Sentences with phrase «always have questions for»

You should always, always have questions for your interviewer.

Once the initial disbelief and confused facial expression wears off after I tell somebody I'm a truck driver, they always have questions for me.

As noted in this previous post, always have some questions for your interviewers.

Not exact matches

«There's always a question of the magnitude of success, but it would be almost impossible for us to fuck it up at this point.»

Which is why Atlassian's Shawn Clowes always tries to find out if candidates have a genuine passion for tech by asking the question above.

Then, without saying Alexa again (which has always been an annoying step if you want to ask multiple questions in a row), I asked about the weather for the rest of the week.

Whenever the market starts looking shaky, I would always get the question, «What is the best hedge for my portfolio?»

I can only tell you that he answers more than I asked for and ALWAYS spent more times to make sure I have all my questions answers and understood.

I have ignored reasons that might justify lower discount rates or higher GDP adjustments for China mainly because the purpose of this essay is to explain why the U.S. multiple is so much higher than China's, and of course these reasons exist, but I think whatever the correct ratio should be, there is no question that advanced economies always justify higher multiples than developing economies because they tend to be economically more diversified and politically more stable, and they usually have institutions, including clearer legal and regulatory frameworks, more sophisticated capital allocation processes, less rigid financial systems, and smaller state sectors (which make smooth adjustment, one of the most valuable and undervalued components of long - term growth, more likely).

As always, if you have any questions about trading just email me here, and if you want to learn more about how to trade with price action then checkout my price action trading course for more info.

Start with revenue if you have it — paying clients will always be a gold mine for this question.

All example answers are taken from issued patents, but because the quality of issued patents is not always what one would hope for, these example answers have been modified and enhanced to better provide an illustrative response to the question presented.

Once you address these questions, you should have a clearer idea of what business funding method is best for you, but it's always important to solicit advice from an expert.

 The Harper government's decision last year to write off every penny of the auto aid and thus build it all into last year's deficit calculation (which I questioned at the time as curious and even misleading) has already been proven wrong. Since the money was already «written off» by Ottawa as a loss (on grounds that they had little confidence it would be repaid — contradicting their own assurances at the same time that it was an «investment,» not a bail - out), any repayment will come as a gain that can be recorded in the budget on the revenue side. Jim Flaherty has learned from past Finance Ministers (especially Paul Martin) that it's always politically better to make the budget situation look worse than it is (even when the bottom has fallen out of the balance), thus positioning yourself to triumphantly announce «surprising good news» (due, no doubt, to «careful fiscal management») down the road. The auto package could thus generate as much as $ 10 billion in «surprising good news» for Ottawa in the years to come (depending on the ultimate worth of the public equity share).

For more years (after 1950) than I like to recall, the question was always the same: would Michigan break my heart by losing to Ohio State, and thus not make the Rose Bowl, or beat the Buckeyes and then lose to Southern California or UCLA at Pasadena?

The document criticizes «doctrinal or disciplinary security,» «an obsession with the law,» «punctilious concern for... doctrine,» «dogmatism,» «hiding behind rules and regulations,» and «a rigid resistance to change,» while reprimanding those who «give excessive importance to certain rules,» overemphasize «ecclesial rules,» believe that «doctrine... is a closed system,» «feel superior to others because they observe certain rules,» have «an answer for every question,» wish to «exercise a strict supervision over others» lives,» «long for a monolithic body of doctrine guarded by all and leaving no room for nuance,» believe that «we give glory to God... simply by following certain ethical norms,» and «look down on others like heartless judges, lording it over them and always trying to teach them lessons.»

Once the traditional one man, one woman union is open to question, then there is no reason for the government to continue to interfere in what has always been a social and religious tradition.

I have always been thankful that I was gone before those days arrived, but I note here for the record that — while a student — I did not find much to approve in Tietjen's leadership, and even the bittersweet experience of reading his memoir has not changed my mind on that question.

The bottom line though is that for those that don't want to believe in the God who has revealed Himself through creation and His Word (the Bible) there will always be another question and never enough answers.

To say that it has always existed does nothing to answer that question, and only replaces honest inquiry with unsolvable complexity (also called nonsense); which is usually just a way of for one to be either lazy or ignorant and not keep searching for the actual explanation.

In either case, the questions will not always be easy to answer for someone who has not thought much about them before.

Young folks have also grown up with a ton of questions, but they aren't always looking for somebody to answer their questions.

I always begin to answer that question by emphasizing that although the answer is «No,» the real question is, «Have you believed in Jesus for eternal life?»

We're always here for you if you ever need anything or have any questions.

Thus the particular question that has been at the heart of a lot of our religious liberty cases in the past few years — the question of whether institutions in the corporate form are entitled to religious liberty — is not a new question for our political tradition, and the answer that tradition has often offered it is not always friendly to the cause of contemporary traditionalists.

And the Church in the 20th century hadn't always got its language and style right: Casti Connubii in the 1930s says wise and true things about marriage and family life, but didn't somehow quite manage to tackle the emerging questions being raised by women as educational opportunities for them expanded and new responsibilities cametheir way in public, commercial, and professional life.

Actually it would probably be better said that I drive him nuts because I always have so many questions for him.

What theology always seeks it has always also already found; for the whole truth of man as opposed to partial questions and answers must always already be given if it is always to be questioned and found.

As for the miracle attributed to Blessed Teresa, «There are always skeptics who question every Vatican - approved miracle, and accuse the Church of manipulating the evidence, but the Congregation's medical board has very vigorous examination procedures, and stands by its decisions.»

I forgot that no Colt Peacemaker was ever used for anything but upholding the law... much like Christian peacemakers who always treat others as they would like to be treated and never shoot first and ask questions later...

This recognition of the need for both the negative and the positive as always already together in every religious journey has forced me onto a more unsteady route for every, question of theology.

On the question of taking a human life, for example, the church has always distinguished between killing and murder, murder being the morally condemned act, and killing the physical act which is not always wrong.

For years I've seen that question asked — albeit almost always indirectly — in various forms.

If I have found anything from posting this question, its that it doesn't matter if your religious or anti-religious, people are always defensive about their views (not enough open - mindedness or politeness for that matter).

[26] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe «in a personal God, let alone a Christian God.»»

In movements for liberation from oppression, the question has been always raised not only in terms...

In the world of reality, on the other hand, where it is a question of the individual man, there is this little tiny transition from having understood to doing; it is not always cito citissime [as quickly as possible], not geschwind wie der Wind [fast as the wind], if I may speak German for lack of philosophic terms.

One of the questions that has been on my mind for a long time, but has always been pushed to the back...

He adds: «At Rural Ministries, we're not about keeping churches open simply because they've always been there, but rather enabling Christians to ask the mission - shaped questions, such as: «In light of who we are and where we are, what is the good news for this community and how might we express it?

I was raised to believe this, and I myself believed it for many years, but I always had questions, and I was taught not to question God outside of scripture.

Finally, Anselm's thought about the atonement, so centered in an awe - full sense of human sin, always left unanswered the question: If the human creature is subject to eternal damnation for having eaten of one miserable apple, how much more unforgivable is the murder of God's son?

(If there can be any question or an analogy, the circumstance of the death of Pythagoras furnishes it, for the silence which he had always maintained he had to carry through in his last moment, and therefore [being compelled to speak] he said, «It is better to be put to death than to speak» [cf. Diogenes Laertius, viii.

In movements for liberation from oppression, the question has been always raised not only in terms of use or misuse, but also in terms of the very nature of power.

«There is genocide again in Europe [No there isn't, unless one debases the term to mean perennial ethnic and religious conflicts]; there is economic inequality at home [There always will be; the question is whether there is greater economic opportunity]; civil rights are not assured for all Americans [Sullivan's particular campaign is for same - sex marriage]; civil liberties have had a terrible decade [I'm not sure what he means; perhaps new and intrusive antiterrorist laws in the Clinton era]; the racial question remains and festers [Undoubtedly true, although it is currently festering below fever level].»

Whether the Hebrews are actually indebted to the Babylonians for anything found in their own scripture will always remain a question on which scholarly opinion may differ, but that there might have been some borrowing of one from another, there can be no doubt.

Phrygian to me i sense that you are struggling with issues in your mind that you cant reconcile and these issues are affecting what you believe in your heart and therefore your faith in God.I had something similar happen to me recently regarding the story of the demon possessed man at one point the demons begged Jesus to cast them into the pigs does that mean that Jesus was implicated with the work of satan.It cast my mind into doubt and then i began to question who God is.I prayed and sort the holy spirit for an answer the answer i got was that Gods character never changes he is always holy righteous and sovereign why else would satan ask for his permission.So the answer was that he allowed satans purpose to prevail so that we can see that satans intention is always to destroy it may well have been that the pigs were his anyway.As they were for the gentile nations who offered the pigs to their demon Gods.Just as satan can not change who he is the destroyer the thief the liar God can not change who he is when we realise that despite what we see going on in the world God is still the same yesterday today and forever.The time is coming when those that have hurt others will be judged for there wickedness as we serve a holy and just God.Just as it was in the times of Noah so it is with this this generation that as the wickedness reachs its zenith then the Lord will return to judge the nations.He is coming again and we need to be ready it is not a time to be caught sleeping.brentnz

Again, i can understand where your hearts at, I've had the same questions and concerns, but I knew that God has never done me wrong, He's always been their for me, and has never failed me.

Because this is the sole ideal that has the solidity once owned by Catholicism and the flexibility that this was never able to have, the only one that can always face the future and does not claim to determine it in any particular and contingent form, the only one that can resist criticism and represent for human society the point around which, in its frequent upheavals, in its continual oscillations, equilibrium is perpetually restored, so that when the question is heard whether liberty will enjoy what is known as the future, the answer must be that it has something better still: it has eternity.29

I have always answered my children honestly when they ask a question, and so I told Alex he had a condition that made it harder for him to socialise and learn new things.

Yet, she would always manage to convince me these questions were for my own good, and that if I sought to rid myself of my fear, I should think on them and finally answer.