B. So before the start of time there was nothing

Someone has surely pointed this out to you, but you might have said, "Nothing precedes time's start," as your current implies a misunderstanding of time. That is, that time is always occurring at the same speed, or at the very least progressing at some speed. This would be a fallacy. The problem though is that your argument hinges on this (without any accusations of intentionality) "straw man" of presentism, that does assume time always progresses without beginning or end. Rather the real epitome of presentism lies in the substantial belief that time is an illusion of place, and when there is no place, there is no progress. By this logic, time needn't have begun and it need not end.

No need to be so rude. You won't sensibly win anyone over that way.

Infinity is not a number and cannot be represented by a number. it is a term to describe the nature of fractions.

There may be an infinity of numbers between zero and one. Zero represents the beginning, one represents the end. Therefor time doesn't have to begin or end.

I hope it won’t offend you that I point out the little bit of irony in your first paragraph: you begin by portraying political correctness in its least charitable light, and end by insisting that your argument is reasoned. Reasoned how? Certainly the picture you’ve made for us isn’t analytical--- in the sense that it is imagined; not observed, but generalized from several personal experiences and the gossip of others. As you said, “Political correctness not only fails to achieve its stated goals of tolerance and respect; it prevents them from being made possible at all.” In other words, your generalization blankets advocates of political correctness as unintentional and intolerant, and labels them as liberals. Here is another instance where I would agree this argument isn’t exactly reasoned, though your lack of definitions and liberal use of certain words doesn’t by itself disqualify your argument, it merely makes it significantly less persuasive.
Here is another thing, before I get to why I disagree with you--- or perhaps this is why I disagree with you: From your perspective, the character of discourse in the US is as political correctness. For me, the character of discourse in the US is reaction to an imagined politically correct presence--- be that a movement or a generation or a class. In fact, what you perceive as harassment for word choice or controversial opinions is again only a projection of what you said onto ‘the whole canvas’ so to speak, of our culture. In other words, you think they are identifying your individual vocabulary and opinions as a social problem, when in reality they are perceiving what you said in a dialectical sense. That is, relating it to a large social movement towards ‘the right.’ Just as you fear the deterioration of society because of political correctness (based on, lets face it, a generalization), they fear the same based on the same.
So here is why I disagree with you: your argument is uncharitable (but I know you mean well), lacks definitions (i’d like to know how you define ‘political correctness’ and ‘liberal’), and most importantly, it fails to take into account the alarm and sense of doom one feels when asked to confront what he/she perceives as “the root of all evil.” In other words, it isn’t discourse that bothers the politically correct, it is the very same thing that makes you sick to the stomach when talking to them: it is the feeling that life is going to change for the worse. FINAL REPHRASING (haha): It is the perception of danger, the danger that such thoughts lead to Nazism, etc.
Conclusion: Don’t judge the politically correct too harshly. Both of you are feeling the same things and reacting to the same impulse to perceive the thought of one person as the thought of many, and through this hasty generalization perceive an apocalyptic decline of society (or at least a decline). Don’t worry, don’t sweat! There is no such decline in the behaviors of people. People are really behaving the same as ever. This upheaval Political Correctness is merely your reaction to being called things like “fascist”; the counter-frame you construct to cope with being maligned as something you ‘aren’t’ (but let's face it, there's probably a reason someone reacted strongly to your opinions). Accept that while a person perceives your simple statement of opinion as an attack, there might have been some basis for his/her initial reaction. Your reaction to post about it here is maybe an attempt to reassert yourself or something, and distilled you will find it is exactly the same impulse.