$20

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 28 Responses
  • dbloc

    http://ktla.com/2016/04/20/alexa…

    Harriet Tubman to Replace Andrew Jackson on $20 Bill

  • canoe0

    they put a little horseradish cream at the end there... just to make sure you shit yourself

  • detritus0

    A woman?!

    A black woman?!

    *Slaps Mexican, Votes Trump*

  • monospaced0

    Bravo.

  • imbecile0

    #womenon20s

  • yurimon2

  • deathboy0

    Misdirection?
    Bored bureucrats trying to justify their jobs by doing something?
    Crazy weird racial groups lobbying for a black chic on a bill (<10)?
    Lobbying contractors wanting the production job?
    The will of the majority? ...

    Can't wait to hear their explanation. Boy can they solve problems.

    • bored bureaucrats waste so much damn money doing stupid shit it's not even funny... at least this one isn't aimed at active discriminationmonospaced
    • and having a woman on the bill is hardly "crazy," "weird," or "racial"monospaced
    • to convert a culture you need icons that represent the struggle. where were you in 1939?yurimon
    • I sure hope you aren't implying history only matters if you were alive while it's being made, yuri.monospaced
    • < when your mush shows up on a bank note, i'll be sure to wipe my fucking arse with it.face_melter
    • precisely deathboy, let's make it look like we care and distract what's really going on in government by putting a less historic figure on $20drake-von-drake
    • but let's make sure she's black and a women. o.Odrake-von-drake
    • just like gay marriage, nothing was decided upon by the people themselves. jammed down our throats. *sighdrake-von-drake
    • I'd argue gay marriage is an extension of the civil rights movement, decided on by the people who want them to have the same rights to marriage as anyone else.monospaced
    • and it's not forced down your throat, it doesn't affect you in any way whatsoevermonospaced
    • just like putting a woman on the bill doesn't change its value from $20, or your ability to pull it from an ATM and spend it how you choosemonospaced
    • jeez i was making a joke about gov self interests while pointing out complete lack of peoples desire for such a thing. use dickbutt i dont care.deathboy
    • I wouldn't say gay marriage is an extension of civil rights at all. It's completely different, in fact but go on with your beliefs, their yours.drake-von-drake
    • id much prefer they get there finances in check to make sure a twenty maintains its purchasing power as a twenty. picture is irrelevantdeathboy
    • States should be able to decide what they want, not 9 out of touch judges, that were SUBJECTIVELY named FFS! I don't which decision.drake-von-drake
    • sorry.. 'don't care which decision' dude. Fucking federal government dictating for States, FUCK OFFdrake-von-drake
    • @deathboy, no, you brought up great points, it all seems quite conveniently and subjectively decided / dictated. An anarchist would say "FUCK OFF."drake-von-drake
    • hey, if the south decided to reinstate segregation, why not right? ;)monospaced
    • i am curious mono what you believe would happen if private businesses were allowed to discriminate? have you thought it throughdeathboy
    • Of course gay rights are like the civil rights before them. People are born with a sexual orientation, it's not something they can control, just like skin colormonospaced
    • u sound like a person who says if u=you legalize weed everyone will be stoned and society will falldeathboy
    • allowing business to discriminate simply promotes the dangerous idea that certain people have more/less rights than othersmonospaced
    • as a pothead myself, I am admittedly a little worried that it could negatively affect certain things, yes ... I'm really for decriminalizationmonospaced
    • haha well that not much of an answer, and what it promotes is your opinion. the fact is it simply grants "equal" rights.deathboy
    • https://en.wikipedia…drake-von-drake
    • remember people don't have the rights to others labors. that is the error the laws make for PCdeathboy
    • my opinion is the laws that promote PC ideals do more harm for equal rights and understanding than good. id start a business to walk in to shop and buy fordeathboy
    • look at that market based solution that undermines peoples own irrational beliefsdeathboy
    • ^ agreeddrake-von-drake
    • but still i was just making a joke. perhaps not a good onedeathboy
    • the irony is, it's similar with drastic increases to the minimum wage, it ends up hurting the extreme poor. *face palmdrake-von-drake
    • Personally, I think the decision to allow blacks the same rights as white was a good decision. Same with women and voting. Same with gays and marriage.monospaced
    • How ANY of those have done any harm to society is beyond me. And your joke, not really a good one ;)monospaced
    • Wow, I can't believe I'm defending basic human rights and anti discrimination in this day and age. Have a nice day.monospaced
    • The joke in anti-discrimination laws is that they have been created by people who cant discriminate between equal rights, or group rights.deathboy
    • my sense of humor probably is only shared by other cynical misanthropic assholesdeathboy
    • yes, and a fair share of misogynists and racists too ;)monospaced
    • misogynists? jesus take a look at 50% of the threads here yo. As for misanthropic, I am that way by nature as well. I see no point. LOLdrake-von-drake
    • @deathboy https://en.wikipedia…drake-von-drake
    • you're not going to convince me that the prevalence of misogyny is an argument for discrimination against womenmonospaced
    • would not hiring a woman for a job who was planning on having a kid or paying her less be a wrongful discrimination? curious if u ever had a racist thought?deathboy
    • this whole anti-discrimination bit is just PC ideals. Which i agree w/ in theory. Should not discriminate based on trivial shit. But as laws they make 0 sensedeathboy
    • and have quite the opposite of the laws intentions. It simply gives a free pass to a group over others. That is just a plain and simple fact.deathboy
    • IMO, anyone that's every had a racist thought is a "racist." The PC crap is just companies not wanting to get sued in an ultra litigious society. Marketing donedrake-von-drake
    • to sell as many product to as many people as possible of all races. Especially those races that waste their money more than others.drake-von-drake
    • Wow.monospaced
    • ^ preciselydrake-von-drake
    • a wow at your casual and probably unintended prejudice and racial stereotypingmonospaced
    • ^ +2canoe
  • monospaced2

    While they're at it, they should get rid of “In God We Trust,” too.

    • who do you trust?yurimon
    • irrelevantmonospaced
    • do you have trust?yurimon
    • trust no onedbloc
    • irrelevant, yurimonmonospaced
    • it's only been on money since 1955(ish)zarkonite
    • and like the Pledge of Allegiance which also adopted it around then, it should now be removed for the same reasonsmonospaced
    • I could imagine what kind of system under mono. shit is going to be some weird state of affairs if he was in charge. liberal heaven which is hell. trust no one.yurimon
    • what a stupid ass thing to say from someone who is already a stupid ass bitchmonospaced
    • token issues that solve nothing and have no real impact on anything get mono super excited. go eat some gay cake and settle downterry_cloth
    • Gay cake? How did gay cake get brought up? Terry makes gay cake?pango
    • I'm starting to suspect mono is autistic with Tourettes. so sad.yurimon
    • no need to stoop to his level yuriterry_cloth
    • yurimon's level is practically incomparable. He's on another dimension.pango
    • I get it, you guys are probably into jesus, and that's fine, but that religion has no place on our cash.monospaced
    • Nope, I don't worship a human being. It's just a non issue. Of all the inequities that could be addressed it is lazy and pointless to go after harmless symbolsterry_cloth
    • Reminds me of the fuckery afoot with the Harvard law school logo shenanigans. What a waste of every bodies time and effortterry_cloth
    • What mono said, it needs to be eliminated from everything. Personally, I am sick of hearing about any "God".formed
    • It is precisely a waste of everyone's time on that issue. Since there's going to be a new bill. Might as well do it in the process.pango
    • Agreed, any remnants of commu-hysteria period, should be removed asap.dorkKn1ght
    • too put on a black woman is a great move for anti-discrimination... to take off in god we trust is a great move for ... discrimination?... hypocrisy?deathboy
    • In Zod We Trustdbloc
    • taking off "in god we trust is to remove a single religion's creed from a nation that has many religions, it's a separation of church and state, deathboy!monospaced
    • I don't put my trust in any supernatural being because that sounds insane, and while it's okay some are into it, it doesn't reflect the nationmonospaced
    • so no, it's not remotely hypocritical and would never, ever be considered discriminatory, that's just ridiculousmonospaced
    • well if that isn't discrimination than i find it hard to think putting a black person on represents one race from a nation to be a + anti-discrimination.deathboy
    • there is no hypocrisy in discriminating between what should and what shouldn't be on the bill. Just pure personal discrimatory preferences.deathboy
    • We should put everyone's God on it! Every single Gods! Including Thor. Cuz thor is cool.pango
    • @deathboy, putting her on the bill is just a way of honoring another part of this nation's great history, it has nothing to do with anti-discriminationmonospaced
    • the bill needed an update, as they do from time to time, and there's a chance to swap a photo... big deal, it has happened many times beforemonospaced
    • Removing "in god we trust" would be really simple and would be a step in the direction of separation of church and state.monospaced
    • it wouldn't be an anti-christian act, it would be a pro-religious freedom actmonospaced
    • It has nothing to do with Christianity or any one religion in particular, the only people this offends are reactionary athiest. You guys are the vast minorityterry_cloth
    • Suck it up, being offended by the notion of a higher power is childish, then again, if you were mature about it you would be agnostic in stead of athiestterry_cloth
    • I believe it does have something to do with Christianity, and the phrase doesn't only receive criticism from atheists.monospaced
    • I'm not offended by it, but I do think it's time that it can come off since it really wasn't there originally. Relax.monospaced
    • ah... i think mistook what u meant when you said "at least this one isn't aimed at active discrimination". Now i see you must have bee refering to the gay stufdeathboy
    • i thouht it was in reference to only white people on the bill or the current bills were discrimatory for some reasondeathboy
    • Right. In God we Trust was added in the early '60s, after over a hundred years of not having it. I'm just saying go back to the original, non religious version.monospaced
    • I don't care much either way on both accounts. & its actually from civil war on coinage. dude convinced union to have god on their side in the war.deathboy
    • later rehashed to fight commies. i like to think a hipster designer just needed an element like est. since. authentic wording for the design.deathboy
    • agreed, it's the same as 'one nation under god', it doesn't really mean anything and sounds cool, what's the problem hereterry_cloth
    • for me, it's always (even as a child) been weird since I don't believe in god, and never really understood how anyone could, so saying it felt stupidmonospaced
    • anyway, the original pledge didn't have "under god" in it eithermonospaced
    • I'm going out on a limb here but I think you recognize that there are forces in the universe that control you that you do not controll, i.e. higher power, andterry_cloth
    • Tthat you are reacting to the g word out of some sense of dissatisfaction with Judeo-Christian religionterry_cloth
    • Which is why I call you and other athiests reactionary. Ah, all this brings me back to my first posts on qbnterry_cloth
    • Remember when I wrote a thesis about math being the manifestation of God? Anyways, simply saying the word God does not nesecellery invoke religionterry_cloth
    • why doe sit need to be on the bill then?pango
    • I do not believe in a controlling, conscious higher power, no. There are forces, obviously, but not supernatural. I suppose math & order could be "god"monospaced
    • and yes, I certainly associate the normal use of the word "god" with the judeo-christian definition, which is widely dominant on this planetmonospaced
    • but I'm not here to get into a debate over whether order and math are actually signs of a controlling consciousness or a creatormonospaced
    • Especially USpango
    • Well I don't say anything about a creator. Once again, this is all just a reaction to your own personal bias against organised religion, which the concept of Goterry_cloth
    • -d is basicly nondenominational so the church vs. State argument holds no water. *didn't say. *in which the conceptterry_cloth
    • Does the state believe in god in whatever concept that's out there?pango
    • I agree it should be removed. Never understood why that phrase is present on federal or state buildings.sofakingback
  • drake-von-drake0

    no one uses cash anymore, oh the irony!

  • drgs-1

    "Early in her life, she suffered a severe head wound when hit by a heavy metal weight. The injury caused disabling epileptic seizures, headaches, powerful visions, and dream experiences, which occurred throughout her life. A devout Christian, Tubman ascribed the visions and vivid dreams to revelations from God."

    • So wait, we took a US President off of the $20 to satisfy a bunch of cry babies and she was half crazy? Ah... fitting...drake-von-drake
    • relax, a president has been replaced on the $20 before, and it's redesigned every few yearsmonospaced
    • I know dude... it's really for anti-counterfeit measures, I am just making light of her being a God fanatic.drake-von-drake
    • somewhere Susan B. Anthony is spinning in her grave along with A. Jacksondrake-von-drake
    • ...cried the babyFax_Benson
    • well, being a god fanatic is something that is protected in this country and is a basis of this nation's founding, much like the separation of church and statemonospaced
    • I bet you love that huh? I'm not for organized religion BTW.drake-von-drake
    • I think it's a solid foundation to not force one's personal belief in supernatural beings on others, yes.monospaced
    • agreed, it borders on lunacydrake-von-drake
    • what if your what you know is true and everyone else is to stupid to understand and ridicule said individual, but they dont know.yurimon
    • mono- you were just saying 'in god we trust' needs to go, a couple posts later you're defending the fact that 'god fanatics' are protected...pick a side, buddy!PonyBoy
    • @pony, not at all. allowing religious freedom is completely different from inserting religion into the government, where it doesn't belongmonospaced
    • those aren't two-side ideas, they are both part of the same things: separation of church and state & protec. from religious persecutionmonospaced
    • You're usually pretty dismissive of anyone of faith, mono—very dismissive if it's someone you disagree with politically—just odd that you're giving HT a pass.PonyBoy
    • I have no problem with her faith and religion, I have a problem with god being mentioned on currency. She's on there for other reasons obviously.monospaced
    • soooo... no room for religious people to have a little saying on the bill—but you don't mind an uber religious person (driven by their faith BEING on the bill)?PonyBoy
    • you're missing the point... I don't care that she was religious, I have an issue with the lame idea that christianity represents all people of faithmonospaced
    • 'In God We Trust' is not just Christianity though... wouldn't that cover the gamut of all religions?PonyBoy
    • It simply doesn't, not in this day and age. That's why it's so important to allow personal religious freedom, and for the government to mind its own businessmonospaced
  • drake-von-drake-1

    "Noooooooooooooooo, it was my turn!..."

  • dbloc0

    Here’s a list of who the candidates nominated.

    Rand Paul: Susan B. Anthony
    Mike Huckabee: My wife
    Marco Rubio: Rosa Parks
    Ted Cruz: Keep Hamilton. Put Rosa Parks on the $20
    Ben Carson: My mother
    Donald Trump: My daughter, Ivanka, or Rosa Parks
    Jeb Bush: Margaret Thatcher
    Scott Walker: Clara Barton
    Carly Fiorina: Don’t change it
    John Kasich: Mother Theresa
    Chris Christie: Abigail Adams

  • detritus1

    Should've put a true American hero

  • dbloc1

  • dbloc-2

  • sarahfailin-2

  • mekk-1

    She's staring right into your soul man:

  • maquito0

    thanks obama

    • for what? it's not the president's decision. Secretary of the Treasury has final say, granted, politics and insider crap exists.drake-von-drake
    • do you have a problem with a woman being on the bill? It seems like you do considering your posts throughout this thread.monospaced
    • Oh no, in fact it's a long time coming. I have a problem with such a insignificant historical figure and pandering to minorities, just in general.drake-von-drake
    • plus, let's face it Obama was a fraud and his legacy is pretty shitty (full of wars and dastardly doings). this will help people remember him.drake-von-drake
    • at least for a few years until they change, but at this rate with society, we try to bury the historical achievements of Caucasian males. (albeit impossible).drake-von-drake
    • If you were to ask me, I would have put an American Indian on the bill. Male or Female or both. Why not? MLK would have made more sense to me.drake-von-drake
    • if you knew about this whole thing, you'd know it was about getting a woman on it, and of many legit submissions, tubman was the final selectionmonospaced
    • but saying that a black woman is pandering, and that it will help us remember obama, that seems like you have an issue with blackness somehowmonospaced
    • recognizing a black person's accomplishments is hardly the burying of white people's. Do you understand how ridiculous that might sound?monospaced
  • moldero0

    • Ben Carson the idiotmoldero
    • racistdrake-von-drake
    • actually, the back of the $2 bill is stunning. I've always liked the saying "queer as a $2 dollar bill" in the classical sense.drake-von-drake
    • Simple Ben.
      when asked during one of the debates which woman he would choose he said his mother ... oy vey, what a simpleton.
      Ramanisky2
  • SunnyPatch-2

  • bliznutty1

    the fact that Andrew Jackson appears on a Federal Reserve Note is the biggest slap in the face to his legacy - an intentional insult! he was totally against a central bank and his proudest achievement in life was that he 'killed the bank'.

    • Andrew Jackson...a proud slave owner is rolling over in his grave.utopian
    • ^ if you own anything like sweaters, sneakers, electronics. you are proud slave owner.yurimon