Liberalism IS the ideology of the parasite.

Liberalism, Socialism - which one are you talking about? Progressives I presume. Everywhere else in the world Libs ans Socs hate each other

All of the above. That they may hate each other elsewhere matters not- these ideologies are dangerous to civilized society.

Alllright. Cus Liberalism is all about free market capitalism in it's foundation. Originally it was the farmers party. When a center left gov. has been at power, liberals slash the public sector tons. Even Libertarians talk about "true Liberalism". But that's how it works elsewhere, and it lets parties hold themselves to the fire when radicals try to take power.

The key word in your statement is, "originally". Liberalism is no longer about anything right, moral, or just.

In the American sense I think Libs were lost ages ago on morals. I think that's why Progressives became a thing and infiltrated them. Progs and Libs need each other, though Libs don't really understand them - I don't even think Sanders understand the Progs - he's a way too old school Socialist. But a third party is a practical utopia in your system. By conflating them, I think you guys allow them to coorporate and seem less devided.

"Liberalism is no longer about anything right, moral, or just"

So you think opposing racism is a bad thing?

"So you think opposing racism is a bad thing?"

Liberals inflame racism with their "fixes".
Liberals see racism where none exists.
Liberals invent racist acts when there aren't enough for them to point to.
Liberals, having run out of real racist examples, invent things like "microaggressions", "unconscious bias", and labeling hard sciences like Math as inherently racist- only a liberal could claim that 2 + 2 = 4 is racist. Now you are a racist whether you know it not, whether you intend to be or not, and whether you actually do anything that could be construed as being remotely racist, or not.

Liberals perpetuate and inflame racist issues, which would have died out long ago.

Liberals view minorities as stupid and helpless, and then enact policies that ensure this is true, making people dependent on Big Government.

Liberals hate God, Who long ago explained that there is only one race, the human race.

Liberals are the ones who view everyone based on color, social status, economic status, etc.

Liberals are the ones creating and perpetuating the victimhood culture, creating sub categories of human beings that never existed before, and only exist in their sinful minds.

In other words, the admirable trait of opposing racism is not to be found among liberals- it is liberal racism that needs to be opposed.

"Liberals see racism where none exists"

And people like you pretend it doesn't exist. Or at least you pretend it never comes from your side.

"Liberals perpetuate and inflame racist issues, which would have died out long ago"

They didn't die out, and when Obama was elected, the racist conservatives came out of the woodwork.

"Liberals view minorities as stupid and helpless"

Not a single liberal I know thinks that

"Liberals hate God"

Some do, some don't

"Who long ago explained that there is only one race, the human race"

Even though the Bible says that he separated nations by their boundaries, a verse which has been used for hundreds of years to justify racism and oppression.

"the admirable trait of opposing racism is not to be found among liberals"

And yet I'm a liberal, and I oppose racism and always have

"Or at least you pretend it never comes from your side."

No need to pretend- it never comes from "my side". You fail to recognize that "my side" is a subset of the Republican Party. While there probably are "racists" in the GOP, it is clear that the greater concentration lies in the Democrat Party, which is well within keeping with the DP's long-standing traditions of being racists. And, given that Democrats do not believe God exists, they CAN be racists, because they do not believe that God created one man and one woman in the beginning.

"the racist conservatives came out of the woodwork."

Only in the lies of the MSM, and putrid imaginations of the common liberal. This is an instance where a liberal sees racism where it does not exist.

"Not a single liberal I know thinks that"
As the saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words." On the issue of Voter ID, liberals have made it crystal clear that minorities are simply too stupid to handle the daunting task of getting an ID.

Oh, and you voted for a long-time racist, Joe Biden. The man is so racist that he speaks nonchalantly about minorities in a down-home, blue-collar worker kind of way. And you looked right past it, because your hatred of God trumps all else, including voting a racist into the WH.

"Some do, some don't"

All do, else they would not be a liberal. A person may say otherwise, but when their beliefs and actions are compared with the standard of the Bible, it becomes clear that the "god" they believe in does not exist, and that they have rejected the God of the Bible- that God is the only God there is, ergo they do not believe in God.

"(racism) never comes from "my side"."

😂😂😂

"You fail to recognize that "my side" is a subset of the Republican Party"

And Republicans can be (and many are) racist

"While there probably are "racists" in the GOP, it is clear that the greater concentration lies in the Democrat Party"

You have proof for this claim? I'll wait.

"which is well within keeping with the DP's long-standing traditions of being racists"

The Democrat Party is so racist that there are more black politicians who are Democrats than Republicans? That doesn't make a lot of sense

"And, given that Democrats do not believe God exists"

Another lie. Many Democrats do believe in God. It's almost hard to wrap my head around a statement that's so completely wrong. Just because most Democrats don't agree with your values doesn't mean that literally every single Democrat doesn't believe in God.

"they CAN be racists, because they do not believe that God created one man and one woman in the beginning"

Believing that your particular God created the first two humans has nothing to do with whether or not somebody can be racist. Christians in the United States, especially in the South, have a long history of racism, and they believe that your god created the first humans.

"On the issue of Voter ID, liberals have made it crystal clear that minorities are simply too stupid to handle the daunting task of getting an ID"

No they haven't

"All (liberals hate God), else they would not be a liberal"

Hasty generalization fallacy. Show me a dictionary definition of the word liberal that includes hating God as part of the definition. I know you can't, of course.

"they have rejected the God of the Bible- that God is the only God there is"

If you say so 😂 You read stuff in a book and say that it's true and when people like me ask for evidence that it's true you just repeat the stuff you read in the book as if it somehow proves itself true.

"God separated the peoples of the Earth by dividing them by languages. In that sense, He did separate them by boundaries that they later set up, all within the will of God. God lated deals with mankind via these boundaries, ultimately using His chosen people as the focal point for how He deals with mankind on Earth. But this does not mean that there is still not a single human race"

None of that negates the point I made, which is that for hundreds of years Christians have used that verse and others to justify racism

"that some have used the Bible to justify all manner of sins and evils does not mean that the Bible teaches this, nor that real Christianity has anything to do with that"

"real" Christianity. In other words, your particular interpretation of the Bible.

"Evil people have used science to harm others. Does this mean that science is bad?"

Nope

"You voted to put a well known racist in the office of President- opposing racism is not as important as supporting your own sinful mores"

Joe Biden has made racially insensitive statements. I don't deny that. It doesn't mean he is a racist and it also doesn't mean he wasn't the better of two undesirable choices.

"You support the Democrat Party, the Party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, Planned Parenthood, the Welfare State, the intentionally failed inner-city education systems"

I support the Democrat party, generally speaking. I don't support everything they stand for and I certainly don't support everything they stood for in the past. I don't support slavery, I don't support the KKK, I don't support segregation or Jim Crow laws, I do support Planned Parenthood, but the Democrat party isn't the party of Planned Parenthood, I support welfare for people who need it, and I support the public education system even though it needs a lot of work and improvement.

"A vote for any Democrat is a vote supporting using minorities as pawns to win elections"

No it isn't

"You support the Party that openly shows they think blacks to be too ignorant and stupid to obtain an ID"

The Democrat Party has never said that

"The Democrat Party has never said that"

Actually, there are plenty of clips where either the president and/or vp effectively say such things, but as mentioned before- actions speak louder than words.

Democrats are liars- all of them. Now, to be fair, ALL human beings have lied at least a few times in their lives, which means we are all liars, but many of us choose to embrace integrity and stop lying. The Democrat Party in particular exists on lies, along with their Media wing, every MSM outlet out there.

Actions speak louder than words. You cannot say that Voter ID will suppress the black vote without insinuating that black people cannot get a simple ID.

You really need to consider getting a job at CNN or MSNBC. Stating absurdities doesn't phase you in the least bit.

"Democrats are liars- all of them"

Hasty generalization fallacy

"many of us choose to embrace integrity and stop lying"

If you say so

"The Democrat Party in particular exists on lies"

It doesn't, but okay

"You cannot say that Voter ID will suppress the black vote without insinuating that black people cannot get a simple ID"

Saying that a certain policy has the intended effect or outcome of disenfranchising a certain group of people does not insinuate that they are not capable of getting an ID

"Stating absurdities doesn't phase you in the least bit"

Quick question: when is your god man supposed to come floating down out of the clouds? Is it this weekend? Or was it last weekend? Did I miss it?

Part 2

"Even though the Bible says that he separated nations by their boundaries, a verse which has been used for hundreds of years to justify racism and oppression."

When I get past the momentary reaction of either laughing at your logic, or being frustrated by how the obvious escapes you, I typically feel sadness. A person cannot be this blind except by being mired in hatred of God.

God separated the peoples of the Earth by dividing them by languages. In that sense, He did separate them by boundaries that they later set up, all within the will of God. God lated deals with mankind via these boundaries, ultimately using His chosen people as the focal point for how He deals with mankind on Earth.

But this does not mean that there is still not a single human race.

A Democrat just recently ran over and killed a conservative teenager, therefore ALL Democrats are violent murderers. In other words, that some have used the Bible to justify all manner of sins and evils does not mean that the Bible teaches this, nor that real Christianity has anything to do with that.

Evil people have used science to harm others. Does this mean that science is bad?

"And yet I'm a liberal, and I oppose racism and always have"

I doubt that this statement would withstand personal scrutiny, the scope of which could never be dealt with properly in a forum like this, but I already know that it is not true:

*You voted to put a well known racist in the office of President- opposing racism is not as important as supporting your own sinful mores.
*You support the Democrat Party, the Party of slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, Planned Parenthood, the Welfare State, the intentionally failed inner-city education systems, the "war" on Poverty that has put more people on the streets than ever before, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
*A vote for any Democrat is a vote supporting using minorities as pawns to win elections, including endangering the country with wide open borders to replace the even dwindling black vote with a Hispanic slave population (slaves to the State).
*You support the Party that openly shows they think blacks to be too ignorant and stupid to obtain an ID, despite the fact that most already have them. So, in fact, this is a misdirection so that voter fraud can continue to be pursued.

1. *An* evangelical pastor.
2. One does not have to have a degree in anything to understand and speak on matters that are often muddled in universities to begin with.
3. Unless you are prepared to take away ALL honorary doctorates, that is a pointless statement.
4. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, even when you indirectly do so by implying that a person cannot be correct in their assertions unless they are an "approved" authority.
5. Your last statement is obviously wrong, as years and years of faithful service of this man completely refute it.

Ironically, when someone makes such absurd statements as you have done here, that are clearly false, no one should take them seriously . . . just say you hate God and anyone that stands for Him and be done with it.

Uhh .. it's basic age old European knowledge and everyday politics. Neither Conservatives nor Communists despute what I write. It's not a partisan "view" and can't even be used that way. The history of the American Libs may not be of farmers, but the Amr. Classic Liberal from 20 years ago is much like our Liberals who doesn't seem particularly farm'ish anymore. But a lot happens in a hundred years

"But a lot happens in a hundred years"

It's like you planned on disagreeing with me, and then ended up agreeing with me . . .

Given the state of most European countries, no one from that side of the Pond has any room to criticize. They still will, but you'll understand if Conservative Americans don't care.

of course this pastor has every right to make his claim, as wrong-headed and theoretically inaccurate it may be,
that wasn't my point.

my point was specifically in regards to the "DR", which is a disingenuous way to imply academic credentials in a field this man does not possess.
now if you were to post a biblical passage and his interpretation, I would most likely give him the benefit of the doubt and hear his opinion with a tad more....enthusiasm.

but trotting out an old neo-liberal talking point and dressing it up as somehow being some fresh,new hot-take just reveals his ignorance on the subject,and should be embarrassing.

what's his next hot-take?
the problem with "welfare queens"?

I will sum up your entire comment thus: An appeal to the Ad Hominem fallacy? Really?

In truth, that is what you started with, and this latest comment is no different. You have not once addressed the original statement, "Socialism becomes a paradise for parasites.", and you have incorrectly placed this maxim in the area of economics, per your first comment.

It would be addressed much better in the field of political science, or psychology, and certainly the field of history would be best of all.

Perhaps there was no need to include "Dr." in the inclusion of his name, however, he possesses two honorary doctorates, which makes it a truthful statement. You have chosen to dwell on an inconsequential component of the post, while failing to deal with the matter at hand.

And the matter at hand would be best dealt with by studying history. On that point alone, Lutzer's comment is 100% correct.

"but trotting out an old neo-liberal talking point and dressing it up as somehow being some fresh,new hot-take just reveals his ignorance on the subject,and should be embarrassing."

I think before you throw stones, claiming someone else is ignorant, you should give thought to the glass house you are currently standing in. You have NO idea the degree to which Lutzer has a command of any of this, none whatsoever. For all you know, I may have quoted him out of context (I did not), or he may never have said this at all (he did), but you certainly have no idea the degree to which he has studied the necessary information for him to make this statement.

In fact, making this assertion as you did, was ignorant, and you should be embarrassed for yourself.

"what's his next hot-take?
the problem with "welfare queens"?"

Red Herring fallacy, and/or Strawman fallacy. You are addressing a point never made in this post.

Are you attempting to come across as an intellectual? D- for the effort.

and you actually responded.
so thanks buddy!

i did,however,ridicule the tired and trite quote,which is just as accurate as you believe that quote to represent.

not really understanding the confusion here mate.

"i did,however,ridicule"

THE very definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy, which also by definition, means you did nothing to address the original quote.

The trouble with understanding does not lie with me, mate.

"One does not have to have a degree in anything to understand and speak on matters that are often muddled in universities to begin with"

Says the person who doesn't understand science but pretend to know about it

"just say you hate God and anyone that stands for Him and be done with it"

Or you could stop with the "everyone hates Christians" bullshit and make a real argument

"Says the person who doesn't understand science but pretend to know about it"

As is always the case with you, you make an absolute statement as if such a declaration makes it true. I am vastly more informed on most matters of science than you are.

"Or you could stop with the "everyone hates Christians" bullshit and make a real argument"

Or, you could stop drawing conclusions that are inaccurate.
You hate Christians, unless they are the fake kind that believes everyone gets into Heaven.
This person here makes statements that typically come from a person that hates Christians and the God of the Bible, though their statement could just be what comes from state school indoctrination. Either way, enoch has the opportunity to explain why he or she made such a statement concerning a person he or she does not know.

This was certainly an instance, however, when it was up to enoch to continue the conversation and for you to butt out, given that you really have no clue what you are talking about.

"I am vastly more informed on most matters of science than you are"

Your comment history says otherwise

"You hate Christians, unless they are the fake kind that believes everyone gets into Heaven"

No, I hate peope who are horrible human beings

"This person here makes statements that typically come from a person that hates Christians and the God of the Bible, though their statement could just be what comes from state school indoctrination"

Public schools don't teach hatred toward Christianity or the Bible

But the 8000yo Earth is flat...

Liberalism ≠ socialism

And Lutzer is a moron anyway

but they do love themselves some confirmation bias,based on the same media that they supposedly hate.

it's not like they don't have a device in their palm of their hands that could bring clarity to such confusion.

Says the one mired in confirmation bias . . . liberals are very good at seeing their own sins in others, where often it does not exist.

Liberalism = Socialism in that they are both the ideologies of craven, selfish parasites.

Given your track record, neither I nor the eminent doctor shall be losing any sleep over your slur.

Psalm 14:1

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds;
there is none who does good.

"Liberalism = Socialism in that they are both the ideologies of craven, selfish parasites"

Liberalism, defined:

1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

You think promoting individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise is what "craven, selfish parasites" are about?

"The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” "

A book written by people who believe in a certain god says that people who don't believe in that god are bad. What a shock.

Liberalism is not defined so much by words as it is by the actions of those that call themselves liberals.

So how are liberals doing when compared to your made up description?

1. Liberals cannot win a fair argument, so they do everything in their power to silence opposing views. This is no more true anywhere than it is on college campi across the land. There is no openness to new ideas, unless those "new" ideas oppose the righteousness God has prescribed in the Bible. If what you say were true, then at the advent of DNA research and ultrasound technology, liberals would be opposed to murdering unborn babies. Or do you agree with the eminent scientist, Stacey Abrams, who has categorically stated that 6-week-old human beings do not have heartbeats?
2. Everything the Democrat Party has been doing for decades now is in direct opposition to this, which is the main reason they have such panic attacks when Constitutional Originalists are appointed to the High Courts. The Constitution does not agree with many/most of the policies being put forth by liberals, so they require activist judges who are willing to ignore it to pass laws by fiat, circumventing Congress and We The People.

The Democrat Party has been the haven for closet Communists/Socialists/Marxists/Fascists for a long time now, and none of those philosophies support individual rights and civil liberties in all of history- such a notion only exists in textbooks written by idiots, and believed by idiots.

You are even unable to practice what you preach on this meme site- if someone says something you don't like, it's off to imgflip TimeOut™. One person's insult is another person's free speech- you do not believe in the values you have recorded here.

As for "free enterprise"? Liberals most certainly are against that. You cannot wrap ten tons of chains around an enterprise and call it free. We are the most over-regulated country in the world, or at least in the top 3. Some regulation is needed, given the nature of mankind, which, btw, is something supported by the Bible, but the regulation we see today is anything but "free".

You support a Party that has a huge wealth of examples that counter everything in your two points- you therefore do not support those ideals either.

Liberals of today, yourself included, believe that simply declaring something makes it so- transient morality, situational ethics, whatever. God calls it sin.

"Liberalism is not defined so much by words as it is by the actions of those that call themselves liberals"

No, it's literally defines by words

"Liberals cannot win a fair argument, so they do everything in their power to silence opposing views"

That is false. Liberals can win arguments. And they don't do everything in their power to silence opponents.

"unless those "new" ideas oppose the righteousness God has prescribed in the Bible"

When I look at what your god calls "righteous", that word doesn't mean very much. Lot was called righteous, and he was going to let his own kids get gang-raped.

"Or do you agree with the eminent scientist, Stacey Abrams, who has categorically stated that 6-week-old human beings do not have heartbeats?"

She's not a scientist, but it's true that at six weeks there isn't an actual heartbeat

"The Constitution does not agree with many/most of the policies being put forth by liberals"

Many liberals support justice, equality, and liberty. The Constitution agrees with these things.

"You are even unable to practice what you preach on this meme site- if someone says something you don't like, it's off to imgflip TimeOut™"

This site has rules. If those rules get broken, there are consequences.

"One person's insult is another person's free speech- you do not believe in the values you have recorded here."

I sure do. But free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

"As for "free enterprise"? Liberals most certainly are against that."

All of them? No they aren't.

"given the nature of mankind, which, btw, is something supported by the Bible"

It's a basic observation that humans can do bad things. No Bible needed to point that out.

"You support a Party that has a huge wealth of examples that counter everything in your two points- you therefore do not support those ideals either."

I was giving the dictionary definition. And I support those values myself.

"Liberals of today, yourself included, believe that simply declaring something makes it so"

I never said that

"transient morality, situational ethics, whatever. God calls it sin"

Yes, situational ethics is a thing. And you agree with that as well. And why should I care what a book says? Especially a book written by primitive and barbaric people?