• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PokerGuy said:
Very simple. You don't change things to make one fringe group or another happy, and you don't change things to tick off one group or another. You change something when it makes logical sense to do so.
Click to expand...
Women and minorities are fringe groups? We've changed the faces on our currency since the beginning to honor important people in american history. Why is it a big deal to restart that tradition?
 
Brainonska511 said:
Women and minorities are fringe groups?
Click to expand...

The SJW's are fringe groups, claiming to represent larger segments of the population. The SJW's are the ones pushing this useless change.

We've changed the faces on our currency since the beginning to honor important people in american history. Why is it a big deal to restart that tradition?
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with a change, nor do I have a problem with many of the choices people have suggested. I just don't see a particular need to make a change to who is already on the currency. Reagan would look great on the $20 though 😉
 
PokerGuy said:
The SJW's are fringe groups, claiming to represent larger segments of the population. The SJW's are the ones pushing this useless change.



I don't have a problem with a change, nor do I have a problem with many of the choices people have suggested. I just don't see a particular need to make a change to who is already on the currency. Reagan would look great on the $20 though 😉
Click to expand...
Ah yes... Saint Reagan.

The man who pushes the way for big government and the patriot act. He had lots of great quotes (lies) though.

This article is relevant to the OP and My statement for this who don't know Reagan's real history:
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/ronald-reagan-big-government-legacy

Usually not a fan of mother Jones since its a VERY biased site, but in this case the information is irrefutable

Edit: here's an "executive order". Remember how obama got slammed on these? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...eagan-era-executive-order-led-to-mass-spying/

Edit2: i hate being a conservative when my fellows are insane and misinformed
 
Last edited:
PokerGuy said:
The SJW's are fringe groups, claiming to represent larger segments of the population. The SJW's are the ones pushing this useless change.



I don't have a problem with a change, nor do I have a problem with many of the choices people have suggested. I just don't see a particular need to make a change to who is already on the currency. Reagan would look great on the $20 though 😉
Click to expand...

The only paper Reagan deserves to be on is toilet paper. It better represents what kind of person he was.
 
mindmajick said:
Ah yes... Saint Reagan.

The man who pushes the way for big government and the patriot act. He had lots of great quotes (lies) though.

This article is relevant to the OP and My statement for this who don't know Reagan's real history:
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/ronald-reagan-big-government-legacy

Usually not a fan of mother Jones since its a VERY biased site, but in this case the information is irrefutable

Edit: here's an "executive order". Remember how obama got slammed on these? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...eagan-era-executive-order-led-to-mass-spying/
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the "😉" right next to my comment about saint Reagan?

Reagan did some very good and some very bad things. He was lightyears better as a leader than what we've had for the past 20 years, but he was certainly not without his faults.
 
PokerGuy said:
Apparently you missed the "😉" right next to my comment about saint Reagan?

Reagan did some very good and some very bad things. He was lightyears better as a leader than what we've had for the past 20 years, but he was certainly not without his faults.
Click to expand...
I saw it.. My rant wasn't quite directed at you.. Just directed outward.

But you are correct. Like EVERY president Reagan did good and bad things.

Carter accomplished a lot more good than most people, left or right, give him credit for. Unfortunately, his presidency was overshadowed by the first oil crisis which he helped create.

But small government will never equal- giant NSA, CIA and military. Blows my mind all my fellow "small government" advocates are constantly asking for more war.

AND WHO CARES WHO'S ON THE $$ AS LONG AS IT STILL SPENDS! that's the real American way.
 
mindmajick said:
But small government will never equal- giant NSA, CIA and military.
Click to expand...

The truth is that Reagan the public persona, speeches and positions were generally great, but the actions were often very different or even completely opposite of the public position(s). That's for another thread though.

Blows my mind all my fellow "small government" advocates are constantly asking for more war.
Click to expand...

"small government" generally refers to governance and oversight within the country, not to the military activity undertaken to (supposedly) keep the country safe and further our strategic interests. You can be for small government and still advocate for wars (think WWII) and a large military needed to keep the country safe. That said, I think our military might too often gets applied to further political or economic goals rather than true strategic and safety concerns.
 
PokerGuy said:
The truth is that Reagan the public persona, speeches and positions were generally great, but the actions were often very different or even completely opposite of the public position(s). That's for another thread though.
Click to expand...

Reagan was about as neoliberal as you could get.
 
PokerGuy said:
The truth is that Reagan the public persona, speeches and positions were generally great, but the actions were often very different or even completely opposite of the public position(s). That's for another thread though.



"small government" generally refers to governance and oversight within the country, not to the military activity undertaken to (supposedly) keep the country safe and further our strategic interests. You can be for small government and still advocate for wars (think WWII) and a large military needed to keep the country safe. That said, I think our military might too often gets applied to further political or economic goals rather than true strategic and safety concerns.
Click to expand...
I'm just tired of my fellow conservatives trying to axe social programs that cost practically nothing. Especially when compared to our military and intelligence budgets.

Did you know that 70% of our intelligence spending in 2007 went to "contractng agencies". Yup, mercenaries. We've been using more and more as Obama continues the "more of the same" policies of bush, jr

Edit: 1000% agree on military force being overused.
 
CitizenKain said:
Well, its not the only reason, but seeing a bunch of idiot republicans get mad about a black person being on their money is going to be great. Especially a black woman.

Only way it could be better if it was Michelle Obama.
Click to expand...

lol
 
CitizenKain said:
Well, its not the only reason, but seeing a bunch of idiot republicans get mad about a black person being on their money is going to be great. Especially a black woman.

Only way it could be better if it was Michelle Obama.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure you can't be alive and on currency. While I don't think most Repubs care much for her husband's political views I don't think they disagree to the level that they want his wife dead.
 
Jaskalas said:
Fine.

Why does Harriet Tubman compare to the founders?
Click to expand...

I guess because it is a part of our history that is more or less overlooked in many ways. Not completely, not anymore, obviously, but it seems that the black heroes tend to be more or less reserved for blacks only, in a way--only MLK has a national monument, I think?

I don't honestly care either way, but I can see the argument for adding that history to our currency--it certainly adds a greater weight to it, makes that history far more indelible to common American history, and not just "reserve status" with its one time per year, one section of history class, fields and disciplines devoted to Black History...if that makes any sense.

I can't think of a great argument against doing that, honestly, and I think choosing Douglas or Tubman, or even MLK, if that is indeed a serious discussion, would be fine.

I also can't think of a great reason for keeping Jackson around, much less who would truly raise a stink about it. I mean, I actually always liked the guy, because he was such a hardass and because he threw a raging kegger at the WH the night of his inauguration--he was the first "regular guy" that ever ran for and won the presidency; but he truly was a piece of shit and is responsible for one of the worst moments in our history.
 
i would like to see HT on the 20, i remember the report i did on her in the 6th grade and the underground railroad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top