Only once???

Yes, terrorists crashed jets into the Twin Towers and other assorted landmarks.  I did (temporarily) forget the Kamikaze campaign in the Pacific, which was also attack by airplane.  I should point out that the vast, vast majority of attacks by airplanes were actually attacks by bullets fired out of guns carried by airplanes, or bombs dropped by airplanes, and not the airplanes themselves.  I should also point out that airplanes have lots of other functions besides killing people, while the number of uses for a firearm is considerably less.

NO.  So what if a few here apply that to you.  Should your political affiliation be wiped off the face of the earth because you're disliked?

Obviously not.  Thankfully I don't care if I'm disliked, never won a popularity contest and won't start now.

Tolerance does not have a topic.  You either have respect for people or you are intolerant of them.  There is no partial ground.

Actually, you are tolerant of groups, ideologies, religious leanings, all sorts of things.  Tolerance as applied to individuals is a very different concept.

You aren't required to agree with them, but you must defend their right to be an asshole.   

if there is a group that espouses an ideology with which you violently disagree, it is your duty as an American to support their right to free expression.

Being intolerant of intolerance is not a solution to the problem, it is a continuation of the problem.  You aren't fixing the problem, you ARE the problem.   

Actually, many if not most instances of intolerance violate our founding documents.  America and Americans invented inclusivity.  It is nearly a unique American phenomenon. 

Otherwise, you can justify any bad behavior by just saying "that person is a jerk".

If someone is behaving atrociously you have every right to point out their atrocious behavior.  You have every right to distance yourself from them and probably should.  Life is short.

Do you hate airplanes?  They are used to kill, and in fact kill on a mass scale.

Only once.  Put it this way, who is more likely to convince someone to support firearm rights?  A die-hard firearm owner to whom the 2nd amendment is the only one that counts, or someone like me, who doesn't really like them but who thinks personal freedom trumps perceived security.  Sorry, I have lots of facts lined up in my corner to support my position.  Most of what I hear from firearm enthusiasts is both shrill and partizan.  Closed-minded little me.

We certainly can't have tolerance and diversity, can we.

Tolerance means not discriminating against someone on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or other non-personal factors.  It does not mean disliking assholes.

Wouldn't want that windbag anywhere near my alma mater.

What specifically is unrealistic?  I keep hearing Democrats say that and convincing each other that it must be true, but what details do you say are unrealistic?

Trump getting his way in a Congress where just about everyone despises him.

Now that is a laughable statement if there ever was one.

So perfesser, being such a "worldly man", tell us which countries and parts of the world you have lived and worked in (not just vacationed)?

Those who attend University must have or have access to the resources to pay tuition, which is breathtakingly expensive.  Thus they will have or at least tend to have resources for travel.  Moreover, many relocate for school.  Certainly not all, but many.

As for yours truly, I present a poor example of worldliness, since I have only lived in 5 American cities and traveled to similar number of nations in Europe and the Americas.  I did do a 2 month sojourn in Mexico on my motorcycle, and do recommend travel to anyone.  Opens your eyes.  All my travel has been for work, the only vacation I take is Oshkosh.  Since I'm a pilot I expend my resources on my airplane, and don't take all the trips I might like.  The nut is only so big.