Also, how do they intend to pay for "defense" without taxes?

Brutlyhonest - Yeah I was wondering the same thing when I first saw this.

I guess they forgot that Bush cut taxes for the wealthy amid skyrocketing defense spending and that didn't work out too well.

McCain even campaigned on this issue and he lost.

Attending a tea tantrum ≅ Admitting you are ignorant, gullible, easily misled, or all of the above.

Does that sign really say "Zero Taxes"? But they don't want to scale back the Killing-of-the-Brown-Peoples overseas?
So.... Government is the enemy, but they should also provide top-notch killing machines for your protection at no cost?

Does anyone one of those 'baggers in that pic look like they make more than $250K a year or aren't on outright welfare? No.

umm, someone with the ability to enlarge this without it getting all distorted, please do so and tell me if the person behind the "cut taxes not defence" sign is dressed as a native american with fucking feathers, face paint, and suede!

It's official. Irony is completely lost on these people.

I think the next time I come across a group like this, I'm going to run to the nearest Walgreens and get the supplies I need to quickly make a sign that says "Obama is even worse than regular black people," or something like that. Then I'll move confidently into their midst, and see whether anybody asks me to leave. I'm guessing I'd just make a bunch of new friends instead.

Two arrows should be added and pointed at those that look over 65 (the woman with the "Zero Taxes" sign and the two blue hairs behind her) and read "Social Security" and "Medicare".

We can get real picky and add a third arrow pointing at the lawn that reads "mowed public easement".

How about a fourth arrow pointing at the sky that reads "clean air"?

gypsy, I totally missed that until you pointed it out. Sure enough!

Say, there's a socialist police car underneath where it says "street sign"

rogect8 FTW.

The "cut taxes, not defense" and the "zero taxes" signs are not constructive, but I continue to argue that it's also silly to see any irony more generally in such protests being held on publicly funded (socialized) locations. Where else would you suggest people hold their political protests -- on their own private property? Generally speaking, yes, protests ARE held on roads. But roads can be financed in many different ways than just the ways the current ones in this picture happen to have been, and quite likely, in MORE efficient ways.

Maybe a more extreme example would help you understand the silliness of this kind of argument: What if people in North Korea wanted to protest against communism? Would you laugh at the "irony" involved in them protesting on state-paved roads, wearing state-produced clothing, holding signs produced on state-produced paper, with the very energy they would be expending to wave their signs having been derived from eating a state-produced lunch?

Don't you think they might want to argue that there is a superior political solution to the one they currently have? What would you require that they do, go out and protest naked, and only allow those who have never eaten a state produced meal in their lives to protest?

When political change is sought, it must necessarily be initiated within the environment of the status quo. I don't think anyone would seriously consider demolishing previously existing infrastructure once they did finally achieve politic success, either. (That is, unless they are the Khmer Rouge.) Don't you think that the people protesting (or their more articulate, scholarly counterparts) might have an alternative solution for building and maintaining such infrastructure? Unless you can argue that people who support lower taxes and less government spending don't have a proposed solution for such things, then there is no irony involved.

To reiterate, just because a government happens to have provided certain things for its citizens by way of taxing them in the past, doesn't mean that these citizens shouldn't be able to protest against the future ways in which their government will arrive at building and maintaining such infrastructure, or even the past ways in which it already did, and to do so within the framework of infrastructure that currently happens to exist.