Sentences with phrase «point of discussion with»

Not exact matches

A White House official pointed to trade as part of a «bigger picture» for the economy, with cabinet - level discussions described as «deliberative» and the President focused on doing right by American workers.

He was able to keep the discussion largely on the topics he likes to focus on, and he made a number of points that will resonate with progressives, not a small voting group in New York.

During a panel discussion as part of the South by Southwest Festival's interactive program, Denton admitted that the Hogan story — which was about a sex tape that the wrestler made with a friend's ex-wife, and included a short clip from the tape — didn't have an obvious point to it, apart from embarrassing Hogan.

She noted that with the $ 15 minimum wage (a frequent point of comparison in the discussion) Safeway chose to absorb the cost of the minimum wage instead of cutting jobs or passing the costs on to consumers, but that made Seattle Safeway stores» profit margin half as much as stores in other locations.

Trump's tweet came hours after his top economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters the US is «in the pre-preliminary stages of any discussions» with TPP countries about rejoining the pact, and that the prospect of reentry was more a «thought» than a «policy» at this point.

In a press release by PETA, the animal rights group noted that in discussions with Tesla, PETA pointed out the possibility for the electric car company to reduce its carbon footprint through the usage of vegan leather.

Commentary on my blog posts appears on Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter, providing me with an even broader discussion of the relative merits of my points of view.

I'm wondering from an economic point of view, when you look at the United States and your discussions with other people in business and in government, is his bark bigger than his bite?

«You want to have a robust discussion and you want to have competing points of view debated with vigor,» Malek said.

Politico's Nicholas Vinocur reports, «During their discussions, an aide said that Macron had pressed the point that «we can not conceive of a trade war among allies,» and that France would only speak «in concert with Europe» on trade.

At the time of an IPO and subsequent underwritten public offerings, underwriters will have the ability to dictate whether investors are allowed to sell, which makes the registration rights negotiated at the time of the venture financing a mere starting point for discussions with the company and the underwriters.

It simply means that we must augment our present discussion of intrinsic hair quality with a few other equally salient points.

Contrary to Buffet's opinion, Bill Gates acknowledged the value of cryptocurrencies and shared it in one of his discussions with Reddit users in January 2015, saying: «Digital currencies can help the poor, but not Bitcoin» pointing at two important Bitcoin drawbacks, namely its volatility and anonymity.

And, now that I've said that, I will point out that this has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion question, and is merely a de-railment of the discussion of a woman's right to decide what takes place in her body.

He concludes with an important point: ``... the Reformers» insistence on the authority of scripture made several important points, but left many other matters open for further discussion.

In biological discussion when a few speculative biologists point to the necessity of an «epigenetic landscape» to make sense of embryogenesis, development and growth their colleagues usually summon them back to «reality» with sober accusations of mystification.

For instance, when in the course of discussion it is clear that the one receiving such admonishment actually disagrees with the point being made, then continued dogging attempts to force the other party to change does indeed become «manipulative coercion».

I agree with Gary's point: «when in the course of discussion it is clear that the one receiving such admonishment actually disagrees with the point being made, then continued dogging attempts to force the other party to change does indeed become «manipulative coercion.»»

I shall not delay the discussion here to defend Bergson against his critics, except to point out that what is frequently termed «irrationalism» in Bergson is precisely what he has in common with all modern disciplines that take the dimension of depth seriously.

Can you imagine a world in which the definition of every object or point of discussion had to be clarified before moving forward with social intercourse?

The discussion, I hope, illustrates my major point that when you ask the meaning of a doctrine or, in other words, what was the insight or truth of experience that those who formulated these doctrines wanted to safeguard, you find yourself grappling with them with concepts almost too difficult for words.

I would take great pleasure in a discussion with Hutchison on this point, but I will restrain myself since that was not actually part of my argument.

Now, if we accept «being opposed to war for any reason» as a working definition, I would say, I do agree with some of your points in your discussion with MarkR, but disagree with much of your basic premises.

Unless the discussion in the preceding pages has entirely failed to make its point, it will be plain that what is being proposed in this book is (as I have said) a «de-mythologizing» of the inherited notions of «life after death», with their (to many of us) impossible assertions; and also the «re-mythologizing» — or better, the re-conceiving — of their implicit intention so that we may have a valid way of affirming the value and worth of human existence, its significance and importance for God, and its preservation in God as a reality which has affected the divine life and in God has acquired an enduring quality which nothing can take away.

Her selective analysis of Ephesians 5 points out the need to begin the discussion with verse 21 («Be subject to one another...») and then proceeds to concentrate on verses 25ff, which stress the husband's self - giving love.

(7) He sets the tone by paying attention to the contributions of others, perhaps of reflecting what they are saying with, «Let's see if I understand what you mean...» (8) He helps build group - centered (as contrasted with self - centered) contributions by his linking function in which he points to the relationships among various individuals» contributions to the discussion.

Editor's Note: The following interview with Noah screenwriter Ari Handel contains some minor spoilers and discussions of items that deal with major plot points in the film.

We can summarize the discussion up to this point by saying that the literary form of Mark's tomb pericope shows definite signs of having developed in three stages, consisting of two appendices with one third final addition (leaving aside the fact that in the second century a still further addition of Mark 16:9 — 20 was made) and that because of this, it may not have been part of the author's original plan as he set out to write his Gospel.

To those of you on this thread, who, with your 3 pound brain, HS or College degree, 15 - 40 year lifespan to this point, and literally dozens of books and articles and discussions over beer and pretzels, have the mystery of thousands of years and millions of people figured out — Bravo!

Yes, at some point we all have to have a discussion with ourselves and pretend there's a higher force that gives two figs about a bunch of silly, poorly evolved hominids.

My point is that the shift from a theory of comparative advantage to a situation where absolute advantage is decisive, along with the shift from near identity of wages in all countries to very large differentials, is decisive for a realistic discussion of trade today.

The billboard should be along the lines of «If you have doubts, come have a discussion with us to hear another point of view».

Very often, as the history of the church demonstrates, creative and sound theological thinking took shape in dialogue and discussions with alternative points of view.

Héring, to whom I have been indebted at several points in this discussion, concludes his study of the appearances in the Synoptic Gospels of the phrase «Son of Man» in the eschatological sense with these three propositions:

Patriarch Pimen of Moscow wrote to the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches pointing out the misgivings of the Russian Orthodox Church with regard to the salvation discussion at Bangkok.

Mike i have been thinking hard on this subject i hope you do nt leave the forum as i think we will get into a good debate / discussion the Lord has shown me alot of insight into this subject that i hadnt even thought about until Jeremy proposed his point of view.The word say iron sharpens iron we need to understand what we believe not just walk away because we feel it is treading on our beliefs because they change as we learn and understand because we have believed something for a long time does nt make it right.Use this opportunity to grow to learn and to understand what the Lord is wanting us to know if we cant do this as brothers how are we supposed to do it with unbelievers.brentnz

Thus, along with the element of universality mentioned above, the doctrine of the unsurpassability of Christ as the final revelation of God has come to be a crucial point of controversy in inter-religious discussion involving Christians and other traditions.

I can not at this point enter into the discussion of types of Diaspora Judaism affected by contact with paganism; I wish only to record my conviction (1) that Paul's Judaism was not of the orthodox Palestinian type, which later became normal, and normative; and (2) that early Gentile Christianity, both before Paul and also outside the area of his influence, was far more substantial than the Book of Acts and the surviving Pauline letters have led many to assume.

As an entry into the discussion, it may be helpful to mention some questions that arise in connection with several points in Gunter's account of Bergson.

A small but significant number of people flagged for discussion the question asking whether they agree with the statement, «I'm basically living at peace and in love with others at this point in my life.»

I believe that these words, and the ideas that are associated with them, can be fruitfully used at this point of our discussion.

The discussion of the theological propriety of a new quest must naturally begin with the point at which the original quest was seen to be illegitimate.

The point to being an atheist and involved in these discussions is that for better or worse much of the country votes with some religion involved in their views.

My point is that on the surface, at least, the analysis of «X is omnipotent» that goes with Griffin's third position concerning the deficiency of Premise X does not capture the idea of perfect power as understood by Griffin and as generally understood in discussions of this topic.

This would be done by virtue of the extraordinarily complex rhythms within human experience wherein the core of the person's own experience is made compatible with the rhythms of external things, with minimal distortion, and whereby semantic rhythms within the person's experience point out the external reference; Whitehead's discussion of symbolic reference is a good account of this.

At this point our discussion of chance converges with what is called the theodicy problem, and this will be the subject of Chapters 9 and 10.

Actually, the problem is that the government & IRS has effectively censored the churches to a point that any type of discussion over politics wipes out their non-profit status with the IRS.

But the second emphasis, again one with which process - thought has many points of contact, will require longer discussion.

(Again false as just illustrated above and again attacking me personally rather than my argument) None of these have anything to do with the point of discussion in this thread.

Fishon, a couple of things; glad to have you back in the discussion, I've missed you and your point of view; I may not always agree with you, but your voice is relevant to the discussion.