>>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.

Its not the words that are bigotory. Its how they're put together.

>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.

He said "most liberals try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree". If he had said:

"most Minnesotans try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree"
"most black people try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree"
"most homosexuals try to screw other people out of their rights because they disagree"

Would you consider any of that bigotry?

>IOW, have you injected your emotions into John's words?

I don't think I have. And if you'll notice, John did not argue the point that he feels a prejudice towards liberals. Which is honest of him.

>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.

You probably wouldn't be called a bigot if you did that. But if you asserted that I, and everyone else with blond hair, red cars, liberal tendencies, or any other irrelevant characteristic are out to cause you harm, you would be rightfully called a bigot.

>but other than John's generalizations about liberals which I have found to be mostly true

To you are admitting your bigotry here, as well? Thats ok, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Simply lets call it what it is, shall we?

>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.

Its also not a crime to be a racist. Its also not a crime to think that all Christians are intellectually superiour to Muslims. Bigotry is not a crime. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

>Well, you called John a nasty, emotion-laden name ('bigot')

Says you. At one point in time, "Believer" was a nasty, emotion-laden name.

>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.

How is that not bigotry?

> don't see much tolerance in what you're writing, so yes, I'd call you intolerant in this case.

But did I say he was wrong because he was a right-winger? No. Did I say he was wrong because he was from Pennsilvania? No. I may have a low tolerance for John's point of view, but that does not mean I am intolerant of John, or those who share unrelated charateresitics.

>Talk about a closed mind, and at such a young age.... Tsk tsk.. <g>

I do not have an open mind to close mindedness. That is true.

>In that case I do think that liberals are indeed bigots - to the degree they are intolerant of others.

Thats pretty ironic.

>Gain the majority forst, then impose your will on everyone else and stop abusing the court processes.

I have to become the crooked CEO of an oil company before that happens.

>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.

Why you think this, I have no idea.