Another day, another post that has zero to do with Reformed theology, or with anything other than simplistic Republican talking points.
Are you ever going to improve as a blogger, or offer anything with any real substance? It would be a nice change of pace.

LJG,
Well put, and God’s workin’ through you to get me off of this blog.
I guess it comes down to what Reagan’s favorite author, Ayn Rand, expressed through FOUNTAINHEAD, “You can’t reason with people that don’t employ reason.”
I grew up Evangelical and saw where that program leads.
Yeah, despite Westminster Theological Seminary, Christian Blogosphere, evangelical outpost, once more with feeling, Think Christian, etc all being under Resources in the left margin, as I type this – all I get out of this blog is guns, paranoia, war, condemnation, oil drilling, etc. Yeah, that’s what the Evangelical program has become.
Gone are the Billy Graham/Johnny Cash days where I was taught to examine myself.
Good thing about dropping out of the Evangelical program, I became a Universalist. I’m sure I’ll see Michele on the other side of ETERNITY, and we’ll have a good laugh about frustrated feelings on this side.
LJG: XTRA SUPA DUPA THANX. I’ll never get closure on Evangelical issues with an apparent Republican ZOMBIE.
Michele: I hope you wake up and start being a credible witness to Christ’s love, charity, cunning, and compassion.

“If you voted for the Democrats because they promised to end the war, you just saw your last hope crushed. Now, you’re looking to put all your hope in Obama. Good luck with that.”
republicans have become the ultimate warmongers and they protect their war profiteering at any cost. they have managed to frame everything such that if democrats de-funded the war, the brownshirts would again wage their all-out propaganda war accusing dems of abandoning the soldiers. unfortunately cutting funds the only power that congress has when it comes to ending war.
we didn’t put enough democrats in congress in 2006 to overcome the republican warmongers who lined up, lock-step, with their war president. what a bunch of traitors – party over country. i’m sure that november will see more pain inflicted upon the viral republican party.
do you think that the war will continue after democrats route the warmongers from congress and the white house? 207 days and counting… conservatives, warmongers, prepare to have your last hope crushed.

sorry, war cheerleader, you’re still in the minority on this one. the country wants out of iraq and rid of bush and his reptilian party. more “100 year” comments from the wingnuts on the right is helpful.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
la times/bloomberg, 23 jun 2008:
67% say not worth it
25% want immediate withdraw, 43% want withdraw within a year
usa today/gallop, 19 jun 2008:
63% say iraq invasion was mistake
abc news/washington post, 15 jun 2008:
63% say not worth it
55% say withdraw forces
46% say u.s. losing in iraq
nbc news/wall street journal, 9 jun 2008:
64% disapprove of bush’s handling of iraq situation
54% think victory in iraq is not still possible
49% (vs. 45%) want troops out by 2009
cbs news, 3 jun 2008:
62% say things going badly in iraq (29% somewhat badly, 33% very badly)
35% say things going well in iraq (4% very well, 31% somewhat)
42% want troops out in less than a year, 21% want troops out in two years
61% believe that iraq will never become a stable democracy
quinnipiac, 12 may 2008:
67% disapprove of bush’s handling of iraq
62% think iraq war was wrong thing to do
22% want to withdraw asap, 48% want a timetable
cnn/opinion research corp, 30 apr 2008:
68% oppose iraq war
59% say things going badly in iraq (28% moderately badly, 31% very badly)
39% say things going well in iraq (7% very well, 32% moderately)
…

“Michele: I hope you wake up and start being a credible witness to Christ’s love, charity, cunning, and compassion.”
What about you, Brian. Where’s your witness. All you do is tear down, where’s the building up?

BTW, I’m noticing a trend, guys. When you really can’t argue the content of the post (what can you say? your people caved), then you attack the messenger for her lack of Reformed theology posting. It’s an easy target.

It’s an easy target.
Because you make it an easy target by being a terrible blogger.
You claim this blog is from a Reformed point of view, and that those views guide your life, but you never offer any explanation or substance backing that up. All I ever see are the same simplistic talking points I can find at a Republican blog. I don’t see anything Reformed at all, or anything that adds any weight to your post.
I’ve found more substantive posts by conservatives at LiveJournal and Yahoo!, and that’s saying something. Try harder. Improve as a blogger.

you, too, have a pattern. when you can’t discuss the content using facts or logic, you gloss over the nuances of reality, just don’t respond, or excuse yourself with cries of “attacking the messenger,” or you’re just too busy to respond to every comment (which truly may be the case, but you pick rather opportune times to become busy).
usually, i couldn’t care less about your theology. i simply dislike your hypocrisy, failed logic and lack of historical facts that appear so prevalently in your posts.
you want to discuss this? try.
why do you the war funding passed?
you make it seem as though all democrats voted for it. not the case. in 2007, the house vote was 280-142. this year the house vote was 268-155. 80 democrats voted for it. some voted against it because of principle, others voted for it because of other things tied to it (it included $200 billion for the war in afghanistan – which most democrats have supported, $2.7 billion for emergency flood relief for the midwest, the new gi bill which republicans opposed, and an extension to unemployment benefits which republicans opposed). the bill also says that the iraqi government should match u.s. taxpayer dollars in iraqi reconstruction costs, something that republicans never bothered to do. the reasons for the senate vote are no different.
if all democrats voted against it, or voted for a bill to defund the war in iraq, would bush sign it? you know he would not, so then what? the democrats don’t have the numbers to override the veto. they don’t have the numbers to end the war (yet!) so instead, they compromise to at least sweeten the deal for the vets who live to return home as well as for joe citizen.
“If you voted for the Democrats because they promised to end the war, you just saw your last hope crushed.”
you have no clue. do you expect that republicans won’t pay for defying the will of the majority of the people? did you think that the war will be funded ad infinitum by this vote? what are you smoking?
“Now, you’re looking to put all your hope in Obama. Good luck with that.”
you’re absolutely right, because mcnugget is perfectly content with the war in iraq, accepting bush’s hand-off of the mess he created, offering no better solution than the republican slogan: “stay the course.” and this is one of the reasons why obama will probably win (plus the fact that most people don’t trust mcflipflop on the economy, health care, and a slew of other problems). at that point, the democrats in congress don’t need the super-majority required to beat a veto. i think those who think the iraq invasion was wrong and want to withdraw troops within the year will be satisfied with obama’s record on the matter.

For those who aren’t squeamish, listen to yesterday’s Fresh Air:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92025860
I caught bits and pieces on different NPR stations as I drove home from Upstate. There is much to chill the soul in the program, especially this remark, at 19:15:
“Here we have a president whose ultimate goal is to completely obviate the Constitution and, if you ask me my personal opinion, this isn’t something I wrote, this is something I believe is true, it’s gonna take a lot more work, I don’t think what they’ve done in terms of diminishing oversight or making oversight less valuable, I don’t think it’s just a question of taking advantage, I don’t think it’s just a question of out-maneuvering them. I think it’s basically, at some point after 9-11, the President and the Vice-President and some of the lawyers set out to – and the word I would use is ‘sabotage’ – the procedure. To say, ‘WE DON’T WANT OVERSIGHT.’”