Hi Mike,

Say, before we start beating each other to a bloody pulp <g> I haven't seen you around these parts for a while. Been busy? I've been swamped!

Now.. On to the beating... <g>

>>>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.

Well, the only word I see there that could in anyway be called inflammatory would be the word 'screwed', which is inappropriate I suppose. Other than that I don't see how you can label him 'bigot' because he asserts that he views one group (liberals - how he defines this group remains to be seen I suppose) as (in my words) tyring to assert their views over that of others, but with a method that is contrary to their stated principles.

Am I missing something here? IOW, have you injected your emotions into John's words? You know I have often gotten on his case for doing the very same thing. And, for the record, over the years I've done this as well, though I try not to. I guess you're the only who's still pure huh... <g>

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

I do.

I don't see how I could be called a bigot if I asserted that I think you want to impose your goals (the antithesis of 'something he does not like' - above) on others. As a amatter of fact, I would expect you to want to assert your goals, as do I. I'm just not going to attempt to label you a bigot or some other name on the basis of having a different and strongly held belief. I might think you are one as a result of examining the substance of what you believe (people with glasses are stupid, girls with red hair are all liars, etc) but other than John's generalizations about liberals which I have found to be mostly true I fail to see where the term applies...

It seems that we have arrived at the place where good, solid differences of opinions are being defined by hate-words like 'bigot', 'racist', 'homophobe', 'McCarthyism' and so forth. I object and would point out that anyone who needs to gratuitously use words like this without a solid argument to back up their position is indeed in a weak position. IMO theres's a real difference between someone who's really bigoted and someone who's attempting to use a label like that on another class of people - defined as holding a contrary position of some sort. BTW, take a real good hard look at the political positions of those who make these kinds of remarks and almost always they are in the group most generally defined as liberal.

IOW, what gives you the justification to label John a bigot because he thinks that in general liberals are hypocrites and self serving and wanting to impose their beliefs on the majority? That's his opinion and the last time I looked it wasn't a crime to have an opinon.

>
>>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?

Well, you called John a nasty, emotion-laden name ('bigot') and I don't see where he's exhibiting much more than his opinion that liberals attempt to force their positions on others via inappropriate means.

Can you rationally explain to me why you think it's appropriate to call John a bigot? I don't see much tolerance in what you're writing, so yes, I'd call you intolerant in this case. I talso think you've pre-judged him as you don't seem to have really listened to his side. Perhaps you're just a bigot and you don't care, you're going to believe what you choose to believe and the truth be damned. Talk about a closed mind, and at such a young age.... Tsk tsk.. <g>

>
>>and just plain ignorant of the facts are the ones who are the real bigots.
>
>I'm a bigot huh?

Well, yse, you are if you fit the definition of bigot. Here it is:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Now, before you fly off the handle let me assert that I do not see 'conservative', 'liberal' or any other political definition in there. What I do see is a method of interpersonal behavior being defined and if you or I or anyone else fits that definition, well, then that individual is a bigot.

In that case I do think that liberals are indeed bigots - to the degree they are intolerant of others. Same for conservatives, libertarians, hedonists, athiests, Christians or anyone else for that matter. But just because someone has a different opinion doesn't make them or you or me or anyone else automatically a bigot Mike. I tolerate you Mike.

I have no problem whatsoever with those who have strongly held beliefs at all. I like good solid discussions but simply trying to score points by tossing names out... Doesn't cut it IMO...

>
>>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?

Like I've mentioned before.. Your right to NOT speak does not give you the right to stop me from speaking. As John mentioned (sourced to Pat Buchanan apparently), we are a democracy that the majoritysets the rules in but whom (the majority) has limits on their ability to harm the minority (he said it better <g>). As such, those who do not want the words in the Pledge are in the minority so tough beans. <g> Gain the majority forst, then impose your will on everyone else and stop abusing the court processes.

Here's the bottom line. It's like the fact that there are no real successful liberal radio talk shows. The reason? No one in the free market wants to listen to them. Their ideas aren't as posular as they themselves thinsk they are. So, what do they (these liberals) do? They try and shut the competition down by enacting 'equal access' type laws, forcing others to drink their poison and killing the whole deal. Liberism is only really popular among those who think themselves superior to everyone else and they get indignant when someone questions them and disregards their intellectual vapidity. They will always blame someone else for their failures instead of honestly accepting the fact that their ideas stink. <g> Now, I don't think all conservative ideas are all that good but at least they try and argue over the issues as opposes to calling names and so forth.

Go get Ann Coulter's book, "Slander", Mike. You might learn something.


>
>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?

I have no problem with you and your opinions whatsoever. But, who called whom a bigot (gratuitously)? <g>

Candidly, your ideas are about three generations old at this point. The problem you have is that you think they are new because you have them. They're not. Neither are mine but mine have more staying power and are better. <g>

Take care...