Sentences with phrase «disagree with you on certain»
It's ok for your partner to disagree with you on certain aspects of parenting, and it's fine for you to parent differently sometimes.
http://www.health-and-parenting.com/ Not exact matches
with over 2 billion of us, we may disagree on a lot — but we all agree on certain basics (that are intrinsic to the faith and have been for millennia)... for example, read the Apostles» Creed.
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 anything.
Michael Vick on disagreeing with his brother's bounty on Cooper: «My brother has to not show a certain level of ignorance himself.»
«to be fair it would be harsh for wenger to force ospina to spend another year on the arsenal bench» i completely disagree with you we are talking about professional players with contracts to honour, if wenger decides to keep ospina he would have to bite the bullet and give his best to compete with cech you never what could happen the season is long and there are many games to be played and with our luck we have to expect some injuries, also wenger is already guilty of being too loyal towards certain players it, s about time he shows his ruthless streak!do you agree??
It might work for some, but it doesn't work for us; and while I disagree with the way it's viewed in certain circles, I'm not about to throw caution to the wind and whoop arse on my kid and end up in jail.
Before you again spam my inbox with 50 + comments arguing about how you disagree about the majority position of certain subcultures on weakly defined political axis» I rewrote that section to be less «controversial».
Essentially, their misgivings are two-fold: they suspect potential campaign finance violations and they disagree with certain fundraising practices on ethical grounds.
«brush the teeth» or «comb the hair» doesn't sound terrible, but improving your written English with the right words can help improve your ability to communicate without awkward interruptions.However, don't be too concerned with this minor rule because English speakers may disagree on certain ways to use «the» in a conversation.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on 12 %, or a higher / lower rate... Bt compare it to the measly IRRs many US investors seem happy with these days in certain sectors / assets (as long as they're convinced co's will maintain shareholder payouts, no matter what).
In summary, a strong case can be made that the US emissions reduction commitment for 2025 of 26 % to 28 % clearly fails to pass minimum ethical scrutiny when one considers: (a) the 2007 IPCC report on which the US likely relied upon to establish a 80 % reduction target by 2050 also called for 25 % to 40 % reduction by developed countries by 2020, and (b) although reasonable people may disagree with what «equity» means under the UNFCCC, the US commitments can't be reconciled with any reasonable interpretation of what «equity» requires, (c) the United States has expressly acknowledged that its commitments are based upon what can be achieved under existing US law not on what is required of it as a mater of justice, (d) it is clear that more ambitious US commitments have been blocked by arguments that alleged unacceptable costs to the US economy, arguments which have ignored US responsibilities to those most vulnerable to climate change, and (e) it is virtually certain that the US commitments can not be construed to be a fair allocation of the remaining carbon budget that is available for the entire world to limit warming to 2 °C.
While I'm sure a number of folks will disagree with me on what is spurious vs. substantive, I think it would be useful to outline which parts of the debate I feel are relatively certain, are somewhat uncertain, and quite uncertain.
CEI, the organization singled out for Walker's separate subpoena, issued the following statement from president Ken Lassman: «All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in and the CEI subpoena is an abuse of the legal system and an effort to intimidate and silence individuals who disagree with certain attorneys general on the climate debate.
To a certain extent, I agreed and am making a few minor adjustments; however, I disagreed with his emphasis on doing what sounds to me like generalizing the areas that should be covered — if we don't give quantifiable, measurable or otherwise clearly valuable aspects to those areas, how does our client really send a stand - out message?