Trump to be on new 1$ Coin

[DBCowboy]

Ahh yes the spiteful buy. I know it well, I used to often go to the towns only taco truck around 1:30am and make a massive order for me for the next few days. With the sole purpose of pissing off all the people leaving the bars.

My only desire is to upset you.

[FlyersFan]

I'm buying 500

Buy 500 and then spend them in liberal bars in Portland.  

[RichardHurt]

My only desire is to upset you.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com//images/addsmilies/banana.gif]

I would ask that you at least take me out to dinner in town first before your desire with me is fulfilled. But clearly that isn't going happen. Unless you like hipsters with guns doing stupid shit interrupting our bread sticks and wine.

[CriticalStinker]

His vanity knows no bounds. And yes, it is very sad to the point of being funny.
I think he loves watching his base fall for dumb things. How many coins and bills now has he grifted to the world?
And I would like to point out that having the sitting president as the face of a coin for the 250th anniversary of the US is just odd. It won't happen IMHO.

Honestly, I think it's absolutely fitting. One of the record setting debt admins self imposes their face on the currency. It's honest, and a reflection of how our monetary system has been bastardized.

The best president on our currency is Jackson IMO. He was so staunchly against the central bank he dismantled it. When it came back, they put him on the $20 bill to spite him. That is an example of someone who we should see as an honor to be on our currency.

Fuckery will continue until morale improves. The opposition has been Hillary, Pelosi, Biden, Schumer, Harris, ect. Maybe we're just not fit to self govern. The right has been just as rough with options.

[RichardHurt]

Buy 500 and then spend them in liberal bars in Portland.  

It's Portland, I'm pretty sure you can just say a bar.

[Maxmars]

Ahhhh. the duplicitous "Central Bank" we call the Federal Reserve strikes again.
This is their high-fulootin "PsyOP."
A chess piece on the board.... but it's not Trumps.... (or is it?)
It's almost ironic 

You DO know that it's "their" choice, right?
"We" the people can make no demands of the Fed's currency... 
(Try... you will shed their ignorance...)

Anything that has to do with currency is THEIR property.
The paradigm falls apart if otherwise.

Notice they took no real polls, no registry of dialogue... they just "announced" it.

Of course what would someone like Trump say?  "I object?"... I don't think so....

This is sheer lunacy being foisted to be "reality TV- Presidency v1.2"
... activism and triggering fuel....

How many will bite?

You know what other amendment was ratified in the constitution...
no lawyers in public service - ever... as in against the law... 

There are a lot of things this lawyer club just don't do.  Ask them why.

[UltraBudgie]

How many will bite?

You know what other amendment was ratified in the constitution...
no lawyers in public service - ever... as in against the law... 

There are a lot of things this lawyer club just don't do.  Ask them why.

Ah, the "secret omitted 13th amendment"!

A few years ago, a group of Iowa Republicans claimed the legitimate 13th Amendment to the Constitution was “missing.” The debate is part of a historical detective story with some surprising twists that is still taking place.The Daily Beast did a fairly extensive feature on the missing amendment in 2010, which didn’t feature a cloaked Freemason stealing the amendment because it had a secret treasure map printed on it.

Instead, the debate between historians and conspiracy buffs is about an amendment that was almost ratified in 1812 that would have been the 13th Amendment, bumping back the current 13th Amendment--which was ratified on this day in 1865 and abolished slavery--to the position of the 14th Amendment.

Writer Jerry Adler’s 2010 explanation of the “Thirteenthers” controversy is pretty detailed and covers both sides of the issue—which isn’t new but got a big burst of publicity thanks to the Iowa GOP’s 2010 platform.

The Iowa Republicans didn’t want the current 13th Amendment banned; they just wanted the “original” one reintroduced for approval. That "missing" proposal was called the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (or TONA). It sought to ban any American citizen from receiving any foreign title of nobility or receiving foreign favors, such as a pension, without congressional approval. The penalty was loss of citizenship.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-...nstitution

...combined with the theory that the lawer's title "Esquire" is actually a secret title of nobility and oath of loyalty to the hidden British elite. Which, I mean, of course. What the hell else is "chancery court"?

Wonderful, wonderful! Oh you should start a thread!

[Maxmars]

Wonderful, wonderful! Oh you should start a thread!

I think it would be more interesting (and certainly better) if done in your voice.

It is an older one.... you rarely hear it now, but it's clearly not dead.  No one is really keen to hear the tale of how this came to be in there..., or how it 20 years to ratify, and why it took 20 years...
I also heard a similar comment about not "esquire" but also BAR (as a codified term the a (royal) British Admiralty Representative... but I hadn't seen that before, so perhaps the complaint is evolving... 

Now, I may be wrong in a lot of this... but maybe your new thread will clear all that up..... ( )

[[Edit to add: I missed a joke... I should of said, "...new thread will 'square that away.'"]]

a text book example of why context and intention were so stringently constrained in the original documents.

Citizens don't need to codify a lot of bullshit... because its chic, en vogue, and en time...

Politician's beg to differ... ultimately for money.

When the historical evidence is produced - it's always "water under the bridge," isn't it?

[David64]

Buy 500 and then spend them in liberal bars in Portland.  

That. Is. GENIUS.

[RichardHurt]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/images/a823y8.jpg]

Ah, the "secret omitted 13th amendment"!

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-...nstitution

...combined with the theory that the lawer's title "Esquire" is actually a secret title of nobility and oath of loyalty to the hidden British elite. Which, I mean, of course. What the hell else is "chancery court"?

Wonderful, wonderful! Oh you should start a thread!

This is news to me.
I agree with Max that a thread about this needs to be made and that it should come from you.