Rios: 'There Are Tons of People in Government' Who are Communists

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content...

Sandy Rios tells Buster Wilson that Rep. Alan West was absolutely right, as there are "tons of people" who are Communists who are serving in government.

• Category

  News & Politics

[nutt66]

If Liberal = Communism

Then it must also be true that…

Libertarian = Anarchy

And Conservative = Theocracy

[Kaspar Hauser]

Geee haven't heard of a single person that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Canada, Australia and many more have murdered. Maybe one day you will take the time to understand the issues before commenting and making wild assertions.

[Robert Berger]

These so-called "conservatives" aren't conservative at all. They're trying to turn back the clock to turn America into Puritan New England .  They're retrogressives . Frightening !

[BrutusAndYou]

Are you saying that abortions induced by chemical means with no surgery is not "MURDER"?

I did not give my religious views, I was asking questions there.

miscarriages are still abortions, technically speaking.

"ABOMINATION"??

ftr, God said eating things from the water that don't have scales was an abomination

Jesus said it was ok because you just poop it out and that eating food doesn't defile a man.

Matthew 15

[Daniel Ayala]

Why do you distract with red herrings about the death penalty? Murdering a fully formed person is in no sense the same as killing an undeveloped fetus that will have rights at some future date. Tell me, if you believe that a fetus is a viable person and if you simply induce labor in a 4 month old fetus, would it survive? Would it be murder to simply induce labor? According to you it is a viable person but if it can't survive with out the use of someone else's body how exactly is that viable?

[Daniel Ayala]

False equivalence! A fully developed, autonomous child and an "unborn" fetus are not equal and do not have equal rights. As I said before, an "unborn" fetus is not fully developed biologically as a person and so it does not have any rights. Its existence at all is entirely dependent on the use of someone else's body. Unless you want to compel other individuals, by force of law, to give up their organs or the use of their bodies so that others may live, you also are a hypocrite.

[Daniel Ayala]

and don't forget the passages in the old testament where jesus' dad has the Israelites willfully plunge swords through the bellies of pregnant women.

[SocratesTheGadfly]

WRONG! abortion is the deliberate MURDER of a baby in which a "doctor" BUTCHERS and CUTS the baby into tiny pieces and FORCIBLY removes those pieces from the woman's body. this is a DELIBERATE act of MURDER of a human and should be illegal. miscarriages occur due to a complication in the pregnancy either through a genetic or an environmental problem.  furthermore, your religious views on God and Jesus as it pertains to LIFE and WRONG and are an ABOMINATION. you have the MIND of evil and satan

[BrutusAndYou]

ftr, abortion IS the more technical name for a miscarriage....

spontaneous abortion is used to clarify that a human didn't induce the abortion.

So back to, "how many MURDERS through ABORTION would Jesus approve of"?????

If Jesus is God's human form, and God is all-powerful and all-knowing, and created man, then is Jesus is a-ok with over 50% of all MURDERS through ABORTION"?

If you think I'm misusing the English language, then take a look at your "UNBORN INFANT" ....infants cannot be unborn

.

[SocratesTheGadfly]

Would it be acceptable for a mother to MURDER one of her children because it interferes with her lifestyle? or career? or personal pleasure? or personal happiness? YOU brain dead liberals espouse to care for those whose rights have been infringed upon but when it comes to the RIGHTS of the UNBORN you liberals become silent! liberals will coddle MURDERERS on death row but conveniently forget about the rights of the MURDERED VICTIMS. you liberals are WRONG and are HYPOCRITS on these issues!

[Daniel Ayala]

Would it be acceptable to force your mother to give up her kidney (or any other part or use of her body) if you needed it to survive? at what point is a mother not longer legally obligated to hand over body to someone else? Why should this legal compulsion end when the child is born? Why shouldn't a woman be forced by law to give up the use of her body or its parts for the benefit of an adult child of hers?

[Daniel Ayala]

An "unborn" by virtue of not being a fully formed person (biologically speaking) doesn't have any rights. Once the "unborn" is viable outside the mothers womb, then I could agree that killing it would be morally objectionable. Up until that moment however, the bodily rights argument overrides any claims that an undeveloped fetus will have "rights" at some future date. or would you agree that the government must compel your mother to give up her bodily autonomy/rights so that you can live?