I chose Paris Hilton because she was born with a silver spoon and every knows who she is.  Pick some rich man living off daddy's money if it makes you feel better.   I just can't think of one who's done as little as Paris Hilton and is as well-recognized. 

Either way, the point remains.  

Props to Mike and Swamp for giving voice to the voiceless.  Right now, the rich are where the blacks were 100 years ago.  No difference.

Good Lord! Poor Baby!!

I wouldn't say that.  Being rich has it's perks.  But being hated for being rich is no different than being hated for being black.

Yeah, all those rich people getting lynched is terrible.

This ain't this 60s, buddy.   You're about 50 years late for that lynching talk. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2011 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/28/2011 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Define "hating on".

Define it for me.  It's obvious that I define it by choosing to punch a stranger in the face based on his lot in life. 

Then I guess Sanders wasn't hating on anybody, by your definition.

Posted by antonsirius on 7/29/2011 9:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/29/2011 9:00:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/28/2011 6:56:00 PM (view original):
Define "hating on".

Define it for me.  It's obvious that I define it by choosing to punch a stranger in the face based on his lot in life. 

Then I guess Sanders wasn't hating on anybody, by your definition.

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

swamp was actually right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I'm shocked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Anton gets hung up on a technicality instead of facing the argument as a whole.   Wow... .next up .... Cubs win the WS?!?!? 

I'm not getting hung up on anything, moy. Mike chose to answer the question the way he did, so i held him to his definition.

If he meant something a little broader by "hating on", he should have the guts to say so rather than ducking and running.

Posted by antonsirius on 7/29/2011 10:55:00 PM (view original):
I'm not getting hung up on anything, moy. Mike chose to answer the question the way he did, so i held him to his definition.

If he meant something a little broader by "hating on", he should have the guts to say so rather than ducking and running.

This is your standard MO.

You find some irrelevant side issue that isnt important on any issue you dont want to address and beat it into the ground.

Oh, I beg your pardon. I define "ducking and running" as "giving a flippant answer to a serious question when you realize the real answer would lead you into an argument you will lose."

You ran away from a line of discussion, not the boards.

Posted by antonsirius on 7/29/2011 10:55:00 PM (view original):
I'm not getting hung up on anything, moy. Mike chose to answer the question the way he did, so i held him to his definition.

If he meant something a little broader by "hating on", he should have the guts to say so rather than ducking and running.

Yes you are.... You are hung up on the definition of a word rather than the actual argument itself. It was an apples to apples comparison..... Hating on someone one for their skin color is no different than hating on someone for their wealth. The term hating on could be replaced by any synonymous phrase and the basic argument doesn't change. It would be different if mike had said hating on someone for their skin color is no different than punching someone for their wealth. Then you could argue the terminology. I tell you what..... You pick the replacement 'phrase' for hating on in mikes statement.... and then the argument can actually continue without nitpicking technicalities. Just an idea.

Which is why I asked for Mike's definition of "hating on". Which he refused to give. It's not semantics, fool, it's getting someone to stand by their statements.

The argument can't move forward if he's not willing to have it. If you feel like tagging in for him, go right ahead. Define "hating on", moy.