Jump to content
Okay, but that is still less than 100% and leaves the possibility that she would never get it. If the risk was that high then it would make sense to get a mammogram every year or twice a year or even every three months and IF cancer showed up then have the surgery.
Okay, am I the only one that is having trouble understanding why she did this? This was not a case of having breast cancer it was a case of possibly getting breast cancer. Every woman has the possibility of getting breast cancer so should every woman have a double mastectomy? All men have the possibility of prostate cancer, should they opt to have their prostate removed just in case? Someone please explain the logic.
I do not know if my mail person is the best but she sure is cute. :-)
To bad you cannot rely on snopes to tell the truth being as it is owned and ran by a liberal couple.
Putin of Russia condemned France for legalizing same sex marriage while our esteemed president personally called this individual to pat him on the back for his courage in coming out as a gay athlete.
Who would have ever thought the leader of Russia would have higher morals than the leader of the US?
Your right, it is horrible that conservatives think that your sexual preference should not give you special privileges or that women should have the right to carry a gun to protect themselves rather than the democratic solution of peeing yourself or vomiting on your attacker or that the economy/unemployment should be higher priority than taking rights away from citizens or social issues or that the borders need to be secured before any other illegal immigration reform goes forward.
The war on women and gays is a fabrication of the left.
So now we are thanking our government for initiating a police state by locking down Boston for 12 hours and violating citizens rights by going house to house and insisting on searching the premises? Oh and just in case you all missed it, the last terrorist was caught only after the lockdown was lifted and resident of the city spotted something out of the ordinary so the lockdown accomplished nothing except violating citizens freedoms.
I would also like to ask the question - Where was Homeland Security in all of this? Didn't we create this department to specifically "protect" us from terrorist attacks? Billions of dollars and the Patriot act later and we are no safer than we were prior to 9/11.
True, but considering the ultimate goal of Socialists is to destroy the American economy in order to gain control of the American people that will never be the priority. The goal is one world order and the only way that happens is if the US falls.
B4it...the flaw in your argument is that Socialists think everything they do is in the best interest of the citizens and everything Republicans do is in the best interest of Republicans. Therefore, Obamacare was passed even though 60% or more of American citizens were against it. Socialists also believe that pesky little thing called the constitution is an outdated document that prevents them from doing whatever it is they want done.
EJ (as does Obama and members of congress) ignores the fact that the Senate and the House were set up specifically to prevent large population areas from dictating to lower population areas. The Senate provides equal representation, the house representation based on population. It was intended to prevent large population areas like New York from dictating to rural areas what they are going to do and it worked in this instance. The same with the filibuster. It was put in specifically to prevent a congress with a majority of one party from ramming through bad policy by allowing the minority party to block that bad policy from even coming up for a vote.
Our founding fathers got it right. It is too bad so many Americans are to uninformed to understand that and are willing to give up their rights and freedoms because some Socialist party member says that it is in their best interest to do so.
90% of American people did not agree with the "universal background check" law. That is a number pulled out of the air by our POTUS and his administration. I have no doubt they have a poll that shows 90% but it was conducted using less than 2000 people and in the states of PA, CT, and NJ.
Also, ask the question "Do you support background checks?" and the answer is yes by a large majority of people. Ask the same question "Do you support background checks that keep permanent records?' and the majority of people would answer no. That was the problem with the bill. It required permanent records be kept on private transfers. That is why the bill was defeated.
Last login: Friday, August 23, 2013