Talk Elections

I don't think he should be celebrated as a great President, and certainly shouldn't be on U.S. currency. I'm shocked more Native Americans aren't offended by it.

Perhaps he should not be.  Perhaps Abraham Lincoln, far more genocidal in his policies towards the Native Americans than Andrew Jackson, should also not be.

Lincoln was actually at war with many of the Indian tribes at the time. (Not that he should have been.)

Well, those in favor of removing said faces, I'm inclined to hear your suggestions for replacements.

Not to mention his policies towards immigrants that would've made the Know Nothing movement look like bleedingheart liberals.

Oh wait, it isn't oppression if it happens to white Catholics!

Considering his fanatical opposition to the National Bank, he would consider his placement on paper currency as an insult.

Good insult.

Of course, that too (though WASPs of the type who voted for the Republican Party in 1860 didn't consider Catholics to be "white" either).

But my point is that liberals should stop being intellectually-dishonest and admit their dislike of Jackson is based on his economic policies, not his Indian policy.

Either that or agree that Lincoln and Grant ought to be taken off US currency, as they were directly responsible for the killing of vastly more Native Americans than Jackson, in a policy of outright genocide, not removal, even if we say that Jackson was indirectly responsible for the actions of Van Buren (and Van Buren's actions are taken out of the historical context that the Georgia militia was on the verge of outright massacring the 5 civilized tribes).

As for who I think should appear on currency, first of all 'legal tender' currency as such shouldn't exist in the first place, but pictures of well-known natural features and native flora and fauna would do.  Something politically-neutral that doesn't idolize individual persons.

This would be a good idea. Maybe something like what they have in Japan where there's some mixing up of cultural figures who are perceived as politically neutral and features of the landscape or famous buildings.

We can dislike him for both, Mr. Strawman.

No, you're being intellectually dishonest since you think that it's perfectly okay for Lincoln to do what Jackson (sort-of) did x10, or at least that Jackson deserves to be criticized for it but not Lincoln.  For an argument to be a strawman argument it has to be untrue.  If you can provide evidence that liberals criticize Lincoln for killing Indians more than they criticize Jackson, then I have indeed made a strawman argument.

Andrew Jackson is okay, but I'd prefer Michael Jackson.


()

Actually, if Andrew Jackson is to be on paper money, $20 is the most appropriate note for him to be on, as he expressed the view that it should be the smallest denomination of paper money.  Jackson was not opposed to paper money per se, just paper money displacing specie, and the largest denomination being minted at that time was the gold eagle worth $10.

America is a country of war crimes, so we might as well be represented the right way.

Indeed. Lets replace the non criminals on our currency (Washington, Franklin) with LBJ and Dubya while we are at it.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind having Nathaniel Hawthorne on money.

Well, we could always incorporate corn kernels and oil barrels on our currency:

()

These and other lulzy ideas for currency redesign located here (http://www.businessinsider.com/dollar-redesign-2010-9#relative-value-dollars-1).

Hawthorne unfortunately has some tangential association with antebellum  Northern 'appeasement Democrats' (he was close friends with Pierce), but somebody like Emily Dickinson or Herman Melville or Hart Crane would be awesome. Or Mark Twain!

Dude, those look like food coupons.  You know, the kind that skanky single welfare mothers, with rugrats in tow, generally bring into the store and use to buy, like, a piece of bubble gum.  They buy pieces of gum, one at a time, which cost five cents, and pay for it with a dollar food coupon so they can get 95 cents back.  If they do it four times, they'll have $3.80 in coin, which they can use to buy a pack of Marlboros.  It's actually pretty clever, if you ask me.

Anyway, I don't think we want our currency to look like food coupons.

You're a genius with words, I must say.

I actually, legitimately love the 'Music Man', 'Life, Liberty etc.', and 'We're a Culture Not a Government' sets.

()

These ones have suitably Orwellian slogans.

I wouldn't say they're Orwellian so much as meaningless pablum.

Iowa still uses actual coupons?  South Carolina has been using debit card like cards for so long now, I can't remember when we stopped using coupons.  Even when they did use coupons, the stores here wouldn't give back ordinary change, but clunky plastic tokens, so that your Marlboro scheme would never work here. (And if it did, with our low cigarette taxes, no way they'd need to pull that trick four times.)

Personally I would be supportive of putting Teddy Roosevelt or Martin Luther King on American money.

Yes. As a president he was pretty decent in terms of currency and attempting to keep sound money.

I don't support having former Presidents on our currency. If I'm not mistaken, we are the only country that does such a thing. If it were up to me, we'd have famous American landmarks on bills. I think the idea from Reginald's link with the Hollywood sign. Something like that.

I personally like referring to dollar bills as "Andy Jacksons" & "Al Hamiltons" & so on & so forth.

No, and it would be an appropriate touch of irony to replace his image with that of Sacagawea.

Yes it's history and the social norms were different in his era. As humans it is important to improve on the progression of society but also important to recognize that our founders and forefathers lived in different times. Culture is a huge part of how one's political and ideological development evolves. He was extremely aggressive but served our country well.

People in his time and culture realized what he did to the Native Americans was wrong, and he basically gave them the finger.

Wah wah wah.
People of FDR's time and culture realized what he did to the Japanese Americans was wrong, and he basically gave them the finger.
Yet he's on the dime.

I seriously suggest that you find something else besides some randomass guys on currency to stress over.

Was the Trail of Tears about national security?

That's true but he did alot of other things that were beneficial to our nation. It's easy to dwell on the negative of history but history is just that; our past.

Yes, causing the Panic of 1837 was very beneficial to our nation.

if you try to edit genocidal maniacs out of US history you won't have much left.

Attila the Hun was a successfull man of his times too. Let's put him on the bill somewhere!

Since he was a Hun, the 20,000 forint seems appropriate.

George Washington owned slaves should he be on the $1 bill then?

what is your opinion on this matter?

Sounds like a "who the f*** cares?" kind of post.

This is like when atheists bitch about "In God We Trust" being on the dollar bill.  I frankly could care less what the money was in trust to, just as long as it gets me my damn Kellans.

But hey that's just me.

People who worry about what's on dollar bills need to see a psychiatrist.

QTF

Let's review:

George Washington ($1 guy): Owned slaves, Killed Indians.
Thomas Jefferson ($2 guy): Invented Manifest Destiny, Had slaves, Killed Indians.
Abraham Lincoln ($5 guy): Drafted doods, Martial Law, Killed Indians.
Alexander Hamilton ($10 guy): Was an elitist dick, was a bad shot, probably did kill (a few) Indians.
Andrew Jackson ($20 guy): Was a f***ing psycho, Killed Indians.
Ulysses Grant ($50 guy): Was cool with scorched earth war policies, corruption amok, Killed Indians.
Benjamin Franklin ($100 guy): Wore bitchin shades, was good with the ladies, invented everything and it's grandmother, not likely to have killed Indians.

If anything Benjamin Franklin needs to be taken off..............

That's just because psychiatrists are Masons and you Masons want people brainwashed with drugs to obey the New World Order that the Masonic symbols on the back of the dollar bill celebrate.

Also, he was a homosexual.

Let's not forget the coins:

1c Lincoln:  suspension of habeus corpus, killed injuns, etc.
5c Jefferson:  slaveowner, flute player, elitist
10c Roosevelt:  appeaser of Hitler, Keynesian, helped co-opt a brutal revolt in Spain
25c Washington:  slaveowner, injun killer, wearer of wooden teeth
50c Kennedy:  elitist, sexually aggressive to the point of a national distraction, warmonger
$1 Eisenhower:  his favorite colors were pink and green

We should replace them all with celebrities.  I'd go with:

1c:  Elvis Presley, the King of Rock and Roll
5c:  Michael Jackson, the King of Pop
10c:  Howard Stern, the King of all media
25c:  Barry Bonds, the Home Run King
50c:  Kevin James, the King of Queens
$1:  Hank, King of the Hill

That times were different back then and society continues to change. While change is not always good, there's nothing wrong with saying "that's how things were then" as long as we work to better things.

()

Elvis - died from drug abuse
Michael - suspected pedophile
Howard - POS misogynist
Barry - steroid user
Kevin - Archie Bunker as one of the original Kings of Queens would be a better choice
Hank - the best of your choices

Howard Stern is not a misogynist.

I think he would be insulted by the idea of placing him of all people on a federal reserve note.

Also I do not like the idea of placing people on currency.

I would not be displeased with Barry Bonds on money.

lmao