>>No, I mean: you are one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
>You mean like those who call people 'bigots' and 'liars' who disagree with them, Mr. I-need-to-look-in-the-mirror? <g>

I am not calling John a bigot because I disagree with him. I am calling him a bigot because he said:

He is like most liberals - he sees something he does not like and wants to subject the majority to his will, thereby screwing over the rights of others.

Replace liberal with black, Muslim, or female. Its all bigotry. Do you disasgree?

>You make so well the point I've been getting at all along; the fact here Mike is that those, like yourself, who are intolerant and prejudiced

In what ways?

>and just plain ignorant of the facts are the ones who are the real bigots.

I'm a bigot huh?

>If you believe in tolerance, tolerate those who you disagree with instead of trying to push your beliefs on others, all the while moaning about your precious rights while you strip those same rights from others.

What rights do I strip away from you when I say "Under God" shouldn't be in the pledge? What particular amendment in the bill of rights does taking those two words out destroy or contradict?

What belief am I pushing? I'm debating here. If you can't handle the fact that I am free to give my opinion, and back it up with reason, you are a child. Amazingly, you come to John's defense, even after he, with a single stroke of his brush, painted everyone who is not on the conservitive right (with him) as screwing over everone elses rights. What rights? Is there any substance to that claim?