Reply #46: I didn't

[H2O Man]

put any words in your mouth. You made a rude comment. Then you asked a question. I answered. You were rude to me, and also claimed this was a private discussion between you and one other person. Actually, it is a long thread, with numerous others participating. It's not private.

I think you have made some valid points. I think you cheapen them with a tacky tactic. Hence, my first two comments to you were attempts to suggest you focus on the issue, rather than make silly personal attacks.

Thus, back to the issue at hand. Can you see circumstances where it is important to call republicans "a white christian party"? When? Why? And can you also see circumstances where it might be wise not to use that same description? When? Why?

In politics, there are always three groups: <1> Those who always agree with you; <2> Those who always disagree with you; and <3> The undecided. Consider this in determining if it is ever/always important to use a specific tactic.

The democratic party will win remarkably few state elections, and no national ones, without a significant amount of white christians. Those who are not of that group would be foolish to think that they are in any position of power without white christians.