Talk Elections

Yes. He doesn't deserve to be on there since he put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during WWII.

liar

Yes.

Lincoln was a racist too, but for both of these Presidents the good definitely outweighs the bad. We've had plenty of 3rd rate bottom of the barrel Presidents. FDR was definitely not one.

Yes. War criminals don't belong on US currency.

Only as part of a complete redesign of the coinage that removes all presidents and politicians.  Given the small size of the coin, I'd favor a design for the dime that had the Liberty Bell on the obverse and a ring of 13 stars on the reverse surrounding the denomination.

What I said about FDR was a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_Dimes

^^^^^^^^^

The good he did far outweighs the bad.

Thomas Jefferson had slaves living in shacks at Monticello, he still deserves to be on the nickel.

No.

Though I disagree with some of his policies, I do not believe that the Commander-in-Chief of the military that saved the world should be removed from currency.

He opposed slavery.  The fact that he was in debt and that slaves counted legally as property didn't do much in his favor.  George Washington owned slaves as well.  I guess he deserves to be on the penny?

How about we go back and remove the weapons we gave you to hold back the Germans before we got into WWII?  If it weren't for FDR, we would be having this conversation in German and your home would be ruled by some variant of the BNP.

The only president on something that shouldn't be anywhere near our currency is Jackson. Other than that, it doesn't really matter to me...

I think the fact that he appears on our currency is a form of irony.

There are a number of good reasons for him to be on the dime, so no.

While I would prefer that our currency bear the visage of cultural figures rather than presidents, I see no need to single out Roosevelt...especially while Jackson is still floating around.

Lincoln was not racist in any meaningful sense - he was on the right side of the racial issues of his day.

Anyway, I think we should go back to this beauty:
()

I see I wasn't quite blunt enough.  FDR founded the movement most widely associated with this currency denomination.  He has a strong personal link to the dime.  For that reason alone, even if you can't stand FDR, he deserves to stay on.

No.

Agreed. That's why I support him staying. As to all the Jackson bashing, lol lol.

()

lol lol

Fascist. :P

Removing them was more humane then allowing them to continually get in conflict with Europeans.

By that standard, it would be more humane to remove the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza than allowing then to continually get in conflict with Israelis.

I wouldn't have a problem with that.

No - I don't think anybody should be removed from money - no real reason - I'm just a stubborn person who hates change.

If you hate change, then why do you care about who is pictured on it?

does anyone even know why we have FDR on the dime in the first place?

Yes, because of the March of Dimes, as was said earlier.

As a sometimes coin collector (I only do it occasionally since it's so expensive), I totally agree with this. The current designs on our coins are far inferior to some of the "classic" designs. I love the designs on coins like the flying eagle cent, the shield nickel, the two-cent piece, and the standing liberty quarter to name a few. I'd love to go back to designs like those.

Roosevelt put the Japanese in internment camps, but I guess that doesn't count because he's a Democrat.

1. internment camps are not Genocide.

2. Jackson is a Democrat too.

A Democrat back then is nothing like a Democrat now. They only share a name.

Did thousands of Japanese die in those internment camps?

Japanese, no, but if you include everyone held under the WRA, it shakes out to roughly 2,000.



(Not making an argument for or against anything)

Thousands of Japanese were deprived of their freedom.

Not to the degree that the Cherokee were. The comparison is ridiculous.


cite?

Hmm, it was hard to find an online source, but this (http://home.comcast.net/~chtongyu/internment/camps.html) website references Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress.


I went ahead and bolded the relevant part.

The Cherokee were a hostile enemy force to the United States. They did not have equal rights to the people they were killing. Just because the Cherokee and other tribes were lesser equipped doesn't mean that we should have any more sympathy for them. I'm sorry but I'm sick of hearing this "native Americans were victims" crap. Were their legitimate crimes committed by both Indians and Europeans? Yes. Was the entire Indian removal a crime? No. Indians murdered white families just as much as American armies did. It was not the best time in history but war crimes happened on both sides. Removing the Indians to the west was preferable over continuous warfare. I'm not saying their were injustices but to condemn people who are long dead over reacting to something where their were few other options is just silly, sorry.

Agreed, though probably not for the same reason you think it's ridiculous.

First off, let me make it clear that I believe the Japanese internment was a horrible thing that shouldn't have happened. However, though the conditions were bad for the Japanese they weren't bad enough to outright cause the deaths of people. I believe you're misleading the statistics a bit here.

1862 deaths out of a population of 120,313, over the four years the Japanese were interred, is a crude death rate of 16.15 per year; about equal to the United States at the time (not counting the war deaths o/c).

So yes, while the Japanese were horribly mistreated by being put into camps, there's really no evidence that the government's actions led to anyone's deaths (though it was still a horrible horrible policy).

Yes but those citizens lost property which was never given back to them after the war. BTW, the Americans of Japanese descent weren't the only Americans persecuted during the first and second world war. My great grandparents had to wear arm bands identifying them as Austrians during the first world war. My g-grandfather was also investigated by the US govt for being a spy (as were many citizens), he was cleared though.

No, FDR has a unique link to the dime and should remain on it. I may not believe in everything FDR stood for, but he should stay.

I don't disagree with that.

Like I said above, I'm not making an argument for or against anything, and I'm certainly not trying to equate Japanese internment with the Trail of Tears, or the Holocaust, or whatever.  Lief asked if "thousands of Japanese died in those internment camps." Unless you want to quibble over 'thousands,' the answer is yes. 

How am I misusing the statistic?

More US citizens of Japanese ancestry died in Hiroshima. BTW, Rep. Doris Matsui was born in a camp.

I'd say he belongs on the dime.

I'd argue Jackson should be pulled off, not because of the Indian stuff (which was horrible, don't get me wrong), but because he caused a huge economic collapse almost entirely on his own.  I don't think those who destroy the Treasury should be on money.

Also, there's irony in that Jackson hated the national bank, but that the Federal Reserve is essentially a national bank, and they issue the notes...

Altho, if Jackson is to be on any denomination, the $20 bill is the one he should be on, as one of the stands he took during the Bank War was that there should be no bill smaller than a $20 bill.  At the time, the highest value coin minted by the U.S. was the gold Eagle with a face value of $10. In other words, he was against the use of paper money when specie coins could in theory do the job.

Franklin Roosevelt deserves to be on Mount Rushmore.

Yes because the idolatry of political leaders is bad.

Everybody idolatrizes the "founding fathers" and nobody finds it bad. Yet Roosevelt's role was at least as important.

Adjusting for inflation, his position is that there should be no bill smaller than a $500 bill.

That...doesn't really follow.

If you follow my posts here you would realize that I don't idolize the Founding Fathers and I certainly the 'cult' that surrounds them is very poisonous to American political discourse.

I didn't say you did. But since Founding Fathers are nearly-unanimously praised, that Washington and Jefferson are on mount Rushmore, then if we had to apply a fair treatment FDR isn't much "idolized". Of course, it also depends to how you define idolatry.

Actually, a $1000 bill if one uses the value of gold as a guide, but we don't have specie currency anymore.