Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alexander-hamilton-to-share-image-on--10-bill-with-a-woman-020203969.html

The treasury has officially announced that the US $10 will have Alexander Hamilton, a founding father of the United States replaced by a female to be voted on by the general public. So what I garnered from that story is that the Treasury is now officially open to taken demands from special interest groups.

Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.

 pretre wrote:
Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.

Your right, but the main picture will be changed and Hamilton will be moved to a less conspicuous place. My guess is that he is going to be turned into one of those images on the bill you can't see unless you look at it in the right way.

Eh. Never liked Hamilton anyway. Guy was a whiny little bitch

Let's put someone badass on there

Options;

Susan B. Anthony (Women's Sufferage seems approps)
Clara Barton (Started the American Red Cross)
Emily Dickenson (One of the most celebrated American authors)
Francis Perkins (First women in the President's cabinet)
Sally Ride (First woman in Space)
Eleanor Roosevelt (first of the modern first ladies)

Personally I'd go for Eleanor Roosevelt

 pretre wrote:
Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.

Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now.
Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?

 -Shrike- wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.

Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now.
Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?

The article linked in the first post not only says that in the text, but actually says it in the URL.

 -Shrike- wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.

Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now.
Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?

As I said he is being relegated to a smaller portion of the bill, my guess is hes going to become a fraud detector image or he will be moved onto the back of the bill or to a side and be minimized to fit into the slot. Regardless, the entire notion of putting anyone, not just a female, in the place of Alexander Hamilton is ridiculous. The man literally led part of the Revolution and afterwards became secretary of the treasury where he built the US economy from the ground up. Nobody currently not on a bill deserves his spot, period.

Cool stuff. about time.

"Susan B. Anthony"

its probably that

 Desubot wrote:
Cool stuff. about time.

"Susan B. Anthony"

its probably that

Susan B. Anthony is already on US legal tender.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Cool stuff. about time.

"Susan B. Anthony"

its probably that

Susan B. Anthony is already on US legal tender.

So is big abe and the georgemister.

there now everyone can be happy.

No queens on your money is penance for seceding from the monarchy

I would agree that Susan B is a poor choice because she's already on money. Lets find someone who isn't. Get some variety up in here

Frederick Douglas need to make an appearance.

And why is fething Andrew Jackson not being talked of being replaced?

So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.

Good questions. Jackson was an ass and committed his own little Bahtan Death March. Why is he on money?

If you put Rosa Parks in there, you kill two birds with one stone and can therefore focus on getting MOAR WHITE MEN on the rest of the bills.
(Well, you could if money was not already saturated…)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Keep the damn traditions.

Agreed. Traditions matters. Because… well, reasons. That, and the status quo. And also because it was better when I was young. And all that.

 LordofHats wrote:
Good questions. Jackson was an ass and committed his own little Bahtan Death March. Why is he on money?

He's the founder of the modern Democratic Party.

Yet, he's far more popular among Conservatives than Liberals (The Dems were pretty conservative back then... And super racist). Even among historians, he's regularly ranked highly in "good presidents" lists, despite absconding presidential responsibilities more than once, committing a straight up ethnic cleansing, and being an all around doucher. He set the tone for the Antebellum period, and that tone was dismal.

Interesting to see the reasoning for people being on money changed from actual doings and historical importance to a high school prom vote!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Interesting to see the reasoning for people being on money changed from actual doings and historical importance to a high school prom vote!

Sounds like someone doesn't like democracy!

I mean if they can choose their head of state in that way then why not who is on their money?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Interesting to see the reasoning for people being on money changed from actual doings and historical importance to a high school prom vote!

Sounds like someone doesn't like democracy!

I mean if they can choose their head of state in that way then why not who is on their money?

This isn't democracy...democracy is a form of government. Democracy isn't "Let's vote on everything and the majority of the populace decides!".

Alexander Hamilton helped create/form this country and was honored for it. Jackson did too. I'm not saying there haven't been influential women. But taking this reward away from these guys after they've earned it is bs.

I'm going out on a limb and directly ask for people to come up with women that were at least half-way as influential as Hamilton.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'm going out on a limb and directly ask for people to come up with women that were at least half-way as influential as Hamilton.

Rosa Parks as a symbol, easily.

Just put historic buildings or something like that on the money instead of people. Saves a huge lot of debate and potential issues. Most countries do it that way.

 Sigvatr wrote:
This isn't democracy...democracy is a form of government.

I thought Republic was the form of government, while democracy was the abstract concept that the people are in command.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Democracy isn't "Let's vote on everything and the majority of the populace decides!".

Someone tells Switzerland!

The man who set up the American economy/saved it on a risky gamble with unpaid soldiers is getting pumped? Why not Jackson instead?

I'll never understand why people feel the need to just make up definitions for words because they don't like what they actually mean (or can't be bothered to understand what they mean).

 pretre wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.

Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now.
Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?

The article linked in the first post not only says that in the text, but actually says it in the URL.

Well yes, there is that!

Anyway, the USA is a representative democracy - so sure, go out there and represent, those of you who really care about this sort of thing!

They are just paving the way for Clinton to go on a future bill.