Sentences with phrase «think people on both sides»

I do nt have a problem with other religions, I think people on both sides of the issue need work together and talk about this.

I think people on both sides feel judged and self - conscious about their choices and sometimes that means discussions about it escalate more quickly, and people take things personally that are not intended that way.

Not exact matches

«I think Hillary is smart, but she's just upset so many people on the other side, that it's going to be very, very difficult,» he said.

He added, «People may say it won't be as bad as we thought or on the other side, not as great as we thought it would be.»

This is a bonding chemical, ergo it nudges us to think we're on the same side as the person we touch.

«I think Hillary is smart, but she's just upset so many people on the other side, that it's going to be very, very difficult.»

(On a side note, it's a very readable 35 - page document — more reader - friendly than some others I've read, which I think is really crucial if you want people actually to read the thing).

The situation got Taggar thinking about the difficulties of that market, which eventually led him to exploring pain points of the people on the other side — the landlords.

Where most people go wrong in thinking about their personal brand is in putting one hundred percent of the emphasis on the «brand» side of the equation.

On one side of that crucial decision are the marketing people, the ones who think that the selling of the product is more critical than the making of the product.

«The volume of opponents I think is going to shrink because they are on the wrong side of the debate and are on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the American people, and are on the wrong side of Main Street,» Perez said.

(On the flip side, this situation leads to a special type of investment operation that actually causes people to seek out ownership of bad businesses when they think the economy is likely to recover given that they experience bigger upswings as the operating leverage effect happens in reverse.)

Ezra Klein: But this goes to something I think is hard for entrepreneurs, hard for the government, hard for anybody on either side of the aisle who wants to change anything, which is that people are very risk averse about their healthcare.

When in doubt, err on the side of simplicity Because the technology of bitcoin is still very green, small business owners should think about designating an IT person on staff (or outside the company) who can troubleshoot problems as they arise.

«I think it's in the public's interest and the media interest for the motives of people on both sides to be out there.»

I think the percentage of atheists versus believers is higher than the number you provide, and I also think the important point (perhaps implied by tallulah) is that per person, there is more anger on the side of the theists than the nonbelievers.

I think people have gotten out of control on both sides of the spectrum,.

I actually think there are reasonable people on both sides of the same - sex marriage debate.

I think it's a clever trick to make people (young people generally) who don't know much about science to think you have to be on one «side» or the other (God's side or Satan's side?)

I also know people who hold to the same beliefs regarding homosexuals as fishon but who have gone out of their way to educate themselves on both sides of the debate... and even though they still think homosexuality is a sin, they don't resort to the language and comparasions that fishon does... because they know that homosexuality isn't anything comparable to pedophilia or alcoholism.

I wonder what would happen over there if the world's people were to finally see the truth and realize that religion is being used to delude them into thinking world wars are the way of life — something that has to happen in order for... their glorious ascension into heaven or hell --(depending on who's side — re: religion — god — whatever — you are on).

While I don't think that a chaplin should preach, a dying person needs to know that God loves them and is waiting for them on the other side.

Some might see glaring faults from a guy named «Attack of the 50 Foot Magic Underwear» who seems to think he has the facts on his side, when in reality he is just as small - minded and un-educated as the people he professes to be better than.

However, the same type of people exist on the religious side, those who think you are a hell - bound moron for not accepting Jesus into your life.

The situation on both sides of the border is more serious than some people seem to think.

You know the type... the ones who THINK Jesus would like them... the ultra conservative type that make business deals at church on Sundays, drive a Buick, gossip about the «bad» people on the other side of the tracks.

When a person — like the person above — uses lies to try to push their cause (Christianity in this case)-- it clearly shows that they don't think the truth is on their side.

I do not think its fair to jump on one person of faith for his post and then be silent for the post from the Atheist side.

I think it's time for people both inside and outside the religion to take a step back and question what's really going on, if it's okay or not and what we can do to protect the rights of both sides.

Meanwhile the opposing side is made of largely a lot of seemingly logical «smart» often well educated people who are ironically no where nearly as «smart» as people out there generally think or realize so it literally becomes a debate of ignorant verses stupid on both sides which I do as a footnote occasionally find mildly entertaining.

1) most people haven't given serious thought to these issues and are just giving their «feeling»... it would not be hard for person with well - thought out positions (on either side of the issue) to expose the lack of logic in their position and get them to change their mind... most people just reflect their culture.

She didn't mean any harm, but when we don't know what another person has been through, it's best to err on the side of caution rather than assuming the person just left, deserted the ship, or whatever else people might think.

I think one thing missing today by people on all political sides is the ability and willingness to sit down with each other and have long conversations about deep issues.

if you can lie to yourself with immunity, you might be an atheist if you think the indifferent support your side, you might be an atheist if you don't think at all, you might be an atheist if you are drawn to religious discussions thinking someone wants to hear your opinion, you might be an atheist if you copy paste every piece of crap theory you find, you might be an atheist if you think you are right no matter what the evidence shows, you might be an atheist if you can't hold your water when you think about science, you might be an atheist if you can't write the word God, with proper capitalization, you might be an atheist if you think your view has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you think The View has enough support to be a percentage of the seven billion people on earth, you might be an atheist if you live in a tar paper shack, writing manifestos, you might be an atheist if you think you're basically a good person, and your own final authority you might be an atheist if you think your great aunt Tillie was a simian, you might be an atheist if you own an autographed copy of Origin Of The Species, you might be an atheist if you think that when you die you're worm food, you might be an atheist if you think the sun rises and sets for you alone, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is Charles Darwin when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if all you can think about is you when you're with your significant other, you might be an atheist if you attend a church but palm the offering plate when it passes, you might be an atheist If think this exhausts all the possibilities of definition, you might be an atheist.

Matters of belief should be discussed with care and an open view for the thoughts of others on all sides or someday we will live in a society like Pakistan where Ministers get shot for their belief and scharia is forced upon the people.

@david johson your long response offers no proof of anything, opinions and personal interpretation are not «proof «you admitted as much -LRB-, the old i can't prove a negative) but you impressed the heck out of martin t (not particularly difficult on that, as he appears to thrive on any bs that seems to support his «position») Just a side bar Santa does exist, or rather did, Saint Nicholas, Didn't know him personally and I don't think he was anything like the «Coke» version, but the persona is supposedly based on an actual person.

Why can't we all just mind our own business when it comes to peoples bedrooms and wedding albums, neither side get's to preach in schools, though I understand how you would think of it as the atheist getting his way by just not having you preach your God to his children in a publicly funded school, but he's not sending an atheist spokesman to influence your children, he just doesn't feel it's right to allow the religious spokesman into the schools to influence any children on his tax dollar.

This is why the NRA and Republicans need evangelicals on their side — they need people who have been conditioned to not think too much about things, who think science books are bad.

Wow Mary, Regardless of what we each believe personally, I'm on your side, I think the cross should stay, it means many different things to many different people.

Thoughtful, reflective persons are on the near side of this great modern divide, and I don't think they can go back to premodern ways of thinking, about values as well as religion (any more than they can go back to thinking that the world is flat or lies at the center of the universe).

Hey young people again, boyhowdy's incorrect response shows just how diminished your capacity for critical thought and success in life will be if you devolve into something like a boyhowdy — on the wrong side of the future.

I might be ecelectic, but what makes me consistent is my belief is something that combines the belief of Scripture with that of Englightenment philosophy: nurturing life is goodness, simply, and helping others to see a model that thinking for ourselves can help heal the world of all past injustices - so that we all learn to WANT to be good... within reason and by our own choice...: you have a society like that, you'll have less injustices, less violence, less money - grubbing by people who hold themselves as representatives of «authority» -(which side are you on, by the way, if you see the world as so divided in such a bipolar reality...?)

on a side note, from point 2, it would be nice to think about what rules god would throw down on the people who lived much, much before the christian god was invented 2000 yrs ago.

You all have mocked Christians and some have swore at people on here with Christian beliefs so what am I to think that atheists are compassionate, logic isn't on your side on this one.

Although I sympathize with the difficult position you are in, I think sometimes we all err on the side of being people pleasers.

I was happily lurking here but as the discussion begins to get more heated I thought I'd just chime in for a little thought: I think there are basically very sensible people on both sides of the discussion here and I think there's a lot of potential to learn from each other.

I think everyone on either side of the argument would admit that there are people who are simply unwilling to pull their own weight.

Not only do the vast majority of teens surveyed think Americans are divided, but they basically embrace the divide: Three in four «already have a party preference,» and only around 25 percent think they have «a lot in common» with people on the other side of the political aisle.

then that would make you deluded simply thinking that you a faceless person on the other side of the monitor can truly accomplish what all others that bother us on a daily basis face to face failed to achieve?

Nothing «ups» ratings like getting the opinions going from two sides who think they're the ultimate authority on what people should and shouldn't do.