User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:52:49 PM EST
[#1]
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 4:55:16 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dislike the idea of change for the sake of change, or change for the sake of meaningless appeasement, even on something as silly as this, but she is a good choice if it just has to be done. It's still a looooooooooooong way from being printed. The only thing that chaps my hide is going after Jackson, who was an asshole, but an awesome asshole. He's not "cool" with the elite though. I'd rather they just do a series like they did with state quarters. Those were fun to collect. That's where I am as well. There is no reason to change who's on any denomination of currency. Just leave it be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:14:47 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"I ain't no ways tired"'. .. HT That's not her, either ... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:33:53 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"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 of all the fake ones, this one I would think would be something she would totally say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:46:17 PM EST
[#5]
After reading through this thread I can't help but think H.T was more Tier 1 and bad as than most of the members on here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:49:10 PM EST
[#6]
"Check yourself before you wreck yourself." H Tubman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:50:10 PM EST
[#7]
You guys have "favorite Harriet Tubman quotes?"
Really? A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 5:51:59 PM EST
[#8]
"Fuck that Andrew Jackson cracka!"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:14:06 PM EST
[#9]
"Gumbercules? I love that guy!" - Harriet Tubman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:23:18 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Not. The law was immoral and stood against Liberty. If the FF agreed with you, there would be no America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:26:27 PM EST
[#11]
Regulators, saddle up!
-Harriet Tubman |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:33:28 PM EST
[#12]
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. how would the baker know in any of those cases? And if a baker had done so and the couple not made a fuss about it, how would we know? 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. how would the baker know in any of those cases? And if a baker had done so and the couple not made a fuss about it, how would we know? 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 6:33:40 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about the Northerners who had slaves, "perpetual unpaid apprentices", and indentured servants. What did they think about freedom? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Having slaves means you are not thinking much about their freedom. Whoever you are. It was a much bigger problem in the South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:36:34 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:36:55 PM EST
[#15]
Favorite Harriet Tubman quotes "What in the Wide Wide World of Sport's is a going on here ?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:37:15 PM EST
[#16]
Your from WA bro, it's infested with dirty hippies. ARF loves the piss out of Andrew Jackson, because MURICA!!
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:39:01 PM EST
[#17]
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. so you like Tubman because she opposed slavery, yet you support slavery? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:39:21 PM EST
[#18]
"Y'all mother fuckers need Jesus"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:41:20 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law was immoral and stood against Liberty. If the FF agreed with you, there would be no America. English rule of law included "no taxation without representation". The FF were standing up for rule of law. The American Revolution was fought for the same reason as the Glorious Revolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:45:31 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regulators, saddle up! -Harriet Tubman 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:46:30 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. ya think? And if MLK had never lived, what would have changed? No 68 GCA and bad neighborhoods would be harder to identify. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:48:33 PM EST
[#22]
You'd think they'd leave the hardline Democrat on the $20 and remove the hardline Republican from the $5.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:48:39 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English rule of law included "no taxation without representation". The FF were standing up for rule of law. The American Revolution was fought for the same reason as the Glorious Revolution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The law was immoral and stood against Liberty. If the FF agreed with you, there would be no America. English rule of law included "no taxation without representation". The FF were standing up for rule of law. The American Revolution was fought for the same reason as the Glorious Revolution. Right, which is why the BOR is a facsimile of English law. 
The lengths that some of you go... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 6:51:21 PM EST
[#24]
9 or 45? - Harriet Tubman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:02:59 PM EST
[#25]
"I once saw him kill 3 men in a bar with a pencil. A fuckin pencil." - Harriet Tubman
"NERDS!!!!!!" - Harriet Tubman "What do I know about diamonds? Don't they come from Antwerp?" - Harriet Tubman "Get to the choppa!!!!" - Harriet Tubman |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:03:21 PM EST
[#26]
I'm just glad the economy's humming, everybody's getting along, country's running smooth as silk, 2 great people to chose from for president, America is admired all over the world and this is the only thing we have to debate and spend our time with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:03:50 PM EST
[#27]
Snap yo EBT yo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:06:26 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. Hmm, yes, let's revisit some past ARFcom threads on MLK and see how those went and what the consensus was, shall we? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:07:17 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right, which is why the BOR is a facsimile of English law.
The lengths that some of you go... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The law was immoral and stood against Liberty. If the FF agreed with you, there would be no America. English rule of law included "no taxation without representation". The FF were standing up for rule of law. The American Revolution was fought for the same reason as the Glorious Revolution. Right, which is why the BOR is a facsimile of English law.
The lengths that some of you go... You realize the US BoRs is based upon the English BoRs, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:07:28 PM EST
[#30]
If you love something, set it free
If it doesn't return, hunt it down and kill it "Harriet Tubman" 1905 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:12:43 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ya think? And if MLK had never lived, what would have changed? No 68 GCA and bad neighborhoods would be harder to identify. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. ya think? And if MLK had never lived, what would have changed? No 68 GCA and bad neighborhoods would be harder to identify. Both those were more LBJ's fault. MLK was a much more significant actor in US events. If I was going to select someone to put on the $20 it would probably be Reagan or perhaps Polk for taking all that land Mexico claimed but failed to settle. Tubman was a minor actor in events. She was purely at the tactical level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:14:20 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm, yes, let's revisit some past ARFcom threads on MLK and see how those went and what the consensus was, shall we? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. Hmm, yes, let's revisit some past ARFcom threads on MLK and see how those went and what the consensus was, shall we? I know people would oppose putting him there. We could throw out men like FDR and LBJ as well; there would be opposition but they were certainly significant leaders in the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:21:25 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both those were more LBJ's fault. MLK was a much more significant actor in US events. If I was going to select someone to put on the $20 it would probably be Reagan or perhaps Polk for taking all that land Mexico claimed but failed to settle. Tubman was a minor actor in events. She was purely at the tactical level. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. ya think? And if MLK had never lived, what would have changed? No 68 GCA and bad neighborhoods would be harder to identify. Both those were more LBJ's fault. MLK was a much more significant actor in US events. If I was going to select someone to put on the $20 it would probably be Reagan or perhaps Polk for taking all that land Mexico claimed but failed to settle. Tubman was a minor actor in events. She was purely at the tactical level. Reagan, LOL. GD, you fucking kill me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 7:32:08 PM EST
[#34]
"Snap into a Slim Jim!"- Harriet Tubman
"They don't think it be like it is but it do." - Harriet Tubman |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 10:36:31 PM EST
[#35]
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. Yea, like that peanut dude. Or Tiger Woods. And MLKs relatives should be pissed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 10:57:46 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not. The law was immoral and stood against Liberty. If the FF agreed with you, there would be no America. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Not. The law was immoral and stood against Liberty. If the FF agreed with you, there would be no America. The law was agreed to by the legislative branch authorized to do so, and was congruent with the Constitution at the time. The Federal government was to enforce all the laws, all the time. The FF would have no agreement with anything the Union did. After all, they had practiced secession themselves. Plus there is the troubling little detail, for you position, that the North did not stop enforcing that immoral law amongst themselves, even whilst they were allegedly fighting against it in the South, and allowed it to end in the North at its own pace and without violence - a privilege they declined to extend to the South. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 10:58:40 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having slaves means you are not thinking much about their freedom. Whoever you are. It was a much bigger problem in the South. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Having slaves means you are not thinking much about their freedom. Whoever you are. It was a much bigger problem in the South. Why did the North not end it amongst themselves BEFORE deciding to invade their country men and kill them to end it there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2016 11:11:45 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did the North not end it amongst themselves BEFORE deciding to invade their country men and kill them to end it there? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? Having slaves means you are not thinking much about their freedom. Whoever you are. It was a much bigger problem in the South. Why did the North not end it amongst themselves BEFORE deciding to invade their country men and kill them to end it there? All these years, all these threads, the same tired old bullshit that makes you look clueless. The "North" (i.e. the United States Government) reacted in response to an armed and hostile insurrection. There were political factions opposed to Slavery, yes. The largest of these had formed a political party and won the presidency. Slavery, however, was an academic issue in light of the pressing reality of an armed pseudo country within U.S. borders, one that made clear it was not going away without a fight. But, you know this. in other threads you've even used quotes from that time in attempts to "prove" Lincoln wasn't opposed to slavery. You just don't seem to be able to connect the dots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 6:34:05 AM EST
[#39]
"Love that chicken from Popeyes" - Harriet Tubman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 6:50:00 AM EST
[#40]
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 I would imagine your average brain dead 'tard has NO IDEA she was a Bible thumping, gun loving Republican. This is one time their stupidity was a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 6:51:10 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................. 1) Large movement to put a woman on the money. 2) Large movement to remove Jackson, as he was a dick. 3) Genius move to select a minority woman who conservatives, who might otherwise poo-poo the first item, could really get behind, while also appeasing the other crowds. 4) Should have been win/win, but some people can't help themselves. You give the 'tards WAY MORE credit than I do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:03:25 AM EST
[#42]
" If you like yo master , you can keep yo master." H. Tubman
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:27:54 AM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Despite Tubman's undoubted place in history and who is worthy of honor, this pretty much sums it up. Why are we displacing people who have been on these notes for decades, simply for the sake of doing it? For change? Why, exactly? The re-tooling argument has some merit, assuming that they could still have security updates and this Braille thing they're on at the moment without re-tooling everything anyway. I just don't understand why the government finds it necessary to change this and change that, for virtually no reason. I mean, it's analogous to saying "hmm, I think we should replace the stars on the American flag with asterisks. After all, the stars have had their run and we should change it up a little." It's fucking dumb. Want something more useful? Make a new bill. $200 or something and put Tubman on it, or whoever you want. But this is ridiculous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Despite Tubman's undoubted place in history and who is worthy of honor, this pretty much sums it up. Why are we displacing people who have been on these notes for decades, simply for the sake of doing it? For change? Why, exactly? The re-tooling argument has some merit, assuming that they could still have security updates and this Braille thing they're on at the moment without re-tooling everything anyway. I just don't understand why the government finds it necessary to change this and change that, for virtually no reason. I mean, it's analogous to saying "hmm, I think we should replace the stars on the American flag with asterisks. After all, the stars have had their run and we should change it up a little." It's fucking dumb. Want something more useful? Make a new bill. $200 or something and put Tubman on it, or whoever you want. But this is ridiculous. There is a push to do away with the $100 bill. Larger denominations are a non-starter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:31:43 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You give the 'tards WAY MORE credit than I do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................. 1) Large movement to put a woman on the money. 2) Large movement to remove Jackson, as he was a dick. 3) Genius move to select a minority woman who conservatives, who might otherwise poo-poo the first item, could really get behind, while also appeasing the other crowds. 4) Should have been win/win, but some people can't help themselves. You give the 'tards WAY MORE credit than I do. And that doesnt even take into account he FUCKING Tards right here, who are playing the same game as the SJW's in reverse 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:43:48 AM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All these years, all these threads, the same tired old bullshit that makes you look clueless. The "North" (i.e. the United States Government) reacted in response to an armed and hostile insurrection. There were political factions opposed to Slavery, yes. The largest of these had formed a political party and won the presidency. Slavery, however, was an academic issue in light of the pressing reality of an armed pseudo country within U.S. borders, one that made clear it was not going away without a fight. But, you know this. in other threads you've even used quotes from that time in attempts to "prove" Lincoln was. it opposed to slavery. You just don't seem to be able to connect the dots. Not an insurrection, as they did not seek to take over the federal government. the south sought to establish their own country in effectively the same way we did from great Britain in 1776. and we responded in the exact same way great britain did. the stronger power won that time, but barely. absent the cause of slavery the south probably wouldn't have won. lincoln's cry to "save the union" proved to be inadequate to rally the requisite popular support so he changed it to, "free the slaves" which resonated in a christian nation. likewise, the south's cause to keep the 1% in the style of living to which they had become accustomed proved inadequate which is why the south had much higher rates of desertion and was much more dependent upon the draft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:49:14 AM EST
[#46]
^^^^Yeah, I always thought of it as more of a secession rather than insurrection.
They wanted to split from the Union. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:54:34 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? It isn't because she's black. It's because this is something the left wants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 7:54:37 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Check yourself before you wreck yourself." H Tubman Stop taking the SJW troll accounts so serious |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:02:27 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. MLK was a much more significant actor in American events. While Tubman's actions show personal courage, and MLK has some baggage, he was much more significant. That's more in line with the faces on the notes now. Presidents and people that helped the nation better itself. Not someone that helped a few hundred. That is like putting someone from the Innocent project on the note. Or if being a woman is what they want, I'm sure there's been much more deserving women than tubby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2016 8:06:18 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or if being a woman is what they want, I'm sure there's been much more deserving women than tubby. Considering it was stated that they wanted a woman involved in the struggle against racial inequality and it cannot be a living person, the only person who comes close is Rosa Parks. And, with apologies to OutKast, HT's actions were far braver than Rosa Parks not giving up her seat on a bus. Who else would you have suggested? |
|
|
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.
