Sentences with phrase «say at this point only»

Not exact matches

«The electoral advantages of anti-immigrant politics will only shrink over time, suggesting that Republicans should at some point — perhaps before the next presidential election — begin to embrace comprehensive immigration reform,» says Mark Price, a labor economist at the Keystone Research Center, a nonpartisan economic policy think tank in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

At the CECP's CEO Investor Forum in February, Polman said — only half joking — that he felt empowered to make this decision immediately because, «My simple point was the day they are hiring you, they are not going to fire you.»

«The only real reference point right now is commercial air travel, and we are a victim of our own excellent safety measures,» says Dr. Clay Cowl, chair of the Division of Preventive, Occupational and Aerospace Medicine at Mayo Clinic in Rochester Minnesota, who was not involved in Castleberry's research.

The only negative that they say about the numbers is that the markets get saturated, and at some point, the only way to expand is to enter a new market.

Before the 60 Minutes interview aired (when all that was known was that Daniels's lawyer confirmed she had been «physically threatened» at one point), Cohen told Vanity Fair, «I have never threatened her in any way and I am unaware of anyone else doing so» — though he said he could only speak for himself.

«Mr. Speaker, only a Conservative would call pushing the pause button on corporate tax breaks a tax hike,» he said, pointing his finger at the other side dismissively.

I've structured the figures to allow me to say at this point, «What I'm excited about is this: the machine that meets all your minimum requirements involves an investment of only $ 10,000 — substantially less than the amount you're prepared to spend.»

Michael Hewson, Senior Market Analyst at CMC Markets in London, says Carney has gained a lot of «brownie points» for his handling of the financial crisis, given that Canada was the only G7 country that did not have to receive a banking bailout during the financial crisis that started in 2008.

Direct marketing has always been well - suited for digital advertising; the point of the ad is to drive conversion, and digital is very good, not only at measuring if said conversion occurred, but also at targeting customers most likely to convert in the first place.

Each of the periods below had their own idiosyncrasies, but the only thing we can definitively say is that at some point, they all came to an end.

This points out that everything that you explained as being only aplicable to god, which is an explanation given because no other explanation is seen, saying this is amazing so god did it, is nowhere near close to looking at these phenomena, observing and collecting the data on it and saying this is our best understanding of it to date.

I say this only to again point out that, just like atheists can not be described as a homogeneous group, neither can Christians, at least philosophically or theologically.

The only point I take a little umbrage with is saying that Sunday was the only time people had come together at ground zero despite their differences.

Another way of putting the point is to say that certain natural powers and potentials exist at a deep level and are triggered and activated only under certain conditions and when activated are realized in certain ways and not others.

You have yet to directly respond to the specific points I've made at least three times now, i.e.: 1) the immutable good nature argument is simply unsupported definitional fiat (god can be equally described as malevolent or apathetic with equal support); 2) the immutable good nature argument presents a source of morality beyond god's direct control placing the argument in the god says so because it is good prong of the dilemma; and 3) the argument suggests god is not omnipotent because god is constrained to only a limited set of potential behaviors.

At one point in the film, one of the members of the Church Team says that God told him another member of the team — the only non-Christian — is stealing from the winnings.

«We regret that stopping work was the only viable option at this point in time,» Skanska USA Executive Vice President Tom Webb said in a statement on Tuesday.

But from the point of view of a professor at a Catholic university (Patrick's), don't we have to be judgmental about the efforts of, say, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke not only to «tame» but to destroy Christianity [see the symposium on Strauss referenced below]?

My point is that we know so very little about our universe that I can say «at the moment nothing we know of is eternal» while at the same time understanding that the universe could be like that electron and wink in and out of existence in some constant renewal, from singularity to singularity and back again, but because we only see a tiny fragment of the process we can only make sloppy assumptions as to the mechanics involved.

Just narrow it down even further with a bunch of 9's after the decimal point until you arrive at what you really want to say, that only you worship the one true deity.

only reason y i say this is because of Santification, once we give our life to the Lord, we streight way (so to speak) begin the process of Santification, this is Christ making us like him, and this Is SUFFERING It does nt happen over night, but for the duration of our time here, as you have said, its sort of like sin being done unto us, and we are handleing it just like Christ did, (with Love) of coarse with the help of the Holy Spirit, This Does NOT feel Good At ALL since our soulful flesh is Corrupt, (but our spirit is saved) This is were your trails and tribulation, your own desire, and All play apart, Now Moment by Moment we choose by our own will, And Jesus helps in these times, as he was tempeted, but without sin, The devil can do nothing but try and decieve the Christian into thinking that he has to work for his salvation as you have said, this thing here is about your Inheritance In Christ, Its gonna be some show nought broke christian in Heaven, because their trying to set of for themseleve trasure on earth, and their is going to be weeping and gnat of teeth, but it wont be, because of their going to Hell, It will be cause they miss out on what they could have had, and it is Devistation, cause they waste so much time, and they wont be able to attend the wedding, supper of the lamb, they wont be, getting the position over city, galacy, ectt... just check it out some of the points i have made, God Bless you!

So lets say, for theoretical purposes, that an abortion was conducted right at that point (this is a theoretical moral argument only).

The difference appears sharply at the point where Brunner says, «If I treat a man justly, and only justly, I regard him as fitting his place in the structure....

For example, at one point he quotes the distinguished historian of ancient science G. E. R. Lloyd, who said of Greek science: «Much as the Egyptians and Babylonians contributed to the content of these studies, the investigations only acquire self «conscious methodologies for the first time with the Greeks.»

You're not 100 % sure, so saying that it is wrong or sinful or disappointing to God is only inciteful and isn't at all «loving, encouraging, etc.» Do you see my point?

Which amounts to saying that the complexification of Matter, at the point it has now reached in the human social organism, is physically incapable of advancing further if the Mind does not play a part, not only with its capacity for technical organization, but with its purposive and affective powers of arrangement and inner tension.

This refers not only to other historic religions, which also produce high fruits of human achievement — whether or not in as great numbers or with as much efficiency as Christianity we are not concerned to say at this point but to movements and influences not ordinarily called religious.

I will only say that I believe in Jesus because I look at the historical evidence and scientific evidence and I believe that it points to an intelligent creator.

Janet i think what you have said is quite insightful and you are right and there is another meaning to Go and sin no more and that speaks to me of repentence making a decision to Follow Christ the one who saves.The words Go and sin no more is referring to a continual ongoinging process of living for Christ rather than dying in our sins daily there is no comparison.I thought that was awesome pointing the law back to all of us for we all have sinned and the judgement is death but Jesus came that we might have life in its fullness.Many people only see the adulterer when she portrays who we are as sinners that he came to save all of us sin is sin and the punishment is death so again you are quite right people use the scriptures to judge and that was never Jesus intention.I hope that helps when someone uses that scripture incorrectly and you can you use it like Jesus did to point it back at those who judge i hope that helps.brentnz

The movements are frequently confounded, for it is said that one needs faith to renounce the claim to everything, yea, a stranger thing than this may be heard, when a man laments the loss of his faith, and when one looks at the scale to see where he is, one sees, strangely enough, that he has only reached the point where he should make the infinite movement of resignation.

I need only to ask: if you wash your feet before prayer, and when the last stoning was that you attended: to get my point across... but you did say I had to answer in a coherent manner...:) Yes, the jesus story... one of those that many love to argue about, even me at times in my life have i taken the position of «he never existed»... but most of us know he did, the only real question is his divinity.

«I immediately pointed out that not only is a prayer at a public ceremony unconsti - tutional, but to force someone to give the illusion of religion when the individual does not believe in any religion is blatantly wrong and very illegal,» the soldier said in an e-mail to the foundation.»

It is at this point that the pastor must be a clear and articulate voice, not only having something important to say at that moment, but also through experience learning how to say it.

If you say a «female eunuch» (more female than male) can only marry a male, and a «male eunuch» (more male than female) can only marry a female, at what point on this spectrum of possibilities do you place demarcations as to what is acceptable?

As utterly improbable as it is, our only answer at this point is to say it's possible that all of those things just popped out of nothing via random combination of molecules»

It is the purpose of this volume to present certain studies of the gospel at the point where the oral tradition was being crystallized in writing; and for this reason we shall pay chief attention to the Gospel of Mark, though the other early source or cycle — Q, the «Sayings Source» — will also engage our attention now and then, But we can not deal with that source in detail at present; indeed, we shall not have the time to deal adequately with Mark, and can study only some of its leading features and the problems to which these give rise.

«The ultimate aim of the Fellowship can only be to intensify our sense of kinship with the universe to the mystic degree - to that point when the individual feels as if he and the universe were madly in love with one another», Younghusband said in a talk at Westerham in Kent (31).

This second passage helps O'Connor's case only if we assume the point at issue, that when St Thomas says the Eucharist contains Christ who has suffered, he means the Real Presence contains Jesus in a wounded condition.

Another Rabbi said that God had to act fast at this point, not only to save these people from slavery, but also because his plan for the salvation of the world, passed through these Hebrew slaves, and if they were left any longer in Egyptthis plan would be beyond repair, since the Hebrews were in danger of succumbing to the infamous immorality, decadence and paganism of the Egyptians.

It is perhaps worth noting at this point that in the synoptic gospels such parallelism occurs only in sayings, not in comments made by the authors themselves.

Some will say that the salt can be added at any point during the cooking time, and that it's only acid that truly affects the beans.

I will get my blog going at some point soon and only mention this all to say I totally understand.

His confidence level is very high, they believe in him, he's not only knocking down shots, he's getting into the paint, and rebounding the ball he's down there, he's down there guarding LeBron, he's a solid player, he's a lot better than a lot people thought he would be at this point in his career,» he said.

Tottenham are going to be 6 points ahead on sunday, manu and manc 1 behind, and Wenger is going to say «We must bounce back», only to be obliterated at Camp Nou, just to push the players» self confidence further down the sh!thole.

The only negative thing that has been said about Giroud this term was his celebration when levelling the scores after being 3 - 0 down to Bournemouth in the Premier League, when the team should have been chasing that fourth and winning goal, but the sheer emotion of earning at least the point from such a deficit would have been hard to contain.

What about all the tott players telling him that you only move to big clubs for more money and better chances at winning stuff, then they'll say there is no point in moving if you get that at Lei.

So far, the only reasoning I've seen pointing Dallas hard to Ridley is (and I'm not saying this is you) «derp, Dallas clearly wants a WR and Ridley is the best one in this class and so if he's there at 19 there you go».

In some of the deals I've been in, I've been able to say «Arsene, I really need you involved here» and he does and he does it brilliantly, but he only gets involved at points in the system and I think that's possibly what the fans don't quite understand.»

Hamilton was replying to a question asking if he'd caught up or talked to Rosberg at some point since his retirement bombshell at the end of 2016, saying that's the only time they have.

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits