Holy crap that's funny!!!

You know, I thought it was a bit of a yawner. The Madeline Halfbright ad was way funnier! But that's just me :)

Kind of like the reverse of Christmas. Santa brings it on Dec 25 and the democrats come and take it away in Jan or at the latest Apr. 15th.

What matters more Kim taxes or spending? If you think Bush gave you a tax cut you are a darn fool. He borrowed money from your kids gave most of it to people who have salaries of $1,000,000 year or more and gave you your pittance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/3/161820/4163

The ad may or may not be funny. Putting it on AUTOPLAY so it starts up when I load this webpage is just rude. I open a lot of blogs at the same time and start reading them. I don't need to hear some start-and-stop streaming ad distracting me and making me search a bunch of tabs to see what's causing the ruckus.

I agree with muirgeo.

If you pay taxes, and they pay for police salaries to keep you safe, or for schools to educate your children, or to build roads so you can get past your driveway, or for fire and rescue services, I think we would all agree that's money well spent on our behalf.

Taxes, in and of themself, are not bad. How we choose to spend our tax money can be bad. Or it can be good.

Our friend ScrapIron, who is very vocal here, reports to be a 22 year military veteren, which we should celebrate. He is also on a military pension, paid for with our tax dollars, and gets healthcare from the VA, with our tax dollars. He should receive these benefits based on his service. And that's one of the things that taxes go for. For much of his life he's never really paid much in to the system in terms of money, but he'll be taken care of for the rest of his life - by our tax dollars. So, are taxes good? Are taxes bad? Depends on how you want the money spent.

I further agree with muirgeo that Bush has borrowed money, which your children will pay for. Hey, it's a great party when you can just throw down your credit card and not worry about who has to pay the bill later, or who has to clean up the vomit.

John

I'd say Mr. Zucker is on quite a roll right now.
This is probably another reason why Karl Rove is being so disrespectful by being optimistic about the upcoming elections. Only thing I would have added would have been Ole Charlie Rangel saying he couldn't think of a single Bush tax cut that was worth extending. But otherwise, a stellar production!

Ken

Poor Muirgeo and John

Two more deluded liberals who think taxes are "good"...sorry but the sad reality is that Democrats
want your money not for the military and for building roads but to give it away for votes to perpetuate themselves in power....they want it so they can offer handouts in the form of sub-standard goodies that keep whole generations poor and voting Democratic..the day I see Democrats investing to promote jobs through private sector growth and free trade I will feel my taxes are well spent...and finally liberals have to be reminded (very difficult concept for them) tax money is not a bonanza for Democrats to spend and it does not "belong" to the Government ..the reason Democrats hate tax cuts has nothing to do with the deficit..they view it as money rightfully theirs to invest in creating more Democrats

The Unvarnished Truth~ part 2

Regarding auto-playing of Flash - use Firefox and the FlashBlock extension. No flash content plays unless you choose to click on it.

I cannot imagine going back to the days of watching all of those inane Flash ads and other content automatically.

It was ineffective because it was way too long. It was funny for the first 30 seconds, then it became pedantic. After 60 seconds I clicked it off.

That's funny Lee, 60 second's is right about the time that dem walks out of the grave with a pre-inheritance burial fee tax.

Shocking just shocking..

I also tried to turn off autoplay and finally gave up, went to the next page on the GOP site and picked up the ad graphic that is linked to the video. It looks better than a plain text link without the annoyance. I didn't have the problem with the last Zucker clip. Hmmm, maybe I'll go compare the embed code and see what they changed this time.

If you can't find it, come to Squiggler The Tax Man Cometh and copy the graphic from me.

Ben, you got it right. Guess the democ'rats failed to 'hear' the statement peloshi made, 'we're going to take things (dollars) away from you for the common good'. We (the working people) have supported 50% of the democ'rat voters (career welfare riders) from birth to grave for the past 3 generations and now the vote buying must come a little higher. The dim's just can't get enough of our money to satisfy their spending (giveway) habits.

Mudigo your completely and totally nuts.Did your mother have any kids that lived?

My favortie aspect is the "army" at the end chanting as the Wicked Witch of the West's soldiers do in The Wizard of Oz.

I'm glad its on auto play. It should auto play everytime someone tunes in the MSM as well!

I'm sorry, but the spending orgy the Republicans went on totally negates any claim of a moral high ground on this issue.

Had Republicans not shown themselves to be total liars on fiscal restraint, this ad would have merit and they would be way ahead in the polls. Instead, in two weeks we're going to reap what they have sown.

Any working person that says they didn't get a tax cut is simply a "liar". Most that make less than $30K don't pay one dime in federal tax. Liberals envy of the rich is eating them up almost as bad a BDS and that has already driven hundreds of them insane. I guess they want to get rich on their welfare check and food stamp cards. Maybe peelooshi will take care of that.

I got the video uploaded to Google:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3308076534609417307&hl=en

I also uploaded it to YouTube, but it's not live yet ...

Please people--switch to Firefox and use Flashblock like smartguy said. Don't support the evil empire in Redmond.

That's a damn funny ad. But I don't think it will have any impact. There's only three issues people care about this year:

1) Iraq
2) Iraq
3) Iraq

And yes, it may be true that the Dems will raise taxes to pay down the 4 trillion dollars that Bush has added to our national debt to pay for his nationbuilding fiasco in Iraq and bridges to nowhere in Alaska. Somebody has to clean that mess up.

Absolutely correct - this pretty much sums its up on Iraq.

Youtube is up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKp3mdsjI2c

I snagged it from the following URL:

http://www.gop.com/Media/TAXMAN.flv

URL sniffers are my friend ... ;)

Enjoy!

Ah, the infamous use of raw number on the national debt argument--never mind that as a percentage of GDP it's actually lower than it was during the Clinton years--and that reducing it too much leads to a stalled economy and inflation or we have already forgotten the economic disaster Japan faced chasing the flawed dream?

Money in the government hands == bad. Money in the private sector == good. It's been that way for years.

sorry...late to the party and too tired to read the smattering of Lefty outrage throughout the thread.

OK?

That said...VERY KEWL!!! And spot on! I live in the Peoples Republic of California where we tax EVERYTHING (unless you're an illegal immigrant).

Spot on, GOP, spot on!!

Gee Lee, I thought the most important issue was Foley, not Iraq.

Just like your household budget, money comes in. Money goes out.

If federal taxes drop, AND people are not willing to have reduced services, eg public safety, schools, etc... State and local municipalities must come up with revenue from other sources.

The Bush tax cuts hit state and local governments hard. That's why your property taxes went up. You got more school levies. Sales tax went up. State income tax went up.

There is no free lunch. You still pay the exact amount of money for the equivilent amount of goods and services. Did you think this was magic?

Oh, yeah... There is one magic trick. You put it on your credit card. It's spending more than you earn...

And it adds up.

But if eventualy needs to be paid.

Good luck children! We had a great time, though! Wish you were there.

John

It's hysterical

I agree it's hysterical. No, not the "funny" hysterical. More like the "behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess" hysterical.

Where can I contribute to a fund to get this ad on the air? You people are so entrenched in your delusions that you can't even see when you've gone too far over the top to connect with the average voter.

John,

My local taxes are gonna go through the roof next year, not because the feds aren't giving Queen Chrissy Gregoire enough. The Democrat controlled state legislature went in last session and spent our surplus and then some which will require a huge tax increase next seesion to pay for it. When the Republicans tried to tell on them, the Democrats tried to silence them.

VW

No one with at least average intelligence thinks that ad was ever intended for a broadcast audience.

It's an internet ad, created to get people to talk about it and spread around on various sites. The audience will be smaller than for a network ad, but it is available 24/7, and those who do view it will be those far more likely to actually vote than the average "American Idol" viewer.

More likely to vote in the ELECTION, I mean . . .

:-D

If federal taxes drop, AND people are not willing to have reduced services, eg public safety, schools, etc... State and local municipalities must come up with revenue from other sources.

And yet tax revenues are UP. How is that Johnny?
Personally, I think Bush spends too much on too much crap, BUT, he does understand that the more you burden something with taxes, the slower it grows.

SCSI,

Please pay attention.

Federal taxes are federal tax revenue.

Federal taxes usually refer to a percent of the whole. Federal tax revenue is the absolute value. To give the simplest example, you can tax 5% of 10 dollars, or 1% of a %1,000, and manage to have higher federal taxes while getting less revenue.

Now, normally that's a useless comparision, except for the part where basic Econ 101 shows that lower taxes stimulate purchasing. Look at that one tax-free weekend Taxachusetts held a few years ago, or what everyone does with their tax refund check. The money burns a hole in their pocket.

Tax revenues were up 15% last year despite lower taxes, largely due to the increase in stock trading and corporate revenues (from what numbers I can gather, the tax cuts to the middle class seem to have negated the increase in spending, at least from a tax revenue viewpoint).

Mudigo your completely and totally nuts.Did your mother have any kids that lived?

Posted by: jainphx

Yeah I'm nuts but your a smart guy who thinks Bush is a good guy for giving your kid an American Express card with a $30,000 limit. Then telling him to use it all he wants once he pays it off because its maxed out already and collecting interest. Oh and then he tells your son, "I charged $20 of those $30,000 dollars to buy your father his pittance. You'll be glad to know he seemed real happy about it."

Absolutely correct - this pretty much sums its up on Iraq.

Posted by: Lee

Yep Lee and as Olbermanns guest suggested, " What are you gonna believe your lying eyes? Or are you gonna believe the president?"

If you pay taxes, and they pay for police salaries to keep you safe, or for schools to educate your children, or to build roads so you can get past your driveway, or for fire and rescue services, I think we would all agree that's money well spent on our behalf.

John

Sure we would. And those are LOCAL/STATE taxes, not FEDERAL taxes.

The issue at hand is FEDERAL tax, ie VA benefits (which are wholly deserved to those who served).

As for the dailykos (*irf*) link ... dude, that same image, as well as simialr images, have been floating for decades. EVERY child born the US has always been responsible for carrying some sort of debt.

Blaming the "birth-debt" on Bush is just soundly idiotic and ignorant of history.

What'd the Dow close at today, by the way?

Yeah, the Bush tax cuts really hurt the economy.

Putz.

Ah, the infamous use of raw number on the national debt argument--never mind that as a percentage of GDP it's actually lower than it was during the Clinton years--.....

Posted by: Faith+1

So what are you lying, deceiving, ill-informed, ignorant or a Rush Limbaugh listener?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Posted by: muirgeo at October 24, 2006 02:07 AM

Take the 2007 prediction out of the equation, and compare Clinton to Bush during the same stretch, it still looks like Bush's GND is lower than Clinton's. Put the '07 prediction in, and it looks like a crapshoot.

What? You don't think people will actually click the links?

By the way, Lee, the Iraq link of yours:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Exactly what I wanted to ask you about, because James Baker said that he's looking for something between cut and run...

BUSH: Cut and run and.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... and stay the course.

BUSH: Well, listen, we've never been stay the course, George. We have been -- we will complete the mission, we will do our job and help achieve the goal, but we're constantly adjusting the tactics, constantly.

Doesn't sound like the big LIE the nutroots are trying to drool over, it sounds, again, like Bush tripped up, verbally, again. We all know how clumsey he is. Doesn't mean he's a liar .. just means the Left is so desperate for dirt that they dust off the ol' quote sniping rifle and go to work.

Stay the course = winning.

Part of winning is adjusting strategies.

Good gracious, THIS is the best type of criticsm the Left has and people still listen to the tripe.

Un-friggin-believable.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=2594541&page=2M

Posted by: muirgeo at October 24, 2006 02:07 AM

Take the 2007 prediction out of the equation, and compare Clinton to Bush during the same stretch, it still looks like Bush's GND is lower than Clinton's. Put the '07 prediction in, and it looks like a crapshoot.

What? You don't think people will actually click the links?

Posted by: yo

OK so deceiving it is. Looks like it went from 70% to 60% during Clintons tenure and from 60% to 65% and rising during the Shrubs term...so far...

And would you like to compare Truman to Carter with Reagan to Bush 1? Humm? What happen there lil fella???

...it still looks like Bush's GND is lower than Clinton's.

Posted by: yo

Oh and actually this part is not being deceiving..its just plain lying....yeah I sure hope they click my links and see ass whoopin you've just received.

OK so deceiving it is. Looks like it went from 70% to 60% during Clintons tenure and from 60% to 65% and rising during the Shrubs term...so far...

And would you like to compare Truman to Carter with Reagan to Bush 1? Humm? What happen there lil fella???

Posted by: muirgeo at October 24, 2006 02:40 AM

Um ... unless my math is off, "65% and rising" is still less than 70%. So the point you made is weak, at best.

And, why the hell would I want to discuss the other presidents' records? Those hold no relevence, whatsoever, to the discussion at hand.

Face it, your attacks are lame in how they are so easily bitch-slapped around, lil' fella.

Doesn't sound like the big LIE the nutroots are trying to drool over, it sounds, again, like Bush tripped up, verbally, again. We all know how clumsey he is. Doesn't mean he's a liar

Ah, yes, and so it begins. Lies from the right as damage control. Trying to hand-wave away the obvious. If Bush "tripped up", he sure took a lot of his advisors with him.

That is not a stay-the-course policy," White House press secretary Tony Snow declared yesterday.

In another interview with CBS's "Early Show," Bartlett dismissed assertions that the Bush administration's strategy for Iraq is to "stay the course."

"It's never been a stay-the-course strategy," Bartlett said.

What a coincidence that Bush and his inner circle all suddenly became "clumsy" at the same time, wouldn't you say? Good thing it wasn't intentional. I mean, coordinated flip-flopping like that would look so bad and hypocritical. Not to mention be a sign of support for the terrorists.

Oh and actually this part is not being deceiving..its just plain lying....yeah I sure hope they click my links and see ass whoopin you've just received.

Posted by: muirgeo at October 24, 2006 02:43 AM

When the current value is lower than the previous value, how is that lying?

Seriously, dude .. give up while you're behind. The only ass-whoopin' happening, here, is being caused by all of the hot air you're blowing out of yours.

Here's a link which may be helpful to you:

Stay the course = winning.
Part of winning is adjusting strategies.

You forgot the final link in your circle of transitive illogic:

Therefore, stay the course = adjusting strategies

Of course! It makes such sense!

Un-friggin-believable.

Posted by: Brian at October 24, 2006 02:50 AM

"It's never been a stay-the-course strategy," Bartlett said. "Strategically, we think it's very important that we stay in Iraq and we win in Iraq. And if we were to cut and run and go and leave that country too early it would be a disaster for American policy."

Fine .. the pres said what the said, but it still comes down to symantecs.

"Stay the course" has always meant stay until the war is won.

Of course, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is, I guess.

It's political spin, but "important to stay in Iraq" means "stay the course" only in different verbiage.

Personally, I think they shoudl stay the source on using stay the course .. but since the Left still has yet to recognize the threat, anything that can be done to help the Left grasp the difficult concept and steer clear of the insanely flawed "cut and run" strategy, might be helpful.

Then again, it might not.

Still. Doesn't mean Bush lied.

You forgot the final link in your circle of transitive illogic:

Therefore, stay the course = adjusting strategies

Show me one single war, or conflict, throughout history where the initial strategy resulted in end game.

One.

Again, "stay the course" includes "changing strategies."

I didn't "forget" the final link, I just thought it so overwhelming obvious that it need not be stated.

Then, there's this gem:

Juxtaposed against "stay the course," "new direction" has become the Democrats' poll-tested mantra, even if they don't define precisely what that new direction would be.

Like I said, symantecs and politics and spin:

"When you ask 'change in direction' versus Bush's direction, you get solid majorities of 60 percent or so for change."

Point being: a rose is a rose is a rose, call it what you will, we're still "staying on course" as it pertains to the original concept of victory.

Then again, the left isn't as good about the concept of victory as much as they are about splitting hairs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301053.html

What an eloquent non-concession concession.

It doesn't matter what hair-splitting semantic games you use to define "stay the course". Whatever it means to Bush, he has spent 3 years claiming it was his strategy, then suddenly said, "We've never been stay the course". That's a lie, any way you slice it.

Posted by: Brian at October 24, 2006 03:12 AM

Well, yeah ... by definition, on strict adherence to logic, yes, it's a lie.

How that lie pertains to what's going on Iraq, it doesn't. We're still going ahead.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make a lick of difference.

Show me one single war, or conflict, throughout history where the initial strategy resulted in end game.
One.

I see you now agree with the left. There isn't one. Therefore, a strategy of "stay the course" is not a viable one. Exactly the Democrats' point.

Again, "stay the course" includes "changing strategies."

And right is left. And up is down. And "is" is...

I didn't "forget" the final link, I just thought it so overwhelming obvious that it need not be stated.

It is. But it destroys your point.

Well, yeah ... by definition, on strict adherence to logic, yes, it's a lie.

Oh, well, we certainly don't want our leaders adhering to logic, do we? Especially when presenting wartime strategy to the American people.

Sheesh.

I see you now agree with the left. There isn't one. Therefore, a strategy of "stay the course" is not a viable one. Exactly the Democrats' point.

The democrats have a point? No shit.

The Dems are looking for anything to blundgeon Bush with. If they, or you, don't understand that there's a difference between a political strategy and a military one, that's not the president's fault.

It is. But it destroys your point.

The validity of the point does exist whether you see it or not.

Oh, well, we certainly don't want our leaders adhering to logic, do we? Especially when presenting wartime strategy to the American people.

Sheesh.

Posted by: Brian at October 24, 2006 03:21 AM

ugh.

whatever, dude. You're not even really agruing a point, now ... you're two-year-olding your way though the minutia.

*yawn*

Yo...the Mr. Bill of Conservative blog debaters....give it up dude......OHHHH......NOOOOOOO...I'm getting rolled by a Mac truck......AGAIN. Maybe you should go to the Sean Hannity website where they don't let people like me and Brian in. Or for that matter almost any neocon website other then this as I've found.

Brian & muirego...you so funny. Y'all need to be on Air America. oops...nevermind.

Federal taxes are federal tax revenue.

No, one is the means, the other is the end.

Revenues can be up when taxes are down if there is more money in the economy to apply the tax to. Your logic only works if wealth cannot grow.