Disqus - Latest Comments for lisabrite

Re: Adam Young

lisabrite — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 00:33:44 -0000

So I'm gonna need some lossless versions of all this good stuff. Maybe some flac or ALAC. Hope that's in the plan for digital downloads. ;). So excited for you and this project, and if you wanted to crowd-fund some physical copies - I'm sure the money would magically appear to you from us. :)

This is like getting into Disney World for free...and I can't handle it. Thank you so much for this. Ignore any haters in the industry. You're a true artist and we will always appreciate you.

/end long message of words/

Re: Lonely Soliloquy • justchasingfireflies: From the Jars of Clay...

lisabrite — Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:30:49 -0000

I'll try to post a few pics from the show. I don't even think I got that many good ones. I've been super lucky as far as concerts go, but concerts like that one don't come to the Charlotte area very often, so I always feel obligated to go whenever that happens. :)

For some reason, it wouldn't let me post under my tumblr name (justchasingfireflies), but that's me so you know. :)

Re: Dodd Admits Change to His Amendment

lisabrite — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:51:05 -0000

I will have to print this post out and frame it. We might never see something like this again (Chris admitting that he's wrong about anything.) :P

Re: Resign You Lousy Pathetic Crook

lisabrite — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:35:02 -0000

Aren't you forgetting someone? You couldn't possibly hate anyone more than George Bush. :P

Re: What A Day

lisabrite — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:54:07 -0000

It's Illinois...do we really expect honest, non-crooked politicians out of that state? Well, except for the great Barack. It's miraculous how such a clean, honest, trustworthy politician like Barack managed to become that way with so many crooked friends and random associates. Kidding aside, I'm glad that there's no evidence that our President-elect was part of the Gov's scheme. That would be a heck of a way to start the Obama adminstration.

For all of Governor Sanford's flaws (and he has a few), at least he's not corrupt. Unfortunately, that's just the way Illinois has been for awhile, and I'm not sure if that that problem is fixable. You could try electing a few non-corrupt Republicans. :P

I'm glad about Sen. Craig....and I totally agree with Joe the Plumber. You know I wanted to get off the bus too when McCain supported the bailout. It was a dumb move. Not that it would have won him the election, but I think many conservatives jumped off at that point. I just wonder if maybe we were too effective in pointing out McCain's flaws at the beginning, so much so that we convinced too many people not to vote for him. In any event, I'm not sorry McCain lost. I just worry about what our new President will do with the help of Congressional Democrats once he's officially in charge.

Re: Fantasy World Circle Jerk

lisabrite — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:23:23 -0000

Well no, I don't think I would...because as your favorite talk-show host Rush Limbaugh always says, my happiness or success doesn't depend on who wins elections. So your posts are immaterial to my feelings about politics and life, other than the ability you have to drive me crazy with your posts.

My guess is that I would laugh at the mushy Obama lovefest...but why don't we try that for a week or so, and see how it goes? :P

I would have a little more faith in the possibility of a spirited, yet cordial discussion if you would tone down the partisan frustration sometimes. But no matter how many passionate discussions we may have, I will continue to be happy and positive while recognizing the struggles our country has ahead of us during the Obama administration. After all, that's the way the minority party should respond to absorbing a well-deserved loss -- acknowledge our mistakes and work toward improving our outreach to voters in future election campaigns.

Re: Change is a Wonderful Thing

lisabrite — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:26:52 -0000

I have absolutely no reason to join in the fierce debate over the RFW, Bush, and all those related arguments. So I will leave you three to your slap fight. ;)

I do want to point out a few things I'm seeing with this blog, which may or may not relate directly to your posts. I expected the tone to be more celebratory than it was about Barack's victory. After all, the victory was historic. You finally got rid of the hated Bush. The future should be all hopeful and positive and full of much change. And yet...you seem unable to look forward to that future. My argument is not that 8 years of Bush is irrelevant to the current political discussion, just that he's gone in January -- and whatever we may think of all the Clinton retreads he's adding to his team, Obama is at least a clean break from Bush. So all the mistakes he will make will be his own. At some point, Obama will receive the blame for his inevitable mistakes, but right now he can do no wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would have expected you to focus more on the incoming administration than the outgoing administration. Your guy won. Be happy. Talk about all the new and exciting government programs Obama will enact to grow government and take care of every American citizen, whether they need help or whether they don't. Discuss Cabinet appointments. The future is now. Obama's making decisions. It wouldn't hurt you to get closer to moving on from the Bush years...

One other thing -- about those Clinton retreads. It's a perfectly reasonable argument to suggest that Democrats wanted Barack to make a clean break from the Clinton years, and by that I mean the scandals and the ethical baggage Clinton associates bring to the table as possible Cabinet picks. It's also reasonable to expect that the far lefties will become disillusioned when Barack's Cabinet is almost completely comprised of folks who have "been there done that" in a previous Democrat administration.

Take all this for what it's worth. I'll go back to lurking now.

Re: Hiding In Plain Site

lisabrite — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:09:41 -0000

Thanks for clarifying your objection and sharing with all of us your YouTube collection of assorted crazies attending McCain - Palin rallies. That's all I was asking for. It's hard to defend myself when I don't know the charges against me. :) In case you misunderstood my comment responding to Kent's comment -- I was agreeing with his point that Parker and Noonan shouldn't be trashing Palin the way they are, not the whole entire comment. That wasn't clear in my reply, so I wanted to explain that further. The Republicans jumping ship know what their motives are. Who am I to judge them for it?

Maybe someday you can explain why McCain and Palin (and the entire Republican party) should bear responsibility for people at their rallies who are unconnected with the campaign saying terrible things about Barack Obama. It's an interesting position to take when people Barack actually knows personally have said some inflammatory stuff, and/or been involved in anti-American activities, yet that's only "guilt by association". We have had this argument many times, and I've yet to be satisfied with the answer to this question. So I guess there's not much point in debating it further, since we will keep going round and round in circles and get no satisfactory resolution out of our efforts. :)

Re: Early Voting for Repubs is Fine

lisabrite — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:39:39 -0000

I question Obama's judgment. I think it's fair to do that instead of ignoring a definite pattern of questionable characters showing up throughout his political history. That's not in dispute. He did know all these people and had a working relationship with each and every one of them. Either he knew exactly who and what they were and he didn't care enough to break off the ties, or he was glaringly blind to the true character of these people. Neither of these options says anything good about Barack's potential ability to accurately distinguish good guys from bad guys. Presidents should have that ability, don't you think? And yes, before you mention the Bush administration struggling a little bit with that, I agree with that potential assertion. :P

I have nothing else to add. We discussed Palin's AIP and I don't see that relationship the same way you do. I also agreed with you that McCain and Liddy should break up. Maybe you missed the entire post I had about McCain and ACORN -- but to suggest that those ties are equivalent to Obama's with ACORN, the evidence just doesn't support that conclusion.

I haven't decided where I will go for my election coverage yet. I'm leaning toward C-SPAN...that way no one is biased. :P

Re: More Concise

lisabrite — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:17:30 -0000

I stand by what I said. I recognize that Barack Obama could win this election. That's more likely to happen if Republicans stay home or vote for Obama. You know very well that I have been critical of McCain and his campaign when it's required, as well as acknowledging Bush mistakes when they are made. The fantasy world is yours, where you insist on believing that most Republicans are fascists and that the random unknown people (who may or may not have shouted evil things about Barack Obama) represent our entire party. I notice that you didn't say word one about the Palin effigy some loony liberals put up. Nothing disturbing about that right?

Don't hide here at The Fold linking to Chaos and making random comments about my blog and my pals Kent and Jaz. If you object to something I wrote, make a comment there and we will have a discussion about it. I have tried to let you get all the Bush frustration out of your system, because I know there's a lot there. But I will not stand back and let you snipe at us without saying anything about it. Hope you understand.

Re: Early Voting for Repubs is Fine

lisabrite — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:55:24 -0000

Come on Chris...I want to believe you are not that stupid. We oppose people voting early or otherwise who aren't casting a legal vote, and there's far more illegal votes for Obama than for McCain. It doesn't make any difference at all that he worked as a community organizer doing the same kind of stuff ACORN is doing now with voter registration, and that he gave $800,000 to an ACORN-affliated group, because no way the great Obama would be promoting anything illegal or subversive. What kind of fools does Barack Obama believe we are to buy this argument? Having said all that, I have no proof that any voter registration Obama did involved any illegal or fake registrations. I don't believe he participated in voter fraud himself. But it's obvious that ACORN has their fingerprints all over this current voter fraud, and it's also obvious that ACORN and Barack had a working relationship.

Just like the kind of relationship with Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, and numerous other socialists named by Kurtz and Freddoso in their research -- none of all these people had anything to do with the kind of man Barack Obama is, and they had no influence whatsoever on his political philosophy or on his ability to judge people, right? Well, that's good to know. Otherwise I might be very concerned about all these people in Barack's life.

Seriously, doesn't it bother you that a man who wants to be president has previously associated with socialists and terrorists? We are putting this man and a Democratic Congress in charge of our entire economy. What we will have is people who are more than happy to spread the wealth around to non-taxpayers and non-workers, and those who believe raising taxes on our businesses is a smart move in a struggling economy. You know as well as I do that this will push even more businesses overseas than under the Bush administration. I thought this was something Democrats were concerned about. So they want to make it more expensive for businesses to operate. Genius move.

Back to the subject though...

Shouldn't it matter whether all those votes are legally cast? Republicans say it does matter. What the heck is wrong with that? I'm sure that the "Greatest President to ever serve" had a valid voter registration card. That's all we are asking for. That's hardly an unreasonable request, Chris. If the law says people can vote early, I have no problem with that, and Republicans don't either, as long as someone makes sure those who vote have a valid registration.

Shouldn't you be out planning your giant victory party? I expect Barack has given you a special invite, what with your unyielding devotion to the Obama campaign. Why are you wasting your time sniping at my fellow Republicans? :P

I give up...going to wander back to Chaos now where other people agree with me. ;)

Re: Palin Promises To Give First Interview

lisabrite — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:13:29 -0000

I think the Democrats would be better off sending Joe Biden to an undisclosed location as well. It's in their best interest to stop him before he says something stupid. Too late for that. Of course it's not like you can keep Biden from the press. I said from the beginning that Palin needs to do interviews and talk to the press. I have also said that I don't think she's ready to be VP yet. She doesn't have much experience on the national stage. Neither did Barack when he started his campaign. Look how that worked out.

It's rich of the Obama campaign to complain about Palin not talking to the press when they have restricted access to the Chosen One at various times, even to the point where reporters complained about it. The media behaved abominably toward Sarah and her family. They spread nasty rumors about her with the help of left-wing blogs. Explain why you think this behavior should be rewarded with unlimited press access.

I have a few questions about her, starting with the crazy number of earmarks she got as mayor of Wasilla. Charlie Gibson will ask hard questions. My guess is he will ask her about that. It's not a given that Sarah Palin will need to be ready on day one, but Barack will BE the president on day one. Glad that you don't have any reservations about that since he's been fully vetted by People and US Weekly.

Re: Stark Differences

lisabrite — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:56:46 -0000

BTW, is there any way to add the number of comments in the post box somewhere? It's much easier to track replies that way. Thanks.

Re: Stark Differences

lisabrite — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:54:32 -0000

Newt started out on the right track. Now I'm not sure how much of his current agenda I support, other than the "drill here, drill now" thing. He has evolved into this advocate for an activist federal government. At least that's how I see it. I guess my skepticism in government is absolute. I have no confidence a tweaked federal bureaucracy will be significantly improved with all of Newt's proposed changes, and the size of this new improved system could be way bigger than the one we have currently. There are changes we can make, but I think we need to start by reforming the programs we have or getting rid of the ones we don't need before suggesting new programs. I haven't heard anything like this from McCain and Obama.

Calling those who expand government by creating new programs, departments, and services socialists is not accurate, IMO. That is different than any type of government control or ownership of private businesses / industries. The second is much closer to socialism than the first. Being a "compassionate" or big-government conservative doesn't automatically make one a socialist . Same applies to Obama's numerous spending proposals. It's harder to oppose spending related to national security interests, such as the creation of DHS, although I'm not convinced that one agency should be handling both terrorism and natural disasters. My gut feeling is that DHS was a good idea, but it should have more clearly defined responsibilities. NCLB started out with the best intentions, to bring teacher accountability into the educational process, but it has failed to meet expectations. Many conservatives have questioned NCLB, for many other reasons in addition to the support of Ted Kennedy. :)

Who are these mythical Republicans you keep talking about who blindly support everything George W. Bush does? Most of them probably aren't conservatives. Are you talking about the Republican "leadership" in Congress? Your pal Jonah Goldberg? :P Maybe you are referring to the 20-some percent approval rating Bush is getting in current polls. I don't know who you are accusing of being that stupid, so maybe you could help me out with that.

We have agreed on so much in this thread. I hate to spoil it here, but there's something I feel compelled to add : Bush or no Bush -- that doesn't change my view that Obama has too much faith in big government.

Re: Stark Differences

lisabrite — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:21:02 -0000

Yeah, because the Democrats believe in socialism for everybody except businesses. :P

Get the government out of everybody's business. (Well, I don't know about going as far as the libertarians would...but there should be more limits than there are now.) Businesses should take responsibility for their own failures (in most cases), and so should people who completely understood the risks they were taking with their loans and took the risk anyway. That's what a conservative believes. There is a difference between Republicans and conservatives. Surely you understand this. I can't tell you the last time conservatives had a Congressional majority. Maybe 1994. For every Senator like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, there's 2-3 like Olympic Snowe and Arlen Specter. Most of the Republicans in Congress aren't conservatives. There may be a few who pretend to be to get elected, but here in SC, we aren't fooled very often. :)

Maybe at some point we should settle on one definition of socialism before accusing one side of the other of practicing it. If it's expanding government, then there's quite a few folks guilty of that, including your favorite president George W. Bush. If it's government controlling the means of production, we aren't quite there yet, although these government bailouts are alarming. The more power and control the federal government has, the more capability it has to screw things up. I think on some level Dubya understands this. I'm not so sure Obama does. If he did, he couldn't possibly be serious about nationalizing health care.

Anyway, I didn't reply to this to start a long thread where you defend Obama against charges of socialism, because I'm not accusing him of it. I do think he puts a scary amount of faith in the federal bureaucracy to solve big problems. If he really wanted a radical change, he would propose less spending and cuts in the massive bureaucracy we have now instead of suggesting these shiny new programs that duplicate existing ones. But then the Democrats would really hate him, wouldn't they?

Re: Stark Differences

lisabrite — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:12:10 -0000

The President is right about the American people. Our own checkbooks tell us how much money we can spend on essentials like gasoline. When we see the effects of the increased gasoline price, we make adjustments by buying hybrids or decreasing the amount of non-essential trips. There's no need to tell us what we already know, and there would be quite a bit of resistance to any statements Bush would make that would be similar to Barack's lecturing us about our thermostats and "excessive" energy consumption. :) I do see your point about government bailouts to private businesses, and I am just as opposed to that as you are. However, sometimes it is necessary to do it --- like in the case of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- to prevent a complete economic collapse. I hope that Congress will pass some more regulations and restrictions on them to prevent this type of thing from happening again, but as always, I don't have much faith in the Democratic Congress to do anything I would like them to do.