Vehemently used in a sentence

Vehemently in a sentence as an adverb

So basically, there are both people who enjoy this kind of thought and people who vehemently oppose it on HN. We can see it easily in HN's comments.

Zed then responded twice [1] & [2], vehemently. Ryan then responded with a single "?"

I completely and vehemently disagree with your response. You are acting as if the dot com bust never even happened!

I disagree vehemently. People drive a speed they feel comfortable driving.

The only thing that will make the rest of the general populace wake up is if someone on TV says they are vehemently opposed to it. Someone who has trotted out the, "I have nothing to hide, so I am not worried."

Years ago, when Russia was vehemently against US expanding its anti-rocket shields, I was against Russia, and supported US, because "US are the good guys, right?" .

Being vehemently against any use of it under any condition I refused to accept that there was any appropriate use for it. Then, I actually did some research.

I find myself in a weird situation, in that I find this writer's writing intriguing exactly because of how much I vehemently disagree with almost all of it. It's like somehow it manages to push all the wrong buttons, in a very precise way.

This is a pretty important thing for computer people to understand, and it's really unfortunate that one knucklehead vehemently asserting false facts has ruined this whole thread. I agree, you should stop embarrassing yourself.

> C and other languages without memory checks are unsuitable for writing secure code I vehemently disagree. Well-written C is very easy to audit.

I vehemently oppose this proposal. The syntax of the proposed JavaScript addition is confusing and misleading, and will break more programs than JavaScript's unfortunate `this`.

If you're going to say that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview, which I think you have to I vehemently disagree: You don't have to think that terrorists can be killed without judicial overview. I'm also willing to bet I'm not alone, and am curious about why you think the opposite.

That Uber so vehemently lobbies against sensible regulation, like an obligation for commercial insurance, speaks volumes.

Knowing this, you start to see that it is also a privilege to be able to argue, even vehemently, without inadvertently confirming a malignant stereotype about your heritage or upbringing. Either way one reads that particular point though, I agree that it isn't the most compelling in the story.

I support Brendan as our CEO. I strongly, vehemently oppose his views on gay marriage. I personally won't tolerate any CEO-level chicanery on our internal and external policies of tolerance, though I do not expect any.

When I was in the Valley I experienced a strong anti-suit attitude and many I met in the startup industry would vehemently protest any suggestion that dressing formally could be a good idea. It seems like common sense to me but clothing and appearance are just communication tools the same way body language, tone of voice, and diction are.

Existing power-holders, it quite clearly indicates a problem with the previous set of laws in the society, no matter how vehemently those elites protest. Usually, in modern democracies, we have enough mutual respect and a sufficiently broad distribution of power that things dont get to the point of complete breakdown of order.

I feel bad about this because several good people did defend the principle that an employee's personal views should be allowed to remain purely personal, that we should be able to get along in society even with those who we are vehemently opposed to in the political sphere. I worry that this will now be seen as a defeat for that principle, as proof that your political views will be held against you if you become prominent enough, and given the data trails that we all leave behind us, that could get ugly.

In fact, when the Spanish government directed $19B ECB funds to Bankia via injecting Spanish debt into the bank, it was a covert form of sovereign debt monetization - something the ECB objected to vehemently, but couldn't stop. Even Germany could not pay its debt if investors demanded redemption at maturity They always demand redemption at maturity - every single one - however, it occurs via a debt-rollover, ie issuing new debt to repay older debt.

It's virtually impossible to live in modern society, engaging in commerce with any number of vendors that are invariably linked to multinational companies which are themselves highly interlinked, without money going to many companies we'd prefer it didn't, any more than it's feasible to live in a town governed by a government you vehemently disagree with, without using the roads they happen to be paving. Monsanto's practices should be regulated, those regulations enacted by a government which we elect with actual votes, not dollars; end of story.

Take an extreme, free-market/libertarian form of healthcare policy -- repeal not just Obamacare, but things like the employer tax deduction for health insurance, requiring hospitals to provide life-saving care for anyone regardless of payment capability, etc -- I would vehemently disagree with that, but I would consider crafting and trying to pass such legislation an attempt to govern. But if the bulk of your legislative activity is doing things like voting to repeal Obamacare twenty-three times, as Rep. Justin Amash did in 2011-2012, then I would argue you are just politically pandering to your constituent base -- or worse, your campaign's financial donors -- and not governing.