'Bearded Marxist' Comes in the Debate, Christine O'Donnell Fires Back at Chris Coons (Video)

HAP ^ | 10/13/10 | hap

[conimbricenses]

I’ve done nothing more than comment factually on her extensively documented habit of falsifying her resume. That habit speaks directly to her character and the picture that emerges is not a pleasant one. It is nonetheless a truthful one of which we must all be cognizant, and your pattern of willfully ignoring the evidence because you happen to be infatuated with her does a disservice to the truth.

[conimbricenses]

The term "mud slinging" implies that the criticism being offered is factually misconstrued or unfair. Yet I've said nothing about O'Donnell that isn't factually accurate or a valid reflection on her character. You have thrown out Coons, Castle, and repetitive denial to obfuscate those facts, but nothing to challenge or undermine their basic truths:

1. She repeatedly falsified multiple education credentials on her resume.

2. She filed an absurdly frivolous lawsuit against a conservative organization that fired her over her poor personal ethics as exemplified in those resume falsifications.

3. She has a personal financial history that makes her a prime candidate for the Community Reinvestment Act.

Sure, she's still not as bad as Coons. But simply not being Coons is a pretty low bar to set, and it certainly doesn't make her a good thing!

[fortheDeclaration]

O'Donnell appeared on Hannity a few weeks ago and addressed the issues you have complained about.

She answered them to the satisfaction of even Rove.

You are indeed 'mud slinging' since you are posting information that is subjective, opinionated and irrelevant to the central issue, who will be the next Senator from Delaware.

So, it will be either Coons or O'Donnell-it is quite that simple.

[fortheDeclaration]

What you have done is post information that has been dealt with by her already.

You are making moral judgments without context, jumping to conclusions about her veracity without actually knowing all the details or hearing her side.

And again, these issues were addressed weeks ago.

You are beating a dead horse.

[fortheDeclaration]

I’ve done nothing more than comment factually on her extensively documented habit of falsifying her resume. That habit speaks directly to her character and the picture that emerges is not a pleasant one. It is nonetheless a truthful one of which we must all be cognizant, and your pattern of willfully ignoring the evidence because you happen to be infatuated with her does a disservice to the truth.

So, you are urging voters in Del to vote for Coons?

If you are, you are choosing a Communist over a Constitutionalists based on subjective opinions on her character.

If not, then your posts are simply nothing more then hot air.

Which is it?

[conimbricenses]

So, you are urging voters in Del to vote for Coons?

For the last time, no. I have no interest in Coons and would never urge anyone to vote for him.

The fact that you keep insinuating otherwise strongly suggest that you are either (a) willfully dishonest or (b) stupid. I'll let you choose.

[conimbricenses]

What you have done is post information that has been dealt with by her already.

Except it hasn't, because to you "dealt with" = ignored and/or distorted, much as you attempted to do with the Oxford issue.

It really is a simple matter - either she claimed a certificate FROM Oxford or she did not. And either she graduated from Farleigh-Dickinson in 1993 or she did not. There is no in between. There is no partial credit awarded from a "similar" program that happened to be renting space AT Oxford. And there is no diploma-in-waiting that's yours while caught up on a bureaucratic snag for 17 years, as NONE of that justifies her claiming things that she did not have.

And that makes her a liar, much like you.

[fortheDeclaration]

I will make this question so simple that even you might be able to understand it-Coons or O'Donnell?

Simple enough?

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, if you have no interest in Coons winning the election, then your constant harping and complaining about O’Donnell is simple pettiness.

[conimbricenses]

I’ve never suggested anything other than O’Donnell being preferable to Coons. But that still doesn’t make her a good candidate, and it doesn’t mean she can win.

[conimbricenses]

No. Try a reminder to all the idiots out there, apparently including yourself, why we need to do a better job at vetting our candidates.

I'm sure you complained to no end about how poorly Barack Obama was vetted before they elected him despite a lot of questionable areas in his past. So why the double standard in which you are apparently willing to give Christine O'Donnell a pass?

[fortheDeclaration]

Take up your complaint with the GOP voters, they made the decision.

So, again, will you choose Coons or O'Donnell for Senator?

[fortheDeclaration]

Then your complaints about her are simply irrelevant and pointless.

[conimbricenses]

Are you not a GOP voter?

[fortheDeclaration]

Coons or O’Donnnell-which is it?

[conimbricenses]

I already answered that for you. Now tell me, are you or are you not a GOP voter with whom I should lodge my complaint about the lack of vetting in our candidate?

[fortheDeclaration]

I am not a voter in Delaware, you need to take it up with the Delaware GOP's dept of vetting candates.

And I am sure your complaint will be given all the attention it deserves.

[conimbricenses]

So why all the infatuation you have with O’Donnell then?

[fortheDeclaration]

Her strong Constitutional stands for one.