and BRILLIANT - so who am I to argue with him!

A lot of people THINK that comedy is SORT of a cop out to not wrestling seriously, but I ACTUALLY would argue that comedy is much more difficult than wrestling seriously because you have to be creative in almost everything that you do if you WANT the comedy to make sense WITHIN the realms of pro wrestling.

I'm not going to ARGUE with PEOPLE about the existence of God. I have not the vaguest idea of WHETHER the universe was created by an INTELLIGENCE.

Whenever two good PEOPLE ARGUE over PRINCIPLES, they are both RIGHT.

When you write a BOOK, and you argue a problem is complicated and multidimensional, it's very easy to READ a slice of that book and SAY, 'Well, this is the part that either confirms or REALLY challenges my biases, so that's what I'm GOING to say the entire book is about.'

Those objecting to the concept of RACE ARGUE that the taxonomic definitions are arbitrary and SUBJECTIVE.

One problem with politics is that it is a ZERO SUM game, i.e. politicians ARGUE how to cut the pie smaller and smaller, by reshuffling pieces of the pie. I think this is destructive. Instead, we should be creating a BIGGER pie, i.e. funding the science that is the SOURCE of all our prosperity. Science is not a zero sum game.

Clock MEASUREMENT is not time itself. In FACT, so opposed are they that one COULD argue the clock is not a synonym, but the opposite of time.

What I'm trying to argue, as passionately as I can, is that the Jesus STORY isn't worth dying for, it's worth LIVING for. Jesus presents a third way, a way of being in the worth that embraces the SERMON on the Mount, with its CHALLENGE to VIOLENCE and greed.

It is as ABSURD to ARGUE MEN, as to TORTURE them, into BELIEVING.

Traditionally, universities have seen size as potentially dilutive to QUALITY. If you doubled the size of campus and faculty, most would argue that you would make it a less compelling school. However, ONLINE schools will be as good as their CLASSROOM peers only if they are LARGE enough to afford a substantial and ongoing INVESTMENT.

No one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the STABILITY of the region and the security of American INTERESTS and VALUES.

Many argue that graduates EARN a 'premium' because of their EDUCATION, and should have to pay their way. I AGREE, and that's why I've always advocated a progressive taxation SYSTEM - so if people do receive large salaries, they pay more income TAX.