But while it's illegal for anybody working for the U.S. government to
accept anything of value from a «foreign state,» that doesn't make it illegal, unethical, or even particularly noteworthy for a «learned intermediary» to accept things of value from prescription medical product manufacturers — provided, of course, that doing so doesn't adversely affect patient care.
Conversely, the statue goes on to prohibit licensed vendors from
accepting anything of value from industry members.
A provision of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. § 7353, prohibits federal employees, including members of Congress and staff, from soliciting or
accepting anything of value from anyone who seeks official action from the employee's agency, does business with that agency, or has interests which may be substantially affected by the performance of the employee's official duties.105 House Rule 23, clause 3, similarly provides:
Not exact matches
Anne said: «If we are going to be better at producing food
of the right value then we have to
accept that genetic technology, whether you call it modification or
anything, is going to be part
of that.»
«That allusion was something Kevin Feige really wanted to put into this script, because it sort
of embodies the internal struggle that Peter Parker is facing throughout, where he is his own greatest enemy in some ways, to have to
accept himself before he can do
anything helpful for the world.
«Woods has not done
anything illegal — the list is endless
of public figures, especially males, who do this, but Americans
accept this stuff.
But like
anything worth having, getting your start - up
accepted by the best accelerators is a matter
of winning a competition.
If you've ever felt overwhelmed by accounting minutiae, you won't want to miss this tape's wonderfully accurate discussion
of why generally
accepted accounting principles are
anything but user friendly.
«Our goal here is to get a complete ban on assault weapons in the state
of Florida, and we will not
accept anything else,» student Spencer Blum said.
Nowadays economists use the term «money» to refer to
anything that's a generally -
accepted medium
of exchange.
In light
of this refusal to respond seriously to the substantiated and well - researched concerns
of civil society, the members
of the Trade Justice Network can not
accept this empty and meaningless Declaration as
anything more than public relations.
And so I think what we're going to try to do in our program is to be skeptical
of the whole Cryptocurrency movement and be open to the potential benefits that it offers, but not like we're not going to
accept anything just uncritically.
If your top priority is the security
of your bitcoins and you
accept a temporary inability to transact with them, you don't need to do
anything.
You on the other hand take the hard line
of absolutely not
accepting anything at face value and draw a conclusion immediately.
What dismays me about Miley Cyrus is the same thing that dismays me about the current trend
of instantly going to the allowable limit (and a bit over) in dress and act: I get the feeling she feels like she's proving something; that this is not an artistic statement
of anything but rather, that she feels like she needs to do this to be
accepted as a female singer and entertainer.
The whole point is you don't
accept anything without proof, if tomorrow someone comes up with a better model
of universal gravitation then we move to that model.
As for the one god being more valid than any
of the other thousands, that things you attribute to him (technically to Jesus), still haven't been proven in
anything outside
of the bible, which no one
of a scientific mind can
accept as convincing proof.
I can't simply tolerate
anything that will honestly tell me to not
accept things that a book that have a strong evidence
of plagiarism from the book
of Gilgamesh and the Egyptian book
of that dead said, that something is bad and must be hated and purge, or that because their ambiguous faith is better than mine.
Mark is one
of the uneducated who assume I want him to
accept anything at all.
But just as no one here would
accept my testimony
of how much the Great Pumpkin loves me and cares for me (Peanuts 3:16), I will not be able to
accept such platitudes as
anything other than empty emotional outbursts.
Personally, I feel that if there is a god, and he wants me to believe he exists, he can come over here and tell me himself, I don't
accept the Bible as «proof»
of anything, because it is self - contradictory and appears to be heavily influenced by the governing culture
of the time.
Yup that the excuses you have to tell yourself so you can
accept where you are at in this world, but the reality is if you could choose to do
anything in the world regardless
of money or any other limitations you would not be living the life you have now.
Most likely it was one or both
of your parents, and it happened at an age when you pretty much
accepted anything they told you without question, but that's not essential for what I'm about to describe.
Because you do not
accept an Abrahamic or even an anthropomorphic God, people will object to
anything you say, regardless
of the words you use.
You wouldn't
accept in allah we trust or
anything else so don't make the rest
of us deal with your crap.
In general they seem to
accept it as far more cousinly to their own doctrines than
anything else Protestantism has produced since the days
of the Reformation.
In a time in which the human body seemed to lose any iconic significance, in the weakness
of his failing body, John Paul participated, as Cardinal Lustiger noted, in the suffering
of his Redeemer, for the «mystery
of salvation happens when Christ is on the cross and can not do or decide
anything other than to
accept the will
of the Father.»
Redemption, sin, Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, no mention
of anything that makes us want to
accept Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Once I came to realize and
accept that my love for Christine was real and pure, not born out
of lustful desires or
anything even remotely evil, my brain would not allow me to go on believing that it was detestable to God and therefore something that I should flee from.
I don't expect everyone should be
accepting of everything or
anything I do.
In order for any
of your comment to have meaning to me, I would first have to
accept that
ANYTHING is capable
of removing the Divine from that which it has created.
If we are to speak truly to our age, therefore, we can assume, not (1) the complete ignorance
of Christian principles, such as existed in the decaying civilization
of early Greece and Rome; (2) the thoroughgoing knowledge and acceptance
of Christian principles, such as existed in the time
of most
of our grandparents; or (3) the vigorous antagonism to the gospel, such as now exists among those who
accept either the Marxist or the Fascist interpretation
of history; but (4) a vague and tenuous residuum
of Christian piety, devoid
of any intention
of doing
anything about it.
But it's telling that the first comment from, you, Steve, when David suggests not even cracking down on, but simply not being apethetic to abuse
of people in churches, is that there is no utopia, so just
accept it and don't bother trying to change
anything.
Maybe a paragraph about
accepting the gift
of Sabbath, avoiding
anything that starts with the internal monologue
of «should» or «ought to» or «must.»
The Christian who, having
accepted the communist regime in the U.S.S.R., protests the violence
of that regime, should be «all things to all men» — not to show that a Christian will acquiesce in
anything whatever, but to lead some
of his compatriots to Christ; that is, in this connection, lead them to renounce violence.
'' Once you remove man's dogmas and get back to the teachings
of Jesus Christ» Which is one
of man's dogmas... Men wrote the bible.You haven't removed
anything, you have
accepted one
of man's dogmas as if it were truth.
«If an atheist has belief or faith in
anything, it's that believers
of religion
accept propositions as evidence, and possibility as fact.»
He or she might agree with some
of the Bible's teachings if those things line up with his view
of life, but he or she doesn't
accept anything just because «it's in the Bible.»
In the end, if the Bible teaches us
anything, it is that each one
of us is loved by God not because
of how right we are but because God graciously and mercifully
accepts us, sometimes despite the positions we adopt.
These difficulties are laid on us by God, they have not been artificially produced by the malice
of crazy theologians who will no longer
accept anything.
I've come to
accept the fact that I will never recover from my anger at the church, at fundamentalism, at
anything even remotely spiritual... it's taken on overtones
of PTSD.
But if it were
accepted, would there be
anything left
of the classical idea
of God as omnipotent besides the term?
You said, «p.s. I will not
accept anything you pull out
of Harry Potter stories.»
p.s. I will not
accept anything you pull out
of Harry Potter stories.
I certainly did not get the idea from those verses
of anything like total depravity or that fallen man had to experience any kind
of supernatural transformation
of the will / heart in order to be able to
accept God's convicting / convincing / persuading / call / drawing, instructions, teachings, commands, promises and gifts.
All
of mankind has benefited from Science, but Dogmatic Folks weaned on Religion refuse to
accept anything that threatens beliefs.
It is a LIVING word, never intended to be
accepted as a stagnant definition
of anything.
Creationism is more or less a set
of mental gymnastics, necessitated by a dogged refusal to
accept or admit that
anything in the Bible might be inaccurate, untrue, or mythological.
They will say
anything to defend you (i.e. Bill's remarks after yours)(By the way I would
accept his definition
of Christianity for us to rally around for purposes
of these discussions.)
Trouble is, creationists likely wouldn't
accept anything less than the creation
of a modern cell as evidence
of abiogenesis.