User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:42:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Strong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Great choice for the $20 bill. I am surprised she was chosen to tell you the truth. I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. Tubman Why is it so surprising? Libtards make decisions according to touchy feelies, not logic, and they picked Tubman because she was the perfect person to placate Obama's reverse racist hordes. The reason why they put her on the $20 and not the $10 as they originally intended is entirely due to that Broadwaty musical making Hamilton look cool. It's Touchy Feelies influencing the decision making process again. Heck, I'll even put money on the Libtards not even knowing Tubman was a Republican. They are low-information voters and they have been indoctrinated into thinking DEMOCRATS GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD too thoroughly. I think it is you who has the touchy feelies. Why isn't she a good choice? Freedom lover - check Fought for freedom - check Injured for freedom - check Stood up for what is right - check Promoted voting rights for women - check Christian - check gun user - check Republican - check What argument could you possibly have that she isn't a good candidate to be put on the $20? Oh wait - she's black. Well shit. How you going to rationalize that, huh? Your touchy feelies don't like that, do they? Fucking nailed it man, she was a badass and I am proud to honor her. Strong. As strong as those comprehension skills there chief.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:42:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Great choice for the $20 bill. I am surprised she was chosen to tell you the truth. I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. Tubman What makes you think she was telling the truth? Also, quotes "...", how do they work 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:42:45 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just wonder if someone will complain when they get tipped with a doodled on Harriet Tubman. http://orig09.deviantart.net/08ec/f/2012/007/c/8/vegeta_on_the_5_dollar_bill_by_ruthieelz-d4loeck.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a broke government we do not need to spend the millions required to retool for a change in the twenty. leave it alone. Not to mention what do you think the average life span of one of these is going to be? How many Sharpie artists are going to be adding some "character" to the new bills? I just wonder if someone will complain when they get tipped with a doodled on Harriet Tubman. http://orig09.deviantart.net/08ec/f/2012/007/c/8/vegeta_on_the_5_dollar_bill_by_ruthieelz-d4loeck.jpg A planet of the Apes doodle is really going to piss people off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:43:38 PM EDT
[#4]
"Anythings a dildo if you're brave enough"-Harriet Tubbman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:45:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Methinks you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I had a beef with Tubman being on the $20. My point is that the Libtards chose her because of her race and gender over anything she actually accomplished. If they fully understood she was a Republican who said SCREW YOU to Democrat government authority they would have dropped her like roadkill too. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the choices for going on currency along with Tubman. Do you think she was a candidate because of her exquisite taste in fur stoles or because she was possibly a Lesbian? I can explain why I would love to see this image on the $20, and I can explain why the Libtards wouldn't. Do I really need to? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I_Mi_KKOnUI/VxhF7G5cdTI/AAAAAAAAKoU/zeeGuhs_S6wF4k07t7CvJV6Wd3A9hRkAQCK4B/s1600/Harriet%2BTubman.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great choice for the $20 bill. I am surprised she was chosen to tell you the truth. I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. Tubman Why is it so surprising? Libtards make decisions according to touchy feelies, not logic, and they picked Tubman because she was the perfect person to placate Obama's reverse racist hordes. The reason why they put her on the $20 and not the $10 as they originally intended is entirely due to that Broadwaty musical making Hamilton look cool. It's Touchy Feelies influencing the decision making process again. Heck, I'll even put money on the Libtards not even knowing Tubman was a Republican. They are low-information voters and they have been indoctrinated into thinking DEMOCRATS GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD too thoroughly. I think it is you who has the touchy feelies. Why isn't she a good choice? Freedom lover - check Fought for freedom - check Injured for freedom - check Stood up for what is right - check Promoted voting rights for women - check Christian - check gun user - check Republican - check What argument could you possibly have that she isn't a good candidate to be put on the $20? Oh wait - she's black. Well shit. How you going to rationalize that, huh? Your touchy feelies don't like that, do they? Methinks you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I had a beef with Tubman being on the $20. My point is that the Libtards chose her because of her race and gender over anything she actually accomplished. If they fully understood she was a Republican who said SCREW YOU to Democrat government authority they would have dropped her like roadkill too. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the choices for going on currency along with Tubman. Do you think she was a candidate because of her exquisite taste in fur stoles or because she was possibly a Lesbian? I can explain why I would love to see this image on the $20, and I can explain why the Libtards wouldn't. Do I really need to? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I_Mi_KKOnUI/VxhF7G5cdTI/AAAAAAAAKoU/zeeGuhs_S6wF4k07t7CvJV6Wd3A9hRkAQCK4B/s1600/Harriet%2BTubman.jpg Ha ha! That would fuckin rock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:46:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, actually following the law and Constitution weren't things the Yankees and Lincoln were known for doing. Evil, codified as law, should not be followed. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? Your posts are like a compass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:48:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, actually following the law and Constitution weren't things the Yankees and Lincoln were known for doing. Evil, codified as law, should not be followed. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? lol defending slavery |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:51:13 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fucking in itself, no. Fining a bakery in Oregon $50,000 for not wanting to have anything to do with men fucking each other, I most certainly have an issue with. Who do YOU think is responsible for shit like that, Liberals or Conservtives? If you're thinking we're living in an era where everything isn't becoming politicized, then I think you missed the train stop for Mayberry. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or maybe - just maybe - the reasons some liberals want to honor her is the same reason some conservatives want to honor her. Or even the reasons Liberals honor her may be different on why a conservative would as well. But they can both agree she is worthy of honor. We have to fucking politicize EVERYTHING now? It wasn't that long ago bi-partisanship was an actual thing. Jesus Christ. You can LIKE or AGREE on something a liberal does and it doesn't make it that they win. Liberals also enjoy breathing oxygen and fucking. I assume you abstain from those liberal behaviors then? Fucking in itself, no. Fining a bakery in Oregon $50,000 for not wanting to have anything to do with men fucking each other, I most certainly have an issue with. Who do YOU think is responsible for shit like that, Liberals or Conservtives? If you're thinking we're living in an era where everything isn't becoming politicized, then I think you missed the train stop for Mayberry. He's fine with forcing bakers to bake a cake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:53:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lincoln didn't think much of freedom - hence his use of draftees to prevent citizens from freely leaving the federation. The Southerners who had slaves didn't thin much of freedom either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:55:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, actually following the law and Constitution weren't things the Yankees and Lincoln were known for doing. Evil, codified as law, should not be followed. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? The transgressions of the North notwithstanding, you are comparing owning people as property with dietary choices and God-given rights to self defense. If you DON'T believe that owning people as chattel is objectively evil, you're all kinds of fucked up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:58:06 PM EDT
[#11]
feets don't fail me now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:59:39 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I find it funny they are putting a gun totting REPUBLICAN on the bill, replacing the founder of the DEMOCRAT party. Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots. Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 3:59:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like the Founding Fathers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So OP is celebrating the leader of a criminal conspiracy? Lawless nation has gone full retard.  Like the Founding Fathers?
You just can't make this stuff up. This country was founded by religious zealots with guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:01:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol defending slavery Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, actually following the law and Constitution weren't things the Yankees and Lincoln were known for doing. Evil, codified as law, should not be followed. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? lol defending slavery Yes it appears that this guy thinks that ending atrocities against humanity should have been put through the "proper channels," perhaps a referendum, then ironically implies fighting back against a tyrannical government at such time when gun confiscation is legislated through those very channels. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:04:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I find it funny they are putting a gun totting REPUBLICAN on the bill, replacing the founder of the DEMOCRAT party. Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots. Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. You saying it is a "SJW" effort doesn't make it so. I don't even think you grasp what a "SJW" is |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:08:47 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sad to see Jackson get the boot. But I would have been upset about Hamilton. That play is amazing, I hear. I wasn't sad to see Jackson go either, until I learned that Jackson even being on currency was the Treasury's revenge against him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:12:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Duck!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:18:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's fine with forcing bakers to bake a cake. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or maybe - just maybe - the reasons some liberals want to honor her is the same reason some conservatives want to honor her. Or even the reasons Liberals honor her may be different on why a conservative would as well. But they can both agree she is worthy of honor. We have to fucking politicize EVERYTHING now? It wasn't that long ago bi-partisanship was an actual thing. Jesus Christ. You can LIKE or AGREE on something a liberal does and it doesn't make it that they win. Liberals also enjoy breathing oxygen and fucking. I assume you abstain from those liberal behaviors then? Fucking in itself, no. Fining a bakery in Oregon $50,000 for not wanting to have anything to do with men fucking each other, I most certainly have an issue with. Who do YOU think is responsible for shit like that, Liberals or Conservtives? If you're thinking we're living in an era where everything isn't becoming politicized, then I think you missed the train stop for Mayberry. He's fine with forcing bakers to bake a cake. I am ok with enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Blanket discrimination is bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:22:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Why not use Michael Jordan? Every God damn American loves that man.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:25:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. This. It rubs me the wrong way for this reason. I don't like seeing the oppositon get what they want. But this is fairly minor and uselessly symbolic. We should count our blessings if this is the only kind of lasting legacy we get out of this presidency. Well, that and a broken system and crippling debt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:28:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Are we there yet"? Made 10x funnier by your avatar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:29:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the decision to remove a genocidal manic from the $20 and replace him with a freedom loving gun loving person who fought against slavery. FBHO FAJ Now to get the tyrant Lincoln off the $5. Jackson would've shit knowing he was on a reserve note, which was the only reason to keep him. It is/was a perpetual fuck you to a megalomaniac. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:30:44 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You saying it is a "SJW" effort doesn't make it so. I don't even think you grasp what a "SJW" is Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I find it funny they are putting a gun totting REPUBLICAN on the bill, replacing the founder of the DEMOCRAT party. Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots. Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. You saying it is a "SJW" effort doesn't make it so. I don't even think you grasp what a "SJW" is Throwing a random black woman on currency out of the blue because "we dont have enough minorities on our currency" is textbook SJW. Check your privilige honkey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:34:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am curious, I don't know this. What countries have people other than heads of state and government officials on their currency? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Or maybe - just maybe - the reasons some liberals want to honor her is the same reason some conservatives want to honor her. Or even the reasons Liberals honor her may be different on why a conservative would as well. But they can both agree she is worthy of honor. We have to fucking politicize EVERYTHING now? It wasn't that long ago bi-partisanship was an actual thing. Jesus Christ. You can LIKE or AGREE on something a liberal does and it doesn't make it that they win. Liberals also enjoy breathing oxygen and fucking. I assume you abstain from those liberal behaviors then? I am curious, I don't know this. What countries have people other than heads of state and government officials on their currency? These days most countries do, at least in a few denominations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:39:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am ok with enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Blanket discrimination is bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Or maybe - just maybe - the reasons some liberals want to honor her is the same reason some conservatives want to honor her. Or even the reasons Liberals honor her may be different on why a conservative would as well. But they can both agree she is worthy of honor. We have to fucking politicize EVERYTHING now? It wasn't that long ago bi-partisanship was an actual thing. Jesus Christ. You can LIKE or AGREE on something a liberal does and it doesn't make it that they win. Liberals also enjoy breathing oxygen and fucking. I assume you abstain from those liberal behaviors then? Fucking in itself, no. Fining a bakery in Oregon $50,000 for not wanting to have anything to do with men fucking each other, I most certainly have an issue with. Who do YOU think is responsible for shit like that, Liberals or Conservtives? If you're thinking we're living in an era where everything isn't becoming politicized, then I think you missed the train stop for Mayberry. He's fine with forcing bakers to bake a cake. I am ok with enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Blanket discrimination is bullshit. NOPE! The rights of one man ends at the boundary where the rights of another man begins. I have every right to declare green to be my favorite color. I have no right to insist YOUR favorite color should be green just because my favorite color is green. If a gay couple wants to marry, heck, whatever floats their boat as far as I'm concerned. I've seen enough screwed up traditional male/female marriages to know that theres' nothing magical about all the parts being able to fit. The problem comes in when these people went to the Bakery and demanded the proprietors give up their religious beliefs and conform with the gay beliefs of others. The bakery was NOT discriminating against them for being gay: if this gay couple asked for a birthday cake with balloon decorations instead there wouldn't have been any issue. You know that and so do I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:41:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol defending slavery Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course, actually following the law and Constitution weren't things the Yankees and Lincoln were known for doing. Evil, codified as law, should not be followed. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did not "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? lol defending slavery Nope. It is not defending slavery to point out that it was the law of the land, and that the Federal Government was bound to enforce the laws impartially - not pick and choose which laws, and when, and where, to enforce. It is also not defending slavery to point out that States have always retained the right to leave the federal government - an action reserved by them, not prohibited to them, nor was any authority granted to the Federal government to prevent that. It is also not a defense of slavery to point out the hypocrisy of compelling men to fight and die against their will, supposedly in the name of ending slavery. Also, it is not a defense of slavery to ask why, if the North truly found slavery so objectionable, did they not end it and indentured servitude in their own States before seeking to end it by violence else where? Also, why, if they are ending slavery, did Northern armies hire and use slave labor? Neither is it a defense of slavery to point out that most nations on Earth ended the vile practice without killing a substantial portion of their population and poisoning inter-race relations for 150 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:42:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Southerners who had slaves didn't thin much of freedom either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lincoln didn't think much of freedom - hence his use of draftees to prevent citizens from freely leaving the federation. The Southerners who had slaves didn't thin much of freedom either. How about the Northerners who had slaves, "perpetual unpaid apprentices", and indentured servants. What did they think about freedom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:43:08 PM EDT
[#28]
I am okay with her on the $20. I also like old hickory and appreciate his defeat of the British at the battle of New Orleans.
He was a badass, she was a badass. He is getting liberal flack because he owned slaves and the trail of tears. That is bullshit, but from what I read he will still be on the bill, in a diminished role. That is okay as well. Currency evolves. She is a better choice than Malcolm X, AL Sharpton, or FBHO. They could have done way worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:43:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Throwing a random black woman on currency out of the blue because "we dont have enough minorities on our currency" is textbook SJW. Check your privilige honkey. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I find it funny they are putting a gun totting REPUBLICAN on the bill, replacing the founder of the DEMOCRAT party. Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots. Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. You saying it is a "SJW" effort doesn't make it so. I don't even think you grasp what a "SJW" is Throwing a random black woman on currency out of the blue because "we dont have enough minorities on our currency" is textbook SJW. Check your privilige honkey. Yeah, Harriet Tubman is totes a random black woman |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:44:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The transgressions of the North notwithstanding, you are comparing owning people as property with dietary choices and God-given rights to self defense. If you DON'T believe that owning people as chattel is objectively evil, you're all kinds of fucked up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Some believe eating meat and owning a gun is "evil". Further, those who thought the situation evil had the same access to the political process to change that evil as anyone else. Also, had the South freed all the slaves - who do you expect to feed, clothe, and shelter them? Remember, there was no welfare or EBT card back then. Lastly, the North's hands were not clean of this evil - yet they did nto "get around" to doing anything about it until after the War of Northern Aggression. One cannot defeat evil by being evil, and a government of a federation MUST be bound by its duly passed laws - not exceed them. Otherwise, limited government does not exist. You do know you are on a gun board, - right? You just going to hand yours over, when the ruling class decides that they are "evil"? The transgressions of the North notwithstanding, you are comparing owning people as property with dietary choices and God-given rights to self defense. If you DON'T believe that owning people as chattel is objectively evil, you're all kinds of fucked up. I do think it is evil. That does not change that it was the law. It is not the place of a Federal government to decide for itself which of its laws it may ignore. Agree - or not? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:45:41 PM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:49:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryI only roll with hundos. Ain't u see muh glock foty and $$$ money selfie? 100. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:53:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Methinks you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I had a beef with Tubman being on the $20. My point is that the Libtards chose her because of her race and gender over anything she actually accomplished. If they fully understood she was a Republican who said SCREW YOU to Democrat government authority they would have dropped her like roadkill too. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the choices for going on currency along with Tubman. Do you think she was a candidate because of her exquisite taste in fur stoles or because she was possibly a Lesbian? I can explain why I would love to see this image on the $20, and I can explain why the Libtards wouldn't. Do I really need to? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I_Mi_KKOnUI/VxhF7G5cdTI/AAAAAAAAKoU/zeeGuhs_S6wF4k07t7CvJV6Wd3A9hRkAQCK4B/s1600/Harriet%2BTubman.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great choice for the $20 bill. I am surprised she was chosen to tell you the truth. I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. Tubman Why is it so surprising? Libtards make decisions according to touchy feelies, not logic, and they picked Tubman because she was the perfect person to placate Obama's reverse racist hordes. The reason why they put her on the $20 and not the $10 as they originally intended is entirely due to that Broadwaty musical making Hamilton look cool. It's Touchy Feelies influencing the decision making process again. Heck, I'll even put money on the Libtards not even knowing Tubman was a Republican. They are low-information voters and they have been indoctrinated into thinking DEMOCRATS GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD too thoroughly. I think it is you who has the touchy feelies. Why isn't she a good choice? Freedom lover - check Fought for freedom - check Injured for freedom - check Stood up for what is right - check Promoted voting rights for women - check Christian - check gun user - check Republican - check What argument could you possibly have that she isn't a good candidate to be put on the $20? Oh wait - she's black. Well shit. How you going to rationalize that, huh? Your touchy feelies don't like that, do they? Methinks you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I had a beef with Tubman being on the $20. My point is that the Libtards chose her because of her race and gender over anything she actually accomplished. If they fully understood she was a Republican who said SCREW YOU to Democrat government authority they would have dropped her like roadkill too. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the choices for going on currency along with Tubman. Do you think she was a candidate because of her exquisite taste in fur stoles or because she was possibly a Lesbian? I can explain why I would love to see this image on the $20, and I can explain why the Libtards wouldn't. Do I really need to? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I_Mi_KKOnUI/VxhF7G5cdTI/AAAAAAAAKoU/zeeGuhs_S6wF4k07t7CvJV6Wd3A9hRkAQCK4B/s1600/Harriet%2BTubman.jpg Now that's a 20 I would be proud to stuff in a g-string! Seriously, that's badass. And she was a remarkable woman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:55:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am okay with her on the $20. I also like old hickory and appreciate his defeat of the British at the battle of New Orleans.He was a badass, she was a badass. He is getting liberal flack because he owned slaves and the trail of tears. That is bullshit, but from what I read he will still be on the bill, in a diminished role. That is okay as well. Currency evolves. She is a better choice than Malcolm X, AL Sharpton, or FBHO. They could have done way worse. Yes they could have. Very, very much so: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:04:06 PM EDT
[#35]
"I ain't no ways tired"'. .. HT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:04:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes they could have. Very, very much so: http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l377/GoodOlDave/TwentyDollarBillNew_zpsns7nuyqa.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am okay with her on the $20. I also like old hickory and appreciate his defeat of the British at the battle of New Orleans.He was a badass, she was a badass. He is getting liberal flack because he owned slaves and the trail of tears. That is bullshit, but from what I read he will still be on the bill, in a diminished role. That is okay as well. Currency evolves. She is a better choice than Malcolm X, AL Sharpton, or FBHO. They could have done way worse. Yes they could have. Very, very much so: http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l377/GoodOlDave/TwentyDollarBillNew_zpsns7nuyqa.jpg What is that? It looks like something out of a nightmare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:06:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NOPE! The rights of one man ends at the boundary where the rights of another man begins. I have every right to declare green to be my favorite color. I have no right to insist YOUR favorite color should be green just because my favorite color is green. If a gay couple wants to marry, heck, whatever floats their boat as far as I'm concerned. I've seen enough screwed up traditional male/female marriages to know that theres' nothing magical about all the parts being able to fit. The problem comes in when these people went to the Bakery and demanded the proprietors give up their religious beliefs and conform with the gay beliefs of others. The bakery was NOT discriminating against them for being gay: if this gay couple asked for a birthday cake with balloon decorations instead there wouldn't have been any issue. You know that and so do I. We are getting off topic, but you're wrong. Show me one anti-gay bakery that also discriminates STRAIGHT couples in getting wedding cakes. What if they aren't getting married in a church? What if they aren't even Christian? What if they are leading a sinful life style? Or any one of the 101 reasons you might disapprove of two people getting married. But it is the CHURCHES job to figure out if two people can marry - NOT the BAKER. Furthermore - You aren't giving up your religious beliefs because you made wedding cake for gays, because WEDDINGS ARE NOT ONLY A RELIGIOUS ACT and CAKE has NOTHING to do with the wedding, it is for the RECEPTION afterwards. A wedding cake is a party cake. Pure and simple. And I don't need any self righteous moron making me fill out a 50 page questioner to find out if I am free of sin enough to buy a fucking cake. So there you go - tell you homophobe bakers to STFU and do their jobs. it's a party cake and since party cakes you said are OK, then there should be no problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:08:35 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:13:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Methinks you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I had a beef with Tubman being on the $20. My point is that the Libtards chose her because of her race and gender over anything she actually accomplished. If they fully understood she was a Republican who said SCREW YOU to Democrat government authority they would have dropped her like roadkill too. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the choices for going on currency along with Tubman. Do you think she was a candidate because of her exquisite taste in fur stoles or because she was possibly a Lesbian? I can explain why I would love to see this image on the $20, and I can explain why the Libtards wouldn't. Do I really need to? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I_Mi_KKOnUI/VxhF7G5cdTI/AAAAAAAAKoU/zeeGuhs_S6wF4k07t7CvJV6Wd3A9hRkAQCK4B/s1600/Harriet%2BTubman.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Great choice for the $20 bill. I am surprised she was chosen to tell you the truth. I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. Tubman Why is it so surprising? Libtards make decisions according to touchy feelies, not logic, and they picked Tubman because she was the perfect person to placate Obama's reverse racist hordes. The reason why they put her on the $20 and not the $10 as they originally intended is entirely due to that Broadwaty musical making Hamilton look cool. It's Touchy Feelies influencing the decision making process again. Heck, I'll even put money on the Libtards not even knowing Tubman was a Republican. They are low-information voters and they have been indoctrinated into thinking DEMOCRATS GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD too thoroughly. I think it is you who has the touchy feelies. Why isn't she a good choice? Freedom lover - check Fought for freedom - check Injured for freedom - check Stood up for what is right - check Promoted voting rights for women - check Christian - check gun user - check Republican - check What argument could you possibly have that she isn't a good candidate to be put on the $20? Oh wait - she's black. Well shit. How you going to rationalize that, huh? Your touchy feelies don't like that, do they? Methinks you have a reading comprehension problem. I never said I had a beef with Tubman being on the $20. My point is that the Libtards chose her because of her race and gender over anything she actually accomplished. If they fully understood she was a Republican who said SCREW YOU to Democrat government authority they would have dropped her like roadkill too. Eleanor Roosevelt was one of the choices for going on currency along with Tubman. Do you think she was a candidate because of her exquisite taste in fur stoles or because she was possibly a Lesbian? I can explain why I would love to see this image on the $20, and I can explain why the Libtards wouldn't. Do I really need to? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-I_Mi_KKOnUI/VxhF7G5cdTI/AAAAAAAAKoU/zeeGuhs_S6wF4k07t7CvJV6Wd3A9hRkAQCK4B/s1600/Harriet%2BTubman.jpg LMAO you think Eleanor Roosevelt is getting considered because of some internet rumor that she might have eaten a snatch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:20:43 PM EDT
[#40]
When was the last time a person on currency was changed, and WHY?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:28:38 PM EDT
[#41]
He's a line stepper. A habitual line stepper. - H. Tubman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:28:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are getting off topic, but you're wrong. Show me one anti-gay bakery that also discriminates STRAIGHT couples in getting wedding cakes. What if they aren't getting married in a church? What if they aren't even Christian? What if they are leading a sinful life style? Or any one of the 101 reasons you might disapprove of two people getting married. But it is the CHURCHES job to figure out if two people can marry - NOT the BAKER. Furthermore - You aren't giving up your religious beliefs because you made wedding cake for gays, because WEDDINGS ARE NOT ONLY A RELIGIOUS ACT and CAKE has NOTHING to do with the wedding, it is for the RECEPTION afterwards. A wedding cake is a party cake. Pure and simple. And I don't need any self righteous moron making me fill out a 50 page questioner to find out if I am free of sin enough to buy a fucking cake. So there you go - tell you homophobe bakers to STFU and do their jobs. it's a party cake and since party cakes you said are OK, then there should be no problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOPE! The rights of one man ends at the boundary where the rights of another man begins. I have every right to declare green to be my favorite color. I have no right to insist YOUR favorite color should be green just because my favorite color is green. If a gay couple wants to marry, heck, whatever floats their boat as far as I'm concerned. I've seen enough screwed up traditional male/female marriages to know that theres' nothing magical about all the parts being able to fit. The problem comes in when these people went to the Bakery and demanded the proprietors give up their religious beliefs and conform with the gay beliefs of others. The bakery was NOT discriminating against them for being gay: if this gay couple asked for a birthday cake with balloon decorations instead there wouldn't have been any issue. You know that and so do I. We are getting off topic, but you're wrong. Show me one anti-gay bakery that also discriminates STRAIGHT couples in getting wedding cakes. What if they aren't getting married in a church? What if they aren't even Christian? What if they are leading a sinful life style? Or any one of the 101 reasons you might disapprove of two people getting married. But it is the CHURCHES job to figure out if two people can marry - NOT the BAKER. Furthermore - You aren't giving up your religious beliefs because you made wedding cake for gays, because WEDDINGS ARE NOT ONLY A RELIGIOUS ACT and CAKE has NOTHING to do with the wedding, it is for the RECEPTION afterwards. A wedding cake is a party cake. Pure and simple. And I don't need any self righteous moron making me fill out a 50 page questioner to find out if I am free of sin enough to buy a fucking cake. So there you go - tell you homophobe bakers to STFU and do their jobs. it's a party cake and since party cakes you said are OK, then there should be no problem. Nope! Like it or not, there are people out there with religious beliefs, and they have every right to their religious beliefs because of a little thing called the first amendment. The entire reason why people have issues with gays isn't because they're Detroit Lions fans. They have issues with gays because of a little Bible passage called Leviticus 20:13. Ordering those bakers to make a cake that contradicted their religious beliefs is exactly the same as ordering them to give up their religious beliefs, which is a big time First Amendment infringement in my book. The government had NO right to get involved in that. NONE. I cannot show you any Christian bakers who declined the business of straight wedding cakes...but I can certainly show you non-Christian bakers who likewise turned down gay wedding cakes and nobody did a damned thing about it. The reason why is obvious. It contradicts two equal but opposite inviolable politically correct tenets and it causes liberals to short circuit: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:33:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We are getting off topic, but you're wrong. Show me one anti-gay bakery that also discriminates STRAIGHT couples in getting wedding cakes. What if they aren't getting married in a church? What if they aren't even Christian? What if they are leading a sinful life style? Or any one of the 101 reasons you might disapprove of two people getting married. But it is the CHURCHES job to figure out if two people can marry - NOT the BAKER. Furthermore - You aren't giving up your religious beliefs because you made wedding cake for gays, because WEDDINGS ARE NOT ONLY A RELIGIOUS ACT and CAKE has NOTHING to do with the wedding, it is for the RECEPTION afterwards. A wedding cake is a party cake. Pure and simple. And I don't need any self righteous moron making me fill out a 50 page questioner to find out if I am free of sin enough to buy a fucking cake. So there you go - tell you homophobe bakers to STFU and do their jobs. it's a party cake and since party cakes you said are OK, then there should be no problem. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
NOPE! The rights of one man ends at the boundary where the rights of another man begins. I have every right to declare green to be my favorite color. I have no right to insist YOUR favorite color should be green just because my favorite color is green. If a gay couple wants to marry, heck, whatever floats their boat as far as I'm concerned. I've seen enough screwed up traditional male/female marriages to know that theres' nothing magical about all the parts being able to fit. The problem comes in when these people went to the Bakery and demanded the proprietors give up their religious beliefs and conform with the gay beliefs of others. The bakery was NOT discriminating against them for being gay: if this gay couple asked for a birthday cake with balloon decorations instead there wouldn't have been any issue. You know that and so do I. We are getting off topic, but you're wrong. Show me one anti-gay bakery that also discriminates STRAIGHT couples in getting wedding cakes. What if they aren't getting married in a church? What if they aren't even Christian? What if they are leading a sinful life style? Or any one of the 101 reasons you might disapprove of two people getting married. But it is the CHURCHES job to figure out if two people can marry - NOT the BAKER. Furthermore - You aren't giving up your religious beliefs because you made wedding cake for gays, because WEDDINGS ARE NOT ONLY A RELIGIOUS ACT and CAKE has NOTHING to do with the wedding, it is for the RECEPTION afterwards. A wedding cake is a party cake. Pure and simple. And I don't need any self righteous moron making me fill out a 50 page questioner to find out if I am free of sin enough to buy a fucking cake. So there you go - tell you homophobe bakers to STFU and do their jobs. it's a party cake and since party cakes you said are OK, then there should be no problem. Waste of breath talking to this guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:37:15 PM EDT
[#44]
"Laid back, with my mind on my money and my money on my mind."
-Harriet Tubman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:38:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Throwing a random black woman on currency out of the blue because "we dont have enough minorities on our currency" is textbook SJW. Check your privilige honkey. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I find it funny they are putting a gun totting REPUBLICAN on the bill, replacing the founder of the DEMOCRAT party. Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots. Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. You saying it is a "SJW" effort doesn't make it so. I don't even think you grasp what a "SJW" is Throwing a random black woman on currency out of the blue because "we dont have enough minorities on our currency" is textbook SJW. Check your privilige honkey. Oh please, they could have used any number of black inventors, generals, scientific geniuses, ......oh wait never mind. Bullshit aside, I really think Martin Luther King would have been a better choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:41:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope! Like it or not, there are people out there with religious beliefs, and they have every right to their religious beliefs because of a little thing called the first amendment. The entire reason why people have issues with gays isn't because they're Detroit Lions fans. They have issues with gays because of a little Bible passage called Leviticus 20:13. Ordering those bakers to make a cake that contradicted their religious beliefs is exactly the same as ordering them to give up their religious beliefs, which is a big time First Amendment infringement in my book. The government had NO right to get involved in that. NONE. I cannot show you any Christian bakers who declined the business of straight wedding cakes...but I can certainly show you non-Christian bakers who likewise turned down gay wedding cakes and nobody did a damned thing about it. The reason why is obvious. It contradicts two equal but opposite inviolable politically correct tenets and it causes liberals to short circuit:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
NOPE! The rights of one man ends at the boundary where the rights of another man begins. I have every right to declare green to be my favorite color. I have no right to insist YOUR favorite color should be green just because my favorite color is green. If a gay couple wants to marry, heck, whatever floats their boat as far as I'm concerned. I've seen enough screwed up traditional male/female marriages to know that theres' nothing magical about all the parts being able to fit. The problem comes in when these people went to the Bakery and demanded the proprietors give up their religious beliefs and conform with the gay beliefs of others. The bakery was NOT discriminating against them for being gay: if this gay couple asked for a birthday cake with balloon decorations instead there wouldn't have been any issue. You know that and so do I. We are getting off topic, but you're wrong. Show me one anti-gay bakery that also discriminates STRAIGHT couples in getting wedding cakes. What if they aren't getting married in a church? What if they aren't even Christian? What if they are leading a sinful life style? Or any one of the 101 reasons you might disapprove of two people getting married. But it is the CHURCHES job to figure out if two people can marry - NOT the BAKER. Furthermore - You aren't giving up your religious beliefs because you made wedding cake for gays, because WEDDINGS ARE NOT ONLY A RELIGIOUS ACT and CAKE has NOTHING to do with the wedding, it is for the RECEPTION afterwards. A wedding cake is a party cake. Pure and simple. And I don't need any self righteous moron making me fill out a 50 page questioner to find out if I am free of sin enough to buy a fucking cake. So there you go - tell you homophobe bakers to STFU and do their jobs. it's a party cake and since party cakes you said are OK, then there should be no problem. Nope! Like it or not, there are people out there with religious beliefs, and they have every right to their religious beliefs because of a little thing called the first amendment. The entire reason why people have issues with gays isn't because they're Detroit Lions fans. They have issues with gays because of a little Bible passage called Leviticus 20:13. Ordering those bakers to make a cake that contradicted their religious beliefs is exactly the same as ordering them to give up their religious beliefs, which is a big time First Amendment infringement in my book. The government had NO right to get involved in that. NONE. I cannot show you any Christian bakers who declined the business of straight wedding cakes...but I can certainly show you non-Christian bakers who likewise turned down gay wedding cakes and nobody did a damned thing about it. The reason why is obvious. It contradicts two equal but opposite inviolable politically correct tenets and it causes liberals to short circuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
Why are you quoting Leviticus? No Christian follows its laws. Hell I don't think the Jews do either. If woman came in wearing pants or tattoos would they refuse service as well? How about a divorced person? And don't be invoking the 1st Amendment. It has nothing to do with it, no matter how you want to twist it. Just because Muslims refuse gays doesn't mean it's ok. Jesus, that's what it has come to now? Lowest common denominator? I'm told on Arfcom how they are all savages waiting to kill infidels, and you want to use them to defend your bigotry? Again - isn't against a religious belief because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY. It has to do with the PARTY afterwards. Furthermore, not all weddings have ANYTHING to do with religion. It is not purely a religious act. It is not purely a CHRISTIAN act. Stop acting like you are doing gods work by refusing service, and go out and actually do something for your fellow man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:42:19 PM EDT
[#47]
"One day an African-American will become the President of these United States. When that day comes, I pray to the Lord above that he won't be a total pussy." -- Harriet Tubman |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:43:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh please, they could have used any number of black inventors, generals, scientific geniuses, ......oh wait never mind. Bullshit aside, I really think Martin Luther King would have been a better choice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Shhhhhhh......History is for faggots. Realistically she was a radical abolitionist and later suffragette. Elements that became a core part of the Progressive movement. She was simply in the abolitionist party. There wasn't a gun control movement at the time, her use of guns does not a 2A advocate make. The problem with putting her on the $20 is that it is part of the whole SJW effort. You saying it is a "SJW" effort doesn't make it so. I don't even think you grasp what a "SJW" is Throwing a random black woman on currency out of the blue because "we dont have enough minorities on our currency" is textbook SJW. Check your privilige honkey. Oh please, they could have used any number of black inventors, generals, scientific geniuses, ......oh wait never mind. Bullshit aside, I really think Martin Luther King would have been a better choice. MLK would have been an even more controversial choice. You could at least throw around a few details about his life to say why you disagree. Tubman is more bullet proof in the respect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:48:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is it so surprising? Libtards make decisions according to touchy feelies, not reason, and they picked Tubman because she was the perfect person to placate Obama's reverse racist hordes. The reason why they put her on the $20 and not the $10 as they originally intended is entirely due to that Broadwaty musical making Hamilton look cool. It's Touchy Feelies influencing the decision making process again. Heck, I'll even put money on the Libtards not even knowing Tubman was a Republican. They are low-information voters and they have been indoctrinated into thinking DEMOCRATS GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD too thoroughly. I remember how they were championing how courageous Caitlyn Jenner was for coming out as a teans-woman...until the moment she/he/whatever admitted being a Republican. Jenner might as well been roadkill as far as the Libtards were concerned. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Great choice for the $20 bill. I am surprised she was chosen to tell you the truth. I had reasoned this out in my mind, there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other. Tubman Why is it so surprising? Libtards make decisions according to touchy feelies, not reason, and they picked Tubman because she was the perfect person to placate Obama's reverse racist hordes. The reason why they put her on the $20 and not the $10 as they originally intended is entirely due to that Broadwaty musical making Hamilton look cool. It's Touchy Feelies influencing the decision making process again. Heck, I'll even put money on the Libtards not even knowing Tubman was a Republican. They are low-information voters and they have been indoctrinated into thinking DEMOCRATS GOOD, REPUBLICANS BAD too thoroughly. I remember how they were championing how courageous Caitlyn Jenner was for coming out as a teans-woman...until the moment she/he/whatever admitted being a Republican. Jenner might as well been roadkill as far as the Libtards were concerned. I heard that when she retired she got the pension not as a widow but of a soldier. That pension was $20 a month. That's true I kind of find it pretty cool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:50:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Interesting that the SJW's are so much in support of this. Afterall, Jackson was the founder of the modern Democrat party. Maybe it is because he was a slave owner and they want to shed that stigma.
When they announced Harriet Tubman, I for one was glad. She was a good conservative, Christian woman and very much a defender of freedom. ETA - I guess Jackson will still be on the $20 bill on the back side. Historically, that makes for a very interesting quandary. A republican who championed abolition, and a democrat who owned slaves. The former now revered by liberals, and the latter eschewed by them. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
