Harriet Tubman New Face of the $20

[deep]

I suppose it's right that the $3 bill features a gay icon.

Nancy Reagan?

 

[Irvine511]

Nancy Reagan?

She wouldn't even help Rock Hudson get AIDS drugs from France. I don't care how good her supposed oral sex skills were. The gays don't like her

 

[Oregoropa]

This is badass Tubman Version



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[the iron horse]

This is badass Tubman Version
View attachment 10655


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes, I totally agree.

It's about time to drop Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, and replace him with a gun wielding, Republican, Christian lady.

 

[bono_212]

So, you over there trying to be cheeky or do you support him being removed?

Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app

 

[the iron horse]

So, you over there trying to be cheeky or do you support him being removed?

Sent from my XT1575 using U2 Interference mobile app

No, not at all.

I had no problem with his image on the bill. It is fine with me if they want to replace him with Harriet Tubman.

We could learn a lot from her life.

One would be learning to show some grace and understanding.

"I think there's many a slaveholder'll get to Heaven. They don't know better. They acts up to the light they have."

~ Harriet Tubman

 

[bono_212]

No problem with his image on the bill? None? At all?

 

[nbelcik]

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Diemen]

It's about time to drop Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, and replace him with a gun wielding, Republican, Christian lady.

Because the Republican and Democratic parties of back then are completely analagous to the same parties of today.

 

[Irvine511]

I wish I'd thought of this, but ive heard it said that we should put Prince on the $20 and call it $19.99. It will be the bill formerly known as the twenty.











Boom-tish.

 

[bono_212]

Oooof

 

[cobl04]

Yes, I totally agree.

It's about time to drop Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, and replace him with a gun wielding, Republican, Christian lady.

This is back when people were oppressed by the Government. I can absolutely understand why Tubman would want a gun in the 1800s. I sincerely doubt that if she was born today she would a gun-toting Republican. I have seen this posted so many times as some sort of badge of honour when the fact is that it was an entirely different world.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

It is easy to forget sometimes that it was only 50 some odd years ago when the Democrats were the racist, socially backwards party in America.

 

[Oregoropa]

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

It is easy to forget sometimes that it was only 50 some odd years ago when the Democrats were the racist, socially backwards party in America.

And how many years before the rolls again reverse? A century?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

And how many years before the rolls again reverse? A century?

Who the hell knows... It would require a Republican break from the religious right.

I'd say our odds are better that we end up with a third or fourth party than of the two sides swinging back the other direction anytime this century.

 

[bono_212]

alt text:
I get that there are security reasons for the schedule, but this is like the ONE problem we have where the right answer is both easy and straightforward. If we can't figure it out, maybe we should just give up and just replace all the portraits on the bills with that weird pyramid eye thing.

 

[BVS]

And how many years before the rolls again reverse? A century?

Younger generations will be more tolerant, so if the GOP stop using bigotry as part of their platform they have a real shot at attracting younger fiscally minded generations who want less government. If they don't learn from their latest debacle, they will just die a slow death and will never have a chance to reverse the roles.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Younger generations will be more tolerant, so if the GOP stop using bigotry as part of their platform they have a real shot at attracting younger fiscally minded generations who want less government. If they don't learn from their latest debacle, they will just die a slow death and will never have a chance to reverse the roles.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yeah but then a party split is imminent, and it just depends on which side the base is.

Which is arbitrary. Because I can only imagine the socially tolerant side will win, with growing populations of Latinos and blacks, and youthful progressivism on things like women's rights and gay rights etc.

 

[cobl04]

Younger generations will be more tolerant, so if the GOP stop using bigotry as part of their platform they have a real shot at attracting younger fiscally minded generations who want less government. If they don't learn from their latest debacle, they will just die a slow death and will never have a chance to reverse the roles.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

But we thought this in 2012 and in 2008 as well. And now there has been an even bigger lurch to the right and there is a very real possibility Donald Fucking Trump will be president of the USA. The #NeverTrump crowd are that scared that Cruz and Kasich are now working together.

My point is I don't necessarily think that what you are saying is true. It's a very nice thought, and it would be amazing, but I think it's a bit of a pipe dream.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

But we thought this in 2012 and in 2008 as well. And now there has been an even bigger lurch to the right and there is a very real possibility Donald Fucking Trump will be president of the USA. The #NeverTrump crowd are that scared that Cruz and Kasich are now working together.



My point is I don't necessarily think that what you are saying is true. It's a very nice thought, and it would be amazing, but I think it's a bit of a pipe dream.

I think they're just the louder ones in the room. We've seen a "silent majority" before, and I'm willing to bet you're seeing it again.

 

[bono_212]

But we thought this in 2012 and in 2008 as well. And now there has been an even bigger lurch to the right and there is a very real possibility Donald Fucking Trump will be president of the USA. The #NeverTrump crowd are that scared that Cruz and Kasich are now working together.

My point is I don't necessarily think that what you are saying is true. It's a very nice thought, and it would be amazing, but I think it's a bit of a pipe dream.

You're thinking way too short term. 8 years is not the amount of time necessary to shift an entire paradigm.

 

[BVS]

But we thought this in 2012 and in 2008 as well. And now there has been an even bigger lurch to the right and there is a very real possibility Donald Fucking Trump will be president of the USA. The #NeverTrump crowd are that scared that Cruz and Kasich are now working together.



My point is I don't necessarily think that what you are saying is true. It's a very nice thought, and it would be amazing, but I think it's a bit of a pipe dream.

Like I said, it's only if they learn. As I've been saying for awhile; so far they've been too stupid to learn from their mistakes.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[cobl04]

You're thinking way too short term. 8 years is not the amount of time necessary to shift an entire paradigm.

True. And it is comforting to me to see someone like Bernie Sanders get so popular, even if he is running out of steam.

Like I said, it's only if they learn. As I've been saying for awhile; so far they've been too stupid to learn from their mistakes.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

But I'm saying I don't think they need to learn and change. It would be nice, but I think there is still (clearly) huge support for bigotry, fearmongering, the tactics they've been using.

 

[BVS]

But I'm saying I don't think they need to learn and change. It would be nice, but I think there is still (clearly) huge support for bigotry, fearmongering, the tactics they've been using.

Except they're losing. Trump doesn't have the numbers for the general election. Trump and his supporters make a lot noise, but at the end of the day they're losing. And if you look at his demographic; they're dwindling.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Oregoropa]

I always wanted to see biopic of Jackson starring Al Pacino


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Dfit00]

It's gonna take several years until the Reserve starts printing these new U$20 bills with Tubman's face, don't get too hyped.

How long is it gonna take to get Obama's face in a bill now?

 

[the iron horse]

Because the Republican and Democratic parties of back then are completely analagous to the same parties of today.

I agree. It has been all been turned upside down.

From Libertarian - Christian - Facebook:


Modern liberalism shares no resemblance to its classical form. It is now a disciple of the state and an advocate for collectivism. I am not speaking of every individual who may accept the label of liberal but rather those who advocate its ideology. It stands in conflict with every major tenet of this country’s founding.

At its core, liberalism despises individual freedoms. These freedoms demand the responsible moral behavior of the individual. The only freedoms liberalism advocates are sexual freedoms because what they truly seek is freedom from moral consequences.

Capitalism provides the opportunity for individual ownership and independence and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. Masculinity and ownership of guns are a symbol of individual power and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. The Constitution and Bill or Rights are protectors of individual liberties and therefore are enemies of liberalism. Religion promotes moral right and wrong and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. Liberalism seeks to weaken the family structure because it is charged with producing moral individuals capable of governing themselves.

The goal is a collectivist society. The requirement for this is totalitarianism. None of the things they advocate can be accomplished through persuasion. They must be forced upon society through the power of the state. And the only way to get there is to destroy families, destroy morality, destroy religion, destroy capitalism and destroy people’s faith in freedom and their ability to protect and govern themselves. It is at the heart of every institution they control and every policy they advocate.

Proponents of liberalism are more persistent and committed than conservatives. Their politics is their religion and the state is their god. And they are willing to destroy you personally and this country to get what they want even if means ruling over the ruins.

 

[BVS]

I agree. It has been all been turned upside down.



From Libertarian - Christian - Facebook:





Modern liberalism shares no resemblance to its classical form. It is now a disciple of the state and an advocate for collectivism. I am not speaking of every individual who may accept the label of liberal but rather those who advocate its ideology. It stands in conflict with every major tenet of this country’s founding.



At its core, liberalism despises individual freedoms. These freedoms demand the responsible moral behavior of the individual. The only freedoms liberalism advocates are sexual freedoms because what they truly seek is freedom from moral consequences.



Capitalism provides the opportunity for individual ownership and independence and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. Masculinity and ownership of guns are a symbol of individual power and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. The Constitution and Bill or Rights are protectors of individual liberties and therefore are enemies of liberalism. Religion promotes moral right and wrong and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. Liberalism seeks to weaken the family structure because it is charged with producing moral individuals capable of governing themselves.



The goal is a collectivist society. The requirement for this is totalitarianism. None of the things they advocate can be accomplished through persuasion. They must be forced upon society through the power of the state. And the only way to get there is to destroy families, destroy morality, destroy religion, destroy capitalism and destroy people’s faith in freedom and their ability to protect and govern themselves. It is at the heart of every institution they control and every policy they advocate.



Proponents of liberalism are more persistent and committed than conservatives. Their politics is their religion and the state is their god. And they are willing to destroy you personally and this country to get what they want even if means ruling over the ruins.

It's a shame you couldn't have responded in your own words. It's a little bit ironic, don't you think?


And it's a bigger shame that it's such a self righteous piece of bullshit, that is neither libertarian or Christian. I could explain, but we all know you don't engage.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Diemen]

The only freedoms liberalism advocates are sexual freedoms because what they truly seek is freedom from moral consequences.

...



The Constitution and Bill or Rights are protectors of individual liberties and therefore are enemies of liberalism. Religion promotes moral right and wrong and therefore is an enemy of liberalism. Liberalism seeks to weaken the family structure because it is charged with producing moral individuals capable of governing themselves.

...



The goal is a collectivist society. The requirement for this is totalitarianism. None of the things they advocate can be accomplished through persuasion. They must be forced upon society through the power of the state. And the only way to get there is to destroy families, destroy morality, destroy religion, destroy capitalism and destroy people’s faith in freedom and their ability to protect and govern themselves.


Proponents of liberalism are more persistent and committed than conservatives. Their politics is their religion and the state is their god. And they are willing to destroy you personally and this country to get what they want even if means ruling over the ruins.

Thanks for the chuckle.