Posted by antonsirius on 7/31/2011 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/31/2011 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/30/2011 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2011 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/30/2011 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Does that help me guess at how you define "hating on"? No, not really.

When you grow a set and decide to stand by your own statement, let me know.

When you decide to quit being a raging ***** and explain how hating people from a specific social standing is different than hating people for skin color, YOU get back to me.  Until then, cower in your ***** corner and try to figure out how to twist this into some liberal flag waving.

I'm not the one desperately doing the Savion Glover impression, and trying to weasel out of my own statement.

You said "Hating on a specific class is no different than hating on a skin color." I asked you to define 'hating on' and explain exactly what you meant. You've spent three pages since squirming like a kid whose older brother picked them up by the scruff of their neck, doing everything you can to avoid answering a simple question.

That's not me being a *****, that's you being a coward.

I disagree.  Rather than answer the pretty simple question, how is despising(since terminology is your defense for your pussiness) a specific group of people because of their social standing(which they may not have had anything to do with) different than despising another specific group of people for their skin color, you have danced the anton dance.  I call it The ***** Dance.

Is that your definition? "Hating on" = "despising". Got it. That's wasn't so hard now, was it, Li'l Mikey?

Now, as I asked moy and which genghis also alluded to, can you give me some examples of people 'despising the rich'? I tried Google but all I got was the kind of meaningless, weak-*** generalities I'd expect from swamp about "the left does this" and "liberals do that". Please provide a concrete example of what you consider to be someone 'despising the rich'.

The ***** Dance goes on!!!

Until you answe this question, how is despising(since terminology is your defense for your pussiness) a specific group of people because of their social standing(which they may not have had anything to do with) different than despising another specific group of people for their skin color?, I think we're done here. 

Unless, of course, you're intent on filling your dance card.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 7/31/2011 10:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/31/2011 10:18:00 PM (view original):
OK, I gotta ask... what mental disorder are you talking about, swamp?

He claimed anyone that is opposed to gay marriage is Homophobic.

Cant we call that a mental disorder?

No.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 6:56:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/31/2011 12:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/31/2011 11:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/30/2011 5:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/30/2011 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 7/30/2011 2:06:00 PM (view original):
Does that help me guess at how you define "hating on"? No, not really.

When you grow a set and decide to stand by your own statement, let me know.

When you decide to quit being a raging ***** and explain how hating people from a specific social standing is different than hating people for skin color, YOU get back to me.  Until then, cower in your ***** corner and try to figure out how to twist this into some liberal flag waving.

I'm not the one desperately doing the Savion Glover impression, and trying to weasel out of my own statement.

You said "Hating on a specific class is no different than hating on a skin color." I asked you to define 'hating on' and explain exactly what you meant. You've spent three pages since squirming like a kid whose older brother picked them up by the scruff of their neck, doing everything you can to avoid answering a simple question.

That's not me being a *****, that's you being a coward.

I disagree.  Rather than answer the pretty simple question, how is despising(since terminology is your defense for your pussiness) a specific group of people because of their social standing(which they may not have had anything to do with) different than despising another specific group of people for their skin color, you have danced the anton dance.  I call it The ***** Dance.

Is that your definition? "Hating on" = "despising". Got it. That's wasn't so hard now, was it, Li'l Mikey?

Now, as I asked moy and which genghis also alluded to, can you give me some examples of people 'despising the rich'? I tried Google but all I got was the kind of meaningless, weak-*** generalities I'd expect from swamp about "the left does this" and "liberals do that". Please provide a concrete example of what you consider to be someone 'despising the rich'.

The ***** Dance goes on!!!

Until you answe this question, how is despising(since terminology is your defense for your pussiness) a specific group of people because of their social standing(which they may not have had anything to do with) different than despising another specific group of people for their skin color?, I think we're done here. 

Unless, of course, you're intent on filling your dance card.

Despising a group of people because of their social standing is no different than despising a group of people because of their hair color.

It's very different than despising a group of people because of their skin color, as that one actually has real life consequences.

Go find find 10 people who say "I hate black people," and 10 who say "I hate rich people."

Ask the first group if they want to be black.

Ask the second group if they want to be rich.

I dare say the two groups will respond very differently.

So it's totally okay to discriminate if you are envious/jealous..... I get it.

The rich are the victims of discrimination?

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/1/2011 2:48:00 AM (view original):
I was referring to you and to the fact that you habitually misrepresent what other people say. And now, of course, you've done it again.

So you clearly stated that I wanted to gain the supprt of homophobes in the latin and black community.

You toss around that word very easy, and then when someone calls you on it you act insulted.

Homophobia is a made up word that would imly that you have a overdeveloped fear of homosexuals.

So explain what you mean when you say Homophobia.

Also you didnt try to tie people supporting Traditional Marriage with Pedophiles? You can say you didnt mean to do it, that you meant something esle, but you did in fact do that. A simple apology would be nice.

And in case you have missed the point, the first group is the object of real hate, and the second is not. I'm running out of ways to explain the obvious. It's like explaining to a certain lefty why he can't play 2b.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Really?  What "consequence" comes about by someone sitting in their home and saying "I hate black people" or "I hate people with blonde hair"?  

I'd say "nothing" because, without an act of some kind, there's no harm being done.  

Oh, is that all we're talking about? Hot air? Fine then. Despising a group of people because of their social standing - and not doing anything about it other than talking - is no different than despising a group of people because of their skin color - and not doing anything about it other than talking.

Any other conditions you'd like to put on it? Maybe the analogy is only accurate if you talk about how much you despite the particular group on Thursdays?

Posted by antonsirius on 8/1/2011 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Really?  What "consequence" comes about by someone sitting in their home and saying "I hate black people" or "I hate people with blonde hair"?  

I'd say "nothing" because, without an act of some kind, there's no harm being done.  

Oh, is that all we're talking about? Hot air? Fine then. Despising a group of people because of their social standing - and not doing anything about it other than talking - is no different than despising a group of people because of their skin color - and not doing anything about it other than talking.

Any other conditions you'd like to put on it? Maybe the analogy is only accurate if you talk about how much you despite the particular group on Thursdays?

It all goes back to your indignation about the "chuggin' a 40" comment and your lack of concern over "I hope they all die" comment.   

I'm just curious why the comments are treated so differently by you and your kind.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/1/2011 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/1/2011 2:48:00 AM (view original):
I was referring to you and to the fact that you habitually misrepresent what other people say. And now, of course, you've done it again.

So you clearly stated that I wanted to gain the supprt of homophobes in the latin and black community.

You toss around that word very easy, and then when someone calls you on it you act insulted.

Homophobia is a made up word that would imly that you have a overdeveloped fear of homosexuals.

So explain what you mean when you say Homophobia.

Also you didnt try to tie people supporting Traditional Marriage with Pedophiles? You can say you didnt mean to do it, that you meant something esle, but you did in fact do that. A simple apology would be nice.

So you clearly stated that I wanted to gain the supprt of homophobes in the latin and black community.

Actually, you pretty clearly stated that in another thread. If you're hung up on the word "homophobe," get over it. If you want to argue that people can oppose granting equal rights to gay people without literally being afraid of them, knock yourself out. It's just not particularly relevant to the current discussion. What is relevant is that you said:

So in your mind if some powerful people in the government keep singling out one group over and over as being the cause of your problems it is irrelevant as long as it doesnt lead to violence?

Yet your strategy is to gain minority votes by exploiting anti-gay sentiment. Do I really need to explain the hypocrisy?

Also you didnt try to tie people supporting Traditional Marriage with Pedophiles?

No, I did not. Here's what I said:

"I'm glad you believe you should have free reign to molest small children. I realize you didn't actually say that, but I figure I can take the same liberties rephrasing your posts as you do with mine. " 

Pay particular attention to the large, boldface, italicized, underlined red type.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 2:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 8/1/2011 1:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/1/2011 9:17:00 AM (view original):
Really?  What "consequence" comes about by someone sitting in their home and saying "I hate black people" or "I hate people with blonde hair"?  

I'd say "nothing" because, without an act of some kind, there's no harm being done.  

Oh, is that all we're talking about? Hot air? Fine then. Despising a group of people because of their social standing - and not doing anything about it other than talking - is no different than despising a group of people because of their skin color - and not doing anything about it other than talking.

Any other conditions you'd like to put on it? Maybe the analogy is only accurate if you talk about how much you despite the particular group on Thursdays?

It all goes back to your indignation about the "chuggin' a 40" comment and your lack of concern over "I hope they all die" comment.   

I'm just curious why the comments are treated so differently by you and your kind.

Actually this goes back to you taking swamp's side in an argument, and you should know how that turns out by now.

By the way, I'm pretty sure I said Savage's comment was ******* idiotic. If you can find a quote from me saying otherwise, be my guest.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/1/2011 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The rich are the victims of discrimination?

Just curious, who would be the Rosa Parks of the rich? Who was that brave rich person who refused to give up her seat and go to the back of the bus?

OK, that analogy is flawed for many reasons. Rich people are still sitting in the back of the bus. Errr, limo.




Still, I nominate Leona Helmsley. She said, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." That was brave of her.

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/1/2011 3:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 8/1/2011 1:28:00 PM (view original):
The rich are the victims of discrimination?

Just curious, who would be the Rosa Parks of the rich? Who was that brave rich person who refused to give up her seat and go to the back of the bus?

OK, that analogy is flawed for many reasons. Rich people are still sitting in the back of the bus. Errr, limo.




Still, I nominate Leona Helmsley. She said, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." That was brave of her.

39.4% tax rate versus 0%.

Is it not 'discrimination' that women are paid less than men for the same job? Where is the Rosa Parks in this instance?