Quote: (06-18-2015 12:35 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

Jefferson is on the $20

Fuck you Obama

Quote: (06-18-2015 01:11 AM)Blunt Wrote:  

Quote: (06-18-2015 12:35 AM)NomadofEU Wrote:  

Jefferson is on the $20

i confused the $2 with the $20
kinda sad i never carry cash anymore

credit: https://twitter.com/AustinVesely

If they put a woman on it, will it then only be worth $7?

But guys! Why are they only limiting to only those three? Wouldn't it be more fair and equal if all woman of some noteriety all share the $10 bill? It would be like all 50 states being put on quarters. That way is the most fair! Oprah, Caitlyn, Emma, Hillary, Lena, and countless other brave women still alive should see their own faces on such a marvelous overtaking of the patriarchy.

Hariet Tubman doesn't bother me. If they tried to put Hilary Clinton on, then that would be just silly.

I don't see what the big deal is. We've had women on our money for hundreds of years now. First Queen Victoria, now Queen Elizabeth II.

Quote: (06-17-2015 10:03 PM)Blunt Wrote:  

At least it's not the $20 bill.

Since leftists are never satisfied I predict that if this gets passed there will be a SJW activist who will publish a piece saying it's sexist that a man is pictured on a bill with a bigger nominal value then the bill with a woman on it.

It should have been on the $1 bill so men could get a lesson in American women's history every time they tip a stripper.

This is more insidious than it actually appears. Take a look at this thing that hit me this morning:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a...cid=SMSDHP

The first thing we have to realize is that this tiny group that we mentioned before that wanted to see women on currency is essentially getting its way. They had at most a few hundred thousand people participating in the online poll. That's 1000th or less of the total population. It shows the vastly disproportionate power that political correctness and identity politics wields.

The second thing that jumped at me was this:

Quote:Quote:

The debate over who should be the face of the new $10 bill could become part of a wider conversation about the social and economic progress of women. Selecting just one person for such a symbolic role may involve trade-offs, forcing officials to decide which major milestone in American history to highlight.

In other words this is going to be another excuse for the latest round of feminist shit tests. We'll be told that "oh there's been so much progress BUT look at all the bullshit women have to face like blah blah blah - it's up to you to fix this!" And you know the white knight simps will jump through the hoops like they always do.

The second sentence is also indicative of my next point - you know that the left never stops. It even says so here. They're going to eventually say "well, do you really think just ONE woman on ONE bill is representative of all the oppressed minorities?!"

They're going to start trying to put either more women or some other privileged oppressed class on the other bills, and it will happen. It will also invite more identity politics shit testing.

The only ones that won't be replaced are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. They wouldn't dare touch those.

They might touch those too. Having all dollars replaced with women would be considered "equal."

Quote: (06-18-2015 04:18 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  

I don't see what the big deal is. We've had women on our money for hundreds of years now. First Queen Victoria, now Queen Elizabeth II.

I think the point is that there really aren't any American women that deserve to be on the money.

Queen Vic ruled over a pretty amazing part of British history and Liz will be our longest serving monarch in a few months. Worth of celebration on a bank note.


As a foreigner to the US, I can only think of one woman whose name I'm actually aware of who has historical significance; Rosa Parks. Even so, she's not as important to civil rights as MLK, no?

I suppose Amelia the plane woman is a good representation of American go getting of the past.

Clutching at straws here though...

Quote: (06-18-2015 06:54 AM)Libertas Wrote:  

This is more insidious than it actually appears. Take a look at this thing that hit me this morning:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a...cid=SMSDHP

The first thing we have to realize is that this tiny group that we mentioned before that wanted to see women on currency is essentially getting its way. They had at most a few hundred thousand people participating in the online poll. That's 1000th or less of the total population. It shows the vastly disproportionate power that political correctness and identity politics wields.

The second thing that jumped at me was this:

Quote:Quote:

The debate over who should be the face of the new $10 bill could become part of a wider conversation about the social and economic progress of women. Selecting just one person for such a symbolic role may involve trade-offs, forcing officials to decide which major milestone in American history to highlight.

In other words this is going to be another excuse for the latest round of feminist shit tests. We'll be told that "oh there's been so much progress BUT look at all the bullshit women have to face like blah blah blah - it's up to you to fix this!" And you know the white knight simps will jump through the hoops like they always do.

The second sentence is also indicative of my next point - you know that the left never stops. It even says so here. They're going to eventually say "well, do you really think just ONE woman on ONE bill is representative of all the oppressed minorities?!"

They're going to start trying to put either more women or some other privileged oppressed class on the other bills, and it will happen. It will also invite more identity politics shit testing.

The only ones that won't be replaced are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. They wouldn't dare touch those.

You may be correct, may I present to you the minority currency projects of the future.

1. The black buck
2. The feminist five
3. The tranny ten
4. The plenty twenty (I was trying to think of something to represent fat people)
5. The foreigner fifty
6. The homo hundred

What putting a woman on the $ 10 bill amounts to is pure and undistilled political correctness.

From the OP's excerpt " Alexander Hamilton replaced....with a woman as yet to be determined"

"A woman as yet to be determined"

Bottom line of their thinking: " we have to get a woman on there. It doesn't matter who and , sure we'll look for a woman with some merits so we can always point to that as the reason she's on there....but damn it...just get a woman on that paper money! It doesn't matter who as long as she has a vagina and not a penis. Too many men on our US currency. It's just not Fair. It's patriarchal, it's oppressive, it's misogynist and the country ( and our currency ) has been for years."

Maybe it's also a covert way of pushing Americans toward the Hillary vote.

Quote: (06-18-2015 04:18 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  

I don't see what the big deal is. We've had women on our money for hundreds of years now. First Queen Victoria, now Queen Elizabeth II.

Lol how is that even comparable. She's not on the notes because she is a woman. She's on there because she's the monarch, and the monarch is always on there.
We're talking about changing the character on the note for no other reason than 'social equality'.

I could give a shit about what gender or race the powers that be decide to plaster on our money. Hell, eventually paper money is going to be a thing of the past anyway. Essentially polishing brass on the Titanic but whatever. This is certainly not worth wasting tax money on that's for damn sure.

As far as the cultural significance is concerned; I guess that depends on what the criteria is supposed to be for what faces we decide to put on our currency. When you think of the history of America and the people that were most significant in shaping its progress, who comes to mind? Those people should probably be represented whatever gender or race they may be. Maybe it's founding father's or maybe it's not.

Quote: (06-18-2015 02:53 AM)spokepoker Wrote:  

If they put a woman on it, will it then only be worth $7?

America, land of the feminists home of the pushovers. Is this set in stone that its going to happen to our money or is it still up in the air for debate?

Quote: (06-18-2015 08:19 AM)robreke Wrote:  

What putting a woman on the $ 10 bill amounts to is pure and undistilled political correctness.

From the OP's excerpt " Alexander Hamilton replaced....with a woman as yet to be determined"

"A woman as yet to be determined"

Bottom line of their thinking: " we have to get a woman on there. It doesn't matter who and , sure we'll look for a woman with some merits so we can always point to that as the reason she's on there....but damn it...just get a woman on that paper money! It doesn't matter who as long as she has a vagina and not a penis. Too many men on our US currency. It's just not Fair. It's patriarchal, it's oppressive, it's misogynist and the country ( and our currency ) has been for years."

Exactly the point I wanted to make. This isn't a case of there being a woman whose accomplishments were (or are) so legendary that there is a huge groundswell of support demanding she be represented on our currency. They don't even know who they want to put on there! It is 100% pandering. That's it. And no, it will never ever stop.

Quote:Quote:

There is no list of successors, but names frequently mentioned include Eleanor Roosevelt, abolitionist Harriet Tubman, civil-rights icon Rosa Parks and Wilma Mankiller, who served as principal chief of the Cherokee Nation."

This is pretty weak sauce.

They really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find women of accomplishment.

The only ones I've heard of before is Roosevelt and Parks. Roosevelt is known because she married a great man. And all due respect to Parks- she did a good thing- but not changing her bus seat does not rise to the level of achievement of say MLK who is not being considered because he had a penis while parks had a vagina.

I thought Parks was a NAACP secretary (or whatever it was) and that what really happened was a young teenage girl didn't want to move, but she got pregnant, and they didn't want a single unwed mother to spearhead their cause. So instead, they got Parks to fill in.

edit; Claudette Colvin was the teen who went to them first about it.

----------------------------------------

I'd be fine if it was the $3 bill

It's pandering. I just picture the alphas in the room at the treasury department (or wherever this was decided)...

Chic: I think it's time we consider a lizard on our currency.
Alpha1: Yes, I was talking with my mistress about that just last night.
Alpha2: I agree Alpha1 (pandering looks exchanged). I have the estimated cost of $5 million to make the change. Our history is full of lizards who shaped our country to the bastion it is today. Chic, do you a specific lizard in mind?
Alpha1: How about Sandra Day O'Connor.
(Alphas laughing)
Chic: (confused scowling) Appointed by Reagan, great idea (facetious contempt)
Alpha1: Ha yes, a joke no doubt. Because the first lizard supreme court justice means soooooooo much.
Alpha2: How about Hillary?
Chic: (missing the hyperbole) She would certainly be worth considering, though I would think a more historic figure.
(Alphas exchanging glances telling each other not to make fun of her, just dismiss her last comment)
Alpha1: Chic is right I feel...a more historic figure.
....

Quote: (06-18-2015 11:09 AM)heavy Wrote:  

I'd be fine if it was the $3 bill

Well, now we have a $7 bill. It says $10 on it, but we all will really know what it's worth is if you account for all the bullshit and time off that comes with it.

edit; All kidding aside, since this new bill will have braille on it, why not put Helen Keller as it's head piece? They're gonna put a woman on it no matter what anyone says about it, and they are already taking steps for blind people to feel the denomination, might as well connect them.