Posted on 05/26/2005 4:47:32 PM PDT by neverdem
How can we find out why Reeve was HAIRLESS?? Any ideas? What else makes one totally HAIRLESS except chemotherapy?
Well, that's nice that Spectre doesn't like a power available to all President's to check the Legislative Body from behaving as Lords, but I'm sure the President could equally rebut he doesn't appreciate a Senator unappreciative of the efforts to help him keep his Senate seat.
The Senate's actions on this are meaningless, I believe, provided the House doesn't provide a 2/3rd's vote.
He had Alopecia which causes your hair to fall out in clumps and makes it look patchy, so he gave up and shaved it.
Maybe next time the President will think twice before helping a liberal republican win a primary.
"Maybe next time the President will think twice before helping a liberal republican win a primary."
I think there may be a lot of STRATEGERY going on behind the scenes.
I've been as frustrated as everyone else the last few days, but this puts a bit of a different light on the compromise.
I think this poker hand will be played out in time - I'm holding judgement until it does.
And Specter is still a POS.
The President's Council On Bioethics has a great backgrounder site (a .gov site) that can extend education on stem cells and has lots of diagrams, etc. I'm not on my own computer or I could give you the link and several other really good sites. Perhaps hocndoc can offer it.
I think we both know the reason: they want to justify the continued slaughter of the unborn. The advances in ultrasound technology have been helping the pro-life cause, so they're looking for some kind of counter-argument, and frankly, they're grasping at straws.
Between you and me, it is what one expects of servants to evil when they ignore and reject the whispers of God's Holy Spirit of conviction. HUman need to self-justify will go to astonishingly bad lengths to justify past wrongful decisions. Once wholesale slaughter has been defended for three plus decades, the need in the dead human 'heart' is to justify and ANY direction that seems to have a high ideal (though it really be cannibalism) is a tool to push God away and seem to raise human choice to godlike power. To awaken is to die to self, and self-promoters/self-agrandizers cannot abide that! Sadly, they ARE taking this once great nation down the slippery funnel to Hell with them, now intending to use cannibalism as the grease for slide.
Agreed. I pray they do not succeed.
Is this the link?
Well, that's nice, Senator, but the Senate can't override a veto on its own.
[ http://bioethicsprint.bioethics.gov ] Might find more pathways at that addy.
Well, you've also got to remember that liberalism runs very strongly through the scientific community. I am presently in an academic setting and it is standard practice to look down on any research that is privately funded, especially if it is funded by a pharmaceutical company. For many scientists, your funding is only pure if it comes from the government. However, you are just as likely to overstate the importance of any data to justify the renewal of a government funded grant as you are a pharmaceutical. And you are also much more prone to channel the results to confirm whatever pet theory meets the approval of liberal ideology - witness most global warming research. The two "premiere" scientific journals - Nature and Science - are AS political, if not more so than anything you will see in the NYT. It is considered very presitigious to be published in these journals, but, if you examine them closely you will see that most of the articles fall within a very narrow range of topics - and they almost all conform to the liberal view of the world. Therefore, any paper extolling the virtues of embryonic stem cells will be strongly considered by these journals. The same for any paper which purports to support the failed global warming models. And anyone who departs from this orthodoxy is the subject of scathing criticism and not so subtle threats to pull their grant funding!
Did his eyebrows and eyelashes all out in clumps also or did he shave those off also?
What is Alopecia and what is i caused from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.