Birds of a feather flock together...and the world's oldest degenerate thinks that America's most dishonest politician is just what we need:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is seeking to become the first woman president, and a man who has published countless pictures of naked women is pitching in for her White House bid.Hugh Hefner, the founder of the Playboy Enterprises empire, is among the many celebrities who have picked their favorite candidate to succeed President Bush in 2009.
Hefner contributed $2,300 (the maximum allowed in the primary) to Clinton’s campaign on March 28, identifying his occupation on the fundraiser form as “editor-in-chief” of Playboy magazine.
Hefner has given thousands to Democrats over the years, including $2,000 to Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 and $1,000 each to Al Gore and then-President Clinton in the 1990’s. Hefner’s favorite on Capitol Hill is Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.); he has given her $13,200 since 1996, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
It is actually rather disgusting that any politician would take money from a pornographer and, indeed, 40 or 50 years ago, getting a check from the likes of Hefner would have been the kiss of political death...now, after decades of left defining deviancy downwards, our Democrats seem to think that Hef is just one of the boys...no doubt someone Hillary wouldn't mind her daughter working for...or dating, as Hef's supply of viagra seems to be inexhaustible.
Our society is just chock full of neauseating people who rake in money over the exploitation and misery of others...but do we have to countenance politicians who don't care where the money comes from, as long as it comes?
Another fine sermon in morality.........from a person who lives in the city where prostitution, sex, strip clubs, and gambling reign supreme and from a man who staunchly supports and defends an ethically-challenged and morally bankrupt political party.
Posted by: teenage liberal ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.gopbloggers.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 17, 2007 11:58 AM
Nice that I have to know the VP's last name to comment, though 69% only know this info...sheesh!
Anywhooo, this story is a desperate attempt, don't ya think? I mean isn't there more important things to discuss, oh I don't know like the Iraq invasion/occupation with it's sad surge and backdoor draft, the fact that the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer over the past 6 and a half years, the A.G.'s lies, Rove's hiding behind Bushie, Wolfowitz's uhhhh girlfriend troubles, Cheney's hot air talk, Jack Abramoff, the deficit, Coulter's gay porn star buddy Matt Sanchez, McCain's walk through Baghdad, Rudy's views on abortion and gays and three wives....and on and on and on....
Posted by: Michael M. Rosete at April 17, 2007 10:34 PM
Teenage Liberal,
Jesus said that we are to be in the world, but not of it. Just because Mark lives in a place rampant with sinful deeds, where many bad things go on from day to day, that doesn't mean that he has to be a part of it, and that doesn't mean that he's a horrid person either.
In fact, if I may be so bold to say, you're comment was quite stupid. The comparison you made just doesn't make sense.
Jesus witnessed to, and healed, many a sinner. But, at the some token, he did not participate in the acts of what these folks did. For example, the prostitute that was about to be stoned in the middle of town. He could have participated in what she did, but he didn't because he had a desire and mission to be holy.
If we as people were to with-draw ourselves from society, then we pretty much defeat the purpose of what Christ came here for and what he wants us to do. He performed a great work the day he pardoned the woman's sin, and because of it she was granted life and the chance to tell others about what Christ had did for her. Others that were in the same shape as her before she met Jesus. You see, if we were to withdraw ourselves out of society, then our witness would be useless, and nobody would ever hear about Jesus Christ... it would be such a shame. On top of that, we would be going against what Jesus asked us to do, which in turn would make us just as bad as the folks that need the witnessing. We'd pretty much be in the same boat as them.
But now as for Hillary...
That is a completely different matter. She's pretty much condoneing and appreciating what Hugh Hefner does, for her own personal gain, by accepting this money. I don't seek to be the moral authority for her or anyone else, but I don't think that stateing the truth is classified as that either.
Posted by: Lucas at April 18, 2007 09:35 PM
