Sentences with phrase «saw the facts clearly»

Tocqueville saw the facts clearly.

Once you've seen this fact clearly — that Liking and Disliking are voluble fakers — the whole world begins to bloom with possibility.»

Not exact matches

As a matter of fact, there is no point in denying that by all means clichés surely increase the number of words in the text, which is clearly seen in this sentence.

A fact that can clearly be seen while he's performing.

But the fact is that other people often see our shortcomings more clearly than we do.

Democratic supporters clearly enjoyed the Republican discord but for the fact that they see a real threat to local jobs.

But the reward is well worth it, because the fact base that's created allows management to clearly see the customer's experience of various journeys and decide which ones to prioritize.

It will not have been surprised to see that after an initial plunge in the value of virtual currencies following the bank's announcement, their worth has soared right back to where it started; nor will they be blind to the fact that this clearly represents the same Chinese investors going back in, whether through Hong Kong virtual exchanges like TideBit, or perhaps through Japan, which officially authorized 11 cryptocurrency exchanges in September just as China banned them (South Korea launched its own ban later in the month).

All things, seen and unseen point to the fact that there is a God, a Creator, the Divine Designer, anf there is an evil being, whose evidence is so clearly seen also.

(31) In fact, one sees it most clearly in sexual desire.

But Francis was in fact — as Buddhists see clearly — a Christian of such excess and challenge to ordinary, even good, Christian ways of understanding all of God's creation as beloved that we still can not see him clearly.

First, that Archbishop Mennini has considerable respect for Bishop Davies, whom he clearly sees as the kind of bishop we need more of in this country: he almost certainly found out about Mgr Egan, who has so far maintained a fairly low profile, from Bishop Davies: the fact that he has followed his advice shows what kind of bishop he is now looking to appoint.

It would be strange if I disputed this, when these very lectures which I am giving are (as you will see more clearly from now onwards) a laborious attempt to extract from the privacies of religious experience some general facts which can be defined in formulas upon which everybody may agree.

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty of the most notorious crimes, and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts that can be thought of; and these they committed openly and publicly in the sight of God, in the most daring and impudent manner, and in defiance of him, without any fear or shame.

That was clearly a norm that sprouted out of Christianity (and, in fact, Judaism... see the book of Genesis).

We may not see clearly why this should be so; indeed, we may feel a certain aversion to acknowledging that it is so; but, in the last analysis (whatever our Christology) can we deny this fact?

His statements indicate that it is not weakness itself which is to be glorified, but the fact that in weakness he can see more clearly God's intent for the world; that is, for the «power of Christ» to dwell within him.

John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty of the most notorious crimes, and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts that can be thought of; and these they committed openly and publicly in the sight of God, in the most daring and impudent manner, and in defiance of him, without any fear or shame.

«John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty»

Jesus, however, seeing the fact as clearly as the ancient writer saw it, welcomed the unbending administration of the universe.

The fact that some calamity is punitive, that some is disciplinary, and that some may be explained by a future vindication, is clearly recognized, as we have seen.

e ¯ bha ¯ h is even used as synonymous with «idol» or heathen deity, John also says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was no hospitality this is totally bogus, in fact their sin was the very same thing we see today that's why he cant see clearly that they were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, guilty of the most notorious crimes, and addicted to the most scandalous and unnatural lusts that can be thought of; and these they committed openly and publicly in the sight of God, in the most daring and impudent manner, and in defiance of him, without any fear or shame.

Theo Lets see you are a creationist, 6000 year old earth guy, the great flood is a fact, the tower of Babel was real, that a supernatural messiah actually existed, that the bible was not written by men but is the inspired word of god, etc., sorry but mockery is clearly in order, Baptist or not.

And in fact one can see very clearly in Matthew's version of the predictions of the Passion that he could count and that he has changed Mark's «after three days» to his own «on the third day» in order that this would correctly designate the first day of the week.

In fact, the words of a prophet were seen as having the very authority of God himself as seen by the oft repeated words, «Thus says the Lord...» It was taken for granted that a prophet who spoke for God did not lie and if he did, in such a case he clearly wasn't a prophet of Yahweh.

In fact, the lyrics to «I Can See Clearly Now» come to mind when I think about the light, bright, sunshiny aspects of this vegan miracle.

The reason AOB's aren't happy, is because a lot of fans like myself love Arsenal FC, and we can clearly see that Wenger has not been delivering for such a long time, in fact the guy can't even make simple decisions despite being one of the highest paid managers in the world.

Of course Gazidis will listen to his pick where with Wenger he didn't have that trust, clearly seen by the fact that Wenger had to go above Gazidis to Silent Stan for a new deal.

I admire loyalty but despise ignorant stupidity and an inability to see facts so clearly in front of your face.

So today people are confessing that Szczesny is better than Ospina.It was funny how it was made to look Szczesny was the cause of Arsenal's goals because of his mistakes.People also forget the kind of defence he's had in front of him from the time he started till he went on loan.I can't believe anyone watches Ospina and Szczesny in terms of goal keeping ability and says Ospina is better.When Ospina first came he was also making the same mistakes Szczesny made but some ignored it insisting he was better.I'd like to see Ospina go to AS Roma and do better than Szczesny.Even Juventus are in for him even if their bid is derisory.Some also said the fact that Ospina had a cool head over Szczesny meant he should start over him.If you've watched Ospina and Szczesny well from a neutral point and not being bias you'll clearly know who's better.If I was Szczesny I won't return because I'm in my prime.

no i havent based it on just that game i have clearly said that he is a talented player i just do nt see it working out for him at this club and also 10 minutes or not if your a professional footballer you shouldnt lose the ball everytime you touch it he and sanogo looked great against benfica but who was better that fact is weve seen campbell have one good performance in an arsenal shirt in preseason he coudnt even be arsed to track back at everton and he had only just come on........

Topping all of that was the fact that you could clearly see the divide amongst the supporters, since that game it has gotten worse and worse with the stories of Arsenal fans fighting amongst themselves, home and away, getting embarrassing.

JJ should have clearly got the 3rd and 4th, the fact no judge saw this is crazy!

I for one feel his natural and best position will always be at box to box.The fact that he's tactically indisciplined doesn't mean it's not his position.The problem with him is that he intentionally decides to neglect his duties.He plays like a box to box player and since he was young many of us saw him as a CM.If he wasn't playing at No. 10 at Wales people wouldn't have suggested in Arsenal he should be playing there which suggests that the problem is not with the position but the player himself.The guy likes to be everywhere on the pitch and that is clearly a trait of a box to box player.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

But you don't need to be there to see & make things happen... Mourinho wasn't there and look at how many players he brought in (hate to take the man as an example but facts are facts), clearly the circumstances are different as a new manager you want to shape your squad and Mourinho has always been a big spender wherever he went but in our case you know the areas where you need to add the most (CB, DM, ST & RW debatable but wouldn't hurt).

But you choose to overlook the facts from much of the last decade, which you need only eyes, not «cherry picked stats» to clearly see are what ACTUALLY IS THE TRUTH.

Luckily for you, although there are many people around that see you do it, the policeman walking by probably thinks that you are getting into your own car and somehow doesn't spot the fact that you have broken into it, although everyone else can see it quite clearly.

The fact that you don't agree clearly shows you can't see the wood for the trees.

@ Annoyed, I also must admit that I slightly underestimated Boro, evn thou I was the one who used to mention to not do that here, I also agree with you about the suggestion of bringing the young guys up to get experienced for the next season.But franckly my friend, please watch the reply of the game again, The boro defense were so opened for an usual full attack Arsenal way of play.In the 1st half they were evn panicking evrytime we attacked of which we shoud have taken advtges but did nt happen.The more attack you launch on pressure to your opponent, the more chance you have for scoring a goal.And we did have the opportunity from the fact that Boro's defense were desorganised during the 1st half and the 1st 20mn of the 2nd half, counter attack launch opportunity were a lot but we just did nt take them, which means that Its us who did nt take our chance at best but not Boro is the good team.Hull city!!? i totaly agree that they are much stronger and physical team, as well as newcastl or westham or portsmouth or Avilla.But that game yestday was not so tight as the same we played agst those team tht I mentioned above, we could have clearly won that game if we played a bit stronger, did nt even need lots of our skill capacity but just a bit of acceleration, then we could have had more chance to score, watch the reply and u will see yourself.

In fact, on social networks appeared a video in which one can clearly see that the Argentinian Javier Zanetti has picked up one of the balls and then on a «false» way spinned a ball in his hand.

In fact, you can clearly see Central Park from the three floors of observation decks here, which is not possible from the Empire State building.

Of course, it's easier to see things more clearly after the fact.

I agree that the redistributive settlement needs to be embedded within society's concept of how things work rather than seen as after - the - fact «meddling» in outcomes, but I think this is incompatible with a government that very clearly is meddling in all kinds of things, as New Labour did.

In fact, Assemblyman Michael Miller wrote a letter to Ms. Quinn in September, 2012 (and I am still waiting to see it, despite multiple requests), supposedly questioning the jurisdiction of the City Council with regard to their failure to demand a completed investigation by the Department of Investigations (that DOI investigators and officials initiated in May, 1993, but failed to complete), and Ms. Quinn's own role to initiate her own, independent investigation, as her August, 2006 letter clearly states.

«Aside from the fact that there's no ethics reform anywhere to be seen, we're going to have a budget that is clearly going to miss the deadline and enacted with messages of necessity, which give legislators and the public minimal time to review its contents,» he said.

This latter fact can be ascertained even though the H II regions can not be seen clearly beyond a few thousand light - years from the Sun.

I am determined to make it spring outside... I am over the slushy sidewalks, constant fear of snow screwing up my commute and the fact that it makes me sleepier than usual (case in point I am practically falling asleep while writing this... in case you didn't know, I write my posts the night before they are published... 9/10 times I am wrapped in a towel with wet hair laying on my bed having the constant battle in my head of whether to write the post or pass out... clearly we see what won... writing the post haha) I LOVE color year round, so it's no surprise that for one of the freezing days at NYFW I decided to wear shades of white, blue and black (all I am missing is gold and it could potentially be #The Dress... seriously didn't understand that whole craze for all of 24 hours haha) Anyways... Back to what I am wearing and how it can transition perfectly into the spring.

As you can see they are clearly marked with the words «Online Cupids», so they are not hiding the fact that they are using fictitious member profiles.

On the other end there's Collateral Beauty, which is so over the top in its corny tone and its bizarrely arrogant writing, so satisfied with what Loeb clearly seems to think are some revolutionary twists despite the fact that you can see one of them coming the entire film and the other is so ridiculous that no one would be insane enough to even consider it, that you practically feel insulted the entire time you're watching it.