Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Putting Harriet Tubman On The $20 Is 'Racist' u0026 'Sexist'" video.

  1. Liberals love to appeal to emotions instead of using facts. You can learn a lot from the past, but the way liberals do it is goes along the lines of "black people were treated poorly years ago, we have to make it up to them 150 years later". One example is things like the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action. Forced integration is just as bad as forced segregation.
    4
  2. It's true. Why put a black woman on there? What point is trying to be made? What I find to be ironic is that liberals complain when "In God We Trust" was placed on the currency, but want a black woman on there. There is an agenda here. Also, how many people even know who is on the currency? Why change it?
    4
  3. Very few people have a problem with immigrants, they have a problem with illegal immigrants. But if you bring that up regressive liberals will call you racist. I never heard that argument of blacks before, sounds like you made that up.
    2
  4. "Because she was an important civil rights activist, she snuck into plantations and snuck out slaves, she never got caught, and she never lost a slave." And.....I really don't see a reason for a change. Why Martin Luther King Jr.? Why not FDR? Why not Ronald Reagan? Putting a black woman on there is showing signs of an agenda being pushed. Like I asked, how many people even know who is on the currency?
    2
  5. "The point is we change our currency all the time" It changes to prevent counterfeiting, we don't change who is one it all the time as you put it.
    2
  6. It isn't that simple. Harriet Tubman is not that big of a figure in US history. Was she important? Yes. But there are others out there who are far more recognizable. And this isn't going to give her recognition. As I asked before, how many people even know who is on the currency?
    2
  7. Actually I am a scientist myself and because of that I found out that while neither party is anti science, liberals love to politicize it which hinders progress in it.
    1
  8. Integration isn't bad, forcing it is.
    1
  9. "last time I checked its scientists that have mapped liberals and conservatives brains and it was conservatives who have bigger right amygdalas which by the way controls what emotions such as fear and anger. " Really? I would love to see that study. Look at the gun law issue. Liberals stand on the graves of victims to push it when facts go against their rhetoric. When people talk about illegal immigration liberals call them racist. When people talk about welfare reform liberals cry that they hate poor people. When a topic like the min. wage comes up liberals point to the single mom of 5 kids and cry that those against the min. wage hate poor people. No facts, just emotions.
    1
  10. To ask your question of "why" malcolm, you are forcing people to interact with others that they don't want to interact with. If you hate black people, or gay people, or women or whatever, why should you be forced to interact with them?
    1
  11. I agree they should have the same rights. But you don't have a right to a job or to get served in a business.
    1
  12. Everyone discriminates. As long as the government doesn't do it then it is all good. You discriminate all the time, so do I. Nothing wrong with it.
    1
  13. Depends. I discriminate who I hang out with. I don't want to hang out with a group of criminals and thugs.
    1
  14. Let me explain again. Why put a black woman on there? Why change it at all? There, I kept it simple.
    1
  15. It shouldn't be just fame. The point is why the change? What's the point? And if you are going to change then put someone on there that is a much bigger name. Maybe Martin Luther King Jr, or FDR, or Wilson who is on the $100,000 that is no longer in use. Tubman is rather arbitrary and with that I see the change as unnecessary.
    1
  16. Benjamin Frankly was one of the founding fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence.
    1
  17. I have an issue with changing something when it doesn't have to be changed.
    1
  18. My argument is why change it? Why not make it so half of the currency have women and the other half have men? I don't see a point in changing it except for sending the message that supposedly women are oppressed and thus we need to give them a spot on the currency to make it all better. Beyond that there is no reason to put her on any form of currency at all.
    1
  19. Why not? Because this continues down the path where we have extremist that will say "well let's make half of the currency have women, because times have changed". No different then people who want to push to have half of congress be women or cabinet members because it is 2016 or some other lame excuse. What's the point of putting her on the currency? I don't see any at all beyond trying to push the agenda of giving more attention to women because it is 2016.
    1
  20. That is a very good question, why? Why did we change it? What I am arguing is the the change is completely unnecessary and this will lead down the path of people wanting half of the currency to have women on it. I know none of them do so there has been a push for one. Next there will be a push for another. So while you stutter and ask foolishly "how do you function", I function off of the basis of history and reality. Unless you can give me one good reason to be doing this change it falls down to that people are doing this to be SJW that we need a woman on the currency because it is 2016.
    1
  21. I am not basing my argument off of that. There are plenty of women that have historical merit that can be represented on the currency. I am saying that this change serves no purpose beyond being a SJW and saying women need to be represented on the currency. "You think sane people will stop breeding and fall into obscurity in the future?" Do you really need to ask that question? Have for our presidential candidates 1. A reality show host 2. A criminal 3. A socialist All three were legit candidates which is scary.
    1
  22. I agree times change, but that is still not an excuse to change the currency. I am not undervaluing Tubman's significance, but there are far more important people you can put on there. If the idea was to put what some people thought was more significant in our history on the currency then there are a lot more people to put on the currency. The fact is that there was a push for a woman and it seems like a lot of SJW are working on this one.
    1
  23. For one I believe they have to be dead. If the standards are set to update the currency with more recent figures then fine, I wouldn't have a problem.
    1