Obama and the Pizza Man..........Incredible

[CDR]

Not to mention, this nimrod doesn't even realize that the best pizzeria in the country is in New York City on Spring Street........Lombardi's.  The first pizzeria in America, opened in 1905, is still the best.  It is exactly as the pizza sold in Naples including sauce made with imported San Marzano tomatoes grown only on Mt. Vesuvius and fresh hand made Buffalo Mozzarella.  Instead Obama brings in deep dish pizza from the midwest.......   What a tool.


http://www.firstpizza.com/

[Pathfinder]

Well why don't you lay those out for us poor benighted souls then Pathfinder? Because the last time I checked the president wasn't just the head of the government, but also the head of state. To put it plainley he is not just the PM, but also the crown (queen if you want to take a cheap shot). In the latter capacity there are a lot of ceremonial duties, everything from state dinners, to the easter egg hunt, to calling the families of KIAs, to promoting the arts. I'm not really sure what "people like me" are other than educated, tolerant, live and let live, patriotic, gun toting, libertarian Christians. If you'd care to fill me in I'd be delighted to hear it.
FQ13, who wonders what he's done wrong now; stops wondering and decides not to give f..k (sorry M'lette it needed to said)  

I looked for my comment on the thread that Rastus blessedly closed. It was about "moral equivalists" - you and LSIJ among others here. People like you who believe that everything is all right, nothing is wrong - just another point of view is all, and no more or less valid than my own.

Rubbish!

My comment about "folks like you" are those moral equivalists where there is no right or wrong, just leave me alone and do your own thing. Others have pointed out just how fallacious that thinking is. So it's OK with you if bho pulls stunts like -
- making $2 trillion disappear?
- appointing an untalented lap dog like Holder as AG?
- or even this pizza stunt?

18% of the workforce is out of work (unless you believe the gummint types who patronizingly tell us that it's only 7-8%) and he wastes time and money to fly a guy to DC just so Himself can have a gourmet pizza? You seriously see nothing wrong with this?

Like Aaron Tippin used to sing - if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

I guess being "tolerant" means Tippin is wrong . . .

[tombogan03884]

BO has been a self righteous little weasel since at least college, I'll leave the politics of this one to others.
My main comment is that the chicken and hot sauce pizza in the article sounds pretty good 

[fightingquaker13]

I looked for my comment on the thread that Rastus blessedly closed. It was about "moral equivalists" - you and LSIJ among others here. People like you who believe that everything is all right, nothing is wrong - just another point of view is all, and no more or less valid than my own.

Rubbish!

My comment about "folks like you" are those moral equivalists where there is no right or wrong, just leave me alone and do your own thing. Others have pointed out just how fallacious that thinking is. So it's OK with you if bho pulls stunts like -
- making $2 trillion disappear?
- appointing an untalented lap dog like Holder as AG?
- or even this pizza stunt?

18% of the workforce is out of work (unless you believe the gummint types who patronizingly tell us that it's only 7-8%) and he wastes time and money to fly a guy to DC just so Himself can have a gourmet pizza? You seriously see nothing wrong with this?

Like Aaron Tippin used to sing - if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

I guess being "tolerant" means Tippin is wrong . . .

Ahh Pathfinder where to start? The thing is, I am sorely tempted to just flat out flame you, because I think that on this thead and by closing down debate on another YOU MY FRIEND have broken two very important rules. The rules are these
1:  Debate is designed to educate. We don't lock horns to just win an argument. We do so to offer the knowledge we have and to learn what our opponent (not enemy) has to teach. We may or may not be convinced by the other sides views, but at least we''l be better informed at the end of the exersize.
2: We don't take it personally. I have said many times on this board that one of he things I like is how we can give each other a bloody nose on the politics thread and then help each other out with a pistol problem. You though, are coming very close to crossing that line. I would hope we can stay friends having a spirited debate but I do have issues with having my honor and values questioned over political choices that I made plain to everyone (repeatedly) on this board.

Now first of all, assuming that "moral equilalists" is even a word, I very much am not one. I am a lbertarian and a Christian. The problem that you and I have is that you see the world in black and white, good and evil. Its true that both exist, the Book (and life) tell us so. It (and life) also tells us that our ability to percieve it is limited. "We see through a glass but darkly". As someone who learned a lot from the Quakers from teaching at a Quaker college I know this. The best of us are tainted with original sin and the worst have that of Christ in them. I also know that the sin of pride is not in Gods top ten list of favorites. This is where you my friend (speaking the truth in love) have a problem. You seem not to have opponents but enemies, those who disagree with you are fools at best and  traitors at worst and not to be listened but rather dismissed and ridiculed without even a seconds introspection to ask if you could be wrong. This is the crux of the problem. I have faith. You seem to demand certaintey. Unless you approach the world sayng I believe (and am willing to kill or die) for this, but I could be wrong and can be persuaded, you are no different than he barbarians we fight except that you read a different book than they do. It is that bit of humility, that knowledge that we are always fallible that we have FAITH and proper confidence, but never ceraintey, that distinguishs the patriot from he nationalist and the Christian from the fanatic.
I know I've been a bit harsh, but hey so were you. Lets hope this can be resolved amicably. If not, glocks at 20 paces.
Fighingquaker13

[tombogan03884]

FQ, I don't need faith, because I have certainty based on 6,000  years of human action and my God given gift of reason (the gift that, along with free will separates US from the rest of the animals )
1) Debate only serves to educate if both sides have valid arguments, when one side of the debate is composed of wishes and lies (as in the anti gun arguments or the BO campaign) It is the duty of the HONEST debater to show his opponent as a liar and an ass, discredit the lies and humiliate the wishful thinking.
2)We do indeed "take it personally" debate is NEVER about changing the mind of the debaters, it is about convincing the undecided. Just because any of us would be willing to help out any other (even TAB) with a gun question does not mean we are willing to put aside our beliefs. These are part of who and what each of us IS and unlike Quakers who are willing to die for their beliefs, we are prepared to DEFEND ours whether that means dying, killing or offending others.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

FQ, I don't need faith, because I have certainty based on 6,000  years of human action and my God given gift of reason (the gift that, along with free will separates US from the rest of the animals )
1) Debate only serves to educate if both sides have valid arguments, when one side of the debate is composed of wishes and lies (as in the anti gun arguments or the BO campaign) It is the duty of the HONEST debater to show his opponent as a liar and an ass, discredit the lies and humiliate the wishful thinking.
2)We do indeed "take it personally" debate is NEVER about changing the mind of the debaters, it is about convincing the undecided. Just because any of us would be willing to help out any other (even TAB) with a gun question does not mean we are willing to put aside our beliefs. These are part of who and what each of us IS and unlike Quakers who are willing to die for their beliefs, we are prepared to DEFEND ours whether that means dying, killing or offending others.

Tom
I agree but you're partially (and only partially) wrong here. While public debate is about the undecideds, in groups like these, I like to think that minds can be changed. Hell you convinced me to get a laser (which I'd always considerd a rich boys toy) when I can afford one.  My main problem is your assertion that we should show the debater to be "a liar and ass" this is known as argumentum ad hominum (a personal attack) which has nothing to do with the debate. Go after the idea, not the person, and always hope (not assume because then you'd be a fool) that minds can be changed. I know from experience that I have learned a lot from folks who just out debated me. I had to admit they were right and I  was wrong and it didn't bother me to do so because I knew that they gave me some wisdom I didn't have before. I used to fence in college (part of the ROTC thing) and I never minded losing a match if it was an ass kicking. The close ones bothered me, but one where I was totally outclassed and could learn was something different. It was sort of like playing the back nine with Tiger, you're not going to win, but if you pay attention you can learn. Anyway, just my .02 Tom and as always trying to make board a fiendlier place when we disagree.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

Tom
I agree but you're partially (and only partially) wrong here. While public debate is about the undecideds, in groups like these, I like to think that minds can be changed. Hell you convinced me to get a laser (which I'd always considerd a rich boys toy) when I can afford one.  My main problem is your assertion that we should show the debater to be "a liar and ass" this is known as argumentum ad hominum (a personal attack) which has nothing to do with the debate. Go after the idea, not the person, and always hope (not assume because then you'd be a fool) that minds can be changed. I know from experience that I have learned a lot from folks who just out debated me. I had to admit they were right and I  was wrong and it didn't bother me to do so because I knew that they gave me some wisdom I didn't have before. I used to fence in college (part of the ROTC thing) and I never minded losing a match if it was an ass kicking. The close ones bothered me, but one where I was totally outclassed and could learn was something different. It was sort of like playing the back nine with Tiger, you're not going to win, but if you pay attention you can learn. Anyway, just my .02 Tom and as always trying to make board a fiendlier place when we disagree.
FQ13

You skipped an important part of the post.

FQ, I don't need faith, because I have certainty based on 6,000  years of human action and my God given gift of reason (the gift that, along with free will separates US from the rest of the animals )
1) Debate only serves to educate if both sides have valid arguments, when one side of the debate is composed of wishes and lies (as in the anti gun arguments or the BO campaign) It is the duty of the HONEST debater to show his opponent as a liar and an ass, discredit the lies and humiliate the wishful thinking.
2)We do indeed "take it personally" debate is NEVER about changing the mind of the debaters, it is about convincing the undecided. Just because any of us would be willing to help out any other (even TAB) with a gun question does not mean we are willing to put aside our beliefs. These are part of who and what each of us IS and unlike Quakers who are willing to die for their beliefs, we are prepared to DEFEND ours whether that means dying, killing or offending others.

[Rastus]

Ahh Pathfinder where to start? The thing is, I am sorely tempted to just flat out flame you, because I think that on this thead and by closing down debate on another YOU MY FRIEND have broken two very important rules. The rules are these
1:  Debate is designed to educate. We don't lock horns to just win an argument. We do so to offer the knowledge we have and to learn what our opponent (not enemy) has to teach. We may or may not be convinced by the other sides views, but at least we''l be better informed at the end of the exersize.
2: We don't take it personally. I have said many times on this board that one of he things I like is how we can give each other a bloody nose on the politics thread and then help each other out with a pistol problem. You though, are coming very close to crossing that line. I would hope we can stay friends having a spirited debate but I do have issues with having my honor and values questioned over political choices that I made plain to everyone (repeatedly) on this board.

Now first of all, assuming that "moral equilalists" is even a word, I very much am not one. I am a lbertarian and a Christian. The problem that you and I have is that you see the world in black and white, good and evil. Its true that both exist, the Book (and life) tell us so. It (and life) also tells us that our ability to percieve it is limited. "We see through a glass but darkly". ...............

Debate.  A modernist idea.  Pre-modernism was a Greek creation where they worshiped the idols created with their own hands, being both anti-God and anti-Bible.  The Renaissance ls essentially a revival of Greek thought and this is the modernism that has crept into the Western mind.  This period of Enlightenment, is an elevation of human reasoning over revelation and we are seeing the fruits of it as we depart from our foundation of Christianity....we are in a post-Christian era in this nation.  People claim they are Christian without ever darkening a church door or cracking open a bible, but they know they are Christian because they reason in their minds what God is (which is idolatry, creating a god by their own reasoning, desires, ideas and not a discussion of an interpretation as is so often claimed). 

How is it, when denying divinity of the Bible or portions thereof, that one would say he is a Christian?  If a Christian's namesake, Jesus Christ, said there is but one path, one Godhead, how can one who claims to be a Christian deny his Namesake's truth when Jesus says that he is the way?  According to Christ, there are not many paths "to the great river", but only the straight and narrow.  Denial of Christ's truth disqualifies one from calling oneself a Christian, i.e. you are His antithesis.

The cardinal concept of modernism is that man's reasoning is supreme; it trumps the Bible and says there are no absolutes.  Certainly modernism says there are no absolutes from God.  When in mondernist thinking it becomes time for the enlightened to say, "Let us reason", their agreement of a "standard" is but temporal and worthless based upon the whims of a man or woman's reason.  Reason brought us Hitler, Communism and other plaques.

There are absolutes, but they are not manmade.

Hence, I fall to :  Timothy and Titus
1 Timothy 1:6
1 Timothy 1:7
2 Timothy 2:16 and finally,
Titus 3:9

Geoff, you had this on your heart, eh?

[Pathfinder]

Debate.  A modernist idea.  Pre-modernism was a Greek creation where they worshiped the idols created with their own hands, being both anti-God and anti-Bible.  The Renaissance ls essentially a revival of Greek thought and this is the modernism that has crept into the Western mind.  This period of Enlightenment, is an elevation of human reasoning over revelation and we are seeing the fruits of it as we depart from our foundation of Christianity....we are in a post-Christian era in this nation.  People claim they are Christian without ever darkening a church door or cracking open a bible, but they know they are Christian because they reason in their minds what God is (which is idolatry, creating a god by their own reasoning, desires, ideas and not a discussion of an interpretation as is so often claimed). 

How is it, when denying divinity of the Bible or portions thereof, that one would say he is a Christian?  If a Christian's namesake, Jesus Christ, said there is but one path, one Godhead, how can one who claims to be a Christian deny his Namesake's truth when Jesus says that he is the way?  According to Christ, there are not many paths "to the great river", but only the straight and narrow.  Denial of Christ's truth disqualifies one from calling oneself a Christian, i.e. you are His antithesis.

The cardinal concept of modernism is that man's reasoning is supreme; it trumps the Bible and says there are no absolutes.  Certainly modernism says there are no absolutes from God.  When in mondernist thinking it becomes time for the enlightened to say, "Let us reason", their agreement of a "standard" is but temporal and worthless based upon the whims of a man or woman's reason.  Reason brought us Hitler, Communism and other plaques.

There are absolutes, but they are not manmade.

Hence, I fall to :  Timothy and Titus
1 Timothy 1:6
1 Timothy 1:7
2 Timothy 2:16 and finally,
Titus 3:9

Geoff, you had this on your heart, eh?

Among other things, yes. 2 Timothy 4:1-8 as well. A few folks here have itching ears.

Pathfinder, who occasionally goes by the name Geoff, who is still wondering why FQ never addressed any of the points I raised, settling instead for lecture on debate? And who will have to go look up Titus 3:9, not familiar with that one.

[Rastus]

Among other things, yes. 2 Timothy 4:1-8 as well. A few folks here have itching ears.

.........Titus 3:9, not familiar with that one.

Oh but you are...you reminded me of it just the other day!