I have never seen a post on RS that called for a Fisking more than yours.

Here goes:

FACT; the IRS admitted that the tax lien was an error. The proof was posted on Christine’s website. Did you not do your homework?

Bzzzt. Strike 1. The document posted on her website acknowledges that she has now submitted new evidence to justify deductions that were previously disallowed for lack of evidence – and that she still has not submitted any of the evidence she has for other disallowed deductions. She also attempts to mislead readers of her website, saying that you can’t get liens placed on your home during the appears process. You can, however, get a lien placed on you before the appeals process. In fact, most appeals are filed after the lien has been placed.

The IRS admittted that the tax lien was an error — and promptly canceled it.

Bzzzzt. Strike 2. There’s no admission of error anywhere in that document.

The IRS does not cancel tax liens unless they are in error

Bzzzt. Wrong again. Strike 3. They cancel tax liens when you pay them off. They also cancel tax liens when you show new information that was not provided with an original return that substantiates a previously unsubstantiated claimed deduction.

FACT: Christine never lied about her education.

Bzzzt. Strike 4. She claimed in her 2006 and 2008 campaigns to have her degree already. She claimed in her 2010 campaign that her degree was held up because she owed the college money. The truth is that she got her degree in 2010, as her campaign staff admitted, after she completed her final course in 2010.

FACT: Christine never lied about her work history

Bzzzt. Strike 5. She claimed in a radio interview when asked about her minuscule income stated in her candidate financial disclosure forms that she had done other work which she wasn’t required to disclose. Federal campaign finance law doesn’t contain any such exception. Either she lied to the interviewer and claimed to have done work for pay she never did, or she lied to the FEC and claimed not to have done work she did.

FACT: ISI violated the law, and deserved to be sued, and people at ISI belong in jail right now for their conduct

Bzzzt. Strike 6. There is no evidence, outside of her hysterical complaint, that anyone at ISI violated any law. That would be the same complaint which cast aspersions on conservative ideology generally by claiming that it commanded that women be subordinate. That would be the same complaint which claimed that ISI violated their promise to let her attend Master’s program classes at Princeton, when she couldn’t have enrolled in such a program because she hadn’t finished the courses for her bachelor’s degree yet. That would also be the same lawsuit which she dropped claiming she couldn’t afford a lawyer – in a field where prevailing plaintiffs get statutory attorney’s fees and plaintiffs’ lawyers traditionally take cases on contingency fees. You also can’t identify any criminal law broken.

FACT: Christine never stole any campaign funds. You are aparrently ignorant. FEC rules allow a candidate to draw a salary from the campaign. Otherwise only millionaries could take time off to run for office.

Bzzzt. Strike 7. FEC rules expressly prohibit using campaign funds for expenses such as rent. A salary is allowed only to the extent that it is replacing a candidate’s previous salary, The practice of paying yourself a camapign salary, though legal, is considered sleazy, and is normally the domain of no-chance self-promoters such as Alan Keyes. She didn’t avail herself of that safe harbor though. She reimbursed herself for personal living expenses. That’s illegal. And illegally taking money that doesn’t belong to you is stealing.

BTW, if you’re going to call someone apparently ignorant, you just might want to know how to spell apparently first.

FACT: Christine accurately reported on a National Geographic report from December 15, 2005, in which National Geographic reports on the scientific development of scientists developing human brain cells in mice

Bzzzt. Strike 7. Human brain cells are not the same as fully functioning human brains. If you think that was accurate, you do not have a fully functioning human brain.

FACT: Christine reported that a guy tried to impress her by taking her on a date after a movie and LATER telling her that it was his satanic altar.

Bzzzt. Strike 8. That’s not an accurate representation of what she said on TV.

You sir, cannot get your facts straight.

Bzzzt. Wrong again. I’ll be charitable and not call this another strike, as it’s pretty much a content-free recap of your previous falsehoods.

If you did your homework and listened to the interview, you would have learned that Christine clearly explained SHE DID NOT KNOW IT AT THE TIME, AND THAT LATER the guy told her that where he set up the picnic was his satanic altar.

Bzzzt. You swung while I wasn’t even throwing a pitch. She said on the TV show (it’s not an interview) that she picnicked at midnight on something with a little blood on it which he later said was a satanic altar. I’m saying she made the whole story up because it sounded good at the time. Cold, hard, and bloody are not picnic venue characteristics most girls will agree to – and it would have to be an outdoor altar, or it’s not a picnic, it’s just eating a meal late [Picnics indoors are reserved for people who aren't allowed to use sharp objects.].

Christine never claimed ti was true, only that some guy trying to get in her pants TOLD HER that. IT is obvious that teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls don’t know squat about satanic altars.

You’re still oblivious to the fact that “some anonymous teenage boy told me something” isn’t proof that anybody ever told her that. It would also rank among the all-time worst lines ever used by a boy trying to get into a girl’s pants.

Your first clue was that BILL MAHER IS A * COMEDY * SHOW DIMWIT

Good God, you’re aggressively stupid. Of course it’s a comedy show. That’s part of the reason I’m saying that no such date ever happened and she made it up on the spot while appearing on the show.

FACT: You are the one who is dishonest, as we have just seen.

Bzzzt. Wrong again. I’ll be charitable and not call this another strike, as it’s pretty much a content-free recap of your previous falsehoods.

FACT: Those attacking Christine are the opportuniists.

Bzzzzt. Strike 9. I don’t work in politics. I do this on my own time, because I want to influence public policy to make the government smaller and increase freedom. There are lots of others just like me who have no career to be impacted by O’Donnell’s success or failure.

You’ve just gone through a full inning. You haven’t even fouled off a pitch.

nd we haven’t even gotten into lots of her other lies yet. The one (said on the radio) about winning 2 of Delaware’s 3 counties against Biden in 2008 was perhaps the funniest, because the records are easily accessible and not subject to interpretation. She lost all 3 counties – 1 narrowly, 1 by 14 points, and 1 in an absolute blowout. Seriously, who in their right mind makes up stuff that’s so easy to disprove?

O’Donnell was an oozing pustule on the face of the Republican Party in 2010, and the Democrats missed no opportunities to point it out every chance they could. Shilling for her at this point should get the same treatment given to the Ron Paul shills from 2008.