Sentences with phrase «not in a bad position»

Also most stories about them in the media are Nintendo is doomed stories, which mostly have zero real substance (not saying Nintendo isn't in a bad position at the moment, but they are far from doomed), so I can understand him

Not exact matches

And you may know all too well that some positions don't recover (in fact, they may even get worse over time).

That's not all bad of course, especially if you happen to be in a position to benefit from wage inflation in Alberta.

«The one thing I don't want to have happen is ending up in a position where I haven't heard the bad news.»

«You know I think the way we deal with the tax bill is by being honest about it, saying across time the very significant tax reductions for groups and parts of our economy that really weren't needed will hurt the fiscal condition of the country and put us in a bad position as it relates to other priorities we have,» Delaney said.

To ensure employees aren't stagnant in their positions (or worse, leaving those positions), provide them with opportunities to grow so that they can one day pursue leadership roles within the company.

And that's too bad because sales is about tenacity, the willingness to push on through the «no's,» the «I'm not sure's,» to get to that fifth conversation and put yourself in position to make the sale.

The buffer is put in place to ensure that lenders do not get themselves into the same positions that they did during the financial crisis, protecting themselves from debt going bad and triggering another credit crunch.

Unfortunately, about the worst position you can be in is to be an entrepreneur who has gone bust — you have no money, your spirit is broken, and you don't even qualify for financial supports such as unemployment insurance!

Assuming that the total amount of bad debt in the banking system exceeds total bank capital — something which is almost certainly true — the conversion of debt which can not be serviced into an equity position that is unlikely to generate much more (and in an economic downturn, which is when we are most concerned about the debt burden, we can assume that the decline in value of these equity positions will be highly correlated) leaves the net indebtedness of the banking system unchanged, and so the contingent liabilities of the government are unchanged even as reported debt in the system declines.

Again, if Uber was making billions of dollars a year, even if the investors weren't more tolerant of all the bad stuff, Kalanick would have been in a much better position to ignore them.

But it is also bad: We want banks to be banks, to make carefully considered credit decisions, and if they can quickly pass on their credit risk to public - market investors who are not in a position to monitor the borrowers, then they may make worse lending decisions and increase the overall risk in the system.

It's not necessarily a bad position to be in.

If we are in a bear market and the investor is not opposed to short selling, we can look for stocks that will likely perform the worst, therefore making a nice profit on the short positions as prices fall.

Most of the reason for this is that the question of whether a thing is or is not a security is a highly fact - dependent and, sitting from my perch on the East Coast and not in the offices of the issuers of these coins, I am in a very bad position to ascertain what is going on behind a company's closed doors, what's in their private correspondence and what intentions lay behind their issuances.

Sitting on $ 4 trillion might not seem like a bad position to be in, but it can make a mess of domestic monetary policy if those reserves result from the central bank's attempts to deal with capital inflows.

That's actually bad news, because an optimum position is, mathematically speaking, one in which you can't move without making your situation worse.

Our current investment position isn't driven by that thesis, but again, a contraction in foreign capital inflows will certainly make things worse.

 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).

You also ignore the fact that Christians have done just as bad things as those living in the Middle East and those you would call doing the work of the devil: killing those who do not share their faith, using their religious position to gain wealth and discriminate against those who have different beliefs or lifestyles.

Perhaps the latter is true in some mystical sense but as a history scholar I can tell you that I can't think of a worse position that being an early Christian in the Roman Empire.

[In light of his position on gender roles, Piper could not bring himself to endorse Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election, but conceded that «defending abortion is far worse a sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman.»In light of his position on gender roles, Piper could not bring himself to endorse Sarah Palin as a vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election, but conceded that «defending abortion is far worse a sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman.»in the 2008 election, but conceded that «defending abortion is far worse a sin for a man than serving as Vice President is for a woman.»]

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

Giving him ANY position or voice in government would be very scary, not to mention VERY BAD for all of us.

It sets us up in the position of God to decide which sins are worse than others, and which sins can be overlooked and which can not.

Moral Realism inherent in this approach is to avoid two absolutist positions of utopianism - one, the approach of political religions which seek to bring perfect community on earth through political action, which ends in tyranny because it asks the impossible from power - politics; and the other, a withdrawal from politics because it can not bring perfect community on earth, which ends by tolerating the worst tyranny and oppression without resistance.

When we say «Love the Sinner; Hate the Sin» we ourselves commit the worse sin possible, by setting ourselves up in the position of God to decide which sin is acceptable and which is not.

In turn, Panikkar could criticize Boff for not taking seriously enough the religious diversity of the Brazilian context, and for promoting a rather superficial inclusion of other religions (like Candomblé) instead of a dialogue in the deep, thus remaining largely within Western moulds of thinking.64 From these contrasting positions could result, in the best case, a fruitful dialogue, in the worst case plain rejectioIn turn, Panikkar could criticize Boff for not taking seriously enough the religious diversity of the Brazilian context, and for promoting a rather superficial inclusion of other religions (like Candomblé) instead of a dialogue in the deep, thus remaining largely within Western moulds of thinking.64 From these contrasting positions could result, in the best case, a fruitful dialogue, in the worst case plain rejectioin the deep, thus remaining largely within Western moulds of thinking.64 From these contrasting positions could result, in the best case, a fruitful dialogue, in the worst case plain rejectioin the best case, a fruitful dialogue, in the worst case plain rejectioin the worst case plain rejection.

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

I am less confident that such a context would clearly emerge, and I am very sympathetic with the third world position that since things have been steadily getting worse for them for some considerable time, increase in world consciousness or not, it is perhaps understandable that they would grow tired of awaiting an occasion on which all could agree.

To have seen the better and embraced the worse does not leave one in the same position as at first; it means moral decline; and that is the story of the European community in recent times.

It may put him in a bad position, but that's leadership if he can't take he should resign.

From what u saw in the last 5 mins of the psg game, sanchez was struggling badly clutching his back etc surely he won't be 100 % and to throw him bk in the strikers position to get more knocks from the centre backs is criminal you ask me

v are not saying sanchez and ozil didn't play bad in the matches but most of the time u can c the chances they created went invain ozil created highest number of chances in epl history still only 18 went in the net doesn't it show the potential of the guy alexis rant his heart out in matches but he was moved to wrong position by manager his form dropped..

As regards our defense i won't blame the players too much for last night result, the manager is to be blamed for not fully prepared and playing players out of position, i think if the manager had called the players in a week earlier than he did, Mustafi at least would have been fit to play, but the result wasn't that bad as most fans make it seems..

We should be on 70 points already with his genius, instead we languish in our usual floating position of 3rd / 4th with other teams closing in rapidly, and Spurs above us... it couldn't really get any worse..

I think our RB position is a worry for me considering the standard that Bellerin has set there and CM can be considered wer a physically built player in the shape of kondogbia won't be a bad fit incase we play teams who want to bully us physically.

Can Wenger really not see that the manner of our performance as well as this being his worst ever season in terms of results and position in the table mean that he is not really getting the best out of the Arsenal squad?

Outdated ideas, bad rotation, tactics, system, plays players out of position, does not make the necessary signings to strengthen the team in the transfer window, is uninspiring on his warm seat, talks media school b@llocks in press conferences and is generally aloof.

When the champions league squads are submitted later this week, you will see we are not in such a bad position.

Even if we don't and we have to play one of the group winners, Wenger has the January transfer window to strengthen any positions that we are light in (cough, DM, cough) and barring any more bad luck we should have a full strength squad with key players like Walcott, Debuchy and Ramsey back and fully fit.

They haven't shown much love in the TE position, which is too bad because this is a good TE draft, so I wouldn't be surprised if they ignore the position.

But his position for the third will cause the most concern, Ospina seemingly in the worst possible position and failing to cover a shot from one corner of the penalty box to the post on the diagonal, the shot not even curled or that hardly struck — if anything that Ferreira - Carrasco hit it with his right leg should have caused it to travel closer to Ospina, yet he was unable to make contact.

He was really poor in that position on a consistent basis, and it wasn't due to a bad day at the office or lack of experience, he's just doesn't have the physical attributes for that role.

Honestly, all games are must win games — unless you are leading the league by 10 + points, which we are not in a position of — so any results besides a win is pretty much bad.

To be honest, the idea isn't bad, but the current manager has not been able to improve players in defensive positions... But it's good that at least we now have 3 players who can play as wing backs well enough.

1) On the pitch: - we always start 3 -4-3 but always switch back to a back 4... it isn't tactical as we look bad in both - Bellerin playibg LWB when you have the best in the bundesliga last season on the bench - Welbeck playing the striker role when he can do everything but score when you have Lacazette a record signing on the - Monreal in back 3 when you have Kostafi who can flank Per in the middle protecting him against pace as well as having a commending figure and - Telling Xhaka to not play as a 3rd offensive player when Ramsey dashes - Playing a guy in Ox so out of position and persisting with him over preseason as if he would be there for years when it is clear he doesn't want to play for us (his case is a weird one)

This is not a case of just staying in the Chiefs normal tendencies against an opponent instead of optimizing a gameplan for that opponent, no, this was actively putting his players in a much worse position to be able to do their jobs than normal.

his weaknesses are his ability to defend — can't tackle, badly positioned, doesn't track runners, always breaks forward on runs and leaves gaping chasms in midfield that Xhaka can't cover alone, all of which makes him a bad central midfielder..

But the Phillies are also a good reminder you shouldn't get too upset if your team is in the worst position.