Posted on 07/10/2011 4:31:20 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Sarah Palin has long refused to reveal whether or not she will run for president in next year's election. But today the former Alaska governor has revealed if she doesn't, it certainly won't be from a lack of confidence.
In an interview, the Tea Party favourite said she believes she can win a presidential election - but still refused to be drawn on whether she will launch White House campaign.
Appearing on the front cover of Newsweek for the fifth time in three years, she said: 'I believe that I can win a national election.
'I'm not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe I can win.'
It's the latest hint she may still run. The comments follow a campaign-style bus tour and, most recently, the premiere of a documentary about her life, The Undefeated, in the key election state of Iowa. Despite not having declared her candidacy, she has 16 per cent of Republican support according to the latest Gallup poll, and is second only to Mitt Romney, on 24 per cent.....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
>>IMO, you stopped making sense long ago.<<
And yet all you have is ad hominem.
The first refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.
(for those keeping score, that is 1/2 an insult. The “ad hominem” is fact — the “intellectually bankrupt” part a proper if sort of insulting conclusion resulting from derision. This, of course, means I may no longer challenge about whether I have insulted the posters. It does NOT undermine my outstanding — and unaccepted — challenge to provide a single link to a post where I have insulted Gov. Palin).
I shant issue Challenge #1 again as I see where it is important to the issue at hand. This is now about me and not Gov. Palin. I should be flattered, but I am more amused.
“I should be flattered, but I am more amused.:
You are proof positive it does not take much to entertain some people. Especially when they venture to lay claim to an unsupported superior intellect.
>>You are proof positive it does not take much to entertain some people. Especially when they venture to lay claim to an unsupported superior intellect.<<
And you are proof that when the witless have no arguments they just go to schoolyard insults.
I don’t need to post anything to prove my superior intellect. Your posts do that for me without me saying a word.
“And you are proof that when the witless have no arguments they just go to schoolyard insults.”
ROTFLMAO! Hypocrisy, thy name is freedumb2003
I don’t need to post anything to prove my superior intellect. Your posts do that for me without me saying a word.”
From your past posting record, there is nothing that gives proof of even a mediocre intellect.
And yet, you continue to dig your hole.
You can’t answer even the slightest intellectual nor factual challenge, except for cheap childish insults.
I appreciate you continuing to make my point.
You got nothing so you use your insipid, meager and childish rock throwing.
It is too bad FR doesn’t have an age gate to keep little kids like you out.
I await your next childish, unresponsive, off-thread and topic, taunt response.
You made this about me — as I said, it is now just mildly amusing. When I am finished being amused I shall simply turn away.
You are absolutely correct, it is all about you, and you mightily contrive to insure everything is all about you, right?
As for your turning away. buh, bye.
Thank you for your assessment. I’ll admit I was a bit rude. In the future, I’ll simply ignore the poster.
It’s amazing how freedumb2003’s posts almost sounds like a certain zotted paleo-FReeper called “Dane” is posting. He uses the same “baiting” methods that Dane used while trying to get someone to cross the line.
I could be wrong, but freedumb really seems to be trying to get others banned.
>>I could be wrong, but freedumb really seems to be trying to get others banned.<<
You are wrong — and it is good to see that you take “credit” for post #94, which was inaccurately and unfairly attributed to me. I still don’t know what it said, since I didn’t post it and never got a chance to read it.
AM, can you please correct the record?
GzB: If using cold logic and demanding facts are “baiting” then I plead guilty as charged.
I have attempted to be kind, although some see my humor as a bit gruff or above his/her head. My points remain the same, my challenge unanswered.
Would you please reveal the source of post #94. Sorry for the drama.
...complete inability to use logic.Was it you that mentioned digging holes?
Quote:
post #94, which was inaccurately and unfairly attributed to me. I still don’t know what it said, since I didn’t post it and never got a chance to read it.AM, can you please correct the record?
I am NOT calling anyone a liar, certainly not you.
I thought a mistake has been made and GzB sort of confirmed it.
If the said post was mine, then I just want to know what I said that was objectionable.
I just don’t want to do it again. I don’t want to offend anyone, even in “the heat of battle.” I certainly don’t want to be profane, even sidle wise.
That is all. I meant and mean no harm and just want to make sure my posts are in bounds at all times.
If it is my post then I own it, but it is still killing me not to recall what it was.
>>Would you please reveal the source of post #94. Sorry for the drama.<<
I know I put you in /VI, but this is something else.
I clearly said something offensive, beyond my usual sarcasm (that sometimes gets misconstrued).
If it was to you, I apologize. But I just missed whatever the heck it was. It wasn’t you, the AM excerpt makes that clear.
Thank you, have a fine evening.
FReegards,
Grizz
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.