Sharkify Done wearin hats cause nobody can top me

 

A lot of Oregon’s governors have sucked. Here are two that didn’t.

Sylvester Pennoyer (1887 - 1895)

  • In 1891, President Benjamin Harrison wanted to visit the governor as part of his campaign tour. Oregon wasn’t a part of Harrison’s campaign, and Sly Penn refused to travel to the state line to meet him.
  • Harrison figured “What the hell” and caught a train to Salem to meet with Pennoyer.
  • Pennoyer couldn’t be bothered by anyone as useless as the president of the United States, and left Harrison standing in the rain before he decided to get around to showing up.
  • He abandoned the Democrats and was reelected on a third party ticket.
  • When Grover Cleveland was inaugurated as president in 1893, Sly Penn refused to let state Democrats use the ceremonial cannon to fire a celebratory salute.
  • "No permission will be given to use state cannon for firing a salute over the inauguration of a Wall Street plutocrat as president of the United States," he growled (I assume) at a newspaperman, before locking up the cannon and placing it under armed guard.
  • A few months after that, Cleveland asked Pennoyer to use state resources to fix a federal government problem. Cleveland has decided to extend the Chinese Exclusion Act ten years, which barred Chinese workers from immigrating to America, and wanted governors to use state funds in preventing riots. Pennoyer telegraphed a response: “Washington: I will attend to my business. Let the president attend to his.”
  • The next year, Coxey’s Army, a march of unemployed workers, was en route to Washington D.C. The Oregon component evidently didn’t feel like walking, and they hijacked a train. The federal government asked Sly Penn to deal with this, to which he replied “let Cleveland’s army take care of Coxey’s army.”
  • This same year (1894) he moved Oregon’s Thanksgiving one week ahead of the national holiday as an extended “Fuck you” to the White House.
  • Became known as “His Eccentricity” and “Sylpster Annoyer” by political rivals.

General Charles Martin (1935 - 1939)

  • In his one term, he restored the state’s finances.
  • In May 1935, timber workers began to strike. The General’s view of this was that “These pestiferous peewees would go to any lengths to embarrass me and my administration.”
  • Railed against the National Labor Relations Board, crying their leaders to be a bunch of Bolsheviks and gangsters.
  • Threatened to fire Columbia County Sheriff Oscar Weed for not responding harshly enough to striking workers, instructing the state’s sheriffs to “beat hell out of ‘em!” and “crack their damn heads! Those fellows are there for nothing but trouble – give it to them!”
  • On May 23, 1935, ordered the state police and National Guard to protect strikebreakers at the Stimson Mill strike in the Washington County town of Gaston.
  • Called the National Guard again in 1937 to deal with striking longshoremen.
  • Opposed FDR’s New Deal and prevented a set up like the Tennessee Valley Authority from happening in Oregon.
  • Also in 1937, the National Labor Relations Board failed to settle a dispute between the CIO and the AFL that had shut down all of Portland’s sawmills. The General stepped in with all of his impressive machismo, and held a labor election, reopening the mills himself.
  • He corrected Roosevelt’s famous pronouncement on fear, saying instead, “We have nothing to fear from the future except our own foolishness and slothfulness.”

The sale of drugs supports terrorism? No, the prohibition of drugs supports terrorism.

Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico and Libertarian presidential candidate. (via lost-and-searching-in-america)

tylerferrari:

amandaumar:

Ron Paul Rumors Verified! Vote Ron Paul! Register to vote if you havn’t yet.

This is old but. 

Philly motherfucking D

Likes 

Ron Paul. 

lalibertarienne:

sexyliberty:

professorjoke:

sexyliberty:

I’m not sure what to think…

Well, I think you should pen it as a romcom and take it to MGM. “He’s a champion of the proletariat, she’s a defender of liberty, but together they’ll find a way to make things work! This summer, Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock are” uhh… some sort of economic pun. You get the picture.

Hahaha, you actually made me feel loads better, thanks!
Maybe that screenwriting class will pay off.

I would totally go see it

Followers, when this becomes an instant classic like “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is, you can all thank me.

lalibertarienne:

sexyliberty:

professorjoke:

sexyliberty:

I’m not sure what to think…

Well, I think you should pen it as a romcom and take it to MGM. “He’s a champion of the proletariat, she’s a defender of liberty, but together they’ll find a way to make things work! This summer, Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock are” uhh… some sort of economic pun. You get the picture.

Hahaha, you actually made me feel loads better, thanks!

Maybe that screenwriting class will pay off.

I would totally go see it

Followers, when this becomes an instant classic like “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” is, you can all thank me.

(Source: )

sexyliberty:

I’m not sure what to think…

Well, I think you should pen it as a romcom and take it to MGM. “He’s a champion of the proletariat, she’s a defender of liberty, but together they’ll find a way to make things work! This summer, Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock are” uhh… some sort of economic pun. You get the picture.

sexyliberty:

I’m not sure what to think…

Well, I think you should pen it as a romcom and take it to MGM. “He’s a champion of the proletariat, she’s a defender of liberty, but together they’ll find a way to make things work! This summer, Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock are” uhh… some sort of economic pun. You get the picture.

marxsrevenge:

anarchei:

The Political Spectrum

What a beautiful example of American over-simplicity.
The problem with this graph is that it lacks an understanding of what the systems mean or work in practicality. For example, if you were meaning State Socialism (USSR) then you’d be correct it does end up on the “less freedom” side. However, Socialism being an economic system (like Capitalism) and not a political system then it has both “control” and “freedom” aspects determined entirely by the political system.
You see, governments and economies are not the same thing. It is like how you can have dictators run capitalist economies, you can also have republics run a capitalist economy, or some other fashion between the Authoritarian-Democracy spectrum. The Left-Right spectrum is not really indicative of anything in and of itself, but just an over simplification of different concepts meshed together to create coherent propaganda.
The important thing that needs to be taken from this by the propaganda artists who made this is that Marxism, Communism, and some forms of Socialism are very much closer to Anarchist and more freedom by the very nature of their system. Marxism is a very libertarian friendly system as any libertarian who has actually read Marx would know. The propaganda that Marxism, Socialism, and Communism equate to control were all created through examples towards State Socialism without any understanding that these things are all different.

You’ve got it right, marxsrevenge. An excellent piece, comrade.

Government does not equal economics. If you ask me, there needs to be a separation of economics and state in the same manner and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state (okay, that’s a direct Ayn Rand quote. I just happen to agree with her).
This is why I’m a libertarian - I don’t know what’s best for other people, I don’t think that I (or anyone else [especially the government]) should be able to dictate someone else’s life for them. An anti-capitalist could say that capitalism fulfills that role as much as government does, but this is a position that I’ve come to accept as conspiracy theorist in nature. At the end of the day, the Marxist and the adherent to Austrian economics seem to be talking past one another.
There’s a saying (not by Ayn Rand this time) that says the difference between a capitalist society and a communist one is that communism can exist within capitalism (y’all can get together, buy land, set up a Marxist city and what nots), but capitalism cannot exist within communism. An anti-capitalist might disagree with this. I’d say that both can exist in the same society, as long as the government isn’t allowed to dictate the economic climate for everyone. (Friggin’ Keynesians, ya know?)

marxsrevenge:

anarchei:

The Political Spectrum

What a beautiful example of American over-simplicity.

The problem with this graph is that it lacks an understanding of what the systems mean or work in practicality. For example, if you were meaning State Socialism (USSR) then you’d be correct it does end up on the “less freedom” side. However, Socialism being an economic system (like Capitalism) and not a political system then it has both “control” and “freedom” aspects determined entirely by the political system.

You see, governments and economies are not the same thing. It is like how you can have dictators run capitalist economies, you can also have republics run a capitalist economy, or some other fashion between the Authoritarian-Democracy spectrum. The Left-Right spectrum is not really indicative of anything in and of itself, but just an over simplification of different concepts meshed together to create coherent propaganda.

The important thing that needs to be taken from this by the propaganda artists who made this is that Marxism, Communism, and some forms of Socialism are very much closer to Anarchist and more freedom by the very nature of their system. Marxism is a very libertarian friendly system as any libertarian who has actually read Marx would know. The propaganda that Marxism, Socialism, and Communism equate to control were all created through examples towards State Socialism without any understanding that these things are all different.

You’ve got it right, marxsrevenge. An excellent piece, comrade.

Government does not equal economics. If you ask me, there needs to be a separation of economics and state in the same manner and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state (okay, that’s a direct Ayn Rand quote. I just happen to agree with her).

This is why I’m a libertarian - I don’t know what’s best for other people, I don’t think that I (or anyone else [especially the government]) should be able to dictate someone else’s life for them. An anti-capitalist could say that capitalism fulfills that role as much as government does, but this is a position that I’ve come to accept as conspiracy theorist in nature. At the end of the day, the Marxist and the adherent to Austrian economics seem to be talking past one another.

There’s a saying (not by Ayn Rand this time) that says the difference between a capitalist society and a communist one is that communism can exist within capitalism (y’all can get together, buy land, set up a Marxist city and what nots), but capitalism cannot exist within communism. An anti-capitalist might disagree with this. I’d say that both can exist in the same society, as long as the government isn’t allowed to dictate the economic climate for everyone.
(Friggin’ Keynesians, ya know?)

(Source: anarcho-americana)

Tumblr's Least Interesting Tumblr: Stealing an article from texasronpaulgirl, via a-petro-manifesto.

marxsrevenge:

professorjoke:

Posting it instead of reblogging it, because I think a little forward is necessary.

The article itself is filled with inflammatory and equivocal language. Bits like “Socialism, communism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it” and “Marxism demands a strict centralized command and control…

It saddens me that people can be so ignorant. It saddens me that they think people who believe in strong central control are Marxists or that America is coming under their control.

Marxists and Libertarians have a lot in common.

I’ve been saying this for a while now. Power to the people is an ideal of both systems. There’s disagreement over the approach, collectivism vs. individualism, but that’s simply the means to the end, not the end itself. We all want individuals to become fully empowered and allowed to live their lives to the best of their abilities and wishes. Centralized government and enslaving the proletariat are not ideals of either one (though both are ideals of the fascists and corporatists that Marxists and Libertarians are equally opposed to).