You can not make this kind of stupid up…

This unbelievable story would right now be front page news, and we would have the usual suspects in the LSM doing their best to link Romney to it, if this was done by a republican:

JEFFERSON COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4)- The woman named “Democrat of The Year” this year by the Jefferson County Democratic Party has been convicted of felony theft by a Jefferson County jury for stealing from a developmentally disabled 71-year-old woman.

“The jury did right,” said Cindy Maxwell, an advocate for the victim.

On Thursday, a jury convicted 66-year-old Estelle Carson of felony identify theft and felony theft from an at risk adult for stealing checks from the woman and using them to pay her own cable, cell phone and internet bills.

The victim is partially blind, developmentally disabled, has cerebral palsy and is confined to a wheelchair. She is on a fixed income of $596 per month according to the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office.

Just wow. And seriously, I find no irony in the revelation that this woman was a top democrat. If this was a republican, we would be hearing how we should not be voting for Romney, because this is what Romney believes in. Just take a look at the regular policies democrats back and force upon us though, to help us, of course, and you will see most of their feel good nonsense is on par with robbing developmentally disabled people in wheel chairs. Heh.

Comments are closed.

  1. Kimpost

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT *

    Hope she’s cared for by rich relatives. Otherwise she’s a drain on society. A Democrat for sure…

    Maybe she does have rich relatives. It would explain why the top democrat decided to fleece her so hard, Kimpost. That old adage about “There is no honor amongst thieves” seems aptly appropriate whenever you are dealing with these kinds of blue-on-blue things.

    Now that I got some more jabs in at the expense of the left, I should point out that your lame attempt fails miserably. The story was very clear that she was living off a government check. But I understand your desperate need to deflect and pretend that the real story here is that without government checks this person would not have any care. Maybe I should mention how she would have been killed at birth like leftist eugenicists would prefer, to add some proper perspective.

    Thumb up 8

  3. blameme

    Hope she’s cared for by rich relatives. Otherwise she’s a drain on society. A Democrat for sure…

    Yeah – you know that is bullshit. I don’t know of ANY conservative who doesn’t gladly pay taxes to help those like this woman.

    If you look at any statistics regarding donations – Republicans easily outpace dems in charitable giving.

    Dems would just rather use the power of government for their pet projects so they can feel charitable rather than digging into their own pockets to be charitable to others.

    Thumb up 7

  4. HARLEY

    Hope she’s cared for by rich relatives. Otherwise she’s a drain on society

    yes and under Obamacare… she woudl be a drain, and since care needs to be rationed…….. its off to the cracker farm…………..

    Thumb up 4

  5. Kimpost

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  6. blameme

    I know, I know. People who really really need help should get it. From the government, even. Except when charities should handle it. The millions of lazy and unwilling is what’s bleeding us dry and moves us towards totalitarianism. Like Greece. Like Mao. It’s in Alinsky’s book.

    Quit being an ass.

    This lady and many, many of those less fotrunate SHOULD be helped by taxes and the government. I am fully happy to pay taxes to give this lady something in life. She should have more, if there weren’t so many POLITICIANS (yes, Republicans too) that spend our tax dollars on stupid shit.

    Only the libs claim that they do it out of charity – but that is BS. There are SO many programs that just drain money away from where it should be going.

    Conservatives believe in taking care of the infirm, etc. We also believe, FOR SHORT PERIODS OF TIME, that others in need due to economic conditions should be helped.

    It just shouldn’t be a lifestyle.

    But liberals would rather call us heartless, take money from us by force and then feign charity from their heart instead of actually being charitable (again above taxing others) out of their own pockets and helping their fellow citizens. The proof is in the pudding – libs want to use other’s money to help, conservatives want a mixture of personal and government based charity.

    Thumb up 3

  7. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  9. blameme

    Congrats on finding one paper. I won’t look through the dozens of others that prove my point. You can find them on your own. I have more important things to do – and you know this has been proven over and over.

    I find that I do better when I just rarely respond anymore as it turns into a meaningless link war.

    My last post on this. You win.

    Thumb up 6

  10. balthazar

    The one paper thaty really matters is the IRS, they show overwhelmingly that in the US conservatives donate mush more than liberals.

    Thumb up 10

  11. balthazar

    Like Mao.

    You mean the Mao that is one of the White houses favorite philosophers and graces thier annual Christmas tree…. that Mao?

    Thumb up 6

  12. Seattle Outcast

    Just on the Drudge report – our wonderfully efficient government spends about $60K/household on welfare. Why isn’t this poor woman living a much better life on my dime? Where the fuck is the rest of that $60K going?

    Answer: government dweebs taking their cut…

    Thumb up 6

  13. Kimpost

    You mean the Mao that is one of the White houses favorite philosophers and graces thier annual Christmas tree…. that Mao?

    The one being referred to as a White House favourite philosopher, is exactly the Mao I was talking about. That level of political discourse deserves all the ridicule it can get.

    Thumb up 0

  14. Kimpost

    I won’t look through the dozens of others that prove my point. You can find them on your own. I have more important things to do – and you know this has been proven over and over.

    The point being, what?

    The one paper thaty really matters is the IRS, they show overwhelmingly that in the US conservatives donate mush more than liberals.

    Does it matter either way?

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    Congrats on finding one paper. I won’t look through the dozens of others that prove my point. You can find them on your own. I have more important things to do – and you know this has been proven over and over.

    I find that I do better when I just rarely respond anymore as it turns into a meaningless link war.

    My last post on this. You win.

    Wow, so I find something which contradicts what you said and you fly off the handle, give up, and leave in a huff? WTF?

    It most certainly doesn’t have to be a ‘link war’. We can examine methodology and agree or disagree about how appropriate it is.

    The paper I linked to was only released last month, and it’s based a dataset which uses more traditional questions to test political beliefs.

    The one paper thaty really matters is the IRS, they show overwhelmingly that in the US conservatives donate mush more than liberals.

    How does the IRS differentiate between liberals and conservatives?

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT *

    How does the IRS differentiate between liberals and conservatives?

    Apparently connected liberals, like Timmy Geithner, get a pass, while connected republicans, like the casino mogul that gave Romeny money, get investigated. At least that seems to be how the IRS differentiates between the two when a liberal holds the WH.

    Thumb up 3

  17. CM

    Apparently connected liberals, like Timmy Geithner, get a pass, while connected republicans, like the casino mogul that gave Romeny money, get investigated. At least that seems to be how the IRS differentiates between the two when a liberal holds the WH.

    Sure sure, etc etc.
    But HOW does the IRS show that “overwhelmingly that in the US conservatives donate mush more than liberals“? Where is the analysis?
    If that was the case, presumbly specialists researching this kind of thing, like Margolis and Sances, would use it.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    Does it matter either way?

    It seems to matter a great deal to conservatives, as I’ve heard this a number of times here and at MW forums. It’s important to them. Which is presumably why blameme had that reaction. My bet is that this latest study will be ignored/disregarded (as opposed to critiqued and shown to be flawed).

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT *

    But HOW does the IRS show that “overwhelmingly that in the US conservatives donate mush more than liberals“? Where is the analysis?

    Google is your friend.

    Thumb up 4

  20. Dave D

    Google is your friend.

    AMAZING how CM can post linkbomb after linkbomb, yet fail to have the ability to search something he doesn’t want to believe and/or doesn’t support his euroworld view…………

    Thumb up 6

  21. Kimpost

    I just tried to google it, but didn’t find anything. At least not immediately.

    Whether it’s true or not, I honestly don’t know. Nor do I know what metrics the IRS or others have used. Are for instance, religious donations exempt? If not, I’d imagine evangelicals to give more to the church than others. And since evangelicals mostly are voting (R), then that’s a possible explanation.

    But as I have said before, the numbers don’t really matter to me. People give what people give. If people are evangelicals then a good thing coming with that is a culture of giving. And evangelicals vote (R). If you are an elitist latte sipping liberal, a negative with that is that you might belong to a culture of irony where few things are real, and charitable giving isn’t the hippest thing on earth. Liberals vote (D).

    Wow, generalizing feels good. If I were to guess, I think that the difference in charitable giving between (R) and (D), probably is small. And that all of it can be explained by studying the demographics. One being more caring than the other, just doesn’t sound very likely to me.

    Thumb up 0

  22. CM

    AMAZING how CM can post linkbomb after linkbomb, yet fail to have the ability to search something he doesn’t want to believe and/or doesn’t support his euroworld view…………

    That makes NO SENSE. If I didn’t want to believe it, why would I be actively seeking it? Wouldn’t I just stick my fingers in my ears and ignore any response?

    I just tried to google it, but didn’t find anything. At least not immediately.

    Same. So then I assumed it would easier to ask those who apparently know it was FACT.

    Are for instance, religious donations exempt? If not, I’d imagine evangelicals to give more to the church than others. And since evangelicals mostly are voting (R), then that’s a possible explanation.

    That’s what the Margolis/Sances study shows. But even taking that into account, it comes out at the same.

    One being more caring than the other, just doesn’t sound very likely to me.

    I completely agree.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Iconoclast

    Who Gives More: Democrats or Republicans?

    In his new book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Arthur C. Brooks presents research showing that religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals. He says people who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others. Included in his book is an analysis of 15 sets of data that he says all came to the same conclusion.

    Fifteen datasets that, according to Brooks, all come to the same conclusion that religious conservatives give more than secular liberals.

    Not that it matters — someone’ll just post another link that “disagrees” or “refutes” this one, I’m sure…

    Thumb up 4

  24. CM

    Fifteen datasets that, according to Brooks, all come to the same conclusion that religious conservatives give more than secular liberals.

    The paper I linked to specifically challenges the Brooks book/methodology. They go through it in detail.

    Not that it matters — someone’ll just post another link that “disagrees” or “refutes” this one, I’m sure…

    I’d rather look into the actual detail of what has already been put up.

    Thumb up 0

  25. CM

    I wouldn’t help anyone draw distinct lines – a large portion of what I give in a year goes to a religious charity…..even though I’m a godless liberal heathen.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Tripper

    I cannot think of any way the IRS could tell if Liberals or Conservatives give more money to charity.
    Sure, I tell them my charity contributions each year when I fill in my taxes, but I don’t mark my political affiliation on my tax returns.

    The best they could do would be one of the following:
    Define the charities themselves as Liberal or Conservative and then compare how much money was donated to liberal charities and how many to conservative charities
    or
    Do it based on Red States and Blue States and see which gives more to charity

    Both would be hugely flawed ways of trying to work this out.

    I’m sure this matter could be worked out, I just don’t think the IRS could do it.

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    Both would be hugely flawed ways of trying to work this out.

    If I were American my personal situation (mentioned above) would presumably consider me to be a conservative. It would therefore be wrong twice (removing donations from the liberal side and giving it to the conservative side).

    Thumb up 0

  28. Xetrov

    Why isn’t this a bigger story?

    WASHINGTON – Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.

    The “Bin Laden” donations, actually made by WND staff, included a listed occupation of “deceased terror chief” and a stated employer of “al-Qaida.”

    “Bin Laden” is currently set up on the official campaign website to contribute more to Obama’s campaign. The name is also registered as a volunteer.

    Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

    The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts.

    The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

    One $15 donation was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address and proxy server. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

    Upon clicking the “donate” button, WND staff selected the $15 amount and were taken to a page on the campaign website asking for a first and last name, city, state, zip code, email address and phone number.

    The information submitted was: “Osama bin Laden, 911 Jihad Way, Abbottabad, CA 91101.”

    Thumb up 2

  29. Thrill

    Did they? The Obama campaign got the money when they needed it and won’t face serious repercussions for it later. I’m simultaenously impressed and disgusted by the lawless ballsiness of it all.

    Thumb up 0

  30. hist_ed

    Hey all, I think this little argument started from a faulty premise. The IRS doesn’t say anything about this. Why the fuck would they? Even if they know who was conservative and liberal, the IRS isn’t going to spend the time to parse out this data. The reports I have seen and bothered to read come from independent surveys. Some asked from donation info; some, if I remember correctly, actually look at past tax returns (with permission). All sorts of selection bias problems with the second set, no doubt.

    Now, please return to your arguments.

    Thumb up 1