Sentences with phrase «agree with you on what»

Needless to say I really don't think Einstein would agree with you on what is «self evident».

or put ozil on the right and wilshere in the middle (In terms of rotation) but i agree with you on what you said about charlie!

I agree with you on what it is to support ones team from your whole heart 100 %.

Babies don't always agree with us on what is good for them.

I totally agree with you on what a baby needs and doesn't need.

I also agree with you on the what - meets - the - eye front.

I do agree with you on what you said about the exclusive problem with MS. I guess it doesn't bother me as much as most people since the vast majority of what I play are multiplats..

I think that Prime 2: Echoes is the weakest of the Prime series, but I'll agree with you on what they did with Samus's suit.

I so agree with you on what I'll have in my home years from now — all the wonderful «old» things (and by that time I'll be one of them LOL).

Not exact matches

Mostly it poses the question of what do you do with a country where we simply just can't get along — where we are at a political impasse so profound that we can't agree on simple questions, much less passing a budget?

«The president said he is open to finding those conditions where we can remain engaged with others on what we all agree is still a challenging issue,» Tillerson said.

Opinions vary on what's the best brain - boosting reading material, with suggestions ranging from developing a daily newspaper habit to picking up a variety of fiction and nonfiction, but everyone seems to agree that quantity is important.

«I think the structure of these negotiations is actually stack against a successful outcome, because on the one hand (U.K. Prime Minister) Theresa May has to keep her party intact, on the other hand, Barnier has no mandate to go beyond what's already been agreed with the 27 countries,» she said.

Companies and the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) often can not agree on what the correct tariff item should be, with disputes making their way to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT).

Furthermore, how are businesses supposed to comply with tax and tariff regulations, when different arms of the government can not agree on what the rules are?

«With technological change and the invention of new products, it's sometimes harder to get a handle on what contribution they are making to your output,» agrees Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada.

What I took away from Wil's comments (of which I agreed with him on Twitter) was not necessarily «don't do any link building that doesn't directly drive revenue», but rather «don't do any link building that is focused on just link building for the sake of link building.»

I am definitely on board with smart and strategic credit card use, though I agree that it is not for everyone and people need to find out what works for them best!

From what I've read, it sounds as if the two leaders managed to make some progress on Syria, with both sides agreeing to cooperate in maintaining «safe zones.»

Here's how that could work: Trump threatens to slap punitive tariffs on all steel imports, but makes it clear that they're temporary measures that could be changed if other countries around the world agree to join a summit with the US to discuss what to do about China.

I agree with much of what you are saying, however in some cases it is good to have Facebook likes as a social validation that can potentially increase conversion rates on your website.

We all have to agree on what we'll do with the money, which means talking it out and being okay not getting our way sometimes.

i totally agree with Tip that don't focus so much on keyword planner, instead of that just Think like visitors, or what user will type or think while searching any topic.

What you have, then, is an agreed - upon set of code markers that tells the major search engines what to do with the data on your websWhat you have, then, is an agreed - upon set of code markers that tells the major search engines what to do with the data on your webswhat to do with the data on your website.

Based on what I've read about this pope, I think he'd be the first to agree with you.

So I agree with Oprah, if you are a true Atheist, you can't believe in the mysteries as they are on par with what is considered God like.

However if any of a large number of other theories is right, what we believe and do may have a very big impact on the future, so your advice is really only relevant to the small number who already agree with you.

I respect, don't agree with, but respect, each and everyone's version of what is right... the difference i: I WON «T FORCE MY BELIEFS ON YOU!

Do you agree with what's going on!

Mankowski, who holds quite different views on ordaining women, agrees with Weakland that it would have been much better if the writers of the pastoral came right out and said what they mean by lamenting the sins of sexism in a hierarchical church.

I agree with Candida Moss on the premise that martyrdom is NOT what helped Christianity spread but its message of kindness which is what the Love of God & Salvation are all about!!!

I suffered a terrible car accident... during 3 weeks I almost died «many times»... Now I can read a beautiful article like this one and agree with it... Believe me... no matter your faith, your fortune or whatever you may be involved with... on the face of death if you are human you will only care about your loved ones... you will remember about the moments you were happy together and dream they happen again... you will remember your childhood like you were 7 again... you will ask forgiveness and try to show your love, no matter how hard you are... In the face of death we realize that nothing more then our family matters... For the professor, once his life of arrogance reaches an end, he will then understand what is the meaning of family...

Otherwise, with only your quote from above to go on, it seems that you would agree that if a given society, such as Uganda, or a tribe within Uganda, has agreed that homosexuality is ethically inadmissable, then the individuals within that society would be wrong to dissent from what has been generally accepted by social contract and common consent?

I don't necessarily agree with these views on what the three groups believe... nor do I believe with the three groups existing separately.

The state should be run in accordance with what is best to maintain human dignity and a standard of living that we as a people can all agree on.

If I were to treat others with hatred, fear and anger, specifically because I do not agree on how they choose to live their lives in faith, what kind of life would I be living?

They implicitly agreed with the reassuring sentiment posted on the Planned Parenthood website, that «only you can decide what is best in your case.»

the problem with a god is that no one can agree on what the definition of a god — even the ones who purportedly believe in one.

OK, Richard, I'll go out on your limb and agree with you — and I applaud your courage to stand up for what you believe.

It's true what you say about the Mormon faith being a little sketchy, I'll agree with you on that one.

Carol, I agree with you and let me expound on what you say with Matt 16 again.

Your belief is flawed and contradictory as I have noted you agree with William Provine @ Cornel University: «He says, «Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear.»

Most of them agree on this, with the possible exception of people who believe in multiple gods, but as you examine the beliefs of more and more religions what you find are believers who «know» contradictory things.

Out of all the postings on this site today, I found «Derp's «post the most fascinating and informative, as well as deeply revealing.Even after boasting of what seems to be a practically perfect live by any measure, he informs us that he takes pleasure in mocking and ridiculing those of faith who are presumably his opposite; I can only wonder if, given all his supposed accomplishments, he is smart enough to realize how deeply revealing of his true character his remarks are.As a believer, I rarely engage in arguments with my atheist friends, and like to think I wouldn't lower myself to the level of juvenile name - calling and personal attacks against whatever my atheist friends hold dear.Most of the time we simply agree to disagree; when they hold forth with misinformation or ignorance on their assumed «knowledge «of my faith, I try to gently correct them; I certainly don't allow any disagreements we have to devolve into hateful insults and name - calling.

obviously you don't truly agree with what you are going to preach, or you are preaching legalism of some sort, or you're twisting the text to say something it doesn't say, or you really couldn't say what you're planning on saying with integrity, or it's just so frigging boring that you're dreading the thought of keeping yourself awake during it, as well as the people.

History is full of communities that were wracked with bitter philosophical divisions as to what the good life meant, and everybody but Aristotle seems to have understood that even when we agree on what goods exist, we may not agree on which ones take precedence when they conflict.

satans aim was to stop the fulfillment of the seed that would crush satan underfoot.This hybrid between the angels and man created giants abominations in Gods eyes.They also were a threat to Gods people as can be seen by the giants in the land of caanan after the flood.If we agree on that then there is no way that Eve would have had intercourse with satan [false doctrine of the seed of satan -RCB- because the blood lines were still untainted by angelic beings or satan at the time of Noah maybe that is also why the genealogy of Christ is well presented with no surprises apart from Hagar and Ruth these two were gentiles that shows Gods mercy grace was always there to all nations he accepts people by faith not by race.Prior to the flood the mixing of the angels and man must have been widespread after the flood these beings were present but in limited numbers and God told his people to destroy them as they were abominations but they were a threat to Gods people.It would be interesting to hear what the rabbis had to say on this matter as i would think the stories would have been past down from generation to the next.Especially regarding the flood.God promised he would never flood the earth again but a time is coming when the earth will be judged not by flood but by fire Jesus is our ark and we are safe in him.brentnz

Now he reviews a new book on ethics and writes,» [The author] agrees with what now seems to be a near - consensus among philosophers that «speciesism» - the view that we are entitled to take theinterests of animals less seriously than we take human interests, simply because humans are members of our species - is not a morally defensible position.»

I remember disagreeing at times with both of them online (although sometimes also agreeing) I'm no - one and not even in the conversation anymore I don't believe and just spectate allot of what goes on these day's but I wan na own my own misogyny as I continue to try and unpick and leave it behind.

Certainly one can agree or disagree with Bethke's take on religion but it's difficult not to admire the way he has stirred up those of us who may have been slumbering comfortably in our own faith without really thinking about why we do what we do.