I do not think I have the right to determine the political future of Syria, be it with or without al-Assad. This is for the Syrians themselves to decide. Nobody has the right to claim the rights that belong to the people of another country.
Maybe the future of Syria will not be a presidential system where one person will have all the power, so, the discussion about who should and should not rule Syria will become irrelevant. Let the Syrian people decide.
Develop discipline of self so that you do not have to decide and re-decide what you will do when you are confronted with the same temptation time and time again. You need only decide some things once.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Take that off the table. Tell both sides to come together and say, 'Okay, you decide how you want to split up Jerusalem. You decide if you're going to create boundaries or borders there.' And let them decide.
I decide my future. I decide what I want to do. Nobody else. If I decide this will be my last year, maybe it is. If I decide it will be my last contract, I decide that. Nobody else. So I will decide when the moment is there.
Let us not say that we will decide on a political basis at the national level that no State is competent to regulate the practice of medicine in that State if they decide to allow a doctor to prescribe marijuana, because that is what we are talking about.
What we did say is that it is up to the Syrians themselves to decide how to run the country, how to introduce the reforms, what kind reforms, without any outside interference.
The journey to financial freedom starts the MINUTE you decide you were destined for prosperity, not scarcity- for abundance, not lack. Isn't there a part of you that has always known that? Can you see yourself living a bounteous life- a life of more than enough? It only takes one minute to decide. Decide now.
Judges decide upon copyright law. They decide upon trademark law. They decide upon scientific issues. They decide upon very complex technical issues on a daily basis. So you must have confidence in the Supreme Court, that they will apply their mind and they will come out with a decision consistent with the Constitution.
The Supreme Court had the choice not only which way to rule, pro- or anti-gay marriage rights, but also how they were going to rule. They could have ruled just federalism, saying, "This isn't a matter for federal; this isn't a federal issue at all. States should decide it." Or they could decide it on equal protection grounds and say that, "Gay discrimination is wrong."
...we confidently say that it's not worth trying to reach any conclusions merely because we decide to stop halfway along the path that would lead us straight to them.
God is the only one who knows how many children we should have, and we should be ready to accept them. One can't decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn't. That decision doesn't belong to us.
It isn't citizens, or Congress, who decide how our information network regulates itself. We don't get to decide how information companies collect data, and we don't get to decide how transparent they should be. The tech companies do that all by themselves.
You decide to give your trust over to somebody. And if you don't decide to, then for me, it's really not worth going into collective enterprises; you should just work alone.
In fact, now I come to think of it, do we decide questions, at all? We decide answers, no doubt: but surely the questions decide us? It is the dog, you know, that wags the tail--not the tail that wags the dog.
We feel that our actions are voluntary when they follow a decision and involuntary when they happen without decision. But if a decision itself were voluntary every decision would have to be preceded by a decision to decide - An infinite regression which fortunately does not occur. Oddly enough, if we had to decide to decide, we would not be free to decide