The government response

The rationale for the law is the polar opposite (of who the law will affect).

Our government s position is that backward induction should be ditched.

How, in your view, does that supportive position impact the lives of the children that have been abused?

The ECB s stance is peculiar.

This is dangerous territory.

This is wrong.

Never before has Japan s government joined a US administration so closely on the Taiwan issue.

Before Rouhani came into office, the government's position on Internet content was often articulated by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

The US position was a travesty.

That is an unconvincing stance.

Such double talk is misguided.

This is woefully short sighted.

Position x and y

Tom was shocked by Mary's attitude.

I like Tom's attitude.

It is my solid citizenship.

Parkhomenko s account of what happened in Kolpashevo is not without its detractors.

Especially savory are the accounts of the government's response to its hungry citizenry, like President Herbert Hoover's let me eat cake attitude.

That is an odd position to take, to say the least.

By contrast, the national kleptocrats position is more consistent.

As a result, Netanyahu s position is strong.

Yanukovich s anti democratic position should come as no surprise.

Yanukovych s anti democratic position should come as no surprise.

Come, there is a position in the Environmental Bureau.

Their position goes beyond political philosophy.

Yet this stance has become untenable.

Do you have tenure?

It's not in my stance, but in his.

This position can be explained as follows

The contradictory stance of Chancellor Angela Merkel s government was exacerbated by the transition from the grand coalition during her first term to the current conservative liberal coalition.

Now that position has been bluntly and uncompromisingly expressed.

In the meantime, a somewhat conservative and defensive posture is warranted.

This is a very nice position, but not entirely correct.

Obama's actual position on the issue was more nuanced.

Our position is based on justice and international law.

The official stance on the commenter role's value is quite the opposite.

Very good stance, except the bit about extremist ones .

He had a strong stance on the subject.

Indeed, when asked by Bush to look into the matter, America's National Academy of Sciences came to a resounding verdict (the only one they could honestly reach) that greenhouse gases are a menace.

When should this stance change if not now?

Putin s position on global warming would be less ambivalent.

This stance conveniently avoided rows with oil dictators. Moreover, provided they were not too troublesome politically over Israel, they could earn a well paid seat at our table.

So the president's position is clear and he will not back down.

Korea s relatively low ranking reflects the inclusion of North Korea.