Sentences with phrase «as anything too»

In fact, you've got to go big, as anything too small will get lost.

Fair and light - skinned ladies, you have to be extra wary when deciding on a contour color, as anything too brown or too orange will read all wrong on your skin.

Be easy with the volume as anything too big or poofy is going to drain a petite frame.

Not exact matches

«As a CEO it's really easy to feel like you're not doing anything well enough because you're just spread too thin,» Smith says.

Novice mobile users will feel alienated by anything too complex so try to emphasize a design that reads easily and functions as clear as day.

Use it as a testing base before building too much of anything else.

While the ingredient of order probably strikes us as self - evident, too often we fail to see that, without openness in the mix, our odds of seeing anything new are greatly reduced.

George Mason University's Scott Sumner describes it as «a complete mess,» which, if anything, is too kind.

George Mason University's Scott Sumner describes as «a complete mess,» which, if anything, is too kind.

It was as if the crash is just another business cycle downturn, not aggravated by any systemic financial flaws, but, if anything, by liberal government planners being too nice to poor people, by providing cheap mortgage credit to the uninitiated who could not quite handle the responsibility.

And when it was up as much as 28 percent in the summer, they still didn't have anything positive to say, arguing it had gone up too much.

It is important not to rule anything out as being too difficult, and let our own negative mentality become the biggest hurdle we need to overcome.

But if the Fed issues too much money, the value will go down, as with anything that has a higher supply than demand.

As difficult as it would been to believe it at the time, if anything, it seems at this point that Hussman was too optimistiAs difficult as it would been to believe it at the time, if anything, it seems at this point that Hussman was too optimistias it would been to believe it at the time, if anything, it seems at this point that Hussman was too optimistic.

Blackberry has to be very careful with the pricing of the new Priv as anything priced too high may lead it to an untimely demise like the Amazon Fire phone.

Some academics believe that the Great Depression was prolonged because the New Deal measures were so disruptive that banks and other financial firms as well as individual investors, consumers and businessmen were too scared to do anything.

If we've learned anything it's that the digital landscape is simply too fast - changing to keep the business as usual mindset.

The only ones I have seen are either unrecognizable as anything, or are too close to the anarchist A.

Nii Nii the stupid guy... if he was not so stupid he would know that ATHEISM is not defined as religion but he is too stupid to believe anything based in reality.

I rarely agree with anything we do in foreign policy so not doing enough is as good as doing too much.

I did after examining many religions, too many to list but after being so discouraged about the subject I decided to give them a chance and could not find anything that could not be backed up by the Bible history and archeology as well as the false religions that have misled so many.

Anything too radical is classified as radical for a reason.

We in the secular world have too high morals to allow anything like this to go on for decades as your cult has protected child r@pists.

The Christians I know make the same excuses that any other non-poor American make such as «I'm too busy,» or «I'm uncomfortable being where the poor are,» or «The problem is too big, so I won't do anything.»

Too little — in that we can so seldom discover in the family anything more than an arena for our personal fulfillment, in that we fail to see it as a community that ought to transmit a way of life.

In our time it is becoming increasingly plain that, as John Platt says, «The world has now become too dangerous for anything less than Utopia.»

I concluded at the time of the riots that of all the things the government now needed to do, it was the married family which most urgently needed to be rebuilt: I was and remain as certain of that as anything I have ever written, and I have been saying it repeatedly for over 20 years: I was saying it, for instance, when I was attacking (in The Mail and also The Telegraph), as it went through the Commons, the parliamentary bill which became that disastrous piece of (Tory) legislation called the Children Act 1989, which abolished parental rights (substituting for them the much weaker «parental responsibility»), which encouraged parents not to spend too much time with their children, which even, preposterously, gave children the right to take legal action against theirparents for attempting to discipline them, which made it «unlawful for a parent or carer to smack their child, except where this amounts to «reasonable punishment»;» and which specified that «Whether a «smack» amounts to reasonable punishment will depend on the circumstances of each case taking into consideration factors like the age of the child and the nature of the smack.»

I fail to see how that response has anything to do with the point that I was trying to make, and, seeing as how you seem to have missed my postings intention entirely, I will not bother reading too deeply into your thoughtful analysis of my commentary in return, which would no doubt be an engaging and intellectual adventure.

I never thought anything could be as great as receiving the love of God, but giving it to other people and seeing them fall in love with God too is the most incredible thing to be part of.

If this writer was such a non-believer then why doesn't she realize that there are rational, realistic reasons for not being an alcoholic and wouldn't need to use some «higher power» as a crutch to understand that when you do anything to the point where it physically damages your body then it's time to realize that you've taken it too far?

People are too ready to assent to anything that sounds worthy and to deny anything that might possibly be perceived as silly or disloyal.

Stephen Fry speaking about atheists: «The glory — anything — we take credit for what is great about man and we take blame for what is dreadful about man, we neither grovel or apologise at the feet of a god, or are so infantile as to project the idea that we once had a father as human beings and we therefore should have a divine one too.

We know too that the memory, without which man could have no sense of continuity, is dependent upon the storage capacity of the unbelievably large number of brain cells, so that to the lay mind the brain is as close to an electronic computer as anything could be.

Too great an attachment to the datum self as a methodological starting point commits one unwittingly to solipsism, Hartshorne holds, since one could never achieve a sound epistemological basis for inferring the existence of anything beyond the datum self by this method.31 Further, if it is true that human beings are social all the way down, resistance to a literal participation in the being of a person by others (including their literal purposes) is also a form of impersonalism, according to Hartshorne's analysis — a charge from which Brightman would have reeled, had he realized that this was Hartshorne's implication.

In any case, since anything that helps «social progress» (as they define it) is eligible for their concern, I guess they can talk about global warming, too.

If anything, Christians are condescending to anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do, and they tell you they'll «pray» for you so you, too, can be Saved, and join them in their version of Heaven.

His own pet proof of «why there almost certainly is no God» (a proof in which he takes much evident pride) is one that a usually mild - spoken friend of mine (a friend who has devoted too much of his life to teaching undergraduates the basic rules of logic and the elementary language of philosophy) has described as «possibly the single most incompetent logical argument ever made for or against anything in the whole history of the human race.»

Strings like, «There is something wrong with you if you don't speak in tongues» (a very unBiblical one that), you must have a full submersion baptism because the last baptism you had wasn't wet enough, you must sing naff choruses or it means you do nt» want to worship God, you must believe that the vast majority of people that have lived on earth are damned to everlasting Hell, you must not say anything controversial, you must not be too intellectually assertive if you're a woman, you must do as we say and believe as we say, you must force yourself to be attracted to people with a particular set of genitalia or be lonely and unfulfilled for the rest of your life.

Now I want a dirty fight, anything goes, no attack is too petty, no smear is to vile and kicking below the belt is a must, because as you know, the end justifies the means, now LETS GET READY TO RUMBLEEEEEE!!»

As soon as we start shunning certain types of people, it is not too long before we find more and more reasons to shun everybody who disagrees with us on almost anythinAs soon as we start shunning certain types of people, it is not too long before we find more and more reasons to shun everybody who disagrees with us on almost anythinas we start shunning certain types of people, it is not too long before we find more and more reasons to shun everybody who disagrees with us on almost anything.

If, on the other hand, the assertion is construed subjectively, as asserting that God is the eminent subject of experience, because the only individual who experiences all things as their primal source and final end, it, too, can be shown to be true necessarily, although neither literally nor analogically, but only symbolically, on the understanding that it is nevertheless really and not merely apparently true, because its implications can all be interpreted in the concepts and assertions of a transcendental metaphysics, whose application to God, as to anything else, is strictly literal.

In the organic realm, too, a living thing's self - transcendence into another kind, if and to the extent that anything of the sort occurs, a question which does not concern us here, will constitute the new kind as such.

To be sure, anything can be done to excess, but one should not protest too much when excess is on the side of good intentions — or at least of intentions that we feel obliged to construe as good.

But our meteorological explanation in terms of barometric pressure, temperature and wind movements would have struck him as too abstract and remote to explain anything.

As «enlightened» as mankind would like to think itself, there are still way too many individuals (and not all of them are men either) who still think strong minded, thought provoking women are either bitches, or lesbians (why sexual orientation has anything to do with the ability to think for ones self is still beyond me)-- possibly botAs «enlightened» as mankind would like to think itself, there are still way too many individuals (and not all of them are men either) who still think strong minded, thought provoking women are either bitches, or lesbians (why sexual orientation has anything to do with the ability to think for ones self is still beyond me)-- possibly botas mankind would like to think itself, there are still way too many individuals (and not all of them are men either) who still think strong minded, thought provoking women are either bitches, or lesbians (why sexual orientation has anything to do with the ability to think for ones self is still beyond me)-- possibly both.

To more directly answer HeaveScent's questions: Sandusky has probably broken many of them and his pastor may have too, but as far as I know he is not charged with anything, so relative to this case, I believe the answer is none.

I've seen Him work too many times, in too personal of ways to attribute His answered prayer or work in my or other Christians lives as anything other than what it is — the Lord.

When a person exhibits too much passion over anything — God, a political movement, the latest in tattoos or a popular television show — we label that person as obsessive or compulsive, and mutter, «Get a life» Might we better understand zeal as Isaiah does, as the prerogative of God, who, despite the mess we've made of things, still chooses to care for this battered creation and our faulty selves?

But his final «system», as he used to call it, seems to me to be too abstract in its statement to convey the Christian gospel, although in his preaching he was anything but abstract.

Though there are many moments of scepticism as matters arise, and the dark nights of the soul that seem to assail almost everyone visit me too, I have never had anything remotely resembling a lapse, nor a sense of forsakenness, even when I was unjustly indicted, convicted, and imprisoned, in a country I formerly much admired.