Lakeshark my ol’ pal, you go back and read the exchange of posts, specifically my #91, and tell me I am NOT walking with the angels here. The whole thrust of this argument is that Sarah Palin should be the keynote speaker or a prominent speaker at this convention and I have clearly stated the reasons why she will NOT be speaking, and those reasons were all highly complimentary to her.
Tell your buddy ‘editor-surveyor’ to give their head a shake and try reading with some basic 2nd grade comprehension and TRY, at least *TRY* to understand the difference between insulting Sarah Palin (which nobody did in this thread) and stating *why* she will probably not be invited to speak at this oh-so-glorious convention of liberal RINOs, ok?
Hope all is good with you.
:-)
I read that Christie was to be the keynote speaker already, so it seems you are right.
That being said, I'll be surprised if Romney has not spoken to Palin already, and surprised if they haven't cut an agreement (or tried) as to her general role (or non-role) in the convention and the campaign.
If not, he's dumber than I thought.
You know if these braindead robots were the least bit serious about what they been posting then after the RINO GOP DOESN”T invite her they would be calling on her to third party, but that would cause them MORE problems when she doesn't.
You see, she is still a paid $$$ ‘political commentator’ and 'on contract political commentators' cant run for office.
Yes, you are continuing to walk with the fallen angels.
Your “reason” why Rumney shouldn’t pick success appears to assume that his IQ is down there with you and Obama.
Palin would give him what he needs and lacks. Avoiding her will just about guarantee his failure, and I remain confidant that he is aware of that.
The rest of your agitprop has to be assumed to be junk filler material.