Tax Day Tea Party Staged in Second Life

With federal income tax returns due yesterday, conservative "tea party" protests were staged at a variety of locations around the United States.

For those who prefer their political activism to be of the virtual type, the Second Life metaverse featured a Tax Day tea party of its own.

The Second Life Newspaper reports:

A diverse crowd of dozens of men and women gathered… They picked up various protest signs: “Born Free, but taxed to death,” “Give Me Liberty … not debt!”  …A video screen on display played a short movie with a man portraying Thomas Paine speaking out against the expansion of today’s government…

 

The Tea Party in SL was sponsored by the GOP Cafe… The big topic was what the participants saw as runaway government spending gone out of control…

A few times, the sim was griefed with floods of particles. Twice, a strange loud voice pierced the air for about half a minute. Some joked this was the work of liberals, “they can’t stand the criticism…”

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

80 comments

  1. 0
    halfcuban says:

    He’s also being disingenous. The higher tax bracket would only apply to the additional money you made OVER the minimum set for your new tax bracket, not to all of it. It also presumes something that is impossible; that you take neither the standard nor itemized deductions which would automatically bump you back down into your former take bracket.

    The presumption here is that the Congress is stupid enough to promulgate margins with such a donut hole in place. There IS one example of that in recent memory, the tax cut that Reagan wrote in 86 that had a bizarre donut hole that actually taxed those with upper-middle class incomes more than those in the highest tax bracket, effectively, because certain deductions were eliminated. This was "fixed" by Bush I which then landed him into trouble because he "raised" taxes by assinging the donut hole tax to upper brackets, and the lower one to the upper-middle class.

  2. 0
    rdeegvainl says:

    You said… and I quote. "I was screwed out of a bachelor’s degree because some financial institution decided it didn’t want to give me the money I needed to finish my education, and I could not come up with it on my own, no matter what I tried."

    That means you didn’t have the money to begin with. You think others should be forced to loan you money. So, like I said, YOU failed to PAY for the education. It’s not somebody else’s responsibility to do that for you.

    There are plenty of other ways to get an education, including, working full time while going to school… I know this is a shock to some people, but many before have done it, Including me.

    and about the people who were born rich… it’s their parents right to give their money to their children. Who doesn’t hope to give their children the best start they possibly can?

  3. 0
    PHOENIXZERO says:

    Yup, all Bush’s fault, just like everything. Nevermind that’s it’s the doing of Congress and sure Bush could have vetoed it but then again Bush isn’t a conservative nor are many of the Republitards in office, especially fiscally. No amount of grandstanding would change that.

     

    But I just love how the Democrats and the left now have to keep blaming Bush and Republicans even after Democrats now have control over the Executive and Legislative branches and probably still will in 2012 after O’Bummer’s term is a total and utter failure. Oh I’m sure there will be plenty of Republican and the "vast right wing conspiracy" blame too! Maybe in 2010 and 2012 people will finally pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and stop voting on the base of campaign slogans and BS campaign promises or for these two parties that are filled with nothing but hypocrisy and corruption and have been screwing up this country for decades.

     

    But nah, come 2010/2012 the idiots will have learned nothing and we’ll still be ****ed. That saying about the definition of insanity being someone doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results seems fitting.

     

  4. 0
    CaptainZM says:

    That is just a load of shit. Bush began the Handout process and if this had happened earlier in his final 4 years you can god damned bet he would have gave out the bailouts.

    ——————————————————————

    "Don’t Run, You’ll Just Die Tired."

  5. 0
    Quarantine says:

    Where was this tea party 4 years ago?

    —————————————-

    "Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" — Birch Barlow

  6. 0
    Valdearg says:

    The money wasn’t due to be payed back until after I graduated, AND like most RESPONSIBLE students, I was paying off chunks of it while I was still in school, despite the fact that it was a deferred payment. I DID EVERYTHING ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS…

    Look, regardless of what you seem to think, the whole reason I couldn’t fund schooling was because I had the bad luck of being turned down by every bank that I went to because I already had a bit of school debt, and, apparently, that was enough for them to say no.

    And yes, I consider the fact that I now have been forced off of the path I needed to take to get my Bachelor’s degree, and into this purgatory of not knowing what I’ll do next a punishment. I was prevented from achieving my dream because the banks decided I wasn’t a good investment.

  7. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Take those as percentages, though, and thats about the average raise.

    Keep in mind I just woke up, and these percentages are approximate.

    4250 is about a 6% raise on 78,800, and thats assuming you are RIGHT on that threshold, which is not the most common. 6% is a resonable pay increase, assuming you’ve performed decently in your job.

    12,300 is about the same on 164,500, and 11,400 is like 2% of 357,600. All of which are pretty normal raise percentages, at least where I’ve worked in the past. In fact, 5% is a bit low, even, if you ask me..

    My point being: The situation you are describing is uncommon, at best, practically unheard of, at worst. And even if you happen to be the unlucky SOB who gets screwed by that, you aren’t loosing much money, maybe 1k-2k over the course of the year, which breaks down to about 40 bucks a month. Not much at all, if you ask me..

  8. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    "For every person who worked hard to get where they are, there are 2 who didn’t. And for every person who is lazy and living in poverty, there are 2 who are trying thier damndest to get degrees, and land a good job, but can’t due to things outside thier control."

    Source, please.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  9. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    We talking Flat Percentage or Flat Dollar Value?

    Flat percentage.

    A Flat percentage, while more acceptible, is still kind of messed up. The people on top can afford to give away a larger percentage of thier income and still live a luxourious and comfortable life, whereas the poorer people need every penny they can get, in order to strive to get up out of poverty.

    So simply because they can afford to pay more, they should be made to?  Should I be made to pay a higher sales tax for groceries because I can afford it?  Or a car?

    If I can live a reasonably comfortable life on 30,000, while supporting my girlfriend, I’d expect that a rich person, making 1 million a year (Very small value compared to most "Wealthy" people) can still live a very, very comfortable life with the 500,000 they would have left over at even a 50% Tax rate, which we haven’t reached yet.

    Why should I be forced to live paycheck to paycheck, or even worse, fall behind in my finances, just because that rich person wants to keep an extra 100,000?

    Let me turn your example around.  If you make $30k per year, and some guy who only makes $8k starts suggesting that you should pay more so he can pay less just because you can, are you going to be all for it?  Or will you say something like, "Hey pal, your problems are your own.  I worked hard for my money."

    Newsflash: Not all people are poor because they are lazy, some, like myself, are poor because they just haven’t had enough time to work and amass any sort of wealth, and I don’t think that the government should force us to pay the same percentage in taxes, thus causing us to fall farther from our goal of pulling out of the lower class, when there is plenty of money floating around at top of the wealth pool.

    I didn’t mean to imply that.  But you see where I’m going with this, right?  There may be plenty of money at the top, as you say, but why should the lower class be automatically entitled to some of it?  By taxing the rich more so the poor can pay less, that is in essence what a progressive tax code does.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  10. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "From a purely moral standpoint"?  Under a progressive tax system, all things equal, you pay more when you make more.  That sure sounds like penalizing success to me.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  11. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    "No, my family can’t afford to give me the loans"

    Family isn’t the only place to go for loans. There’s other banks and scholarships to go too.

    "Because they decided their investment in me wasn’t going to pay off"

    So they should be expected to give to you without expecting a return? If they did that they wouldn’t have money to give to anybody.

    "because my numbers didn’t match what the banks liked"

    Again, the bank can’t reasonbly be expected to give out money without assurance that they will at least break even on the deal. Banks that do not get paid back get shut down.

    "You just can’t handle that I am a perfect example of someone who’s more than likely worked harder than you ever have, yet still haven’t achieved that elusive "American Dream" that you like to harp on. Face it, there exist people like me out there who are the complete counter point to any half brained "I worked hard, so I deserve  everything I earn" mentality. Work doesn’t always equal wealth, and to think so is a short sighted, ignorant ideal."

    While that bit of projection is fun, it doesn’t say anything about me. As far as you know, I’m an automated program. I’d also like to note that I’ve never offered my definition of the "American Dream" on this site. Ever. I’ve also never said that hard work equals wealth. A person must know what to work on as well as how hard to work. So that last statement is a straw man. 

    People’s value is dependent on not only the amount of labor they put forth, but the specific type of the labor.

  12. 0
    rdeegvainl says:

    " was screwed out of a bachelor’s degree because some financial institution decided it didn’t want to give me the money I needed to finish my education, and I could not come up with it on my own, no matter what I tried. Should I be punished because of that? No."

    You weren’t punished, you failed to live up to your end of paying for education. You are basicaly saying that you have a right to demand to borrow money. Sorry but you don’t.

  13. 0
    crazywes76 says:

    I am confused by this whole taxation with out representation.  Last time I looked this was a republic where we elected you know representatives. 

  14. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "Couldn’t you have gotten a loan from somebody else?"

    No, my family cant afford to give me the loans, and I am the only one of my friends who actually has a job.

    "Why did the financial institution decide not to give you the money?"

    Because they decided thier investment in me wasn’t going to pay off. I am/was a student, and I already had a fair bit of School Debt, and apparently, I reached that point where they didn’t feel like assisting me with thier Financial Aid.

    "You aren’t forced to do shit."

    If you are going to be like that, you can kindly Fuck Off. If I can’t get the loans, I can’t go to school. Period. I can attempt to attend cheaper schools, but like I said, If I cant get the loans..

    I’ve applied for scholarships, grants, and everything else I can think of. I’ve worked my ASS off, and yet, because my numbers didn’t quite match what the Banks liked, I am forced to stop attending school, and to temporarily halt my progress.

    You just can’t handle that I am a perfect example of someone who’s more than likely worked harder than you ever have, yet still haven’t achieved that elusive "American Dream" that you like to harp on. Face it, there exist people like me out there who are the complete counter point to any half brained "I worked hard, so I deserve  everything I earn" mentality. Work doesn’t always equal wealth, and to think so is a short sighted, ignorant ideal.

     

  15. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Except that the gap between those two brackets isn’t nearly that much..

    According to the IRS, a single independant filer’s tax brackets/percentages are:

    0 to 8,025: 10%

    8,025 – 32,550: 15%

    32,550 – 78,850: 25% <- Largest Gap, and also the easiest to achieve, with a basic college education

    78,850 – 164,550: 28% <- Only 3%? Thats meant to prevent what you described, for most normal incomes.

    164,550 – 357,700: 33%

    357,700 and above: 35% <- Still, a very minor increase..

    http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm Check it youself..

    (Hows that for using specific examples?)

  16. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Really? Let’s check that. Say that the tax for somebody making under $250,000 a year is 30% and the tax for those over it is 40%. If I make $249,000 a year, I pay $74,700 to the guv, leaving me with $174,300 to spend as I please. If I get a raise of $1,000 dollars, I get bumped into a higher tax bracket, and must pay $100,000 to the Feds, meaning I take home $150,000. I take home less after the raise than I did before, so I am punished for having taken the raise. Therefore, in order for it to be beneficial for me to take the raise, I have to be granted a raise of at least $42,000 in order to take home a post tax salary of $174600. Meaning that my $42,000 got me $300 of additional income. 

    A person gains value by getting new knowledge, whether through experience or classes. I don’t care what you did in one year, it isn’t enough to warrant a $42,000 extra pay a year. And that happens with EVERY PERSON WHO GETS BUMPED UP. So yes, basic math says that progressive tax schemes prevent people from moving up in the world.

  17. 0
    bracomadar says:

    Protesting in a video game…that’s just lazy   Also, for the record, Republicans aren’t the only people who hate taxes and are going to these things.  Actually, most Republicans (at least the neo-con ones) don’t have a problem with spending all our money and they only oppose taxes on the rich.  They’re really happy the government is handing out free checks to their businesses.  Unless they denounce the Republicans Party along with the Democrats, they’re hypocrits. What’s happening now is because because they contributed to this mess we’re in.  Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame here.  On the other hand, there are libertarians and general hard working Americans that are out there making a valid point and aren’t just wanting to lower taxes, but more importantly, CUT SPENDING.  That’s really the major thing here.  Taxes are bad, but they really aren’t that bad here in America as they could be (look at some other countries).  If they actually went to building good roads and programs that worked, you really wouldn’t see this huge turnout of angry people.  The problem is our government spends money it doesn’t have for stuff that NEVER works.  They’re too afraid to ask for more taxes to pay off their stupid stuff because they know we woudln’t allow it.  The result is they borrow money so we’ll pay back slowly over time without realizing it and run up a huge debt.  Even though it doesn’t seem like we’re paying a whole lot, it will cost us a lot in the end.  We’re still paying for stuff that doesn’t work, plus a bunch of interest.  I think the Colonials left Great Britain for doing less than this.  I couldn’t think of a better example of taxation without representation.  These protests should be about taxation without representation and out of control spending, not just because Obama is taxing the rich and the Republians need a place to cry about losing the election and try to throw all the blame at Democrats.  If the Republicans want to have a party, let the libertarians and the rest of America have their tea parties for important issues and they can have a baby showers to go cry at.     

    PSN: bracomadar

    http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll20/longtrang83/b-1.jpg

  18. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    You can’t keep money you don’t know how to spend. Check up on what happens to those who win the lottery.

    Couldn’t you have gotten a loan from somebody else? Why did the financial institution decide not to give you the money? You aren’t forced to do shit.

  19. 0
    Bill says:

    "Difference is, the people Robin Hood gave money to were squashed under tyrannical rule."

    Exactly, Robin Hood took money from the STATE (Prince John) who was over taxing motherfuckers into destitution.  The government is the state (duh) therefore it (and its leaders) cannot ever take the role of Robin Hood.  All they can do is either tax fairly or fuck people over.  Guess what ours has been doing for decades?  Fuck Republicans and Democrats.  They all keep taking our money; they just want to spend it on different shit, and little of it is appropriate.  I believe in taxation, sure, but not like what I have been seeing for years.  I wish there were a real Robin Hood.

  20. 0
    Valdearg says:

    You seem to think that everyone who is considered "Wealthy" wasn’t born wealthy. Hate to break it to you. For every person who worked hard to get where they are, there are 2 who didn’t. And for every person who is lazy and living in poverty, there are 2 who are trying thier damndest to get degrees, and land a good job, but can’t due to things outside thier control.

    I was screwed out of a bachelor’s degree because some financial institution decided it didn’t want to give me the money I needed to finish my education, and I could not come up with it on my own, no matter what I tried. Should I be punished because of that? No. And Don’t mistake my words, I am being FORCED to live the way I do, because no matter what I do, I can’t begin to amass wealth due to the fact that I was screwed out of the education that I worked hard to get.

    Thats not to say that I will stop trying, BTW, but I think the government should be allowed to help people like myself, who, through no fault of thier own, and stuck in this purgatory between poverty and wealth.

  21. 0
    rdeegvainl says:

    "Why should I be forced to live paycheck to paycheck, or even worse, fall behind in my finances, just because that rich person wants to keep an extra 100,000?"

    Who is forcing you? no one. You are free to take a risk and strike it big. But that is just what it is, a risk, and others who took it, and made it, should not be disporportionately burdened with the national budget.

  22. 0
    lumi says:

    "I fail to see how simply being poor or running your business into the ground somehow qualifies you for a handout."

    The words "golden parachute" come to mind >.>

  23. 0
    Valdearg says:

    We talking Flat Percentage or Flat Dollar Value?

    Flat Dollar value would be rediculous, because 20,000 dollars to a poor person is their entire livelyhood whereas some rich people make 20,000 dollars a DAY.

    A Flat percentage, while more acceptible, is still kind of messed up. The people on top can afford to give away a larger percentage of thier income and still live a luxourious and comfortable life, whereas the poorer people need every penny they can get, in order to strive to get up out of poverty.

    If I can live a reasonably comfortable life on 30,000, while supporting my girlfriend, I’d expect that a rich person, making 1 million a year (Very small value compared to most "Wealthy" people) can still live a very, very comfortable life with the 500,000 they would have left over at even a 50% Tax rate, which we haven’t reached yet.

    Why should I be forced to live paycheck to paycheck, or even worse, fall behind in my finances, just because that rich person wants to keep an extra 100,000?

    Keep in mind that if I had 2 kids, I’d be JUST above the poverty line for Americans, and, even though I work my ass off daily and am in debt up to my neck because I went to college, you guys are lumping me in with the drug abusers and lazy ghetto thugs.

    Newsflash: Not all people are poor because they are lazy, some, like myself, are poor because they just haven’t had enough time to work and amass any sort of wealth, and I don’t think that the government should force us to pay the same percentage in taxes, thus causing us to fall farther from our goal of pulling out of the lower class, when there is plenty of money floating around at top of the wealth pool.

    Oh, and before you asK: I would GLADLY, GLADLY surrender 50-75% of my income to the government if that meant free healthcare and free university schooling, and I was making enough money to live comfortably on whats left.

  24. 0
    Nagaina says:

    How about ‘being poor and never having owned a business at all’? Poverty, like obscene wealth, is very, very frequently hereditary in this country.

    Also: progressive taxes do not ‘penalize success.’ And flat taxes are not fairer than progressive taxation that locates the tax burden on those most able to bear it without hardship.

  25. 0
    hayabusa75 says:

    To me, Obama’s like a modern-day Robin Hood; he takes from the rich and gives to the poor.  By his own admission, the wealthy will be the ones to foot the bill to shorten the economic gap between the classes.  Difference is, the people Robin Hood gave money to were squashed under tyrannical rule.  I fail to see how simply being poor or running your business into the ground somehow qualifies you for a handout.  From a purely moral standpoint, I’m in favor of a flat tax, since I don’t think you should be penalized for success.  I understand life deals some people a bad hand, but I’m big into personal responsibility and survival of the fittest.  (If anyone was wondering, I’m firmly rooted in the middle class.)

    I think all the comparisons to the Bush administration is the worst strawman argument.  Who cares, ultimately?  The questions we should be asking ought to be of the face-value variety; is he making the right decisions for this country, not whether or not he’s better than those who came before him.

    "De minimus non curat lex"

  26. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Was listening ot some of o nthe Daily Show, and, it;s nice to see it caleld as it is. Butthurt over your side losing an election.

    I mean, if this was truly about taxes then all the hate speech and racism wouldn’t be there. Instead it rings of "There isn’t an old white guy running our country and there should be"


  27. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    That, Valdearg, is what I’m looking for.

    Alright, let’s take on the more relevant (32,550+) on:

    Pre-tax: $78,800 Post-tax: $59,100. Raise required: $4250 for extra $120

    Pre-tax: $164,500, Post-tax: $118,440. Raise required: $12,300 for an extra $16

    Pre-tax: $357,600, Post-tax: $239,592. Raise required: $11,400 for $258

    Take that as you will.

  28. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Sarah Palin doesn’t have a chance to even run. Most people are waking up to her idiocy. In fact, if she does win the Republican Primaries, I’d imagine that that would be the best possible thing that could happen for Obama. He’d be practically garunteed a second term, regardless of how well he does in his first.

  29. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Actually, the full cost of the Iraq war so far is about 600 Billion.  There was an amazing amount of pork spending included in the war budget.  Things like 34 billion for automakers to make their factories more environmentally friendly (money well spent, surely). 

  30. 0
    thefremen says:

     So instead we should let the recession continue until 4 years pass and that way the GOP is assured victory even if they run with that retard Sarah Palin? 

     

    Tell me about a recession in which there was quick recovery with a method other than massive government spending or taking over Poland.

  31. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    Sovereignity…I read the definition and still don’t get it: is it like secession?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  32. 0
    thefremen says:

     2 Trillion we didn’t have was spent in the Iraq occupation, the very first BANK bailout (IE: did not affect working class citizens in any appreciable way) was during the Bush administration, and even if the economy didn’t collapse Bush still would have left Obama with the largest national debt in the country’s history.

     

    Just because Limbaugh says something doesn’t make it so.

  33. 0
    Galthromir says:

    ^You sir, have basically summed up my political beliefs in two posts.

    And much more coherently too   I tend to post things at 2 in the morning only to read it later and think….what was I saying again?

  34. 0
    Lou says:

    That part I’m not sure. Usually Bush asked for the Funding by the end of July before congress left for the fiscal year. It might be on the CBO and it might not. And to the previous post, the 250B a year was for the Iraq war alone not including afganistan and other US defense programs.

  35. 0
    shady8x says:

    Didn’t Obama just request 80 billion to fund the wars in "emergency funding" from congress?

    or is he including that? not attacking what you said, just curios..

  36. 0
    shady8x says:

    Texas is talking about a bill that would claim its sovereignty under the tenth amendment… over 20 states are talking about it, including california…

    Here is a story on one that passed it:

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/04/09/indiana-senate-passes-sr42-claiming-sovereignty-under-the-10th-amendment/

    The vote there was 44-3 so it received wide support from both parties…

    by the way, I am NOT a republican and I voted for Obama, I just don’t think you can dismiss people just because you disagree with them… even if those people are republicans…(and yes republicans are people too:)

  37. 0
    Lou says:

    In paper it DOES sound like the Obama administration is spending more money than bush but keep in mind that the Bush administration NEVER put the money spent in the war on Iraq and Afganistan on the CBO. Bush channeled the money on the wars as "emergency funding" this way it won’t be inbcluded on the Fiscal year’s budget. And since the Obama administration is now including the money destined for the wars on the CBO it does look like Obama is spending more money than Bush. And yes it is a sleazy tactic from the Bush administration.

  38. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:

    Again, I point to the fact that the left fringe carries some of the scary members as the right fringe would.  If anything, both parties can be seen as being subjected to the screaming, froathing whims of a very vocal minority that get more media play because they are so off the cuff. 

    It’s important to keep in mind that the Republican party, much like the Democrat party, is a coalition of political movements and ideology that agree to compromise for a sense of unity.  Much like the Democrats can have the Code Pink crowd to the blue dog fiscal conservative Democrats under the same banner, Republicans can range from their own intelligensia to the religious social conservatives.  I can’t really choose who identify themselves as a Republican anymore than I can choose who calls themselves a gamer, especially if they go the immature route when screaming at our critics. 

    As for these tea parties, I think that their message about curtailing government spending is necessary.  It wasn’t just libertarians and Republicans that came out but also the aforementioned blue dog Democrats.  Unfortunately, there are elements that latched onto an anti-Obama message while forgetting that Congress appropriates the federal budget.  But then, I also understand how he functions as a figure head for the conceived ills of the federal government much like Bush. 

    The important thing is if I can argue the merits of my approach since I can only speak for myself, I can’t speak for anyone else.

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  39. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "Not every Republican or conservative falls into the "God, Guns, and Reagan" category.  For example (and I know this is limited in its scope), I am a Republican.  I’m agnostic and believe religion can be problematic because of its practitioners.  I have no interest in guns unless I need them in a FPS.  And I agree with some of Reagan’s approaches to government but wonder if it needs/can be/should be updated for the current social climate. "

    Then you are one of the logical ones, and I’m sorry that the more vocal part of your party has made "republican" a bad word. I’m all for an opposing idea, but some of the more vocal members of your party are frighteningly stupid and scary..

     

  40. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:

    Gross over simplification?  Seems like it. 

    Not every Republican or conservative falls into the "God, Guns, and Reagan" category.  For example (and I know this is limited in its scope), I am a Republican.  I’m agnostic and believe religion can be problematic because of its practitioners.  I have no interest in guns unless I need them in a FPS.  And I agree with some of Reagan’s approaches to government but wonder if it needs/can be/should be updated for the current social climate. 

    I don’t think either party should be telling the other to get over it.  The Democrats didn’t do so during the Bush years and the Republicans that feel so inclined shouldn’t have to do so during Obama’s presidency.  Just because X% of the voting population voted for Obama does not mean that I should set my values and ideology aside to "work with the winners" approach for a facade of bipartisanship.  It didn’t happen during Bush’s years so why should it happen now?  I count myself as a member of the loyal opposition and reserve my right to remain critical of Obama and his administration’s actions as well as those of Congress.  If anything, the loyal opposition to any of the political party serves a vital function because it allows for a national discourse on what will affect us all. 

    As for what the governor of Texas said, it’s more of an attempt to reassert the strength of state’s rights, which I feel is something that needs to be addressed.  We are a union of over 50 states and encompasses a wide variety of political ideologies, religious views, moral values, etc.  What works in NY does not necessarily mean it’ll work in UT and nor should there be one major catchall law for every state, particularly where it deals with ethical gray areas (i.e. abortion and gay marriage) and state government proceedures.  If TX believes that its economic practices are sound, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to reject their portion of the stimulus?  Especially if it comes with strings attached and those conditions are influenced by legislators from across the country.  Would you really want the tax and social program mentality of NY enacted in your state if it’s doing fine?

    First secure an independent income, then practice virtue. -Greek Proverb

  41. 0
    Lou says:

    Ok I’ll bite. How did you came out with that theory? seriously. Bush pumped the deficit to 10 trillion dollars in 8 years and you say the Obama Administration is spending more money than Bush? Sorry man I hate both parties with a passion but I have a hard time believing what you just said.

  42. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Is that the same protest where the crowd cheered wildly when Greta van Sustern (Sp?) brought up your "Patriot" governer Rick Perry’s thinly veiled threat of secession?

    Talk about hypocracy..

    Repubs in 2000-2008: "Liberals Hate America!" "If you don’t like it, Leave the country" "Lefties are terrorist sympathisers!" "We love our country!!"

    Repubs in 2009: "Seceed! Seceed! Leave the Union!" "Revolution is Brewing!" "The government needs to be dismantled!"

    I love how your ultimate "Patriot," "Ultimate American" state cheers wildly at the thought of performing the most anti-american act since the Civil War.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Get over yourselves. You Lost an election, and as the Republican’s Hero, Hannity says: "Elections have consequences." Come to terms with the fact that your views on government and social behavior is outdated and that TRUE "God, Guns, and Regan" conservatives are a thing of the past.

  43. 0
    Monte says:

     "It didn’t happen during Bush’s years so why should it happen now?"

    Another valid question would be why should it not?

    i mean just because liberals did not work with Bush does not mean Conservatives should do the same for Obama. All that does is continued the heavy rift between the two. Should one side not stand up to prove they are the better man and put aside grudges in an effort to work together? True bipartisanship will never come about with such a strict environment of Partisanship… and the partisanship will remain until one side finally decides to be willing to work with the other… Both sides have been failing to do this for who knows how long, and the Liberals lost their chance to be the better man with the end of the bush era… now it’s up to the conservatives; continue the cycle or partisanship, or try and break the cycle to work towards middle ground?

    Frankly, i’d like to see Liberals and conservatives in more of a friendly rivalry kind of situation instead of something that borders between bitter rivals and out right enemies

  44. 0
    Alex says:

    Jon Stewart really said it best.

    "I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing."

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  45. 0
    Lou says:

    Your assumption is correct. Most of the protesters were waving either racialy charged signs or simple expressing their discontent that their party just got clobbered on this past elections. Unfortunately these whack jobs are gonna end up leaving a bad impression about the conservative movement.

  46. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Lol, and this second life version of the teabagging was just for the Butthurt repubs who were too damn lazy to leave thier house for the day!

  47. 0
    King of Fiji says:

    Trust me I went to one of those just to see what was going on and lets just say that there were a few signs being waved in the air that proves your butthurt theory to be correct.  ^_^’

    And another thing is I want to know who was the dummy who thought it was a good idea to throw tea over the fence of the white house?  xD

  48. 0
    Ashla says:

    While Protesting can be a very valuable tool in the political arena, From my perspective the "teabaggers" hosted what can be best described as an utter clusterfuck that looked rather like conservatives still suffering butthurt over a loss to the dems in november.

  49. 0
    Dark Sovereign says:

    Except that his version of "simplifying the tax code" has nothing to do with making the tax code easier to understand and therefore less time consuming for the average American to fill out. What it DOES entail is "government beaurocrats will do your taxes for you".

  50. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    But complicated tax codes are part of the economic stimulus. Just think of all the accountants that would be put out of a job if taxes were simple enough for those without an accounting degree to file properly. Won’t somebody please think of the accountants?

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  51. 0
    rdeegvainl says:

    The best argument against something is a poor argument for it.

    The same principal applies here. I see the media latching onto the stupidest and most outlandish of those attending, grabbing their sourgrapes and running with it. They are ignoring those who want to protest big government spending, whether from republicans or democrats.

    They are also not willing to address the legitimate concern that the tax code is incredibly over complicated, that the responsibility of tax payers to correctly file taxes is the same as throwing them in a tar pit and expecting them come out clean. That even people Obama nominated hadn’t filed correctly.

    Im not trying to point anyone out, Im saying it needs fixed, and we need to demand it get fixed. Bush’s fiscal mistakes are not justification to continue down the same path, and everyone trying to label groups into a small easily dismissable box is only going to make things worse.

  52. 0
    Toxicity says:

    Not only are they just mindlessly waving around anti-Obama signs, but they can’t be fucking bothered to go outside to a real protest.

    The GOP is pathetic.

  53. 0
    Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    How utterly pathetic.

    At least they didn’t go out and protest, instead of doing it in SL where no one gives a shit.

    The ones who did it IRL bought thousands and thousands of tea bags, then dumped them into the nearest water source.

    Wow! They must really hate wasteful spending and love their environment, all at the same time! They truly are great Americans! *initiate eye-rolling…now*

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Game on, brothers and sisters.

  54. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Exactly. This whole thing was less about taxes and more about the fact that the republicans lost an election. The number of Anti-Obama signs and hateful rhetoric being spewed from these events is enough to prove that fact.

  55. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    In 1 year, Obama is spending more money in deficit than Bush spent in 8.  650 Billion dollars more, to be more precise.  It is entirely his fault; bloated bills that give money to organizations that don’t need it, the upcoming stimulus part 2, and just overall runaway government spending.  We’ve lost control of our budget, and its the young that are going to suffer for it.

    Having said that, who the fuck cares about a protest in 2nd life?  At least at the protest in San Antonio, the Nuge showed up.

  56. 0
    TK n Happy Ness says:

    If these people are bitching about the Democrat spending, what about the Republican spending, particularily the billions of dollars Bush spent on "his Iraq war"? Blaming Obama for what’s going on when he’s only been in office nearly 3 months is a sign of stupidity. Go after the guy who screwed up the U.S. for 8 years.

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

Leave a Reply