Maybe, but you don't get to define words. The dictionary does, that's where I cut and pasted the definition from.

1)difference of opinion. Absolutely was that.
2) It was clearly outright bigoted statements and implications, and innuendo.
3) Perhaps, but his plan is to not allow ANY Muslims in. That's the definition of bigoted. Putting everyone on prison until you can figure out how to determine who's criminal....bigoted. he does NOT accept that non-radicalized Muslims exist, he blames them ALL for not turning in the 'radicals', painting them all as radical. You know he CLAIMS there's no vetting system in place at all for refugees, completely ignorant of the truth which is that it's incredibly hard and takes around 2 years for a refugee to be accepted.
4)wrong.

OK, since you can't understand the language and want to fight over dictionary definitions you don't understand, this conversation is over.
Enjoy your ignorance and naiveté.

I already defined bigoted farther up the thread.

But again, back to the Oxford:

Bigot: A person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Even dictionary.com gets it right this time. I don't know where you got your definition of "bigot".

1) It wasn't any of those though.
2) It wasn't bigoted innuendo though.
3) Not wanting to allow radicalised muslims who will engage in criminal behaviour into your country (which is what this is about) is not bigoted (just as you aren't considered bigoted for not wanting criminals engaging in criminal behaviour in the community). Making a temporary ban until you can institute a more rigorous vetting process is not bigoted. I.e. he accepts non-radicalised Muslims and their views, but they will have temporary visa restrictions until a better vetting system is in place.
4) Assuming the worst about a group is not bigotry. Being intolerant of the group's views is.

No, since they aren't bigotry, they couldn't be used as examples in a dictionary.

Saying disparaging things about a group is not bigotry. E.g. someone could say "I fucking hate Australians, they suck". That's not bigotry. Or, "All Australian's are dicks". Also not bigotry. Now on the other hand if they said, "I don't accept the views or opinions of Australians", then that is bigotry.

In response to your response.....the definition....
Bigotry-intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Bigot-a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

1) It is bigotry if they're revoked based on race, religion, sexual preference, difference of opinion, or any other groupings.
2) It is if it's bigoted innuendo.
3) Not wanting to allow Muslims (specifically Middle Eastern Muslims) into your country because you unfairly purport that they're all radical Islamists is bigotry.
4) Assuming the worst about Muslims as a group is bigotry.

It's a bit funny, because all the things you mentioned could be listed as examples of bigotry in the dictionary.

If he's wrong, and he knows it, about something disparaging he said about some group, that's a "bigoted lie".

As for the Supreme Court nomination (not appointment), you are technically correct with your statement, but not your meaning, his "litmus test" for acceptable nominees would be bigoted if it starts with "they must revoke the rights of [group X that I disagree with so doesn't deserve equal rights]".

In response to that link:
Revoking press passes to private events is not bigotry.
Vague innuendo is not bigotry.
Not wanting radical Islamists in your country is not bigotry.
Putting a temporary travel ban on foreign nationals from entering your country as a protective measure is not bigotry.
Being possibly wrong about Muslims protecting other radicalised Muslims within the American community is not bigotry.
If he is wrong, being wrong is not a "bigoted lie".
Appointing Supreme Court judges who may possibly (at their own discretion) overturn previous rulings is not bigoted.

Your video, Hugh Jackman plays Innuendo Bingo hosted by Kylie, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I can't put my finger on it, but I think this video has some kind of subliminal message with a hint of sexual innuendo, like in Fight Club where Tyler Durden inserts those couple of frames into the children's movie reel.

Given the song lyrics innuendo about a guy trying to get the girl to stay the night, this is pretty creepy when performed by children.

(also, not sure why that song is only and always played as a Christmas song, when it doesn't mention it at all. Sure it's a "winter" song, but not Christmas.)

I'm old enough to have watched Richard Dawson, and appreciated him as a host...but Steve Harvey is the best ever. Maybe of any game show.

Regardless, I'm getting a little tired of every single question being a sexual innuendo. And I'm a fan of cheap humor. But damn, ever time?

I was going by this: http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/tv-commercials/stratos-the-woman-next-door-162405/

My bad. They're obviously fucked up. The song was recorded in the late 90s as well.

Although cordless phones were developed in the 60s, the kids are using an obviously 80s version. The first true Cellular phone was 1973 by Motorola, so I thought it possible.

Stratos seems to like making commercials with sexual innuendo.
http://videosift.com/video/What-ya-do-when-you-need-another-player-Make-a-baby

I'm thinking sexual innuendo.

You gave a few examples, I did not ever disagree that it happens, I disagreed that it's happening today in Africa (or worldwide) at a level that's worse than the lack of water on a global scale. I will concede that, in certain areas, it is, but worldwide, even continent wide, it's less of an issue than useable water by far.
You give up pretty easily.
Historically, there have not been 'men with guns'. Guns are a fairly new construct. If it were historical fact that men with 'overwhelming force' (so forget the guns quip) drive farmers out of farming, why are we still here farming?

Yes, the two statements about technology are not mutually exclusive...your point? You 'give up' a lot.

Yes, and I clearly stated I believe they ignored some factors to get their numbers, as most 'predictions' I've seen in the last 20 years have done. I also clearly stated that even their lower range numbers were disastrous and unsurvivable and their high numbers even more so, I just went on to say my educated guess is that they are likely also on the low side because they don't account for everything AND they assume we'll stop rushing to make things worse at some point. I just think that's wishful thinking, based on my estimations of human behavior.

I do listen to fact, reason, data, hypothesis, innuendo, lies, insanity, and more (proven by the fact that I'm still here discussing this, and it's funny that you now wish to no longer 'listen' to facts or reason yourself because you 'give up'), then do my best with my degree in science and scientific mind to work out what hypothesis is closest to the data, and see if I can determine where it's imperfect and why. You can call it 'personal belief', I call it educated guess work, because I've paid attention and most models were on the low side of reality because they don't include all factors (they can't, we don't know all factors involved yet to program them into the models) and because they all expect humans to stop adding to the problem at some point in their equations, which I say from experience is wishful thinking and bad science/math, and I think it's nearly always added to actual science lately for political reasons on one side or the other.
EDIT: For instance, I've never seen a model that includes 'global dimming', but it's a factor that has kept up to 3 degrees C of warming from happening. it happens when particulates in the upper atmosphere deflect sunlight, stopping it from entering the system as light or heat. It has also added to a decline in global food production, but I've yet to see a climate study that includes it in their model. If we shut down all coal plants and combustion engines tomorrow, we would see a rapid spike in temperature as a result, another thing no one ever mentions.

I note you aren't defending your 'facts' about Texas producing more food than California, were you as certain of that as you are about these 'facts'? If so, perhaps more research could be warranted?

Oh, never mind, I forgot you decided to stop listening to facts and hypothesis and give up. I think your children would be disappointed you care so little about their future....I have none, so I have no dog in the fight. Nothing done today will effect things either way in my lifetime. As I see it, that means I'm one of the few with no agenda either way, I'm only interested in reality, and the data I have seen has consistently been worse than the worst predictions when everything is considered in totality (not cherry picked).

I'm always amused how this show's host plays the puritanical angle when it's obvious all the questions are geared for uncomfortable answers and sexual innuendo.

We need an *innuendo channel!

Am I the only one who heard nothing but innuendo?

Golf TV is the new porn channel.

Your video, Innuendo Bingo with Gerard Butler, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!