Sentences with phrase «change my position because»

«I spoke to him after West Brom game and today he started as a centre forward and then he had to change the position because we wanted to stay in the same system as it was working well,» he said.

I told her I was a bit afraid to change my position because I was afraid the contractions would go away.

I used to freak out every time I changed position because the cable kept snagging and I was worried the tiny little connector might break.

Not exact matches

Stiglitz told us that this decades - old debate about how to balance the creation of short - term and long - term value is recently gaining new life in the US because of the venomous class class tensions and ugly politics arising out of income inequality, and because people in positions of power are looking at the big picture and realizing that something has to change.

Whereas large companies can probably handle big shocks better because they have more and bigger resources, small companies have the advantage of being in a better position to understand legislation changes and being faster at adapting to a new framework, he noted.

In 2015, he called for a halt to immigration, changing his position he said because of national security concerns: «Seal the borders,» he wrote.

«It's not going to help the debtor improve their credit position because their credit rating is not going to change.»

But, Thiel says, Andreessen is well positioned, because of his broad knowledge and flexible mind - set, to respond to incremental changes in an array of fields.

The publisher added that Trump's penchant for frequently changing his positions on issues can be an asset because the candidate doesn't let himself be «pinned down.»

Important Disclaimer: Please do your own research when investing in stocks and don't follow my advice because my portfolio positions are changing on an almost daily basis.

As such, if we change our minds about a position, such as where to place the protective stop, it is because we are constantly trying to manage risk to keep in line with the market.

As such, if we change our minds about a position, such as where to place the protective stop, it is because we are constantly trying -LSB-...]

Legal experts, speaking on a not - for - attribution basis because precise measures have not been announced, said one possibility is the government might change the Competition Act to say that «abuse of a dominant position» would include «exploitative pricing» or, in effect, charging too much.

McDonald's, on the other hand, will probably keep dominating the industry, largely because it has been such a huge presence for so long that its position can't realistically change much any time soon, Kalinowski said.

Not only that, they truly believe their actions will create positive change — everything from voicing greater support for environmentally friendly packaging to a greater willingness to exit investment positions because of objectionable corporate activity.8

He said he changed the form of the position by early 2014 «because we were getting squeezed by Mr. Icahn and others.»

Futures contract positions may not provide an effective hedge because changes in futures contract prices may not track those of the securities they are intended to hedge.

similar to a short option position because they... are subject to non-linear losses based on variance, gamma, rates, or correlation change

Moreover, it is demeaning to suggest that Paul VI affirmed the Church's classic position on marital love and procreation (which had been held for centuries by virtually every Christian community until the Anglican Communion broke ranks at the 1930 Lambeth Conference) because he was afraid that changing the traditional position would unravel the entire body of Catholic moral teaching.

He does awesome in the debates because he is smart and he learns from his mistakes and the only thing his enemies can attack are his past position changes on social issues.

Gerald's position now is only because the church was forced to change its direction.

Actually Saraswati, you abandoned your original position that America is a «two party system which only legislation is likely to change» and supported everything I said, which is that legislation is not required, and the number of parties is not designed into the system, and it's not likely to happen because people here prefer to abandon their true beliefs in favor of a lesser evil that might win.

They are protecting themselves and their positions and this isn't going to change because you vote Green or Reform or Libertarian.

Instead of affirming the idea of evolution as supporting atheism or rejecting it because it did so, some Christians took the position that its acceptance changes the way we understand God's work in the world.

I say these things because you are probably in a position to make changes that matter and I believe you want to do what's right.

And it would be simply faulty theological formation, and rashness, if a Christian were to assert that because the Church can change or has changed a mutable positive Church law, it is also in a position, or obliged, to alter a law which it knows is divine and unchangeable, simply because it has a certain material affinity with mutable canon law.

The only reason for exempting them is because they would be worse than useless in a war (assuming they didn't change their position).

While I'm not inclined to ascribe motive in this case and prefer to give Ham the benefit of the doubt that he holds his position because his conscience demands it, I think these folks bring up a good point about how we can become so heavily invested in a certain ideology that change comes at enormous cost.

I say that because you seem to be afraid of HIm, fearful of not being forgiven, unloved, and you want to change the positions, to put God in the weak spot.

To think I must now change my entire life because of your obviously deeply considered position.

The church's position hasn't changed, he just doesn't want to talk about it because the church's position is unpopular.

Because of your absurd and historically inaccurate belief that the church changed its position on Evolution and Genesis only after «mountains of evidence» was given to them and they were «backed into a corner.»

There are several arguments that can be advanced against this position: first, that there is no need to adapt or interpret the Bible this way because this «modern common sense» is quite uncommon; second, that the current popularity of a belief or point of view is no guarantee of its truth, so the Bible ought not to be adapted to suit the understanding of a particular time; third, that the Bible can not be adapted to this common sense, because this common sense excludes God; and fourth, that if our common sense disagrees with the Bible, then we must change our common sense after all, because the Bible is true.

0f course, one could take the middle ground which may be the position of objective relativism and say that the question whether the past changes is a meaningless question because we have no way of verifying the proposition.

Likewise, the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s changes to its policy took place over a much longer time than Azumah names, involved persons holding many positions left undescribed, and came about not because the denomination chose to ignore the Scriptures but because over time, many of us became convinced that there are theologically and historically faithful ways of reading the Scriptures that find space for contemporary understandings of homosexuality.

Jeremy have been asking the holy spirit for his help with this and in regards to the lame man that Jesus healed I do nt believe that sin was the issue for him just like the blind man was it his parents or did he sin the answer was neither but so that God would be glorified.What was the sin that may have been worse for him.The two situations are related of the woman caught in adultery the key words being go and sin no more only two references in the bible and will explain later the lame man we see at first his dependency on everyone else for his needs he cant do it he is in the best position to receive Gods grace but what does he do with it.Does he follow Jesus no we are told he goes to the temple and Jesus finds him now that he has his strength to do things on his own what his response to follow the way of the pharisees that is what is worse than his condition before so he is warned by go and sin no more.We get confused because we see the word sin but the giver of is speaking to him to go another way means death.Getting back to the two situations of the woman caught in adultery and the lame man here we see a picture of our hearts on the one our love for sin and on the other the desire to work out our salvation on our terms they are the two areas we have to submit to God.My experience was the self righteousness was the harder to deal with because it is linked in to our feelings of self worth and self confidence so we have to be broken so we are humble enough to realise that without God we can do nothing our flesh hates that so it is a struggle at first to change our way of thinking.brentnz

Just because you use the the pro prefix for your positions and the anti prefix for your opponents doesn't change the general message.

Warren's position is problematic because it allows for tolerance without any change in policy, which in my mind is useless.

People are where they are on these issues because of what they already think, and Francis is not in a position — in a one - week visit — to change people's minds about these things.

These changes would suggest that because women have alternative sources for some of their presumed goals, the male bargaining position would be weakened.

No one objects, because that is what these scholars are paid to do: to be professors, to represent a position — to incarnate it even, if they are capable, yet with enough critical distance to be open to criticism and dialogue and even to changing one's mind.

«Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the Church can not be expected to change her position on this question,» Francis said.

ive been wrestling since i was 9 years old and when i went into high school i had to wrestle a girl... growing up learning to wrestle i had ended up having violent style, i never was dirty or broke rules but i was taught to do anything in your power to win whehter it was to club down the head or grab the throat to gain position etc. unfortunately i was in the postion to wrestle a girl once and at the time i did nt care who you were boy / girl, white / black / purple it did nt matter im was going to go out there bounce your head of the mat and bury you, so i went out there and wreslted the same way i always wrestled, 110 % and always to put your oppenents back through the mat i dditn change my style at all bc she was a girl i wrestled the same against everyone but after i pinned her in the first minute i did nt even realize that i broke her ribs when i power doubled through her, now after that for the rest of the tournament i was heckled and berated for forcefully beating a girl ppl were telling my parents «hey, looks like you raised a wife beater» etc. etc.... ever since then i refused to wrestle girls and thank go i eventually grew out of the lower weights, moral of the story is that is great and all that girls are wrestling but they shouldnt wrestle boys even if they know what they are getting into because 1.

Because the two positions are so invested with the strong emotions aroused by power relations, there is little likelihood that rational argument can change them.

They made a major position change towards a religious sect NOT because they learned something that changed their opinion, but because of political opportunism.

Distribution is changing rapidly right along with the craft beer industry because the next generation is moving into leadership positions with new ideas and different approaches.

Would Hurney change the team building philosophy and dedicate more resources to the safety position at the expense of some other position, or would we let him walk because his price exceeded the allocated cap space for safety?

«I feel some sympathy for him because his position has changed over the years at the club.

but a t some point he lost it, and is not because of his stinginess to buy players, our core is good and has been for sometime now, his biggest problem was adaptation, change to the new EPL, his philosophy dating back 20 years does not work anymore and he knows it, because of this his biggest flaw all others came out to light, lack of rotation of his players favoring some over others, stubbornness that applies to his transfer policy buying for the future just as he had 20 more years ahead, players playing out of their natural positions, ARSENAL FLOPS who knows under other Managers they could have been great, for some reason they were signed in the first place, they must had some talent, best example is Campbell....

If we start this season with those two in our starting 11 it will be a clear sign from this organization that nothing has changed and that we will never get it right until both Kroenke and Wenger are gone... neither one of these players should still be with our club at this point because they represent the settling half - measures that have plagued this team for a number of years... this is what I call the «no man's land» of the soccer world, where teams don't have enough talented young players, unlike a Monaco or Dortmund, because they have lost the plot from an organizational standpoint... they are so reliant on one individual to run the whole operation that their once relevant scouting department has become so antiquated that it can no longer find those hidden gems it once had... furthermore, when you leave all decision - making to a manager who despises any dissenting opinions, your management team becomes little more than a stagnant group of «yes men» and no new ideas emerge... so instead of developing a team with the qualities necessary to excel in a particular system, you continually make half - brain purchases year after year to stifle dissent from the ticket - buying public, then try desperately to finagle together a lineup regardless of what would make positional sense... have you ever heard of a team who plays players out of position so often... of course not because that manager would likely be fired and never work for a team of any consequence ever again