53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Petitions to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman were delivered to the White House
Harriet Tubman won an online poll asking which woman should be featured on the $20 bill, as part of a movement to push President Obama to support the idea.
More than 600,000 people voted in the online poll, and Tubman won with over 33% of the vote, beating runner-up Eleanor Roosevelt by 7,000 votes. Tubman was an escaped slave and abolitionist who devoted her life to working as a “conductor” on the Underground Railroad, helping other slaves get to safety. She also served as a spy and scout for the Union Army during the Civil War.
The $20 bill currently features former President Andrew Jackson.
“Our paper bills are like pocket monuments to great figures in our history,” Women On 20s Executive Director Susan Ades Stone said in a statement. “Our work won’t be done until we’re holding a Harriet $20 bill in our hands in time for the centennial of women’s suffrage in 2020.”
Petitions to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill were delivered Tuesday to the White House Council on Women and Girls (addressed to Chair Valerie Jarrett and Executive Director Tina Tchen) and to the office of U.S. Treasurer Rosie Rios. Their representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Women on 20s campaign got a boost last month when Representative Luis Gutiérrez, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced legislation calling for a woman to be featured on
Well this is interesting
Well I don't object to the idea, seems needless.
121
Post by: Relapse
The Cherokee and several other tribes would be alright with that, I imagine.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Harriet Tubman would be an awesome choice.
But me personally, I'd go with Buffalo Calf Road. Cherokee warrior woman and possibly killed Custer. 
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
I'm all for this. Andrew Jackson isn't really a man to be celebrated in hindsight.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 TheCustomLime wrote:I'm all for this. Andrew Jackson isn't really a man to be celebrated in hindsight.
I still say we need a bill for FDR.
And one for JFK
50326
Post by: curran12
I think it is a splendid idea. I agree with you strongly about FDR, hotsauce, though I'd put him (and other prominent Americans) ahead of JFK, though that is mostly a matter of rating accomplishments than any shortcomings.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
FDR? I'd rather not celebrate a president that sent people to internment camps based of race and tried to hold on to power longer than any other president.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
I want Head Jar President Nixon on the $20 myself.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Screw you hippies, Jackson was America's second greatest badass in the 1800s. A narcissistic killing machine, he represented the best of America!
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
I would be down for that.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Frazzled wrote:Screw you hippies, Jackson was America's second greatest badass in the 1800s. A narcissistic killing machine, he represented the best of America!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Tbone says replacing Jackson is an insult!
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Go take a quick look at the cost for reprinting $20 with a different face. Furthermore, only 2 bills currently in circulation feature anyone other then a President, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
Benjamin Franklin was a founding father of the US, an inventor, post master, political theorist, patriot and the list goes on
Alexander Hamilton was a founding father, basically hand made the US economy and led our country through some of its harshest times.
Please, anyone name a female who can match that level of influence in our country and we can easily find a way to put her on a bank note. Also, keep in mind that the silver and gold dollars (still in circulation) feature 2 women already, Susan B. Anthony (first feminist ever) and Sacagawea.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Tubman on the 20? I'd be down for that. Frankly I'd take anyone over Jackson the butcher.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 BlaxicanX wrote:Tubman on the 20? I'd be down for that. Frankly I'd take anyone over Jackson the butcher.
SCrew you Hippy! Butchers and beer are what made America GREAT
87291
Post by: jreilly89
 Ghazkuul wrote:Go take a quick look at the cost for reprinting $20 with a different face. Furthermore, only 2 bills currently in circulation feature anyone other then a President, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
Benjamin Franklin was a founding father of the US, an inventor, post master, political theorist, patriot and the list goes on
Alexander Hamilton was a founding father, basically hand made the US economy and led our country through some of its harshest times.
Please, anyone name a female who can match that level of influence in our country and we can easily find a way to put her on a bank note. Also, keep in mind that the silver and gold dollars (still in circulation) feature 2 women already, Susan B. Anthony (first feminist ever) and Sacagawea.
No one's gonna replace him, they want to replace Jackson.  I say why not? I think more women in politics is a good thing and having more representation in our currency is a good start. You know, kinda what the whole revolution was about...
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
there is absolutely nothing wrong with having more woman in politics, but to change a part of our countries history that has been around since 1928 simply because woman feel like they need more representation on our currency....kinda stupid. Like I said in my first post. Find a woman who was as influential in our countries history as Andrew Jackson and we can start finding a place for her. No point in removing Andrew Jackson though.
50326
Post by: curran12
Ghazkuul wrote:there is absolutely nothing wrong with having more woman in politics, but to change a part of our countries history that has been around since 1928 simply because woman feel like they need more representation on our currency....kinda stupid. Like I said in my first post. Find a woman who was as influential in our countries history as Andrew Jackson and we can start finding a place for her. No point in removing Andrew Jackson though.
Influential for what, though?
I bet a lot of Native Americans are super happy with Jackson's influence.
66727
Post by: OIIIIIIO
Tubman ... nah, I am not willing to vote for that ... Helen Keller on the other hand ... That I could get behind. Tubman was a woman that would have been fine if she had been born 60 years later. The same can not be said for Helen Keller. Her life would have been a struggle regardless of what time period she was born in, and to accomplish what she did is a mighty feat.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Judging a person 200 years in the future is a bit harsh don't you feel? should we therefore judge Every American President until Abraham Lincoln even harsher for condoning if not outright owning slaves?
The times are the times. in 200 years people might look back on us and think "Ohh my, they elected George Bush Sr to President when he killed all those Japanese pilots in World war two" Its a bit ridiculous to judge a man 200 years later when it was considered fine in the public back then.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 jreilly89 wrote:
No one's gonna replace him, they want to replace Jackson. I say why not? I think more women in politics is a good thing and having more representation in our currency is a good start. You know, kinda what the whole revolution was about...
As already stated, they have representation on our currency.
I'd rather see them put Mt. Rushmore or another landmark on the currency than someone that doesn't deserve it just to appease some SJWs.
And if we really want to replace Jackson, the only person I can think of that I'd rather see on it is Eisenhower. Military hero and president.
Or how about we stop relegating Thomas Jefferson to the stupid ass $2 bill?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Ghazkuul wrote:Go take a quick look at the cost for reprinting $20 with a different face. Furthermore, only 2 bills currently in circulation feature anyone other then a President, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
Benjamin Franklin was a founding father of the US, an inventor, post master, political theorist, patriot and the list goes on
Alexander Hamilton was a founding father, basically hand made the US economy and led our country through some of its harshest times.
Please, anyone name a female who can match that level of influence in our country and we can easily find a way to put her on a bank note. Also, keep in mind that the silver and gold dollars (still in circulation) feature 2 women already, Susan B. Anthony (first feminist ever) and Sacagawea.
Eleanor Roosevelt, arguably. Rosa Parks as a symbol almost definitely.
And if you think Susan B. Anthony was the first feminist ever you're woefully uninformed.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
 OIIIIIIO wrote:Tubman ... nah, I am not willing to vote for that ... Helen Keller on the other hand ... That I could get behind. Tubman was a woman that would have been fine if she had been born 60 years later. The same can not be said for Helen Keller. Her life would have been a struggle regardless of what time period she was born in, and to accomplish what she did is a mighty feat.
our US Currency currently only features people who were highly influential in US history. Helen keller frankly wasn't, nor was Harriet Tubman. In fact the only one I can think of that should be even remotely considered for this would be Eleanor Roosevelt and even then she wasn't so much influential to US history as to UN history.
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
OIIIIIIO wrote:Tubman ... nah, I am not willing to vote for that ... Helen Keller on the other hand ... That I could get behind. Tubman was a woman that would have been fine if she had been born 60 years later. The same can not be said for Helen Keller. Her life would have been a struggle regardless of what time period she was born in, and to accomplish what she did is a mighty feat.
Helen Keller, the member of the Socialist Party of America? That Helen Keller?
What lasting impact did she have on society aside from, essentially, being a feel good story?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Jackson is a good candidate for "statesman least appropriate to put on a currency", and if anyone one of our bills could use someone else it would be the $20.
I don't think it will ever happen because defending that Jackson is on the $20, despite all that he did, is still much less of a fight that trying to figure out who should replace him.
Most people don't care that he is on the $20, but everybody is going to care about who would replace him. We will have more fights about the "feminazis" (just look a few threads down), tumblerisms, people bitching about PC, -cis this and that, and just an abundance of stupid everywhere. Then we will shut down the government because somebody attaches an amendment prohibiting Person X from ever being on a note to a bill just funds something important and then someone else will threaten to shut down the military unless Zombie Reagan is put on the $20.
It is easier to tolerate Jackson than to expect our government not to feth up the process of replacing him.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 d-usa wrote:
It is easier to tolerate Jackson than to expect our government not to feth up the process of replacing him.
That sounds exactly right. Well said.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Ghazkuul wrote:
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Teddy Roosevelt should be on all American currency in the background silently judging you for being disappointing.
In fact put him on every American monument too. With arms folded and a disapproving frown. Letting all who live here and wish to live here that he expected better.
68355
Post by: easysauce
(joke)
Almost all our money has the queen on it,
therefore by the powers of guilt transfer granted to me by the holy llama of social justice I deem its ok that this piece of currency have a man on it.
either that or maybe ask canada if they can replace one of the many notes/coins with the queen on it with another woman.
(/joke)
12744
Post by: Scrabb
I feel Ben Franklin is criminally overrated.
Also:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
In America there isn't much question at all about it. Susan B. Anthony is on our money and figures the most prominently in school textbooks.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Any other non-American's you'd like us to put on our money?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 cincydooley wrote: d-usa wrote:
It is easier to tolerate Jackson than to expect our government not to feth up the process of replacing him.
That sounds exactly right. Well said.
I mean, I dont dis agree.
But, lets say we where to replace him, With Whom?
I still argue that we should put Cartoon characters on money. Just for Lulz
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Hold on a minute while i go google that person....why because just like 99.99% of people i have never heard of her. hold one while Susan B. Anthony, unarguably the most "FAMOUS" feminist ever gives me the finger for being a man. :-P
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
 hotsauceman1 wrote: cincydooley wrote: d-usa wrote:
It is easier to tolerate Jackson than to expect our government not to feth up the process of replacing him.
That sounds exactly right. Well said.
I mean, I dont dis agree.
But, lets say we where to replace him, With Whom?
I still argue that we should put Cartoon characters on money. Just for Lulz
Finn and Jake? Rigby and Mordechai?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Spongebob too, Along with Dora
43066
Post by: feeder
You could make a case for putting Mickey Mouse on the currency.
Harriet Tubman is a fine choice to replace Jackson. She is a strong, inspiring, compassionate role model and war hero.
Also, she was selected by a vote. DO YOU HATE DEMOCRACY?
37231
Post by: d-usa
So by page 2 this thread has already turned into a "lulz" and "joke" thread by the OP?
Go figure.
121
Post by: Relapse
Ghazkuul wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Hold on a minute while i go google that person....why because just like 99.99% of people i have never heard of her. hold one while Susan B. Anthony, unarguably the most "FAMOUS" feminist ever gives me the finger for being a man. :-P
Boudicca would like a word with you on that! 
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Elizabeth Van Lew was pretty awesome. Union spy. Helped Grant in a big way. Virginian.
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2013/01/03/elizabeth-van-lew-union-spy/
34390
Post by: whembly
Amelia Earhart anyone?
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
She gets a a +1 from me because she's a Virginian. I also think Harriet Tubman is a fine choice to be represented on currency.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Do they still print that stuff?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Been quite awhile since I carried cash......plastic all the way 
16387
Post by: Manchu
I agree that we should portray a woman on our currency. Let us therefore embrace our ertswhile sovereign to whose reign we have a natural right, although we have long eschewed as much.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 MWHistorian wrote:FDR? I'd rather not celebrate a president that sent people to internment camps based of race and tried to hold on to power longer than any other president.
Why? Yes, the camps were wrong... in hindsight. The problem facing him at the time was the prospect of a two-front war, and a demographic that was actively spying against US interests. That's the thing people tend to forget. Many Japanese-Americans were simply writing home to family still in Japan, however they were giving up information with intelligence value, and some were actively spying against the US (trying to gain information beyond a casual observation or touristy photograph). I personally think that FDR would not have made this kind of decision lightly
As for trying to hold on to power longer than anyone else... who ran against him? Among those who did run against him, well, it seems obvious that he remained the best choice until he was no longer president. I am glad, however, that because he was in office for so long that we did put a term limit on the office (I wish we'd do the same for the congressmen as well).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why venerate someone who got lost? Seems pretty obvious where Apple got their direction app's directions from  Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hanoi Jane Fonda?
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Is there a tradition of putting figures on money who had a big impact on the national economy, rather than civil rights? (At least in America?) My original source on that factoid is somewhat less than reliable...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Why not the quarter...
Edit
Being Washington on the one dollar bill
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Or move Jackson to the quarter and Tubman to the 20?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
That could work to. I do not see any "issues" of adding Tubman to replace Washington on either type of currency
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
My issue is that, no offense to her, in the bigger picture she didn't matter. She effected probably hundreds of lives and lived an incredible life. But compared to any US president its like weighing an anvil and a feather. .....(except maybe carter....poor poor carter) Anyway, All current US Bills and coins feature a person who directly effected the United States. Im honestly a bit surprised we don't have an MLK coin/bill since he fought for the civil rights of all people and eventually got blacks on the same footing as whites, he deserves a spot more then Tubman
74210
Post by: Ustrello
I think we should keep old hickory, the main reason he is on there is because of the battle of New Orleans and that was/is a bigger event than tubman.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
what was it ustrello? 5k US militia vs 7,500 trained British soldiers. At the end of the battle we had like 100 casualties and the british had lost about 4-5k KIA/WIA/MIA?
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Ghazkuul wrote:what was it ustrello? 5k US militia vs 7,500 trained British soldiers. At the end of the battle we had like 100 casualties and the british had lost about 4-5k KIA/WIA/MIA?
Less than 5k americans made up of regular army, militia, pirates etc against 10 thousand or so british and a royal navy fleet. The causalities totals were sub 500 for americans, MIA KIA WIA, and a few thousand for the brits
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
50512
Post by: Jihadin
The horde of Posleen died in the swamp first. Like only one God King left and last I heard he discovered Ebay
74210
Post by: Ustrello
AMERICANS! Prepare for glory!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
On Topic:
While not a woman, I would support, or at least be OK with replacing "someone" on a bill with, say... Jackie Robinson. IMHO, it was Jackie who lit the fuse, and really paved the way for MLK to do his work (in fact, I've seen written documentation of MLK basically saying as much, or at least saying that Jackie made his work much easier)
Since we're discussing non-politicians, I think we should also put Babe Ruth on a bill as well
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I get some of the dislike for Jackson, but he was a president, military hero and got us a whole state. Not to mention he was either protected by god or was a wizard or something.
Harriet Tubman does not bring anything near that to the table.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
TBH, We could say say bad things about most presidents.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:On Topic:
While not a woman, I would support, or at least be OK with replacing "someone" on a bill with, say... Jackie Robinson. IMHO, it was Jackie who lit the fuse, and really paved the way for MLK to do his work (in fact, I've seen written documentation of MLK basically saying as much, or at least saying that Jackie made his work much easier)
Since we're discussing non-politicians, I think we should also put Babe Ruth on a bill as well
Vietnam aside you could make a strong case for LBJ as the next president to be put on a bill, probably after Teddy and FDR. For non politician I would say Neil Armstrong deserves a thought or Alan Shepard.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
LBJ Tried to kill my beloved Marine Corps, may his soul rot in hell :-D
18698
Post by: kronk
My 3 choices:
1. Put a bald eagle on the $20. Rar!
2. FDR
3. A picture of Mount Rushmore
50512
Post by: Jihadin
 kronk wrote:My 3 choices:
1. Put a bald eagle on the $20. Rar!
2. FDR
3. A picture of Mount Rushmore
Throw in the geyser of Ole Faithful before the super volcano takes Yellowstone out
63623
Post by: Tannhauser42
hotsauceman1 wrote: cincydooley wrote: d-usa wrote:
It is easier to tolerate Jackson than to expect our government not to feth up the process of replacing him.
That sounds exactly right. Well said.
I mean, I dont dis agree.
But, lets say we where to replace him, With Whom?
I still argue that we should put Cartoon characters on money. Just for Lulz
Canada had already beat us on that one. They're minting Looney Tunes coins.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Canada had already beat us on that one. They're minting Looney Tunes coins.
On a coin called the loonie.....that already had a duck on it.... It's not like they're replacing Queen Elizabeth with them.
Again, I'd rather see a monument on the currency than Tubman. She's a great story. But not, IMO, worthy of being put on currency.
Hell, lets put this on the $20 if we're going to change it:
Be representative of hundreds of American heroes.
5394
Post by: reds8n
How about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Liangyu
That way, if things get really bad in a few years, you'll only have to change the lettering and you'll be good
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
This would literally be the final straw for me. They do this and I am moving to Canada.
19370
Post by: daedalus
 Xenomancers wrote:This would literally be the final straw for me. They do this and I am moving to Canada.
I, too, casually contemplate expatriatation over token gestures on things no one uses anymore.
Hope you got that new job lined up.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Ustrello wrote:I think we should keep old hickory, the main reason he is on there is because of the battle of New Orleans and that was/is a bigger event than tubman.
OFC it was...but lets focus on some negative stuff instead of the fact that he gallantly lead our forces in battle against our enemies. Removal is a disgrace to the entire nation.
I think Lincoln did the right thing but he did commit total war against his own people. If anyone deserves to be removed - it's him. Maybe Woodrow Wilson - the second (maybe third) worst president ever.
New Idea - lets put Harriet Tubman on the 100,000$ bill to replace Woodrow. Automatically Appended Next Post:  daedalus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:This would literally be the final straw for me. They do this and I am moving to Canada.
I, too, casually contemplate expatriatation over token gestures on things no one uses anymore.
Hope you got that new job lined up.
Do you know how many people don't even have bank accounts in this country?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Xenomancers wrote:
Do you know how many people don't even have bank accounts in this country?
I didn't. At a cursory glance, it looks like the majority of them are in the income range where they make less than 15k/year, so it probably intersects nicely with the EBT card group.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
cincydooley wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote:
Canada had already beat us on that one. They're minting Looney Tunes coins.
On a coin called the loonie.....that already had a duck on it.... It's not like they're replacing Queen Elizabeth with them.
Again, I'd rather see a monument on the currency than Tubman. She's a great story. But not, IMO, worthy of being put on currency.
Hell, lets put this on the $20 if we're going to change it:
Be representative of hundreds of American heroes.
No thank you. I'd rather not have a memorial dedicated to my fallen brothers on money. Were it gets drawn on by idiots or has people tearing up to prove a point. Its bad enough people disrespect the real thing.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
cincydooley wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Any other non-American's you'd like us to put on our money?
I was contesting the claim that Susan B. Anthony was the most famous feminist. Most famous American feminist, sure, that's plausible. The world's bigger than just the US though.
Ghazkuul wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Hold on a minute while i go google that person....why because just like 99.99% of people i have never heard of her. hold one while Susan B. Anthony, unarguably the most "FAMOUS" feminist ever gives me the finger for being a man. :-P
So you make a thread about how "feminazis" are pushing this change and yet don't know enough about history to know who Emmeline Pankhurst was? Mary Wollstonecraft probably trumps both Pankhurst and Anthony as well. Simone de Beavuoir's probably up there too, but since none of them were American I guess they don't count as famous, right?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I was contesting the claim that Susan B. Anthony was the most famous feminist. Most famous American feminist, sure, that's plausible. The world's bigger than just the US though.
Not that we care about when it comes to what's on US Currency.
So you make a thread about how "feminazis" are pushing this change and yet don't know enough about history to know who Emmeline Pankhurst was? Mary Wollstonecraft probably trumps both Pankhurst and Anthony as well. Simone de Beavuoir's probably up there too, but since none of them were American I guess they don't count as famous, right?
That is correct as it pertains to this discussion.
18698
Post by: kronk
Ooh! What about Christopher Reeves as Superman! Suck in that gut, Mr!
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
cincydooley wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I was contesting the claim that Susan B. Anthony was the most famous feminist. Most famous American feminist, sure, that's plausible. The world's bigger than just the US though.
Not that we care about when it comes to what's on US Currency.
So you make a thread about how "feminazis" are pushing this change and yet don't know enough about history to know who Emmeline Pankhurst was? Mary Wollstonecraft probably trumps both Pankhurst and Anthony as well. Simone de Beavuoir's probably up there too, but since none of them were American I guess they don't count as famous, right?
That is correct as it pertains to this discussion.
When someone first starts a thread on a subject complaining about "feminazis" and then shows a profound lack of knowledge about the history of feminism I'm going to call that person out on it, because it influences that persons view of who is important enough to put on currency.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
AlmightyWalrus wrote: cincydooley wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Any other non-American's you'd like us to put on our money?
I was contesting the claim that Susan B. Anthony was the most famous feminist. Most famous American feminist, sure, that's plausible. The world's bigger than just the US though.
Ghazkuul wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
SIDENOTE: Susan B Anthony, most famous feminist, not first my bad.
I'm going to be an donkey-cave and ask for a source for that. Emmeline Pankhurst, as one of the figureheads of the Suffragette movement, would like a word with you.
Hold on a minute while i go google that person....why because just like 99.99% of people i have never heard of her. hold one while Susan B. Anthony, unarguably the most "FAMOUS" feminist ever gives me the finger for being a man. :-P
So you make a thread about how "feminazis" are pushing this change and yet don't know enough about history to know who Emmeline Pankhurst was? Mary Wollstonecraft probably trumps both Pankhurst and Anthony as well. Simone de Beavuoir's probably up there too, but since none of them were American I guess they don't count as famous, right?
well since we are talking about AMERICAN currency....yes they don't matter. And as far as Feminazis are concerned, I wouldn't lump Susan B. Anthony into a group with them. She at least was fighting for a specific cause that definitely needed to come around. Woman have the right to vote and have every right as a man in our country and those are useful and logical goals. Feminazi's are basically misandrists (Woman who hate men). In the United States if a Man ges drunk at a party and a woman gets drunk at a party and they sleep together, both equally inebriated, the courts will always rule that the man committed rape because the woman was not in a fit mental state to say no. That is the definition of Sexism, but for some reason it is tolerated in our country. Take that and the useless figure that Feminazi's throw around that Women on average make $.25 cents less an hour then men and your left with a bitter taste in your mouth that these women are basically out to take over the country and will not be happy until every position of power in our country has a female in it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You American men must be super-virile if you can get so drunk you don't know what you are doing but you can still get it up and somehow identify a woman's "bits".
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
In my reading of the Battle of New Orleans, I was surprised to learn that the Duke of Wellington turned down command of British forces in North America. Imagine how history would have been? He certainly wouldn't have led a frontal attack on a heavily fortified position.
On the subject of Jackson, he's some nuggets of humour from my American history book. Including a house party that went badly wrong
"After his inauguration speech, Jackson mounted his horse, discharged his pistol into the air and rode off to the white house, where he hosted a reception for all who chose to come. The boisterous party exhibited the turmoil that seemed always to surround Jackson. A huge crowd pushed into the White House, surged through the rooms, upset the waiters, smashed dishes, burnt furniture, stole items, and generally made a nuisance of themselves as they attempted to shake the Presidents hand. "
My kind of President
Or this from the nullification crisis:
"Jackson's response was measured and firm, in public, but privately, he expressed disappointment at not being able to hang John C Calhoun and others he considered traitors. "
No messing with old hickory.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
Is there any particular reason to put a woman in the 20 dollar bill? Isn't it kinda sexist to judge people by their gender?
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
 Kilkrazy wrote:You American men must be super-virile if you can get so drunk you don't know what you are doing but you can still get it up and somehow identify a woman's "bits".
I think the point is that Alcohol lowers your inhibitions, unless your black out drunk your at least vaguely aware of what your doing. And regardless if both people are equally inebriated why is it that the male is the one committing rape and not vice versa....Or god forbid the woman just owns up to the fact that she got drunk and made a mistake and carries on with life.
18698
Post by: kronk
Uh, guys? $20 bill? Hello?
Ghazkuul wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:You American men must be super-virile if you can get so drunk you don't know what you are doing but you can still get it up and somehow identify a woman's "bits".
I think the point is that Alcohol lowers your inhibitions, unless your black out drunk your at least vaguely aware of what your doing. And regardless if both people are equally inebriated why is it that the male is the one committing rape and not vice versa....Or god forbid the woman just owns up to the fact that she got drunk and made a mistake and carries on with life.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Kilkrazy wrote:You American men must be super-virile if you can get so drunk you don't know what you are doing but you can still get it up and somehow identify a woman's "bits".
So it's safe to assume you've never had drunken sex before?
Doesn't take a whole lot to figure out "where it goes." They're made to fit together....
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Kilkrazy wrote:You American men must be super-virile if you can get so drunk you don't know what you are doing but you can still get it up and somehow identify a woman's "bits".
That ability goes slightly after the ability to make wise decisions or even understand those around you have also lost this ability. There are stages to intoxication. Loss of judgement starts way before loss of sexual arousal. Otherwise I'd have been with a lot less girls when I was in college. A lot less.
93221
Post by: Lance845
Ghazkuul wrote:Go take a quick look at the cost for reprinting $20 with a different face. Furthermore, only 2 bills currently in circulation feature anyone other then a President, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton.
Benjamin Franklin was a founding father of the US, an inventor, post master, political theorist, patriot and the list goes on
Alexander Hamilton was a founding father, basically hand made the US economy and led our country through some of its harshest times.
Please, anyone name a female who can match that level of influence in our country and we can easily find a way to put her on a bank note. Also, keep in mind that the silver and gold dollars (still in circulation) feature 2 women already, Susan B. Anthony (first feminist ever) and Sacagawea.
The cost is nothing if they are producing new style bills anyway. The printing plates are being reforged for the new designs regardless. Changing the face costs nothing extra.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Meh, Jackson deserves to be there. Did he do some bad things? Yep, just like pretty much everyone else on our money 
I might not have said that 5 years ago but a book series sparked my interest in him which led me to a lot of reading about the man and for his all his faults he was an amazing man and American.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Ghazkuul wrote:In the United States if a Man ges drunk at a party and a woman gets drunk at a party and they sleep together, both equally inebriated, the courts will always rule that the man committed rape because the woman was not in a fit mental state to say no. That is the definition of Sexism, but for some reason it is tolerated in our country.
Explain to me who filled a lawsuit in that case. The man? Do you have any occurrence of a man filling such a complaint and not getting satisfaction?
Certainly there is some sexism involved. But maybe not the way you expect.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
After three pages, this thread descended exactly into what I thought it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT: I really don't see what made Jackson so great. Economic or social impact, I think he could stand to be replaced. And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Also, the person who is gonna move to Canada if they take Jackson off the $20? Here, I'll buy you a ticket with my new all women dollar bills.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
jreilly89 wrote: And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Good call! Instead of encouraging more women to enter government, we should just slap some random one of questionable historical gravitas on our currency to appease them. Good call.
Can't we just wait 5 or 6 years after Hilary is inevitably elected and then dies during her second term?
18698
Post by: kronk
Another thought!  Edit: You have to be careful what words you use to google image search at work. VERY careful...
74210
Post by: Ustrello
jreilly89 wrote:After three pages, this thread descended exactly into what I thought it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT: I really don't see what made Jackson so great. Economic or social impact, I think he could stand to be replaced. And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Also, the person who is gonna move to Canada if they take Jackson off the $20? Here, I'll buy you a ticket with my new all women dollar bills.
Militarily he was a huge deal, the battle of New Orleans was a huge moral boost to the country at the time. Which after losing the war of 1812 and our country being less than 40 years old at the time was a pretty needed thing.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
cincydooley wrote: jreilly89 wrote: And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Good call! Instead of encouraging more women to enter government, we should just slap some random one of questionable historical gravitas on our currency to appease them. Good call.
Can't we just wait 5 or 6 years after Hilary is inevitably elected and then dies during her second term?
I'm all for women entering government, but don't you think it's hard for women to enter occupations where they feel marginalized? It's the same thing as Engineering and Science fields.
And don't start with Hilary. Her and Palin are literally the only women i wouldn't vote for. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ustrello wrote: jreilly89 wrote:After three pages, this thread descended exactly into what I thought it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT: I really don't see what made Jackson so great. Economic or social impact, I think he could stand to be replaced. And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Also, the person who is gonna move to Canada if they take Jackson off the $20? Here, I'll buy you a ticket with my new all women dollar bills.
Militarily he was a huge deal, the battle of New Orleans was a huge moral boost to the country at the time. Which after losing the war of 1812 and our country being less than 40 years old at the time was a pretty needed thing.
And he also was pro-slavery, or at least in terms of keeping the peace. He also caused or at least affected the economic depression during the late 1830's. Do I think he was a bad president/person? No, but I think there are more important historical figures then him.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
jreilly89 wrote:After three pages, this thread descended exactly into what I thought it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT: I really don't see what made Jackson so great. Economic or social impact, I think he could stand to be replaced. And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Also, the person who is gonna move to Canada if they take Jackson off the $20? Here, I'll buy you a ticket with my new all women dollar bills.
The dicklash began on about post number three.
What makes Jackson greater than Tubman is he had more Y chromosomes.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
How about 'Pine Leaf Woman?"
A Native American warrior woman that wrecked face.(Assuming by "America" we're not just talking about the US government.)
http://minimumwagehistorian.com/2014/01/29/pine-leaf-woman/
And here's a picture I drew of her.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
jreilly89 wrote:
And he also was pro-slavery, or at least in terms of keeping the peace.
So was Jefferson!
Take him off our currency!
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
jreilly89 wrote:
I'm all for women entering government, but don't you think it's hard for women to enter occupations where they feel marginalized? It's the same thing as Engineering and Science fields.
And don't start with Hilary. Her and Palin are literally the only women i wouldn't vote for..
I really do not think the reason women don't go into politics is due to them feeling marginalized. I think its the very nature of the job and the BS that goes with is why. Women look at Sarah Palin's experience and don't want to go into politics not because Palin was marginalized but due to level of BS that she and very importantly her family received. The fact that people dragged Palins teenage daughter through the mud in the tabloids and the news is very off putting to those women.
Also politics is not a family friendly institution. To really be successful in politics it means you have heavily focus on your career probably at the cost of other things. The average politician spends many hours away from the family working, raising money, traveling around the country to various events, etc. Vast majority of women want to spend time with kids either being a stay at home mom or work full time but still be at their kids soccer game on Saturday.
I mean you can slap a woman on the $20 dollar bill if you want, but seriously doubt that would even move the dial on the amount of women in politics if the issues I described remain in place.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Honestly? Go for it. The only three I really care about being there are Benny F, Georgey, and Lincoln. Couldn't care less about the others
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Kilkrazy wrote:
What makes Jackson greater than Tubman is he had more Y chromosomes.
Tubman escorted an estimated 300 people...
Again..feel good story. Hardly worth putting on our currency.
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Jefferson deserves a higher place in our list of forefathers if anything.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
 Blood Hawk wrote: jreilly89 wrote:
I'm all for women entering government, but don't you think it's hard for women to enter occupations where they feel marginalized? It's the same thing as Engineering and Science fields.
And don't start with Hilary. Her and Palin are literally the only women i wouldn't vote for..
I really do not think the reason women don't go into politics is due to them feeling marginalized. I think its the very nature of the job and the BS that goes with is why. Women look at Sarah Palin's experience and don't want to go into politics not because Palin was marginalized but due to level of BS that she and very importantly her family received. The fact that people dragged Palins teenage daughter through the mud in the tabloids and the news is very off putting to those women.
Also politics is not a family friendly institution. To really be successful in politics it means you have heavily focus on your career probably at the cost of other things. The average politician spends many hours away from the family working, raising money, traveling around the country to various events, etc. Vast majority of women want to spend time with kids either being a stay at home mom or work full time but still be at their kids soccer game on Saturday.
I mean you can slap a woman on the $20 dollar bill if you want, but seriously doubt that would even move the dial on the amount of women in politics if the issues I described remain in place.
A lot of good points, Blood Hawk. I don't think it would be a one fix solution, but do think it would help. As far as all the bs, I'm sure Palin got that treatment because she was a woman. Politics is all about mudslinging and if you're a women it's worse. Compare the situation: two people running for president, same pltform, party, race, etc. The press does some digging and find out that these people were adulterous/made a porno/had multiple partners and drug use. Who do you think will receive more societal shaming? Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
What makes Jackson greater than Tubman is he had more Y chromosomes.
Tubman escorted an estimated 300 people...
Again..feel good story. Hardly worth putting on our currency.
Yeah, because feel good stories are all it was. Hell, get rid of MLK, Jackie Robinson, Lincoln, JFK, Rosa Parks, they're all just feel good stories!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
How many slaves did Jackson, a rich, powerful privileged white man escort to freedom?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
jreilly89 wrote: Honestly? Go for it. The only three I really care about being there are Benny F, Georgey, and Lincoln. Couldn't care less about the others
Without Jefferson the first two have far less impact. Jefferson is, arguably, the most important figure in all of US History. Harriett Tubman doesn't even make the Smithsonian's top 10 for important females. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:How many slaves did Jackson, a rich, powerful privileged white man escort to freedom?
Who cares? Automatically Appended Next Post: jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, because feel good stories are all it was. Hell, get rid of MLK, Jackie Robinson, Lincoln, JFK, Rosa Parks, they're all just feel good stories!
Comparing her to MLK or Jackie Robinson is pretty silly. Rosa Parks was simply a chosen face.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
jreilly89 wrote: Blood Hawk wrote: jreilly89 wrote:
I'm all for women entering government, but don't you think it's hard for women to enter occupations where they feel marginalized? It's the same thing as Engineering and Science fields.
And don't start with Hilary. Her and Palin are literally the only women i wouldn't vote for..
I really do not think the reason women don't go into politics is due to them feeling marginalized. I think its the very nature of the job and the BS that goes with is why. Women look at Sarah Palin's experience and don't want to go into politics not because Palin was marginalized but due to level of BS that she and very importantly her family received. The fact that people dragged Palins teenage daughter through the mud in the tabloids and the news is very off putting to those women.
Also politics is not a family friendly institution. To really be successful in politics it means you have heavily focus on your career probably at the cost of other things. The average politician spends many hours away from the family working, raising money, traveling around the country to various events, etc. Vast majority of women want to spend time with kids either being a stay at home mom or work full time but still be at their kids soccer game on Saturday.
I mean you can slap a woman on the $20 dollar bill if you want, but seriously doubt that would even move the dial on the amount of women in politics if the issues I described remain in place.
A lot of good points, Blood Hawk. I don't think it would be a one fix solution, but do think it would help. As far as all the bs, I'm sure Palin got that treatment because she was a woman. Politics is all about mudslinging and if you're a women it's worse. Compare the situation: two people running for president, same pltform, party, race, etc. The press does some digging and find out that these people were adulterous/made a porno/had multiple partners and drug use. Who do you think will receive more societal shaming?
The woman probably would, though the irony of course is that I am sure a lot (perhaps most) of that would be coming from other women.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
jreilly89 wrote:
Honestly? Go for it. The only three I really care about being there are Benny F, Georgey, and Lincoln. Couldn't care less about the others
Washington owned slaves also, he did free them but he did own them. Soo...yeah
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Ghazkuul wrote:LBJ Tried to kill my beloved Marine Corps, may his soul rot in hell :-D
Would've gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling devildogs.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
I'm all for putting a woman on US currency but their choice seems more like affirmative action than a well-considered move...surely there has been a more influential woman in US history that Harriet Tubman.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Ustrello wrote: jreilly89 wrote:
Honestly? Go for it. The only three I really care about being there are Benny F, Georgey, and Lincoln. Couldn't care less about the others
Washington owned slaves also, he did free them but he did own them. Soo...yeah
He didn't however play peacekeeper in an era where people were demanding freedom of slaves. Jackson passed several measures to either remove or set aside anti-slavery acts. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: jreilly89 wrote:
Honestly? Go for it. The only three I really care about being there are Benny F, Georgey, and Lincoln. Couldn't care less about the others
Without Jefferson the first two have far less impact.
Jefferson is, arguably, the most important figure in all of US History.
Harriett Tubman doesn't even make the Smithsonian's top 10 for important females.
Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Bette Davis did. I'm not sure I would agree with the Smithsonian's choices.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
jreilly89 wrote:After three pages, this thread descended exactly into what I thought it would.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
OT: I really don't see what made Jackson so great. Economic or social impact, I think he could stand to be replaced. And yeah, I think having a woman on the $20 bill would be good. Most women already feel marginalized from government, despite having Susan B. Anthony on the gold dollar (which I've only had maybe 4 or 5 times) vs. Jackson on the $20, which I've had countless of.
Also, the person who is gonna move to Canada if they take Jackson off the $20? Here, I'll buy you a ticket with my new all women dollar bills.
Considering that US already had an black president yet no black people in bills it does seem like that the gender of the people in the bills would not affect peoples interest in politics.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
 NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm all for putting a woman on US currency but their choice seems more like affirmative action than a well-considered move...surely there has been a more influential woman in US history that Harriet Tubman.
Possibly, but it was chosen by vote.
18698
Post by: kronk
I want Fat Elvis on the $20!
Rock on, big guy! Rock on!
221
Post by: Frazzled
NuggzTheNinja wrote:I'm all for putting a woman on US currency but their choice seems more like affirmative action than a well-considered move...surely there has been a more influential woman in US history that Harriet Tubman.
I'm incredibly opposed to this. However, if provided lets say, thirty free samples I might be less opposed. Automatically Appended Next Post: kronk wrote:I want Fat Elvis on the $20!
Rock on, big guy! Rock on!
There is great wisdom here. 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I toss in
Doc Holiday!
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
jreilly89 wrote:
Honestly? Go for it. The only three I really care about being there are Benny F, Georgey, and Lincoln. Couldn't care less about the others
Thomas Jefferson is probably the greatest American to ever live. Without his influence we might not even have a United States. He wrote the freaking Declaration of Independence. Plus, he influenced practically every aspect of our nations beginnings. How can you say that? Clearly next to him Jackson is nobody. Then again - so is Lincoln.
18698
Post by: kronk
A new challenger has landed!
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Y'know, I could see her on some for of bill, maybe a 75$ bill?
67730
Post by: stanman
If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
 stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
With Ollie north selling missiles to Iran on the reverse.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
18698
Post by: kronk
Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman. How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Give him more credit than that....
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Bay of Pigs.
But really, he wouldn't be a bad choice.
18698
Post by: kronk
cincydooley wrote: kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Give him more credit than that....
I had no idea. Thanks for the read!
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
MWHistorian wrote: kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Bay of Pigs.
But really, he wouldn't be a bad choice.
CIA's fault. Kennedy called them out for it - realistically it probably got him killed. At least we can agree he would be a good choice. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can't blame a man for bein a playa.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Tyrannosaursexmachine......no one can equal that.....
221
Post by: Frazzled
MWHistorian wrote: kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Bay of Pigs.
But really, he wouldn't be a bad choice.
Horrible choice
Bay of Pigs
started us into Vietnam.
feth that.
18698
Post by: kronk
"If I don't have sex everyday, I get a headache..."
I'll have to remember that line. "But baby, it's a medical necessity!"
67730
Post by: stanman
Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Frazzled wrote: MWHistorian wrote: kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Bay of Pigs.
But really, he wouldn't be a bad choice.
Horrible choice
Bay of Pigs
started us into Vietnam.
feth that.
Vietnam - good point. Wasn't that conflict kinda inevitable? Plus communism did fail - wasn't that the whole idea? Still though - better than tubman?
221
Post by: Frazzled
No conflict is inevitable except for Dachshundgeddon, when the Great Wienie frees us all from cat bondage.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Blasphemy! Our feline benefactors know the true path for man kind. 
16387
Post by: Manchu
stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
You have the beginnings of a great idea there. But where is the Undertaker? And Rick Flair? Mr T needs to go immediately. Maybe replace Volkoff with Sgt Slaughter.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
 Manchu wrote: stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
You have the beginnings of a great idea there. But where is the Undertaker? And Rick Flair? Mr T needs to go immediately. Maybe replace Volkoff with Sgt Slaughter.
You both left Ultimate Warrior off the list. For shame!
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I sincerely disagree with you.... Siri told her to turn right, she turned left, and we ain't heard from her since....
Then again, that's kinda what our lawmakers have been doing with the economy so it sorta fits.
5534
Post by: dogma
No Mick Foley love?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Manchu wrote: stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
You have the beginnings of a great idea there. But where is the Undertaker? And Rick Flair? Mr T needs to go immediately. Maybe replace Volkoff with Sgt Slaughter.
Yeah, Rick Flair needs to be the $1 so that way, when we're all in the strip club, we can go "Wooo!" as we're makin it rain.
Also... when was Mr. T in Wrestlemania?
74682
Post by: MWHistorian
Seriously, how about Abigail Adams?
16387
Post by: Manchu
You did right calling us out there.
21971
Post by: Mozzyfuzzy
They're all a bunch of candy ass's, I quietly submit the peoples champion to be on all US currency, as well as next president.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Manchu wrote: stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
You have the beginnings of a great idea there. But where is the Undertaker? And Rick Flair? Mr T needs to go immediately. Maybe replace Volkoff with Sgt Slaughter.
Yeah, Rick Flair needs to be the $1 so that way, when we're all in the strip club, we can go "Wooo!" as we're makin it rain.
Also... when was Mr. T in Wrestlemania?
No Super Fly Snuka? 
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
Xenomancers wrote: MWHistorian wrote: kronk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: stanman wrote:If they want to get rid of Jackson they should put Ronald Reagan on the $20.
A questionable pick - but still better than Tubman.
How about Kennedy? Launched our nation into a new era of exploration. Prevented Nuclear war and started the peace corps.
Plowed Marilyn Monroe.
Bay of Pigs.
But really, he wouldn't be a bad choice.
CIA's fault. Kennedy called them out for it - realistically it probably got him killed. At least we can agree he would be a good choice.
Care to elaborate on that one?
67730
Post by: stanman
stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania $1,000 - Iron Sheik $100 - Hulk Hogan $50 - Andre the Giant $20 - Nikolai Volkoff $10 - Mr T $5 - King Kong Bundy $1 - Roddy Piper
Manchu wrote:You have the beginnings of a great idea there. But where is the Undertaker? And Rick Flair? Mr T needs to go immediately. Maybe replace Volkoff with Sgt Slaughter.
There's plenty of other great wrestlers but that list is all the crew of the original Wrestlemania 1 aka the "Pounding Fathers" if you will later wrestlemaniacs we could add as coins. Ensis Ferrae wrote:Yeah, Rick Flair needs to be the $1 so that way, when we're all in the strip club, we can go "Wooo!" as we're makin it rain. Also... when was Mr. T in Wrestlemania?
 Rick flair would be awesome on the dollar lol. Mr T was in a tag team Match with Hogan in WM1, Liberace and Muhammad Ali were guest judges. It had some crazy awesome stuff.
5470
Post by: sebster
It seems to me that the very sensible case to take Jackson off $20 quickly became ‘and what woman shall we replace him with?” Eisenhower and FDR have overwhelming cases for being included on your money, far more than anyone else I can think of, man or woman.
I mean, sure, it sucks that no woman are represented on your currency, but I guess that’s one of the realities of a history in which women were excluded from positions of power – great women still did great things, but because they did it outside of the halls of power, the scale of their achievements ends up much less. I mean, Tubman did amazing things, but FDR had control of government, and so things like guiding a nation through a Great Depression and a world war are just really, obviously, much bigger things.
Ghazkuul wrote:Judging a person 200 years in the future is a bit harsh don't you feel? should we therefore judge Every American President until Abraham Lincoln even harsher for condoning if not outright owning slaves?
The times are the times. in 200 years people might look back on us and think "Ohh my, they elected George Bush Sr to President when he killed all those Japanese pilots in World war two" Its a bit ridiculous to judge a man 200 years later when it was considered fine in the public back then.
Even by the standards of the time, Jackson’s behaviour was pretty odious.
That said, I do agree with your general point that we shouldn’t turn historical figures in to monsters by putting our morals on to them. But that doesn’t really work you’re talking about people you’re putting on your currency – which means you are judging them, and judging them in a most favourable light.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Blood Hawk wrote:Also politics is not a family friendly institution. To really be successful in politics it means you have heavily focus on your career probably at the cost of other things. The average politician spends many hours away from the family working, raising money, traveling around the country to various events, etc.
I wonder how men manage to do it then.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Yup, sign me up with the group that wants Jackson to stay on the bill. It's part of our country's damn heritage.
Make up a $5 coin or a $40 bill for Tubman if people feel so strongly about getting her in. But don't boot an already established president's face from the bill. It's asinine.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Blood Hawk wrote:Also politics is not a family friendly institution. To really be successful in politics it means you have heavily focus on your career probably at the cost of other things. The average politician spends many hours away from the family working, raising money, traveling around the country to various events, etc.
I wonder how men manage to do it then.
Because men are more willing on average to spend time away from their family? Polls/studies show this. Some careers require you to make sacrifices, politics is one of them and women are less willing on average to make those sacrifices.
edit: There are other reasons: many people become politicians later in life once their kids are adults and don't need them as much, their wives are the primary parent for their kids, etc.
I mean I have heard people make the claim that Present Obama isn't spending enough time networking at night because he spending those nights with his kids instead. Networking at night means building relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, etc.. One could make the argument that if had done networking instead he could have gotten a little more done with his first 7 years as president. So spending time with your kids vs. your career.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 sebster wrote:It seems to me that the very sensible case to take Jackson off $20 quickly became ‘and what woman shall we replace him with?” Eisenhower and FDR have overwhelming cases for being included on your money, far more than anyone else I can think of, man or woman.
I mean, sure, it sucks that no woman are represented on your currency, but I guess that’s one of the realities of a history in which women were excluded from positions of power – great women still did great things, but because they did it outside of the halls of power, the scale of their achievements ends up much less. I mean, Tubman did amazing things, but FDR had control of government, and so things like guiding a nation through a Great Depression and a world war are just really, obviously, much bigger things.
Ghazkuul wrote:Judging a person 200 years in the future is a bit harsh don't you feel? should we therefore judge Every American President until Abraham Lincoln even harsher for condoning if not outright owning slaves?
The times are the times. in 200 years people might look back on us and think "Ohh my, they elected George Bush Sr to President when he killed all those Japanese pilots in World war two" Its a bit ridiculous to judge a man 200 years later when it was considered fine in the public back then.
Even by the standards of the time, Jackson’s behaviour was pretty odious.
That said, I do agree with your general point that we shouldn’t turn historical figures in to monsters by putting our morals on to them. But that doesn’t really work you’re talking about people you’re putting on your currency – which means you are judging them, and judging them in a most favourable light.
FDR? LOLOLOLOLOL - That guy is the biggest theif the world has ever known. Quite literally. Automatically Appended Next Post:  timetowaste85 wrote:Yup, sign me up with the group that wants Jackson to stay on the bill. It's part of our country's damn heritage.
Make up a $5 coin or a $40 bill for Tubman if people feel so strongly about getting her in. But don't boot an already established president's face from the bill. It's asinine.
Thats how I feel - it's insulting.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Xenomancers wrote: sebster wrote:It seems to me that the very sensible case to take Jackson off $20 quickly became ‘and what woman shall we replace him with?” Eisenhower and FDR have overwhelming cases for being included on your money, far more than anyone else I can think of, man or woman.
I mean, sure, it sucks that no woman are represented on your currency, but I guess that’s one of the realities of a history in which women were excluded from positions of power – great women still did great things, but because they did it outside of the halls of power, the scale of their achievements ends up much less. I mean, Tubman did amazing things, but FDR had control of government, and so things like guiding a nation through a Great Depression and a world war are just really, obviously, much bigger things.
Ghazkuul wrote:Judging a person 200 years in the future is a bit harsh don't you feel? should we therefore judge Every American President until Abraham Lincoln even harsher for condoning if not outright owning slaves?
The times are the times. in 200 years people might look back on us and think "Ohh my, they elected George Bush Sr to President when he killed all those Japanese pilots in World war two" Its a bit ridiculous to judge a man 200 years later when it was considered fine in the public back then.
Even by the standards of the time, Jackson’s behaviour was pretty odious.
That said, I do agree with your general point that we shouldn’t turn historical figures in to monsters by putting our morals on to them. But that doesn’t really work you’re talking about people you’re putting on your currency – which means you are judging them, and judging them in a most favourable light.
FDR? LOLOLOLOLOL - That guy is the biggest theif the world has ever known. Quite literally.
You're probably going to have to elaborate if you want to actually have a discussion on the subject.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:They're all a bunch of candy ass's, I quietly submit the peoples champion to be on all US currency, as well as next president.
Dwayne Johnson for president. I AM DOWN.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: sebster wrote:It seems to me that the very sensible case to take Jackson off $20 quickly became ‘and what woman shall we replace him with?” Eisenhower and FDR have overwhelming cases for being included on your money, far more than anyone else I can think of, man or woman.
I mean, sure, it sucks that no woman are represented on your currency, but I guess that’s one of the realities of a history in which women were excluded from positions of power – great women still did great things, but because they did it outside of the halls of power, the scale of their achievements ends up much less. I mean, Tubman did amazing things, but FDR had control of government, and so things like guiding a nation through a Great Depression and a world war are just really, obviously, much bigger things.
Ghazkuul wrote:Judging a person 200 years in the future is a bit harsh don't you feel? should we therefore judge Every American President until Abraham Lincoln even harsher for condoning if not outright owning slaves?
The times are the times. in 200 years people might look back on us and think "Ohh my, they elected George Bush Sr to President when he killed all those Japanese pilots in World war two" Its a bit ridiculous to judge a man 200 years later when it was considered fine in the public back then.
Even by the standards of the time, Jackson’s behaviour was pretty odious.
That said, I do agree with your general point that we shouldn’t turn historical figures in to monsters by putting our morals on to them. But that doesn’t really work you’re talking about people you’re putting on your currency – which means you are judging them, and judging them in a most favourable light.
FDR? LOLOLOLOLOL - That guy is the biggest theif the world has ever known. Quite literally.
You're probably going to have to elaborate if you want to actually have a discussion on the subject.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
So you're just trolling then. Good to know.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Xenomancers wrote:
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
How about saying that's your argument straight away instead of posting random images instead?
Further, the definition of a tyrant is someone who has usurped legal power and rules as an absolute ruler. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Roosevelt Administration, and FDR was reelected (i.e. had his legitimacy reaffirmed) after the Gold Reserve Act was passed. You're going to have to spin awfully hard to make that illegitimate.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
How about saying that's your argument straight away instead of posting random images instead?
Further, the definition of a tyrant is someone who has usurped legal power and rules as an absolute ruler. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Roosevelt Administration, and FDR was reelected (i.e. had his legitimacy reaffirmed) after the Gold Reserve Act was passed. You're going to have to spin awfully hard to make that illegitimate.
Usurping power is essentially using powers you don't have - when the powers of congress were written - I guaranty you there was no intent to allow the government to confiscate the entire nations gold. If TJ or BF were alive at the time I'm sure they would have fought FDR to the death in a dual in resistance to such a tyrannical act. There was plenty of "spin" going on in congress to go about confiscating an entire nations personal property which is protected under it's own constitution. Just like the spin going on today to pass obamacare as a national law. The vague writing of the enumerated powers of congress are essentially unlimited with any amount of spin and a corrupt political system.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
How about saying that's your argument straight away instead of posting random images instead?
Further, the definition of a tyrant is someone who has usurped legal power and rules as an absolute ruler. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Roosevelt Administration, and FDR was reelected (i.e. had his legitimacy reaffirmed) after the Gold Reserve Act was passed. You're going to have to spin awfully hard to make that illegitimate.
Usurping power is essentially using powers you don't have - when the powers of congress were written - I guaranty you there was no intent to allow the government to confiscate the entire nations gold. If TJ or BF were alive at the time I'm sure they would have fought FDR to the death in dual in resistance such a tyrannical act. There was plenty of "spin" going on in congress to make confiscating an entire nations personal property which is protected under it's own constitution. Just like the spin going on today to pass obamacare as a national law. The vague writing of the enumerated powers of congress are essentially unlimited with any amount of spin and a corrupt political system.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but do realize when it comes to whether or not a government law/action is constitutional or not the opinion of SCUS holds more weight then the opinion of some random guy on the internet.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
18698
Post by: kronk
Kilkrazy wrote:It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
My wife will spend it just fine, either way.
Another Contender!
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Blood Hawk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
How about saying that's your argument straight away instead of posting random images instead?
Further, the definition of a tyrant is someone who has usurped legal power and rules as an absolute ruler. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Roosevelt Administration, and FDR was reelected (i.e. had his legitimacy reaffirmed) after the Gold Reserve Act was passed. You're going to have to spin awfully hard to make that illegitimate.
Usurping power is essentially using powers you don't have - when the powers of congress were written - I guaranty you there was no intent to allow the government to confiscate the entire nations gold. If TJ or BF were alive at the time I'm sure they would have fought FDR to the death in dual in resistance such a tyrannical act. There was plenty of "spin" going on in congress to make confiscating an entire nations personal property which is protected under it's own constitution. Just like the spin going on today to pass obamacare as a national law. The vague writing of the enumerated powers of congress are essentially unlimited with any amount of spin and a corrupt political system.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but do realize when it comes to whether or not a government law/action is constitutional or not the opinion of SCUS holds more weight then the opinion of some random guy on the internet.
Ofc it's just my opinion - FDR had a rough situation and he took extremely drastic measures. It just so happens overnight the US government became the richest government in history by taking all it's citizens most valuable property. Theres something unamerican about that. I don't think it's worthy of praise. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
It's part of our countries heritage to not remove established icons of American history from our currency - regardless of the great deeds of others.
18698
Post by: kronk
Xenomancers wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
It's part of our countries heritage to not remove established icons of American history from our currency - regardless of the great deeds of others.
Oh. Hi guys. Remember me?  Wait, we already had a chick on our money! Way before it was PC! 
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think we need Carol Burnett on the $20. I'm so glad we had this time together, just to have a laugh, or sing a song...
18698
Post by: kronk
Nah. Tim Conway in drag. Those skits were always a hoot.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Xenomancers wrote: Blood Hawk wrote: Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
How about saying that's your argument straight away instead of posting random images instead?
Further, the definition of a tyrant is someone who has usurped legal power and rules as an absolute ruler. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Roosevelt Administration, and FDR was reelected (i.e. had his legitimacy reaffirmed) after the Gold Reserve Act was passed. You're going to have to spin awfully hard to make that illegitimate.
Usurping power is essentially using powers you don't have - when the powers of congress were written - I guaranty you there was no intent to allow the government to confiscate the entire nations gold. If TJ or BF were alive at the time I'm sure they would have fought FDR to the death in dual in resistance such a tyrannical act. There was plenty of "spin" going on in congress to make confiscating an entire nations personal property which is protected under it's own constitution. Just like the spin going on today to pass obamacare as a national law. The vague writing of the enumerated powers of congress are essentially unlimited with any amount of spin and a corrupt political system.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, but do realize when it comes to whether or not a government law/action is constitutional or not the opinion of SCUS holds more weight then the opinion of some random guy on the internet.
Ofc it's just my opinion - FDR had a rough situation and he took extremely drastic measures. It just so happens overnight the US government became the richest government in history by taking all it's citizens most valuable property. Theres something unamerican about that. I don't think it's worthy of praise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
It's part of our countries heritage to not remove established icons of American history from our currency - regardless of the great deeds of others.
In other words, not to have a woman on the currency
Pale, male and stale is what you like.
18698
Post by: kronk
Don't ask, don't tell, KK. You know that!  Thankfully, that's what my wife likes.
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote:
Nah. Tim Conway in drag. Those skits were always a hoot.
Thats a winner right there.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
"In other words, not to have a woman on the currency
Pale, male and stale is what you like."
I have no problem with creating a new bill or coin to commemorate a great woman. In fact, I think it's a good idea. It shouldn't be at the expense of another though. It also shouldn't be a PC statement, which is exactly what this is.
34390
Post by: whembly
FYI... the US does have female on US currency:
Circulating Coins:
Helen Keller on the reverse of the Alabama quarter: 2003
Sacagawea on the dollar coin: 1999-Present
Susan B. Anthony on the dollar coin: 1979-1981
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Kilkrazy wrote:
In other words, not to have a woman on the currency
Pale, male and stale is what you like.
Troll much, brah?
We get it. It's tired.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
We should put Columbus on the bill, just to tick of SJW.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
Xenomancers wrote:It's part of our countries heritage to not remove established icons of American history from our currency - regardless of the great deeds of others.
No, it really isn't. Our money has changed quite a bit over the years, something I'm sure you're aware of, correct?
For instance, Martha Washington was featured on the 1886 $1 silver certificate and Running Antelope was on the face of the 1899 $5 silver certificate. The current stable of portraits featured on Federal Reserve Notes have been around since 1914, the year after the Federal Reserve Act was passed.
Stop acting like our money is some sort of monolithic establishment that cannot be changed in any way because some people think it would be nice to have a black woman on a note.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Stop acting like our money is some sort of monolithic establishment that cannot be changed in any way because some people think it would be nice to have a black woman on a note.
I agree with the first part.
Except I don't think, in the context of American History, Tubman is nearly as important or impactful as Jackson. And it's really not that close.
I'd certainly advocate for MLK before her. Hell, put Frederick Douglas on there, if the ultimate goal is to get a black person on currency.
Tubman, to me, just doesn't rank high enough on the "important women" list to displace Jackson, who did far more to shape our nation.
221
Post by: Frazzled
cincydooley wrote: ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Stop acting like our money is some sort of monolithic establishment that cannot be changed in any way because some people think it would be nice to have a black woman on a note.
I agree with the first part.
Except I don't think, in the context of American History, Tubman is nearly as important or impactful as Jackson. And it's really not that close.
I'd certainly advocate for MLK before her. Hell, put Frederick Douglas on there, if the ultimate goal is to get a black person on currency.
Tubman, to me, just doesn't rank high enough on the "important women" list to displace Jackson, who did far more to shape our nation.
I'm now inspired. i want Miss Piggy on the $5.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
cincydooley wrote:I agree with the first part.
Except I don't think, in the context of American History, Tubman is nearly as important or impactful as Jackson. And it's really not that close.
I'd certainly advocate for MLK before her. Hell, put Frederick Douglas on there, if the ultimate goal is to get a black person on currency.
Tubman, to me, just doesn't rank high enough on the "important women" list to displace Jackson, who did far more to shape our nation.
Douglas and Tubman worked together for the abolitionist cause, she was a spy for the Union during the Civil War, and was a suffrage activist before her death. She's an American icon for feths sake; a patriot and humanitarian and ironically enough, every single person commenting on this thread has known exactly who she was many of whom claiming she isn't "important enough" to go a fething bill. She part of a small group of people from history that Americans from all walks of life recognize, but yet not worthy to have her face on money? She has inspired generations that have followed her, been praised by political leaders on both sides of the aisle, and is easily one of the most celebrated civilians in our history.
Sorry, I just don't understand the need to downplay her significance to American history what she's meant to people. Will she replace Jackson on the $20 bill? Probably not, but at least she isn't responsible for cursing the US with Florida.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: cincydooley wrote:I agree with the first part.
Except I don't think, in the context of American History, Tubman is nearly as important or impactful as Jackson. And it's really not that close.
I'd certainly advocate for MLK before her. Hell, put Frederick Douglas on there, if the ultimate goal is to get a black person on currency.
Tubman, to me, just doesn't rank high enough on the "important women" list to displace Jackson, who did far more to shape our nation.
Douglas and Tubman worked together for the abolitionist cause, she was a spy for the Union during the Civil War, and was a suffrage activist before her death. She's an American icon for feths sake; a patriot and humanitarian and ironically enough, every single person commenting on this thread has known exactly who she was many of whom claiming she isn't "important enough" to go a fething bill. She part of a small group of people from history that Americans from all walks of life recognize, but yet not worthy to have her face on money? She has inspired generations that have followed her, been praised by political leaders on both sides of the aisle, and is easily one of the most celebrated civilians in our history.
Sorry, I just don't understand the need to downplay her significance to American history what she's meant to people. Will she replace Jackson on the $20 bill? Probably not, but at least she isn't responsible for cursing the US with Florida.
All of which is why I think she'd be brilliant as a collectors coin, or whatnot. The Mint did a whole U.S. Presidents series, right?
I'd be all about a "Heroes of the Abolitionist Movement" series or a "Heroes of Sufferage" series. To me that would be entirely appropriate.
Hell, if I had my druthers they'd move Jefferson to the $20 and off that good for nothing $2 note.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
How about this. We put Obama on every bill and coin, he is our savior after all.
34390
Post by: whembly
hotsauceman1 wrote:How about this. We put Obama on every bill and coin, he is our savior after all.
Already in the works.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
Excuse me, where is Macho Man Randy Savage?!?
221
Post by: Frazzled
jreilly89 wrote: stanman wrote:Dead presidents and historical figures are so boring, get rid of all of them and replace our bills with Wrestlemania
$1,000 - Iron Sheik
$100 - Hulk Hogan
$50 - Andre the Giant
$20 - Nikolai Volkoff
$10 - Mr T
$5 - King Kong Bundy
$1 - Roddy Piper
Excuse me, where is Macho Man Randy Savage?!?
(Smacks self in head) How could we have missed Macho Man????
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Kilkrazy wrote:It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
Anyone else find it amusing that we have a "Mod" trolling so hard?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its Kilkrazy. He's harmless
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Ghazkuul wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:It's part of your county's heritage not to have a woman on the currency.
Anyone else find it amusing that we have a "Mod" trolling so hard?
If we report a mod, will the site implode?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Just threaten to bend his chopsticks what I usually do. That or toss him a Snicker. Automatically Appended Next Post:
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
hotsauceman1 wrote:How about this. We put Obama on every bill and coin, he is our savior after all.
Still more worthy than Tubman. I'm almost certain this WILL happen some day - no matter how poorly he is judged by history. It's okay - because it's progressive.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Xenomancers wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:How about this. We put Obama on every bill and coin, he is our savior after all.
Still more worthy than Tubman. I'm almost certain this WILL happen some day - no matter how poorly he is judged by history. It's okay - because it's progressive.
What do you mean poorly judged? The man did exactly what he said he would!
Obama said he would fix the economy and he has! I mean just because he increased the national deficit from 10 trillion to 18 trillion in the space of 7 years doesn't mean he didn't do a good job!.
He did end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan AS PROMISED! wait...thats right....Afghanistan is still going on...BUT WE PULLED OUT OF IRAQ! ....but my buddies in the marines still are currently in Iraq fighting ISIS and training the Iraqi military....damnit
He did promise us Change and he delivered though! unfortunately for all the idiots who voted for him its been a pretty negative change. Hope you didn't lose your homes/small businesses/jobs under President Obama...millions so far have.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
None, Their has been no woman in our country that has made as significant a contribution to our country then the gentlemen currently on the Bank notes. This has a lot to do with sexism pre 1980ish but unless your going to use affirmative action (which is a terrible idea) nobody should replace Jackson.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
Haven't we been discussing this? Miss Piggy.  Alternatively: Elvira Mistress of the Dark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_Peterson#/media/File:Elvira_waving.jpg Even more Alternatively: Selma Hayek, because we are a nation of immigrants.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Ghazkuul wrote: Xenomancers wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:How about this. We put Obama on every bill and coin, he is our savior after all.
Still more worthy than Tubman. I'm almost certain this WILL happen some day - no matter how poorly he is judged by history. It's okay - because it's progressive.
What do you mean poorly judged? The man did exactly what he said he would!
Obama said he would fix the economy and he has! I mean just because he increased the national deficit from 10 trillion to 18 trillion in the space of 7 years doesn't mean he didn't do a good job!.
He did end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan AS PROMISED! wait...thats right....Afghanistan is still going on...BUT WE PULLED OUT OF IRAQ! ....but my buddies in the marines still are currently in Iraq fighting ISIS and training the Iraqi military....damnit
He did promise us Change and he delivered though! unfortunately for all the idiots who voted for him its been a pretty negative change. Hope you didn't lose your homes/small businesses/jobs under President Obama...millions so far have.
8 trillion? Chump change.
20344
Post by: DarkTraveler777
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
In regards to putting a woman on a bill (it could be any bill as far as I am concerned, it doesn't have to be a $20) any one of these women would get my vote:
Grace Hopper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper
Margaret Fuller.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Fuller
Eleanor Roosevelt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
You should read the thread. Multiple have been suggested already, by multiple users.
I realize it's more fun to drop in, drop a "Sexist Racist USA" line, and duck out, but in a 7 page thread context certainly can help.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
In general, any women that achieved more than any comparable male counterpart. Choosing a woman over a more qualified man just because of her being a woman is sexism. In particular, not familiar enough with US history myself.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
Perhaps Woodrow Wilson's second wife (the one he was married to in office) as she practically ran the country after his stroke.
Perhaps Clara Barton... she only saved who knows how many lives during the Civil War as a battlefield nurse, and then went on to create the Red Cross, which I'm sure a couple of y'all have heard of
Maybe Jackie Cochran (who I'd honestly never heard of until this google search) since she was the first female jet pilot, first female to fly a bomber over the atlantic, first female to break the sound barrier, etc. etc. Apparently, to this very day, she still holds more international speed, altitude and distance records for aircraft... male or female.
Just for giggles, we should put Oprah on a bill, together with a Federal Law that states anytime you transmit a bill with her visage on it, you MUST say, "you get a Dollar, and you get a dollar, and EVERYONE gets a dollar!!"
221
Post by: Frazzled
Also Ma Barker. You have Queens, we have Queens of crime!
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Betsy Ross if we are going to go with an iconic piece of american history
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
 Sigvatr wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
In general, any women that achieved more than any comparable male counterpart. Choosing a woman over a more qualified man just because of her being a woman is sexism.
In particular, not familiar enough with US history myself.
Exalted!
Finally someone who sees this for what it is, sexism.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
I'd be okay with Eleanor, Betsy Ross, or Rosa Parks.
While not a woman, I'm totally down with MLK on currency.
34390
Post by: whembly
Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
Seriously... she's done quite a bit for our country:
 Automatically Appended Next Post: daedalus wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
I'd be okay with Eleanor, Betsy Ross, or Rosa Parks.
While not a woman, I'm totally down with MLK on currency.
For realz...
Ditto.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Only 600,000 people? And only a 3rd of them actually selected the winner?
Seems very insignificant for a country with so many people.
We in NZ put Kate Shepard on our 10 dollar note because she actually did something unique (I.E not simply because she did something above average and was female at the same time...) and that was leading the movement that got women the right to vote in NZ, which was also the first country to allow the female vote.
Its like the Martin Luther King of womens rights (we also put a Maori Rights leader on there Sir Ngata on the 50 dollar note)
The issue shouldn't be hard, people chosen for deeds BEYOND that of others should be chosen, rather than selecting a racially, sexually etc diverse people. Our currency has the faces of firsts such as Sir Edmond Hillary (5 dollar note) for being the first to climb mount Everest and then promoting sporting in kids until his death or Ernest Rutherford (100 dollar note) known as the father of Nuclear Physics.
We also have the Queen of England on one (20 dollar note), but when she dies we will more than likely replace her. Even though she has done surprising amount of things in her life.
Choosing a women to go on a bank note is sexist. Why not simply chose based on achievement?
43066
Post by: feeder
 Swastakowey wrote:
Choosing a women to go on a bank note is sexist. Why not simply chose based on achievement?
The point is, Tubman achieved a heck of a lot. She was a pivotal resistor of the Slave Trade, a Civil War Hero and an early Suffragette. She is an outstanding example of overcoming great obstacles and long odds to make a lasting mark for the betterment of society. She beat the fething game of Life on the hardest difficulty setting! (Black, Female, Slave).
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
 feeder wrote: Swastakowey wrote:
Choosing a women to go on a bank note is sexist. Why not simply chose based on achievement?
The point is, Tubman achieved a heck of a lot. She was a pivotal resistor of the Slave Trade, a Civil War Hero and an early Suffragette. She is an outstanding example of overcoming great obstacles and long odds to make a lasting mark for the betterment of society. She beat the fething game of Life on the hardest difficulty setting! (Black, Female, Slave).
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
True, but as the poll suggests she has not been selected on the basis of her achievements. Rather they chose people based on their gender AND THEN looked at their achievements. I have no doubt she did some amazing things. I have never heard of her personally. I guess the motives dont seem very correct behind her as a choice. Imagine how she, as a fighter of rights etc (quick google search) would feel if she was chosen to be on the 20 dollar bill... because she was a women. I think that would not go down so well.
There was an example on her wikipedia. She was paid in rations for her job as a nurse. The other Negroes however did not get paid. So what does she do? She CHOOSES to no longer be compensated for her work. She doesnt sound like the kind of person who would be happy to get special treatment. ESpecially if the motives for this special treatment go against one of the things she fought for.
Dunno, just my two cents I guess. Im never gonna see an american bill so it doesnt effect me. I actually didnt know they had faces on them.... (only the white house I have ever seen on US cash).
42144
Post by: cincydooley
feeder wrote:
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
Is that a not so subtle way to call those that aren't jumping out of their shoes to start minting her racists or bigots?
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
cincydooley wrote: feeder wrote:
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
Is that a not so subtle way to call those that aren't jumping out of their shoes to start minting her racists or bigots?
*DING DING DING* We have a winner!
She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Ghazkuul wrote: Sigvatr wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
In general, any women that achieved more than any comparable male counterpart. Choosing a woman over a more qualified man just because of her being a woman is sexism. In particular, not familiar enough with US history myself.
Exalted! Finally someone who sees this for what it is, sexism.
Ghazkuul, how do you walk around with such a big chip on your shoulder? I understand not wanting to change the imagery for history, but you seem pretty up in a fit about anything to do with feminism or women in general. Side note, what's the word for the opposite of a feminazi? Meninazi? Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote: feeder wrote: I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
Is that a not so subtle way to call those that aren't jumping out of their shoes to start minting her racists or bigots?
I think he's referring to them being sexist rather than them being racist. Just inferring, though.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
cincydooley wrote: feeder wrote:
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
Is that a not so subtle way to call those that aren't jumping out of their shoes to start minting her racists or bigots?
Thats a bold strategy cotton, lets see if it pays off for him.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Ustrello wrote: cincydooley wrote: feeder wrote:
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
Is that a not so subtle way to call those that aren't jumping out of their shoes to start minting her racists or bigots?
Thats a bold strategy cotton, lets see if it pays off for him.
I thought the sexists were the ones choosing applicants based on gender?
What kind of strategy is this? Reverse psychology?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ustrello wrote:Betsy Ross if we are going to go with an iconic piece of american history
Considering the Betsy Ross tale is one that is nearly fabricated by her descendents and she at most stiched a few stars in and no one knows who really created it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_Ross
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.
In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost.
I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely.
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Even that is true, some basic research says that it might of it might not of, I still say she is a good fit.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Ghazkuul wrote:I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.
In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost.
I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely.
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, I'm just pointing out you've been fairly hostile to anything remotely involving women's rights. As said before, I understand not wanting to put someone in place of Jackson, but you seem seriously insulted by the fact that it's a poc woman.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
jreilly89 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot. In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost. I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely. My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, I'm just pointing out you've been fairly hostile to anything remotely involving women's rights. As said before, I understand not wanting to put someone in place of Jackson, but you seem seriously insulted by the fact that it's a poc woman.
I am 100% certain it was the method of selection that annoyed him... not the result. Come on man its pretty obvious. Who cares if its a black chick? Obviously those who care showed their sexist behavior by advocating in the first place. What matters is the achievement, well that's what should matter anyway.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Ghazkuul wrote:My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced? A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up. I can't tell for sure because US history is not my speciality, but based on what I can read from wikipedia pages etc., Tubman took an extremely unfavourable starting point and situation and became a hero. Jackson managed some even more spectacular deeds in a vacuum, at least in terms of resulting effect, but he also had less resistance and a better starting point. White male lawyer and black female slave, and it was a fair time ago so the difference in resulting resistance was even more extreme than it is today. I am not one to judge which of the two come out ahead in that comparison, I'll leave it to those better at history than I am, but it's at least a viewpoint one could consider, and should one conclude that Tubman does come out ahead I think it's obscene to call that conclusion 'sexism'.
87291
Post by: jreilly89
Swastakowey wrote: jreilly89 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.
In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost.
I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely.
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, I'm just pointing out you've been fairly hostile to anything remotely involving women's rights. As said before, I understand not wanting to put someone in place of Jackson, but you seem seriously insulted by the fact that it's a poc woman.
I am 100% certain it was the method of selection that annoyed him... not the result. Come on man its pretty obvious. Who cares if its a black chick? Obviously those who care showed their sexist behavior by advocating in the first place. What matters is the achievement, well that's what should matter anyway.
I don't see why. It was taken as a vote and then petitioned. I think it should then go to a regular vote U.S. wide, but it's still pretty democratic. Hell, start a petition if you don't want it to change.
Second, the achievement should matter, but it's pretty clear everyone has a different definition of achievement. I think she did a great job and left a huge social impact, but obviously some view military/political career as more important. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?
A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up. I can't tell for sure because US history is not my speciality, but based on what I can read from wikipedia pages etc., Tubman took an extremely unfavourable starting point and situation and became a hero. Jackson managed some even more spectacular deeds in a vacuum, at least in terms of resulting effect, but he also had less resistance and a better starting point. White male lawyer and black female slave, and it was a fair time ago so the difference in resulting resistance was even more extreme than it is today.
I am not one to judge which of the two come out ahead in that comparison, I'll leave it to those better at history than I am, but it's at least a viewpoint one could consider, and should one conclude that Tubman does come out ahead I think it's obscene to call that conclusion 'sexism'.
Good post, Ash. I think a lot of people refuse to take historical context into effect when looking back on history and I feel that is rather sad.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
I look at it this way, tubman who saved hundreds of people and was involved in womens suffrage all great things. Or jackson who faced down probably the best army in the world at the time out numbered and outgunned. He won a battle in a war that is sometimes called the second war of independence in which we did not do so well.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?
A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up. I can't tell for sure because US history is not my speciality, but based on what I can read from wikipedia pages etc., Tubman took an extremely unfavourable starting point and situation and became a hero. Jackson managed some even more spectacular deeds in a vacuum, at least in terms of resulting effect, but he also had less resistance and a better starting point. White male lawyer and black female slave, and it was a fair time ago so the difference in resulting resistance was even more extreme than it is today.
I am not one to judge which of the two come out ahead in that comparison, I'll leave it to those better at history than I am, but it's at least a viewpoint one could consider, and should one conclude that Tubman does come out ahead I think it's obscene to call that conclusion 'sexism'.
Its sexism because she was chosen to be on the note for being a women before considering her achievements. If that is not sexism then your view on sexism is incorrect.
Nobody doubts her achievements. But as far as I can tell, replacing someone and then the having the only replacements select able as women is sexism. Would you not be outraged if the only applicants to a poll for the next face of your 20 dollar bill were men only? Im sure you would. Because that too is sexism.
Thankfully this process is a bunch of random sexists on the internet submitting petition. Hopefully it will not be considered. The next note to be updated should have a face chosen by vote in a pole not aimed at selecting a certain gender/race/whatever.
Anyway, as I said earlier its not even my country. But I found it interesting that such a poll would be considered. Its a very backward way of going about something.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Swastakowey wrote: jreilly89 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.
In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost.
I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely.
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, I'm just pointing out you've been fairly hostile to anything remotely involving women's rights. As said before, I understand not wanting to put someone in place of Jackson, but you seem seriously insulted by the fact that it's a poc woman.
I am 100% certain it was the method of selection that annoyed him... not the result. Come on man its pretty obvious. Who cares if its a black chick? Obviously those who care showed their sexist behavior by advocating in the first place. What matters is the achievement, well that's what should matter anyway.
you sir nailed it, im offended that this even got made into a petition, less then 1/2 of a % of the US population participated in the vote, less then 1/2 of that 1/2 of a % chose this person to be the winner. And the selection criteria to even be voted on was they had to be a woman. If you read the website it basically slanders Jackson and says that a woman needs to be on the currency because its the 100 year anniversary of womens suffrage. Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Swastakowey wrote:Its sexism because she was chosen to be on the note for being a women before considering her achievements. If that is not sexism then your view on sexism is incorrect.
Not really.
I mean, she not only saved hundreds of people (which is pretty amazing in itself), but she also did this during the 19th century as a woman where sexism was far more omnipresent than today, and as if that wasn't enough she also did this as a black person where racism was far more omnipresent than today, and she was even a slave to boot!
She is not suitable simply because she was a woman, but the fact that she was a woman made her feats even more impressive because it meant she faced even more resistance.
Calling it sexism just seems like sensationalism to me.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Ashiraya wrote: Swastakowey wrote:Its sexism because she was chosen to be on the note for being a women before considering her achievements. If that is not sexism then your view on sexism is incorrect.
Not really.
I mean, she not only saved hundreds of people (which is pretty amazing in itself), but she also did this during the 19th century as a woman where sexism was far more omnipresent than today, and as if that wasn't enough she also did this as a black person where racism was far more omnipresent than today, and she was even a slave to boot!
She is not suitable simply because she was a woman, but the fact that she was a woman made her feats even more impressive because it meant she faced even more resistance.
Calling it sexism just seems like sensationalism to me.
Did you read the first post:
Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
If anyone watches the show (specifically our british friends) Jeremy Clarkson was fired from Top Gear and we made and signed a 1million person petition to have him reinstated. Thats 1 MILLION people signing a document to get a TV presenter back on the air. Tubman received less then 200k votes for a piece of US currency....take that into account :-P
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Ghazkuul wrote:Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.
When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion. Comparing them in a vacuum is not entirely fair. An idiot can do more with a billion dollars than a genius can do with one, that does not make the idiot more worthy of praise. Jackson was not an idiot, but he did have things going for him in a -way- greater degree. Automatically Appended Next Post: Swastakowey wrote: Did you read the first post: Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.
I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.
When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote:
Did you read the first post:
Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.
I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.
then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.
As far as difficulty in their achievement. Tubman faced danger but so did a large number of other under ground railroad conductors. IF caught she would have become a slave again. Andrew Jackson fought in three wars. Call me biased because i served in the military as well but that seems a bit more dangerous then running around at night with freed slaves. Every US currency note has the face of a person who GREATLY shaped our countries history. Tubman didn't Jackson did. simple as that.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.
When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote:
Did you read the first post:
Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.
I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.
Then you are not understanding what people are saying is sexist at all... read over the comments again.
A sexist poll will produce a sexist result. What are people annoyed about, that Tubman on the bill campaign was the result of a sexist poll made by sexist people.
No one minds Tubman, or what she did. Heck if she won by fair process then fine. But she was chosen because of her gender which is not ok.
5470
Post by: sebster
Xenomancers wrote:It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.
It is a remarkable thing that people will see issues such as jobs and escape poverty and decide those things are nowhere near as important as people getting to hold on to their gold, so much so that any move to control gold would be called tyranny. Sadly it isn't that uncommon an attitude, but still remarkable every time it appears.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Ghazkuul wrote:then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.
Not really, no. And I do not see the problem with putting a woman on the $20 either way. Again, I am arguing from an outsider's standpoint as I am not an US citizen myself, but... How many men have you had on money, and how many women? Call me biased because I have never been much of a fan of militaries and their glorification, but I do not think military feats are that much more important than incredible civil heroism carried out despite far worse odds than what most others would face.
79243
Post by: Swastakowey
Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.
Not really, no. And I do not see the problem with putting a woman on the $20 either way. Again, I am arguing from an outsider's standpoint as I am not an US citizen myself, but... How many men have you had on money, and how many women? Call me biased because I have never been much of a fan of militaries and their glorification, but I do not think military feats are that much more important than incredible civil heroism carried out despite far worse odds than what most others would face.
So then you are sexist. You do not see a problem with a gender exclusive selection process and are happy to exclude people. Or you simply dont understand what the problem is. Which I suspect is the case. Nobody minds if a women is on the bill, but she must be chosen like everyone else, men included. Tubman being selected is not a fair process. Its not an us vs them, its about having things as they should be. Which you dont seem to want.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.
Not really, no. And I do not see the problem with putting a woman on the $20 either way. Again, I am arguing from an outsider's standpoint as I am not an US citizen myself, but... How many men have you had on money, and how many women? Call me biased because I have never been much of a fan of militaries and their glorification, but I do not think military feats are that much more important than incredible civil heroism carried out despite far worse odds than what most others would face.
But you have Charles XI and Gustav Vasa on your money
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
I could argue your ''''''''''''fair process'''''''''' is sexist to begin with because it selects suitable candidates based on their feats without taking into account the wildly varying difficulties and resistance each person faced, which naturally greatly favours white men since they have always been most privileged and favoured by society for presidents and similar roles that are most likely to get you a spot on the bill. So defending it like you do is sexist. That's putting it into quite another perspective, now doesn't it? Not saying you are sexist, but consider the above viewpoint for a while and you'll see that it's not nearly as easy as you think to point out who objectively deserves a spot on the money and call everything else sexism. Automatically Appended Next Post: And Jenny Lind, and Selma Lagerlöf. We have 5 bills, with a 3-2 split. Seems fair to me.
74210
Post by: Ustrello
Ah but you are not a fan of military glorification and yet you do not complain about those two.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Ashiraya wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.
When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.
Comparing them in a vacuum is not entirely fair. An idiot can do more with a billion dollars than a genius can do with one, that does not make the idiot more worthy of praise. Jackson was not an idiot, but he did have things going for him in a -way- greater degree.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote:
Did you read the first post:
Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.
I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.
You know Andrew Jackson wasn't born a lawyer, right? He was born to a fairly poor scots immigrant family. He was the first 'working class' president America had, those before him generally came from the landed gentry class. His father died before he was born and his two brothers and mother died during the revolutionary war, which he fought in as an irregular - at the age of 13 mind you. He became a lawyer by teaching himself the law out of books, not going to some fancy university.
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Ustrello wrote:Ah but you are not a fan of military glorification and yet you do not complain about those two.
If I do or not has less relevance here because this is not about the Swedish money. Make a thread about Swedish money if you like, and I'll happily give you my full opinion on what we have on our banknotes and coins there. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Bromsy wrote: You know Andrew Jackson wasn't born a lawyer, right? He was born to a fairly poor scots immigrant family. He was the first 'working class' president America had, those before him generally came from the landed gentry class. His father died before he was born and his two brothers and mother died during the revolutionary war, which he fought in as an irregular - at the age of 13 mind you. He became a lawyer by teaching himself the law out of books, not going to some fancy university.
Aha. Thanks for the info on his background. It does work a bit in his favour, but not enough to convince to me automatically rule out Tubman in a comparison of the two. I'll let those like you who are better accustomed to US history do that specifically, but I'll continue to point out that you should take into account who they are and what they faced, not just what the results were. Anyway, I've said mine, and wtf am I not asleep it's 07:29 AM. Good night. o7
5470
Post by: sebster
Xenomancers wrote:Ofc it's just my opinion - FDR had a rough situation and he took extremely drastic measures. It just so happens overnight the US government became the richest government in history by taking all it's citizens most valuable property. Theres something unamerican about that. I don't think it's worthy of praise.
They paid a market price for the gold, you know. The price spiked shortly after (due to the US govt becoming such a major new player) and the govt thereby profited greatly, but the price originally set was hardly unfair. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghazkuul wrote:Anyone else find it amusing that we have a "Mod" trolling so hard?
I think it's a sad reflection of the internet that terms that used to have a real meaning, like trolling, is now used to dismiss anyone who takes moderately aggressive, pithy tone. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?
That's loading the question. Dropping Jackson should be argued purely on Jackson's record, and whether the replacement is a man or woman would be a secondary matter. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghazkuul wrote:She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.
And this is the perfect example of why framing the question is so powerful. Even one of the people who are opposed to only considering women for equality's sake, has been suckered in to thinking the question can only be considered in terms of either Jackson or a woman.
It's an incredibly powerful political tool. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ashiraya wrote:What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?
A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up.
Because the scale matters, basically. A person in charge of greater resources simply has more scope to advance their nation and shape history.
78353
Post by: Wyzilla
JFK didn't accomplish much at all. His most remarkable action was nearly starting a nuclear war by being a colossal feth up, and then cleaning up. LBJ is far more deserving of getting his face on paper money considering he actually addressed civil rights issues instead of avoiding them. And just in general "getting gak done".
FDR though should definitely be on the $20 in place of Andrew Jackson. Arguably the greatest President we ever had given his social policies paved the road to the America we have today. The only man I would consider putting above FDR is Abraham Lincoln.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Ghazkuul wrote: She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.
It's a lot easier to get "great achievements" if you are a white male, especially when you are looking back to times when black people were basically considered subhuman. Achievements should be examined in that kind of context.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
 A Town Called Malus wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:
She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.
It's a lot easier to get "great achievements" if you are a white male, especially when you are looking back to times when black people were basically considered subhuman. Achievements should be examined in that kind of context.
No offense but what you just said is dismissing to all the great accomplishments of great men in USA history. It suggests that somehow that it was "easy" for Lincoln lead the country through the civil war or end slavery, which is absurd. Tubman didn't have as large of an impact as Jackson on shaping US history. That is just a fact.
Besides by pushing guys like Jackson into the background in the favor of less important people that align more with 21st century values is essentially whitewashing US history. Every president up until this one was a white guy, we should own that not hide from it.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There's already plenty of upper-class WASP men on the currency. It wouldn't do any harm to give someone else a chance. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghazkuul wrote:My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.
By this rule all the current personalities will have to be removed since they are all white men elected president when it was only possible to be elected president if you were a white man.
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
Kilkrazy wrote:There's already plenty of upper-class WASP men on the currency. It wouldn't do any harm to give someone else a chance.
The thing is I could see that argument if we making up a new bill that didn't exist before and were deciding who to put on there but we aren't. People want to remove a great US president from the bill to replace him with another person. If you really think jackson doesn't deserve to be on the 20 please go ahead and state your case.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Make a new bill and put someone new on it.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
I'm all for a new bill or coin with someone else on it.
Removing Jackson annoys me. Honestly, you'd be hard pressed to point to any of our presidents not on a bill that did as much for this country in and out of office. Let alone individuals in this country that weren't presidents. MLK obviously being one of the standouts for the non-presidentials. Also no Rosa Parks. I'd be pissed if a figure head was put on a bill. She was selected by the movement because the person who it happened to first wasn't as appealing aesthetically to the cause.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Are you even paying attention to this thread at all?
Multiple people have suggested multiple times that they create a new coin for situations just like this. It is, in fact, for what they were intended.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Swastakowey wrote: feeder wrote: Swastakowey wrote:
Choosing a women to go on a bank note is sexist. Why not simply chose based on achievement?
The point is, Tubman achieved a heck of a lot. She was a pivotal resistor of the Slave Trade, a Civil War Hero and an early Suffragette. She is an outstanding example of overcoming great obstacles and long odds to make a lasting mark for the betterment of society. She beat the fething game of Life on the hardest difficulty setting! (Black, Female, Slave).
I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.
True, but as the poll suggests she has not been selected on the basis of her achievements. Rather they chose people based on their gender AND THEN looked at their achievements. I have no doubt she did some amazing things. I have never heard of her personally. I guess the motives dont seem very correct behind her as a choice. Imagine how she, as a fighter of rights etc (quick google search) would feel if she was chosen to be on the 20 dollar bill... because she was a women. I think that would not go down so well.
There was an example on her wikipedia. She was paid in rations for her job as a nurse. The other Negroes however did not get paid. So what does she do? She CHOOSES to no longer be compensated for her work. She doesnt sound like the kind of person who would be happy to get special treatment. ESpecially if the motives for this special treatment go against one of the things she fought for.
Dunno, just my two cents I guess. Im never gonna see an american bill so it doesnt effect me. I actually didnt know they had faces on them.... (only the white house I have ever seen on US cash).
Well it's impossible for an American public school child to not learn a little something about Tubman. We have mandatory black history month (though no white, asian, middle eastern/hispanic history month). I even think I had to write a report on her when I was in 3rd grade.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Ghazkuul wrote:I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.
Well, you are doing a fine job at this yourself. I mean, even using the word feminazi non-ironically paints you as a bigot…
34390
Post by: whembly
Um...
(don't think this is real, but the foodstamps had plethora of different pics) Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's a real Abe:
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold. Automatically Appended Next Post: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.
Well, you are doing a fine job at this yourself. I mean, even using the word feminazi non-ironically paints you as a bigot…
Feminist are actually sexist - so being anti-feminist is being anti-sexist, which is a good thing.
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Saying this also paints you as a bigot, good sir .
221
Post by: Frazzled
If he calls you a feminist does that make you two equal?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
18698
Post by: kronk
Feminism is advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
Equal Pay for Equal Work, and so on.
Sexism is attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
How Feminism sexist?
78973
Post by: Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl
Let me check : gross generalization about peoples that are trying to change the status quo for more equality. Yeah, I am pretty sure it does paint you as a bigot.
Maybe, maybe saying “Some people that proclaim to be feminists are sexist” would not paint you as a bigot. But “Feminists are sexist” definitely will.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
kronk wrote:Feminism is advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
Equal Pay for Equal Work, and so on.
Sexism is attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
How Feminism sexist?
I'd say it's mostly because much of the vocal feminism in 2015 is very much interested in devaluation of a person's sex or gender. See: "mansplaining."
That sexism definition is awful, IMO.
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote:Feminism is advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
Equal Pay for Equal Work, and so on.
Sexism is attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
How Feminism sexist?
That used to be the case. There is a strong undercurrent now of what I would call "university feminism" not tied to real world or traditional feminism, that has moved beyond that to what we would traditionally call special interest politics (at best). read some of it, some of it gets pretty creepy.
As I have both a son and daughter, I have a vested interest in "traditional" feminism. Some of the new stuff though is balls to the wall wackjob-and you pretty much only find it in university settings.
50326
Post by: curran12
Can we just skip past the 3 or so pages of "you're sexist" "no YOU'RE sexist"?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 curran12 wrote:Can we just skip past the 3 or so pages of "you're sexist" "no YOU'RE sexist"?
Hey there's enough sexism for everyone! Don't be stingy.
So can I get s second for Miss Piggy on the $5 bill?
18698
Post by: kronk
Frazzled wrote: kronk wrote:Feminism is advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
Equal Pay for Equal Work, and so on.
Sexism is attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
How Feminism sexist?
That used to be the case. There is a strong undercurrent now of what I would call "university feminism" not tied to real world or traditional feminism, that has moved beyond that to what we would traditionally call special interest politics (at best). read some of it, some of it gets pretty creepy.
As I have both a son and daughter, I have a vested interest in "traditional" feminism. Some of the new stuff though is balls to the wall wackjob-and you pretty much only find it in university settings.
You get whack-jobs in every group. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote: curran12 wrote:Can we just skip past the 3 or so pages of "you're sexist" "no YOU'RE sexist"?
Hey there's enough sexism for everyone! Don't be stingy.
So can I get s second for Miss Piggy on the $5 bill?
If bacon costs $5 per pound, then this makes more sense that you realize!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
cincydooley wrote:
Are you even paying attention to this thread at all?
Multiple people have suggested multiple times that they create a new coin for situations just like this. It is, in fact, for what they were intended.
A coin is not a bill.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frazzled wrote: curran12 wrote:Can we just skip past the 3 or so pages of "you're sexist" "no YOU'RE sexist"?
Hey there's enough sexism for everyone! Don't be stingy.
So can I get s second for Miss Piggy on the $5 bill?
Only if the rest of the Muppets get on currency too. Gonzo and Camilla on the $1, Bunsen and Honeydew on the $2, Swedish Chef on the $10, Fozzie on the $20 (with Statler and Waldorf on the reverse), Kermit on the $50 and Jim Henson on the $100!
47013
Post by: Blood Hawk
kronk wrote: Frazzled wrote: kronk wrote:Feminism is advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.
Equal Pay for Equal Work, and so on.
Sexism is attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
How Feminism sexist?
That used to be the case. There is a strong undercurrent now of what I would call "university feminism" not tied to real world or traditional feminism, that has moved beyond that to what we would traditionally call special interest politics (at best). read some of it, some of it gets pretty creepy.
As I have both a son and daughter, I have a vested interest in "traditional" feminism. Some of the new stuff though is balls to the wall wackjob-and you pretty much only find it in university settings.
You get whack-jobs in every group.
I am pretty sure the argument is that when you look at the places where feminism lives on a everyday day basis these "whack-jobs" are actually more common then you realize. These "whack-jobs" wear misandry like a badge of honor and aren't interested in equality, choice etc.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Well if we're going that far then Henson for the $1Trillion!
221
Post by: Frazzled
YES!
50326
Post by: curran12
With that in mind, I think Statler and Waldorf should get their own bill then.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Xenomancers wrote:They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold.
You're assuming that gold has intrinsic value as a currency whereas dollars do not. Why?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
So it has to be a bill? Why? Enlighten me, oh enlightened warrior for justice.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold.
You're assuming that gold has intrinsic value as a currency whereas dollars do not. Why?
Gold certainly has intrinsic value - that is a fact isn't it? Dollar worth is tied to an economy, inflation, trust, over time your paper is worthless - golds value last forever and typical increases in value as it become more and more rare.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold.
You're assuming that gold has intrinsic value as a currency whereas dollars do not. Why?
Gold certainly has intrinsic value - that is a fact isn't it? Dollar worth is tied to an economy, inflation, trust, over time your paper is worthless - golds value last forever and typical increases in value as it become more and more rare.
Gold has no value beyond what we attribute to it. "Value" is a social construct.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold.
You're assuming that gold has intrinsic value as a currency whereas dollars do not. Why?
Gold certainly has intrinsic value - that is a fact isn't it? Dollar worth is tied to an economy, inflation, trust, over time your paper is worthless - golds value last forever and typical increases in value as it become more and more rare.
Gold has no value beyond what we attribute to it. "Value" is a social construct.
Is this about to get very existential? If so...prove to me that you exist and this whole world isnt actually a computer simulation inside your brain.
The whole world wants gold - it has value everywhere you go. I suppose marooned on an island, a pocket knife or a flint stone would have more value than a gold nugget, everywhere else - they'd prefer gold to paper. That's not an assumption that is analytically fact. Also the real issue with FDR is that he forced everyone to sell their gold to him. That's what tyrants do - force you to do things you don't want to do.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Wonder how outrage everyone becomes when this doesn't happen
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold.
You're assuming that gold has intrinsic value as a currency whereas dollars do not. Why?
Gold certainly has intrinsic value - that is a fact isn't it? Dollar worth is tied to an economy, inflation, trust, over time your paper is worthless - golds value last forever and typical increases in value as it become more and more rare.
Gold has no value beyond what we attribute to it. "Value" is a social construct.
Is this about to get very existential? If so...prove to me that you exist and this whole world isnt actually a computer simulation inside your brain.
The whole world wants gold - it has value everywhere you go. I suppose marooned on an island, a pocket knife or a flint stone would have more value than a gold nugget, everywhere else - they'd prefer gold to paper. That's not an assumption that is analytically fact. Also the real issue with FDR is that he forced everyone to sell their gold to him. That's what tyrants do - force you to do things you don't want to do.
You're a tyrant then, because you're forcing me to come up with a response to your post or concede the argument.
The whole world also wants the US Dollar, so I'm not really sure where you're going with your post. Further, the fact that gold is a valuable commodity does not prove that it has intrinsic value, only that people attribute value to it. Gold has value because we say and believe it does. Exactly the same as dollars, or Kreugerrands, or anything else.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Xenomancers wrote:They paid a market price for the gold
Yep - newly printed paper for gold.
You're assuming that gold has intrinsic value as a currency whereas dollars do not. Why?
Gold certainly has intrinsic value - that is a fact isn't it? Dollar worth is tied to an economy, inflation, trust, over time your paper is worthless - golds value last forever and typical increases in value as it become more and more rare.
Gold has no value beyond what we attribute to it. "Value" is a social construct.
Is this about to get very existential? If so...prove to me that you exist and this whole world isnt actually a computer simulation inside your brain.
The whole world wants gold - it has value everywhere you go. I suppose marooned on an island, a pocket knife or a flint stone would have more value than a gold nugget, everywhere else - they'd prefer gold to paper. That's not an assumption that is analytically fact. Also the real issue with FDR is that he forced everyone to sell their gold to him. That's what tyrants do - force you to do things you don't want to do.
You're a tyrant then, because you're forcing me to come up with a response to your post or concede the argument.
The whole world also wants the US Dollar, so I'm not really sure where you're going with your post. Further, the fact that gold is a valuable commodity does not prove that it has intrinsic value, only that people attribute value to it. Gold has value because we say and believe it does. Exactly the same as dollars, or Kreugerrands, or anything else.
If gold and bills are equal. If you burried an equal value of gold and USD in a time capsule and opened it up 50 years later - you would have the same value of each. This isn't the case though, you'd have significantly more value in your gold. Gold and paper money aren't equal in this respect. You are correct they only have the value we assign to it - exactly what FDR did. Forced everyone to sell their gold to him at his price - then the price of gold sky rocketed because it made artificially scarce and he had all of it. Your argument about gold having no intrinsic value made me think of existentialism - look it up if you want to bore yourself to death.
123
Post by: Alpharius
hotsauceman1 wrote:If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.
...what?!?
Are you sure you're in college?!?
50541
Post by: Ashiraya
Xenomancers wrote:Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions. I only really encounter the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection, and a less overt way to discredit the push for women's rights.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Alpharius wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.
...what?!?
Are you sure you're in college?!?
Must be auto correct.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Feminazis here are usually only encountered at Neo Nazi rallies...
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Xenomancers wrote:
If gold and bills are equal. If you burried an equal value of gold and USD in a time capsule and opened it up 50 years later - you would have the same value of each. This isn't the case though, you'd have significantly more value in your gold. Gold and paper money aren't equal in this respect. You are correct they only have the value we assign to it - exactly what FDR did. Forced everyone to sell their gold to him at his price - then the price of gold sky rocketed because it made artificially scarce and he had all of it. Your argument about gold having no intrinsic value made me think of existentialism - look it up if you want to bore yourself to death.
Not necessarily. If the economy of the US is not based on gold (and it isn't, it's based on financial services) then the gold price could drop (say a large amount of gold was discovered in a new mine) whilst the value of the dollar increases.
18698
Post by: kronk
hotsauceman1 wrote:If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.
What the feth are you trying to say.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
kronk wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:If i was a conspiact nut I would say this is some sot of plan to out the govt as inherantly sexist.
What the feth are you trying to say.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
Exam time, it has melted Hotsauceman's brain
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Ashiraya wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.
I only really see the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection.
To be fair, by international standards we're all feminazi communists.
That's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that their value is both derived from the same source: us.
For what it's worth, the price of gold only increased by a factor of 10-ish between 1934 and 1984. If you had one dollar with an interest rate of 1% between 1934 and 1984, that dollar would've paid off by a factor of 394. That darn tyrant!
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Ashiraya wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.
I only really encounter the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection, and a less overt way to discredit the push for women's rights.
Sweden really is just a happy place isn't it? I'd love to visit sometime. Feminism is definitely a bad word here in the states basically Synonymous with feminazi.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Pretty much. I have 3 7 page papers due in the span on a week.
None have been assigned yet.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ashiraya wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.
I only really see the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection.
To be fair, by international standards we're all feminazi communists.
That's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that their value is both derived from the same source: us.
For what it's worth, the price of gold only increased by a factor of 10-ish between 1934 and 1984. If you had one dollar with an interest rate of 1% between 1934 and 1984, that dollar would've paid off by a factor of 394. That darn tyrant!
How could that be possible. 1% of a dollar is a penny. Over 50 years this would net you a .50$ profit (obviosuly this would be a little more depending on compounding but it wouldn't be much more.) This wouldn't even come close to the rate of inflation which is an average of about 5% per year. So investing a dollar at 1% interest leaves you with negative return on investment. Gold however is unaffected by inflation. Again - gold wins. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:Feminazis here are usually only encountered at Neo Nazi rallies...
Really? What are those like? LOL.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The beer's good, but all the goosestepping gets annoying...
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
A Town Called Malus wrote:
It's a lot easier to get "great achievements" if you are a white male, especially when you are looking back to times when black people were basically considered subhuman. Achievements should be examined in that kind of context.
I wonder then, what you would say to the accomplishments of Eli Whitney's cotton gin??
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Education in today's time frame is a bit....weak compare to 80's 
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Xenomancers wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote: Ashiraya wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.
I only really see the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection.
To be fair, by international standards we're all feminazi communists.
That's not what I'm claiming, I'm claiming that their value is both derived from the same source: us.
For what it's worth, the price of gold only increased by a factor of 10-ish between 1934 and 1984. If you had one dollar with an interest rate of 1% between 1934 and 1984, that dollar would've paid off by a factor of 394. That darn tyrant!
How could that be possible. 1% of a dollar is a penny. Over 50 years this would net you a .50$ profit (obviosuly this would be a little more depending on compounding but it wouldn't be much more.) This wouldn't even come close to the rate of inflation which is an average of about 5% per year. So investing a dollar at 1% interest leaves you with negative return on investment. Gold however is unaffected by inflation. Again - gold wins.
It's possible because I fethed up and did the interest payments monthly instead of yearly.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
If you haven't read the entire thing, awhile back I pointed out that a female marine who is a friend of mine is a Feminist. She gets rather pissed when someone labels a female as feminist when in reality that female is a Feminazi, the difference is that feminists fight for equal rights in all things which is an honorable goal. Feminazi's are all about switching the power rolls so that woman are #1 and men become second class citizens, such as woman were in the early part of the 1900s and before. A case and point of the difference would be a woman who demands equal pay in the work place to her male counter part. While at the same time a Feminazi would demand higher pay or compensation of some sort because she has to work in a male dominated environment and this puts her at a disadvantage (at least in her head).
43066
Post by: feeder
Just a tip for everyone in this thread: if you use the term "Feminazi" un-ironically, you alienate the undecided readers and cause them to dismiss your point as radicalised nonsense.
Since the intent of debate is not to change the opposition's mind (an impossibly herculean feat), but rather to sway the undecided readers to your side, it behooves the debater to avoid polarising buzzwords like "feminazi" and "mansplaining"
Unless, of course, the intent is not to debate, but rather rant publicly and bitterly about those durn wimmenz ruining your life then go right ahead.
10104
Post by: snurl
Haven't read the thread but, traditionally, in all but a few cases, US currency has featured US presidents.
Harriet Tubman was never a US president.
Whats the question here?
Don't get me wrong, once a woman is elected and does a good job as president I'm all for seeing her picture on some money.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
 snurl wrote:Haven't read the thread but, traditionally, in all but a few cases, US currency has featured US presidents.
Wikipedia wrote:
Below is a summary of the titles/positions held, at one time or another, by the 53 individuals depicted on United States banknotes from 1861 to the present. The list of positions is not exhaustive, but does address the central elected federal and state officials, members of the President’s cabinet, military figureheads, and several of the founders and framers of the United States government.
Fifty-three people held at least 132 elected and appointed positions for a cumulative total of over 763 years of public service.
President of the United States 13
Vice President 2
Speaker of the House 1
President pro tem 1
Secretary of State 11
Secretary of the Treasury 8
Secretary of War 3
Attorney General 1
United States Senate 20
United States House 17
State Senate 6
State House 11
Governor 15
Delegate, Continental Congress 7
Signer, Declaration of Independence 3
Member, U.S. Constitutional Convention 5
Commanding General 6
Supreme Court 2
So yeah, Presidents aren't even in the top three.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
That list is pretty mis informative. Many of the presidents on the currency also held the lesser roles before becoming president.
Poor form.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
So it is, I'm on a mistake-making roll at the moment apparently.
23
Post by: djones520
Yeah, John Quincy Adams was like 5 of the things on that list.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
So, I'm just gonna say straight up what everyone who wants to preserve our nation's history should be saying...
feth no. Simply put.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
Ashiraya wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Please don't get me wrong - I am for all forms of equality - I just don't think feminism is for equality - it's essentially just anti male-ism at this point.
If it really is that horrible in the US, I am at least happy it is not something global. For example, the 'traditional' feminism is still the norm in Sweden, to the degree where it effectively is the only feminism.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''Feminazis'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' exist here, but they are so rare you can effectively exclude them from any discussion without any repercussions.
I only really encounter the 'feminazi' deal used as a deflection, and a less overt way to discredit the push for women's rights.
I am curious as to where are these non-radical feminists in Sweden? The most offical representation that can be easily observed is the offical party Feminist Iniative, which does not seem to be for equality, as I recall that they for example proposed an extra tax only for males. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Sienisoturi wrote:. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Sienisoturi wrote:. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.
That's not exactly a lack of rights. As far as actual rights are concerned, everyone is the same and has been for decades.
What causes the gender pay gap is residual aftershocks of when rights weren't actually the same, and almost certainly a hefty dose of confirmation bias(my pay isn't the same as my colleague, I'm a female and he's a male. It must be because sexism!). Give it another 50 years or so and things should even out. You're not going to change things instantly.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Sienisoturi wrote:
I am curious as to where are these non-radical feminists in Sweden? The most offical representation that can be easily observed is the offical party Feminist Iniative, which does not seem to be for equality, as I recall that they for example proposed an extra tax only for males. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Third Wave feminism. When you run out of issue, you make up your own. Cause drama. You try to draw attention, as much as possible, because you fear being lost in unimportance. Second Wave feminism was the last real feminism wave and there, fortunately, still are women fighting under its flags, including my wife, who take care of actual problems. Women in need of rights. Africa, for example. Forced circumscion of women is a cruel crime that needs to be fought by all possible means. India with countless women getting mutiliated, legally. Turkey. Politcally desired oppression of women.
Meanwhile, while so many women are getting tortured and killed, a lot of them just for saying that whatever happens to them is wrong, we got women talking about "stare rape", complaining there being more streets or thunderstorms named after men than women, traffic light signs showing neutral gender instead of women etc. Women who claim being "feminists". Long story short: those women are disgusting. They tear the good name feminism once had in the mud, they use it to compensate their own personal shortcomings / problems and defame the name. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Grey Templar wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote: Sienisoturi wrote:. Also, what are these rights that women still lack in western countries?
Depending on your source, there is still a "major" income gap between males and females. While there certainly can be something to be said about that (I've read one article that pointed out that as more women become veterinarians, to the point where they out number male vets, the median pay for veterinarians has gone down by some fair bit), there's too many articles and sources out there that use faulty research methods and the like to really paint a drastic picture that may not entirely be there.
That's not exactly a lack of rights. As far as actual rights are concerned, everyone is the same and has been for decades.
What causes the gender pay gap is residual aftershocks of when rights weren't actually the same, and almost certainly a hefty dose of confirmation bias(my pay isn't the same as my colleague, I'm a female and he's a male. It must be because sexism!). Give it another 50 years or so and things should even out. You're not going to change things instantly.
The Gender Gap is a huge lie. /Actual/ feminists consider the Gender Gap to be almost fully eradicated. Adjusted Gender Gap is what you really want to look at as this takes stuff like hours worked into account. The regular Gender Gap is used by radicals / idelogists who basically claim it's unfair that a man who works more earns more.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Exalted again my friend. You hit every nail on the head. Feminists still exist in the traditional sense, they fight for rights not petty things such as forcing the government to put a woman on the $20 bill.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
If it's so petty, shouldn't it be beneath Jackson? What is it with these boards and the rampant sexism? Yeah, I said it, cause its fething true.
if the mods deem fit to censure me which we did, so be it, but damn, somebody's gotta say it. No you really didn't, never break rule 1 even if you disagree with someone, just hit the yellow triangle and we'll handle it, motyak
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
 Gordon Shumway wrote:If it's so petty, shouldn't it be beneath Jackson? What is it with these boards and the rampant sexism? Yeah, I said it, cause its fething true.
I actually don't know what your talking about. How can it be beneath jackson since he doesn't get a say in this. This is a "Feminist" group trying to push for a historic and famous US president to be replaced by a woman voted by 200,000ish people to replace him. This has nothing to do with feminism or equal rights and everything to do with sensationalism and show boating. If this does happen it will be a large blow to true feminism and the American Ideal of equality. Automatically Appended Next Post: and furthermore, it is the current trend for it to be almost impossible for a woman to be guilty of sexism. Case and point, new supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was somehow allowed to become a US Supreme court justice even after giving this speech.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
the key part you need to read would be this
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
That would be the definition of both racism and sexism in the same instance but somehow she was still allowed to become a supreme court justice.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
Sorry, but I amended my previous post to include the problems I have with your tone and "facts." As to the Sotomayor qutoe, what exactly about it do you dispute? The fact that a Latina woman might reach a differing conclusion than a white male? We all all different in this country, always have been. That is our greatest strength. What is your problem with that?
|
|
