Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergius]

Okay, wow. Well, I'm sorry for coming across as rude but since you didn't explain why you posted the video and I couldn't understand a thing that was said in it (neither have I seen that scene nor the movie that it's from) I assumed it had something to do with the movement the video was trying to support. Since I thought your point was about the movement the video not having many views means that the movement has little support, a movement with little support is no cause for concern.

Anyway, I apologize, it wasn't my intent to dismiss a point about the scene in the movie (which I still have no idea what that is) so there's no need to jump all over me like that.

Accepted. Sorry if I kinda exploded there but I would have had no problem with "that video sucks I don't understand what's in it" vs "the popularity (or quality) of the video has any relevance to the subject matter".

It's just the scene for the remake of Miracle in 34th Street where the judge determines that the old guy is Santa because if the treasury can believe in God, then everyone can believe the guy is Santa.

[kaijyuu]

Just another reason the remake sucked.

What's her face (the little girl) was butt ugly too. I have no idea why she was in so many movies; she's got one creepy face.

[Leafsnail]

No, but it certainly doesn't receive the same prominence and support as movements of this sort.

This is probably partly because, as GG said, this is a very clear problem with a very simple solution.  If a solution is easy and costs basically nothing you might as well go for it.

Although it doesn't change the fact that you can do both very easily, and they're both helpful to the cause of religious tolerance.

[Willfor]

So why was it said earlier in the thread that it was going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to change? I'm sorry, there's conflicting opinions on how much this will cost, and no one has given a source on it.

[kaijyuu]

Messing with the prints would probably cost a decent amount of money, not to mention the time cost, and all the bureaucratic nonsense.


Dunno what dollar amount that would actually be, though. "hundreds of thousands of dollars" is pretty cheap on the federal level, too.

[fqllve]

Accepted. Sorry if I kinda exploded there but I would have had no problem with "that video sucks I don't understand what's in it" vs "the popularity (or quality) of the video has any relevance to the subject matter".

Yeah, my bad, I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions about the point you were trying to make. Internet communication can be complex.

Anyway, that sounds so ridiculous it seems more in support that 'In God We Trust' should be removed than anything.

This is probably partly because, as GG said, this is a very clear problem with a very simple solution.  If a solution is easy and costs basically nothing you might as well go for it.

Although it doesn't change the fact that you can do both very easily, and they're both helpful to the cause of religious tolerance.

I'm not really convinced it will be so easily done, though. Like I said, it's just gonna feed into the persecution complex such Christian's seem to sport. I imagine there's going to be some strong resistance to the idea, even from more moderate types, if this actually gets taken seriously. And that's assuming Congress does actually take it seriously, which considering this is an election year where the GOP is really playing on Christian values I'm wondering if that will even happen.

But yeah, it is a clear and simple problem and those are the easiest to get people to rally behind a solution for. It's just, I see this and wonder what would happen if all this energy were expended towards promoting religious tolerance.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's no reason to believe this would directly cost much of anything to change, beyond the normal costs associated with forming legislation. The U.S. Treasury just has to start printing bills with "E Pluribus Unum" instead of "In God We Trust". It's about the same amount of ink, so that's a negligible factor (1st has 13 characters and 3 capital letters, 2nd has 12 characters and 4 capital letters).

[GlyphGryph]

So why was it said earlier in the thread that it was going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to change? I'm sorry, there's conflicting opinions on how much this will cost, and no one has given a source on it.

Doing reprints and redesigns is non negligible in cost, that is true. But the thing is, the treasury department does those fairly regularly anyways, mostly for anti-counterfeiting purposes.

I don't really care if its done /immediately/, I just feel it should be changed whenever the next redesign happens. And that costs next to nothing, essentially.

[Willfor]

Messing with the prints would probably cost a decent amount of money, not to mention the time cost, and all the bureaucratic nonsense.


Dunno what dollar amount that would actually be, though. "hundreds of thousands of dollars" is pretty cheap on the federal level, too.

I'm pretty sure it would be more than that myself, but I don't like throwing massive monetary amounts out of my butt. Especially since I lack the aforementioned source.

There's no reason to believe this would directly cost much of anything to change, beyond the normal costs associated with forming legislation. The U.S. Treasury just has to start printing bills with "E Pluribus Unum" instead of "In God We Trust". It's about the same amount of ink, so that's a negligible factor (1st has 13 characters and 3 capital letters, 2nd has 12 characters and 4 capital letters).

Changing coin press templates, new anti-counterfeiting measures that would likely have to be pushed through the legislation to get it passed being placed into the dollar bill, etc.

Printing money is not a simple job to begin with if you've ever seen a documentary on it. If it were a simple process, it could be easily replicated, especially in this day and age.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

New anti-counterfeiting measures? What exactly is the problem with the existing anti-counterfeiting measures?

[Sir Finkus]

Of course the fundamentalists will screech about it being taken off, just as the racists did about civil rights legislation.  The way you beat this people is constant pressure on every front.  Getting this done would be a small victory, but it would set a precedent.

[Tellemurius]

How about we forget about this and worry about more important shit like the state of the country?
While im all forward to get E pluribus unum back, theres other issues that affect more lives than "In God we Trust".
im confused on how lots of people feel disturbed to the country's motto when i can barely find a person that even knows it. No one could even remember the Old motto. (street survey for psychology, thought it was a joke.......)

[Glowcat]

I get a feeling that we have the thread's first drinking game.

[CJ1145]

CJ....

What?

Seriously?

In what way does signing a petition to change the slogan on our money prevent us from helping the hungry and the homeless?

No, what prevents us from helping them is that it is a REALLY HARD PROBLEM, with NO EASY SOLUTIONS.

Sure, the slogan thing is like infinity times less important! But it's a REALLY EASY PROBLEM with an EASY AND OBVIOUS SOLUTION.

One that just so happens to not harm the cause you're so keen on advocating in the slightest - something that, perhaps, can't be said of the existence of this message board. You're argument, you're appeal to "we shouldn't do something that should be done because something else needs to be done more" is a recipe for never accomplishing anything, ever.

If you think this can be solved in one easy stroke, then I'm all for it! No, seriously, do it. If you think it will be that simple I am honestly hoping that it can be solved in, say, a week, a month tops. There is no sarcasm here, I am honest.

But seriously, you must know the way our nation works? I hate to say it, personally, but the media is the best way to get people focused on a problem. And you know if this thing takes more than a week, all the news networks will eat this shit up because it makes a pretty headline. I've seen it firsthand, there's only a small fragment of the population that cares about important things when they're not on the news. So if it's what it takes, then I would much rather something like this be sidelined if only for the sake of the news not picking up on it, and maybe highlighting things that really do matter.

The solution is simple, I'll grant you that. But you can't possibly think it's that easy to implement?

[chaoticag]

That line of reasoning would make sense, but has there been a news story pointing this out recently?

Other than that, considering how much it costs to have bills printed, it would probably be nothing compared to changing the engravings used to print them. (which was 492 million to print 7.7 billion notes in 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Engraving_and_Printing#Currency_production