Skip to comments.Questions about Romney's ties to Marriott porn sales
Posted on 07/02/2007 4:17:47 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
Some anti-pornography groups are demanding answers as to how much presidential candidate Mitt Romney knew about the Marriott hotel chain's profits of pornography sales during his nearly ten years on the Board of Directors in the 1990's.
The hotel chain is one of many that offer pay per view sex videos for sale through in-room entertainment.
Though Marriott doesn't release their revenues when it comes to X-rated videos, industry analysts estimate it is in the tens of millions of dollars.
During his run for President, Romney has campaigned on a platform of "family values" recently telling a graduation class, "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and television and video games."
Some of these conservative grassroots activists want to know whether he spoke up or tried to put a stop to Marriott's business dealings back then.
Phil Burress, founder of Citizens for Community Values, has been fighting hotel chains for decades on this issue. He tells The Brody File that every month a group of roughly 15 anti-pornography leaders meet in Washington to discuss the latest happenings.
Mitt Romney's Marriott connection has come up repeatedly. "Ever since he announced for president, it's been a topic of discussion."
Mitt Romney's campaign told CBN the following: "Governor Romney's role as board member was in an advisory capacity on financial matters related to the company and, obviously, he did not have a role in the day-to-day operations or decisions of individual franchise holders."
John Harmer, president of the anti-pornography group The Lighted Candle Society and the former Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan isn't buying it. He wants to hear more.
"My attitude toward board members is that they are fully responsible. They knew exactly what they were receiving. I don't think any board member under any rationale could claim ignorance. You're either a board member or not. I can't imagine a board member going a full year and not receiving a revenue report from the company."
Previous news accounts researched by The Brody File show that Romney was paid more than $100,000 per year while on the board of Marriott.
When he left in 2002, J.W. Marriott, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Marriott International, called him, "an active, hands-on Director From his first days on our Board nine years ago, Mitt has been an extraordinarily effective director and visionary leader."
Mitt Romney has a very close relationship with the Marriott family.
Romney's father, George Romney was best friends with Marriott's original founder J. Willard Marriott. Mitt Romney's first name is Willard, in honor of the Marriott founder. The Marriott family gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Mitt Romney's campaign when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 1994.
So far during Romney's presidential run, they have given close to $80,000.
When asked about Romney's time on the board of directors, Marriott Spokesman Roger Conner told CBN, "We don't comment on board level matters."
Conner wouldn't speculate whether Romney had any knowledge about the fight to get rid of pornography in room entertainment or whether he did anything about it. He would only say, "This area would not have been a board area "
Conner is quick to point out that voting on in room entertainment packages would not have been something the board would have voted on. Rather, he says, this is an operations matter.
Moreover, he says that many of Marriott hotels are either owned by others or franchised.
"We have to respect the business decisions and needs of owners. The guest has a choice to opt out of the adult entertainment options."
The Brody File made repeated calls to LodgeNet, one of the main providers for hotel in-room entertainment. We asked whether hotels have the option to opt out of the X-rated films if they would like.
They did not return our phone calls. On their website, it does say that they work "closely with its hotel partners to determine the best mix of titles to maximize viewing levels. Unlike most systems, On Command Video has the ability to tailor the programming at individual hotels to match the demographic profile of that particular property's guests.
Conservative pro-family groups have been putting pressure on hotel chains for years to change their ways.
In a letter to Bill Johnson of the American Decency Association, Marriott's Chairman of the Board wrote in June of 2000, "The in-room entertainment operators who provide our systems rely upon a certain volume of movie types in order to be economically viable. If we were to eliminate the R and non rated offerings, the systems would not be economic."
Industry analysts estimate that roughly 60% of hotel chains provide in room entertainment with the X-rated pornography movie option. Yet, some have decided to drop the adult videos.
In 1999, Omni Hotels announced that it would remove adult pay-per-view movies from its guest room televisions. It took a financial hit but Peter Strebel, Omni Hotels vice president of marketing, said in a press release at the time, "
"Money is not the issue in this matter. Not all business decisions should be fiscally driven. We believe that this is the right thing to do; the right thing for Omni Hotels, our associates and our customers."
Gary Glenn, a well known pro-family activist in Michigan recently sent an email to Justin Hart, one of Mitt Romney's Faith and Values Steering Committee members. Hart also works for the The Lighted Candle Society.
Glenn writes, "It is a matter of record that during the time Romney served as a 'hands on' member of its board of directors, the Marriott Corporation sold tens of millions of dollars worth of hardcore pornographic videos as a candidate for president, Gov. Romney has a bully pulpit from which he could greatly assist your organization and others in applying sufficient public pressure to Marriott and other white-collar porn peddlers to 'dry up some of that funding' we encourage you to urge the Romney campaign to initiate public discussion of the above concerns and questions in a proactive fashion, for which he may receive some credit for initiative and leadership on an issue that speaks both to his personal and political integrity and to his trustworthiness should he be elected as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States."
The Brody File contacted Justin Hart who said "In this important fight against pornography there are those people who are determined to make enemies and effect zero change and there are those who propose to use their influence to create serious lasting change - Romney is in this latter camp pure societal turnaround can only happen when people of influence find the right moment in time to lead change In my opinion, Romney's record shows that he could very well effect that change to happen. The fact that he included a serious anti-pornography group on his Faith and Values committee suggests this as well."
That's not satisfying to Phil Buress. He wants answers from Romney. "This man is very knowledgeable about the issues, but for him to not know anything about what Marriott is selling, I found that very interesting."
The Romney campaign won't go beyond their initial statement.
Instead they point out that Governor Romney is actively talking about pornography issues and today's culture wars.
In a speech Romney gave nearly three months ago, he said, "I have great faith in the American people. I have faith in our children, and in our grandchildren. But at the same time, I am deeply troubled by the culture that surrounds them today.I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on kid's computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the streets. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in movies and in video games
I believe that the most important work being done to strengthen America's future is the work that is being done within the 4 walls of the American home."
Nitti is so creative: “I believe this kind of thinking was tried out earlier in Afghanistan by the Taleban Morality Police.”
It’s the latest variation of the old rule in political discourse: the first person to call the other a “Nazi” is admitting that he’s lost the debate and must resort to demonization of the opponent.
If you’re gonna use it, Nitti, and I suspect you’ll be left with little choice in future contests of intellect, a small suggestion:
Learn how to spell “Taliban.”
Thanks for the spelling tip......the moralizing I’ll handle for myself
“Even if you don’t have a problem, I have serious doubts about a Pat Robertson-affiliated organization’s motivations.”
Gotta hand it to you, Smithee. You’ve near perfected the art form of saving face.
Just eviscerated and laid bare your feeble “religious bigotry” allegation, which you breezily acknowledge with a hurried concession, quickly followed by a seamless segue into then questioning Pat Robertson’s motivations. (Oh, that didn’t work, but not having learned my lesson, I’ll try it again.)
So having tried it again, let me eviscerate you again.
NEWSWEEK: “Romney’s edge — (Pat) Robertson has to have his own candidate, and there is no way it would be McCain. The good doctor seems to have taken a liking to Romney, whose father was a governor and who had the good sense to get graduate degrees from Harvard. Robertsons Christian Broadcasting Network ran a glowing profile of Romney, a piece that studiously ignored some of the Mormon doctrinal teachings that would seem calculated to make even Robertsons helmet of TV hair stand on end.”
Two months ago, at Robertson’s invitation, Romney gave the commencement address at Regent University; in fact, that’s where Mitt said porn videos were partly responsible for the VA Tech shootings.
Jay Sekulow, president of the American Center for Law & Justice, the Christian legal foundation founded by Robertson, is openly endorsing Romney and serving as a campaign advisor.
Plus Sekulow’s 20-something son Jordan is a paid Romney campaign staffer.
“Thus endeth the lesson.” (Sean Connery, The Untouchables)
That is, the latest in a series of lessons.
In both cases (your questioning first mine and then Pat’s motives), you’ve exposed yourself as not only clueless but as grasping at any straw by which to appear to maintain an argument.
After this series of embarrassments and exposures, please show some dignity and just throw in the towel.
Hey, you spelled “mullah” right.
N&L says “it would be quite amazing...for item which represented 1/2 percent of sales to be discussed by Honorary Members of the Board.”
Even assuming N&L’s figures are correct (he offers no citation or source), a few thoughts:
* Whatever the percent, it amounted to tens of millions of dollars worth per year by Marriott alone.
* If 1/2 percent of Marriott sales had come via prostitution services or cocaine sales billed through the front desk, might that have been a subject of board discussion?
* Former California Lt. Gov. John Harmer, a fellow Mormon appointed to office by then Gov. Reagan, now chairman of the Lighted Candle Society, a Salt Lake City-based anti-port group, estimates that the U.S. hotel industry sells half a billion a year in porn flicks. In the original CBN article posted, he doesn’t buy Mitt’s “I didn’t know Marriott sold porn” ruse.
* Who said Mitt was an “honorary” member of the Marriott board? He was paid $100,000 a year — at least 1/2 percent from porn profits — and Marriott news release upon his departure called him “an active, hands-on Director.”
LOL, see even a broken clock gets somethings “right”
Thank you for your post about Pat Robertson and Jay Sekulow. Yahoo! I am so happy. I didn’t know about this. I love Jay Sekulow. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and really knows how to do battle.
Jay Sekulow is one of the heroes of the “religious right” and a hero on FreeRepublic. I have followed him since probably 1985 (?) when I used to watch TBN. He has fought the good fight on abortion, Christians rights, etc. I have given money to his organization ACLJ.
I am so happy that he is involved in Romney’s campaign. You made my day!
Seems to be a lot of spinning and deceiving coming from Mormon defenders of the Romney campaign. Doesn’t bode well for this latter day religion does it? But of course conservatives are being called to compromise during this political season. But compromise what is the question voters should ask themselves when contemplating candidates.
Glad to make your day, Saundra, especially on “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” Day.
Sekulow signed on with Romney early, long before Mitt’s long record of promoting abortion on demand and endorsing “gays in the military” and just about every other plank in homosexual activists’ agenda was widely exposed, beginning in December 2006.
Guess it was easier for Jay to just batten down the hatches, hang on, and pretend he knows something the rest of us don’t, rather than admit after Mitt’s record was exposed that he (Jay) had exercised poor and premature judgment, misleading millions of social conservatives to believe they could trust a guy who thinks the Boy Scouts are wrong to prohibit homosexual Scoutmasters...who was endorsed twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans and once by the pro-abort GOP Majority for Choice...
So Mitt’s position on porn and gay parenting:
I won’t do it but it’s good enough for you and your children and I need the money plus I want to get elected.
By the way, did you know that Marriott CEO and board chair J.W. Marriott, Jr. is Mormon, too?
Regardless of what Mitt says personally, it appears that Mormon’s think porn is okay.
He is only complicit in the decision to profit
by offering porn to every guest, by virtue
of his position on the board for a decade.
Certainly he knew. It was his job to know.
That is a legitimate question for those who
are concerned about porn. For those who are not,
well, it is a non issue.
That it is provided in every home in America who who has digital cable sevice on their home. TV?
Get with the program folks!
Well if you have digital Cable you too have Command pay-per-view service on your TV in your home just like every home in America who has digital Cable.
So Mitt isn't alone in bed Degaston and neither are you, friend!:)
He is only complicit in the decision to profit by offering porn to every guest, by virtue of his position on the board for a decade.
Certainly he knew. It was his job to know. That is a legitimate question for those who are concerned about porn. For those who are not, well, it is a non issue.
The soles of my shoes are all sticky from reading your post!
If you have Digital Cable you too have Command pay-per-view service on your TV in your home just like every home in America who has digital Cable. It seems Mitt is not alone nor Marriott!
Saundra they all seem to have a short attention span to realize that most of America has it in their home and ampu doesn't do his home work! If it is against Mitt and LDS he willing to peddle it!
Besides Romney, we should examine the hypocrisy of the Latter Day “saints” leadership.
LOL. I think you’re right.
Restornu, the Omni and Days Inn and other hotels do NOT offer pay-per-view porn as a matter of Christian principle.
I’ve met with the owners of both and know this to be their motivation as a matter of conscience, and they’re fully aware that they’re sacrificing millions in profits as a result of following their consciences.
“Omni Hotels announced today that it would be removing adult pay-per-view movies from its guest room televisions. ...The decision to remove the adult pay-per-view movies was morally and conscionably driven by the company’s ownership in response to what it perceives as a growing need for corporate America to support pro-family issues. Peter Strebel, Omni Hotels vice president of marketing, says the company’s ‘pro-family’ stance regarding its business operations was in direct conflict with the movie service. ‘Money is not the issue in this matter,’ says Strebel. ‘Not all business decisions should be fiscally driven. We believe that this is the right thing to do; the right thing for Omni Hotels, our associates and our customers.’”
Marriott has made a different decision. To Marriott, making money off porn is a more important factor than refusing to peddle stuff that disrupts marriages and is a motivating factor in sex crimes against women and children.
Associated Press: “In-room movies are a revenue stream,” (Marriott Corporation spokesman Roger Conner) said. “This is a business matter.”
Marriott’s decision is morally at odds not only with other hotel chains such as Omni and Days Inn, but with the values of the church to which Mitt and the Marriotts belong, which last winter published a seven-part series on the damage to families and society done by porn.
Enlighten yourself, Restornu, at:
Restornu, please read what a prominent fellow member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says below, then I have a question for you...
From the original Christian Broadcasting Network news report, prominent Mormon John Harmer rejects Romney’s claim that Marriott board members had no knowledge of or responsibility for Marriott porn sales:
“John Harmer, president of the (Salt Lake City-based) anti-pornography group The Lighted Candle Society and former Lieutenant Governor of California under Ronald Reagan, isn’t buying it. He wants to hear more. ‘My attitude toward (Marriott) board members is that they are fully responsible. They knew exactly what they were receiving. I don’t think any board member under any rationale could claim ignorance. You’re either a board member or not. I can’t imagine a board member going a full year and not receiving a revenue report from the company.”
The Davis County Clipper, a daily in Bountiful, Utah, further quoted prominent Mormon John Harmer in a March 29th article as saying that he “believes the key to winning against pornography is to take away the financial benefits that keep more legitimate businesses supporting it. ...’The hotel industry alone makes $500 million a year from hard-core porn on pay-per-view. If we can dry up some of that funding, well have an impact.’
Now here’s the question, Restornu:
Does prominent Mormon John Harmer’s criticism of Marriott porn sales make him “anti-Mormon”?
Is prominent Mormon John Harmer “against Mitt and LDS”?
(I understand this is going to give you fits, Restornu. You’ll probably increase the font size of your response even larger. Only question is: what color will it be?)
AFA-Michigan: “To Marriott, making money off porn is a more important factor than refusing to peddle stuff that disrupts marriages and is a motivating factor in sex crimes against women and children.”
People kill people; guns don’t kill people. People commit sex crimes; Marriott does not commit sex crimes.
I hate porn because it’s dangerous, violent, disgusting, and people who watch that crappola are creepy. I still don’t understand how Mitt Romney has anything to do with creepy people who watch porn.
One time I met a woman who’s boyfriend could not even get an erection (sorry for being so blunt) unless he watched porn first. She was crying when she said that he wasn’t even having sex with her; he was having sex with that woman on the screen. It’s a sick hurtful business, porn.
Those people who view porn in a Marriott hotel are responsible for their own actions. Mitt Romney had nothing whatsoever to do with it. We have agency to decide for ourselves.
I hate being around drunks, too. They scare me and some are dangerous besides for just disgusting, especially if they get behind the wheel. Do you think because idiots buy booze at the Marriott’s bar that Mitt Romney is responsible for drunken brawls and drunken stupors, and fools running around with lampshades on their heads, too?
It just doesn’t make sense to me.
“People commit sex crimes; Marriott does not commit sex crimes.”
No, Marriott just sells tens of millions of dollars’ worth of pornography, which law enforcement authorities say is a major motivating factor in sex crimes against women and children. And Marriott did so during Mitt Romney’s decade as a “hands on” member of the corporate board, during which he could have — if his conscience had so motivated him — made a motion that Marriott adopt the same corporate policy as that implemented by the owner of Omni Hotels, for example.
By his own campaign’s testimony, he did not make such a motion or in any other way object to his friend’s company making money from porn sales. Nor did he object to being compensated in part from the profits of porn sales.
You carry on and on about the evils of porn, Saundra, yet you adamantly reject holding the people who sell it responsible. The sellers of pornography also have agency. In Marriott’s case, with Mitt on the board of directors, they exercised their agency by choosing to be white-collar porn peddlers.
If Mitt believes porn flicks were a motivating factor in the VA Tech shootings, which is what he said during his commencement address at Regent University, why didn’t he try to stop the corp of which he was a director from selling the stuff?
Why does he not now, as a candidate for president, publicly call on Marriott and all other hotels to follow Omni and Days Inn’s example and stop selling the stuff?
Marriott made a choice. Mitt’s making choices. And pro-family activists are simply holding them accountable for those choices. And will, I assure you, continue to do so.
Is Mitt Romney responsible for every idiot who got drunk at Marriott’s bars and committed a sex crime or did something illegal? He knew they were selling booze at those hotels and yet he allowed it to continue. Do you think Mitt Romney should have demanded all the bars in Marriott hotels be shut down?
I just for the life of me cannot make sense of your reasoning.
In my very own home, we have Direct TV on which we have the BYU channel going right now as I type. Apparently, you can buy porn on Direct TV if you want to. We don’t want to. I think you can buy boxing which I hate with a passion because I think it’s violent and disgusting and I can’t stand watching people punch each other. I do not want to spend money to watch porn or boxing so I don’t.
The service in the Marriott is a pay-per-view thing, I guess, which creepy people use to view porn and boxing. You can also pay to watch R rated movies. My Church advises its members not to see R rated movies. Many people do not think R rated movies are pornographic.
I can’t understand how you figure Mitt Romney is responsible for what people pay to view. Your point apparently is that Mitt Romney should have demanded that the pay-per-view service not be available in Marriott hotels. I don’t understand you and you don’t understand me so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and hopefully still remain FReeper friends.
Saundra, that was a nice try at dissembling to avoid truth, but ask yourself, does Mitt have money in his bank account which was made off of the sale of porn he protected the sale of in a hotel chain which he helped to operate? It really isn't that difficult to see the truth if you actually have truth as your goal, not dissembling to protect a moderate to liberal political candidate who is also a Mormon like yourself.
I know John Harmer, his wife and several of his 10 children personally. They most definitely were strong LDS back around 1990. 17 years ago tonight I watched fireworks with them for the 4th of July.
“I cant understand how you figure Mitt Romney is responsible for what people pay to view.”
Saundra, of course we can remain Freeper friends (at least as long as Boise State continues to beat BYU in football).
But now read the following sentences slowly and deliberately, and several times if necessary, so I don’t have to respond further to your confused mischaracterization of my point.
I do NOT believe Mitt Romney is responsible for what people pay to view. People intent on paying to view porn can do so outside a Marriott hotel. (Again, Saundra, please read the previous sentence as many times as necessary for it to sink in.)
I and many other pro-family activists DO believe that Mitt Romney is responsible for what Marriott chose to sell.
Marriott chose to sell and profit from the sale of porn. Romney chose to allow such sales without protest and share in profiting from the sale of porn.
You say you hate porn, Saundra. If you had a vote on the Marriott board of directors, would you approve selling it, knowing full well the damage it causes?
Or would you set your standards aside and compromise with evil?
And I trust Lt. Gov. Harmer remains actively LDS, or the church wouldn’t still have him speaking at church or church-related functions.
I block anything beyond a certain rating at my
home tv, as is our right. We cannot get some
stations without the others.
Mitt’s situation was different. He was on
the Board of Directors, charged with overseeing
the operation of Marriott. I wrote that he
surely woulde have known the percentage of
profit coming from their lodgnet operation
and the percentage from porn - unless he
was a mere figurehead. That is all I said
Some people have an interest in knowing the
answer. Period. Is that so hard for you
to view objectively that you must post
personal attacks??? Hmmm??
Saundra, your profile indicates you’re my kind of gal: a committed gun rights and pro-life advocate.
So as I asked last night around the campfire of an LDS guy who voted for Kerry in 2004:
How do you rationalize supporting a candidate — in your case, Romney — who spent over a decade using his rhetorical skills to promote and legitimize Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, and gun control...not to mention homosexual Scoutmasters, “gays in the military,” and just about every other element of homosexual activists’ political agenda?
"School's back in session." (L.N. Smithee)
In both cases (your questioning first mine and then Pats motives), youve exposed yourself as not only clueless but as grasping at any straw by which to appear to maintain an argument...let me eviscerate you again.
Blah, blah, blah, blah...stop stroking your ego in public. It's disgusting.
I wrote that "I have serious doubts about a Pat Robertson-affiliated organization's motivations." To counter that, you linked and cited a Newsweek article from February 14, 2007 which said the following:
Then you linked an article from the Washington Post from May 6, 2007, about Romney being invited to give the commencement address at Regent University. But you didn't mention the citation in that article of a page on CBN.com (the source of the David Brody report on which this thread is based) about how Mormonism is a cult:
Robertsons Christian Broadcasting Network ran a glowing profile of Romney, a piece that studiously ignored some of the Mormon doctrinal teachings that would seem calculated to make even Robertsons helmet of TV hair stand on end.
On the Web site of the Christian Broadcasting Network, another Robertson entity, a page called "How Do I Recognize a Cult?" says that "when it comes to spiritual matters, the Mormons are far from the truth."
Sure, in the picture accompanying the Post piece, Pat and Mitt are smiling buddies. For now. Robertson has a history of insisting God's wrath will be wrought against anyone who disagrees with his political views. Remember when he suggested a meteor might hit Orlando, FL because of increase in Gay Pride functions there? Remember how he issued a message to Dover, PA that they shouldn't seek God's help after any natural disaster since they rejected him by banning Intelligent Design textbooks? Remember how he said that his "friend" Ariel Sharon was struck with a stroke because of his removal of Israeli settlements from West Bank to accommodate Palestinians (click for MSNBC story and video)?
"[A] cult will put something else on an equal footing with Christ...[e]ven if [a group] acknowledges Christ as Savior, it will say that you need something else before you can get into heaven. Cults teach that salvation comes through Christ, plus their little unique way...
Mormons are some of the most exemplary human beings, especially in regard to their behavior patterns and their adherence to the fundamental values of our society. But their religious beliefs are, to put is (sic) simply, wrong...Mormonism differs from biblical Christianity in several areas. Mormons do not believe, for example, that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons must work their way to heaven...Mormonism teaches that God is not the only deity and that we all have the potential of becoming gods. (Remember that Satan's fall came about because he wanted to be like God.)
[Sharon] was dividing Gods land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America, Robertson said.
What reason is there to believe that Robertson wouldn't turn on Romney as soon as he runs afoul of Pat's divine vision of how the world should be run? Maybe Mitt already has, and this Brody piece is a manifestation of it. At the least, a fair assessment of the facts would concede there are mixed signals, unless you believe Pat has already tacitly endorsed a "cult member" with over a year to go in the campaign.
I said Pat Robertson is a loose cannon and a failed candidate for President with delusions of grandeur. I think that shoe fits a guy who said he can steer hurricanes away from his hometown with his prayers and believes when someone falls ill half a world away, he can read the mind of the Almighty as to why He made it happen. He's like a conservative Christopher Hitchens. Sometimes, they are each spot-on about some things, but when they're wrong, it's usually a doozy.
As for Jay Sekulow: I have read and heard Sekulow on many occasions. I have yet to hear or see him venture from the field of defending the civil rights of Christians from secularists in government. In my experience, Jay has used his feet for walking and his mouth for talking, and unlike Robertson, doesn't put the former in the latter.
In any event, here's the bottom line: If people like you succeed in nudging Romney into promising that obscenity laws will be enforced by his Justice Department the way they have been in Cincinnati, he will marginalize himself and possibly make himself unelectable.
Smithee, sorry to leave you feeling compelled to find and post all that stuff criticizing Pat Robertson. Obviously, you’ve got an issue with Robertson, who isn’t the subject of this thread.
I felt no need to defend Robertson, I was merely exposing the cluelessness of your kneejerk assumption that the CBN news report was somehow suspect because of your obviously malignant opinion of him.
(For the record, that was after you so miserably failed to divert attention from the issue at hand — Romney’s responsiblity for Marriott’s sale of hardcore porn — by ignorantly accusing me of religious bigotry. Which came after the embarrassment of your gleefully self-congratulating celebration of having run me off the thread...posted two minutes after I’d responded to your feeble suggestion that I could be bought off as the Romney campaign has done with other critics of his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control record.)
But finally, after all the ignorance-fed shot-in-the-dark attempts at diversion, you suddenly show signs of insight:
“If people like you succeed in nudging Romney into promising that obscenity laws will be enforced by his Justice Department the way they have been in Cincinnati, he will marginalize himself and possibly make himself unelectable.”
That wouldn’t be a bad thing, of course. But I think it’s more likely he’ll make himself more unnominatable in primaries dominated by social conservatives by refusing to disavow his close friends the Marriotts’ porn sales.
I say more unnominatable because he already lacks credibility among most social conservatives — with the notable exception, perhaps, of your buddy Pat — based on his (Romney’s) long record of promoting abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, and gun control.
Approving of and profiting from the sale of hardcore porn is just icing on an already big cake...
But here’s a suggestion: why not post a new thread entitled “Why Smithee doesn’t like Pat Robertson” and go argue the point with whomever’s interested.
I’ll stay here and stick to the subject, seeing as how I feel no need to go off on wild diversions and speculations about you and your motives — another subject on which “don’t care” is applicable — to hold up my end of the debate.
Haven't you read I have one eye can hardly see and you can't read what I reported and move on.
When you force these high end hotels to remove Digital Cable you only reduce the quality of service for the guess who are paying the big bucks!
It is the cable co. that is where it originates it on digital cable package which service the HDTV that the high end hotel provice for their customers. Time Warner, Comcass etc
This is not something one can stumble upon one must go through a the steps to receive this and pay the helfty fee to get it!
You are RIGHT about one thing. The movies that Marriott show are VERY hard core! For research sakes I ordered one of the pay movies just to see what the fuss was all about. It was definatly X rated. It was no soft core Cenamax movie and was as bad as the few I watched in the Marines. This was the first movie I had ever ordered in a hotel. We fast forwarded the whole movie in about 5 minutes. I feel sorry for anyone else that waste their Money on this crap. If anyone from the Romney camp tells you this is soft core, they are full of crap! I still believe that as an adult, I have the right to watch this type of movie in private. And I also believe as a social conservative, you have EVERY right to try to stop this if you see fit. I know that the GOP needs the social conservative voter to win elections. You are so right about that. But, they also need the moderate voter to win. They can not win elections without people like me. I hope you had a great 4th of July. Even though we disagree on some social issues, people like you and I must come together and stop the Rats in 2008.
Mitt Romney led a very conservative life in Ratzachusetts and out smarted the the Ratz and employed conservative values while office.
TIME FOR SOME ROMNEY REALITY
First, thank you for serving America and being willing to offer up your life if required to keep my family safe. You and your predecessors deserve all of our thanks for the fact that we can still celebrate the Fourth 231 years later.
Even though I did the Army Reserves and Guard, I have a “Semper Fi” on my bumper sticker in honor of my Dad, a WWII and Pearl Harbor vet whose unit received a presidential citation for shooting down a Jap Zero with M-1 rifle fire. In December 2002, I took him and my Mom back over there. We stood in the street in front of Marine Barracks in the very spot where he stood shooting at the planes 61 years earlier. On the 7th, he and I were on the Arizona for the formal Memorial service. He smelled the oil and said, “I will never forget.” Died nine months later.
Anyway, appreciate your comments on the issue at hand. As a matter of current constitutional law as defined by SCOTUS, an individual choosing to purchase porn, even that which meets the legal definiton of obscenity, is protected activity.
It is the SALE of the stuff that’s at issue with Romney and Marriott, incuding — as you correctly note — hardcore porn which pro-family activists and some prosecutors believe constitutes illegal obscenity. Selling obscenity is both a federal and, in some states, state offense. Witness the two Marriotts who removed the stuff under threat of criminal obscenity charges by two county prosecutors in the Cincinnati area.
Agee on keeping the Reagan coalition of social and fiscal conservatives together. That requires a candidate who’s acceptable to both. Romney is not acceptable to many social conservatives for a host of reasons.
You try working with intermitted of eye trouble, this just reveals your disingenuous of concern!
Please accept my sincere apology for poking fun at what I thought was simply an idiosyncrasy, which I now take you at your word is in fact a physical disability.
You failed to respond to the main point of that same post, that is, based on your kneejerk allegation that criticizing Marriott and Mitt for selling porn automatically renders one “anti-Mormon”...
Is prominent Mormon anti-porn activist John Harmer — quoted in the CBN story as rejecting Mitt’s claim of ignorance on the subject — also “anti-Mormon”?
Or will you admit that your kneejerk accusations are in fact baseless and have nothing to do with Mitt’s religion?
Except perhaps to the extent that the record of his public life — on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, porn, etc. — is clearly at odds with the social values typically associated with his own church.
Do you know what On Command pay-per-view service is?
I've got somewhere to go, so I'll simply list the lies in your latest reply, and make a quick comment.
I felt no need to defend Robertson, I was merely exposing the cluelessness of your kneejerk assumption that the CBN news report was somehow suspect because of your obviously malignant opinion of him.You felt no need, but you did anyway. Riiiight.
that was after you so miserably failed to divert attention from the issue at hand Romneys responsiblity for Marriotts sale of hardcore porn by ignorantly accusing me of religious bigotry.In that post, I illustrated how item #5 of your list of questions fit multiple definitions of the term "straw man," i.e. you said you were asking Romney to donate to his supposed share of "porn profits" to an anti-porn ministry with full expectation that he would never agree to do it.
I asked you a point-blank "yes" or "no" question that would have indicated one way or another whether you were targeting Romney simply because you didn't want a Mormon to be President. I accused you of NOTHING beforehand -- it all hung on your answer to a well-crafted question. I gave you an opportunity to provide a clear answer. YOU BLEW IT. That's why you -- to borrow your language -- felt compelled in a follow-up post to give me your history working on behalf of Mormon candidates. It would have been a lot easier for you to just type "y...e...s."
Which came after the embarrassment of your gleefully self-congratulating celebration of having run me off the thread...posted two minutes after Id responded to your feeble suggestion that I could be bought off as the Romney campaign has done with other critics of his pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control record.
For the record, here's your question #5:
5. Do you feel morally obligated to return to the Marriott Corporation -- or better yet, donate to a charitable ministry such as The Lighted Candle Society that assists the victims of pornography and sex abuse -- whatever percentage of your compensation, if any, from your board service or stock holdings that is reasonably commensurate with the percentage of the company's overall revenues produced by its sale of hardcore pornographic material?That's a shakedown attempt. It doesn't matter that you disagree with me. That's what it is.
But heres a suggestion: why not post a new thread entitled Why Smithee doesnt like Pat Robertson and go argue the point with whomevers interested.Once again -- you were interested enough in Robertson to dig up those articles saying he likes Romney. You continued the topic of Robertson; I finished it, using indisputable facts, not 'estimates from industry experts.'
Ill stay here and stick to the subjectYou've haven't been doing a great job of that by your own admission.
But you probably won't say. You'll just go on thumping your chest about how much smarter than me you think you are. And you'll continue to make more enemies with this thread than friends.
Yes, but it’s clear from your earlier posts that you think you know, but don’t.
“On Command” is the name of the company, recently purchased by LodgeNet, with which Marriot Corp. and other hotel chains have contracts to provide in-room movies including hardcore X-rated porn flicks, many of which pro-family activists believe constitute illegal obscenity.
On Command web site:
“On Command” is not, as you’ve repeatedly posted in error, simply a term by which to describe pay-per-view video services available on digital cable systems in private homes.
But until you asked about it specifically, didn’t think it worth the time of correcting.
There’s another thread about how Romney is the most feared GOP candidate by the dems.
There is a major difference between the entertainment industry trying to market porn and obsene lyrics to the public and something that is sold behind closed doors. Fact is that it is adults making the purchase, thus what is the issue. I do not support or oppose the porn industry, I support free markets.
So, what is the issue?
Are any of them any good?
I have to pick some new ones for my Block Buster cue.
I believe it. He has the look, he's held an Executive office in a Democratic state, and -- most of all -- he's articulate, something that is currently in short supply in the White House. On all three counts, he beats Hillary.
Giuliani was losing opinion polls to Hillary when he dropped out of the NY Senate race. Fred's a wild card, the same way Obama was before he jumped into the race.
Who else is there for social conservatives? Brownback? Huckabee? Not bloody likely...but you never know. Everyone bet against Kerry in the early going, thinking Howard Dean was the man.
“And you’ll continue to make more enemies with this thread than friends.”
Smithee, I understand that you’re embarrassed by being repeatedly exposed the last day or two as making kneejerk assumptions and false accusations that are easily and almost effortlessly refuted by the facts.
You continue to dance around on the head of a pin about others’ motives — mine, Pat Robertson’s, etc. — anything other than discuss the documented fact that Marriott Corp. sells hardcore X-rated porn, and Mitt Romney during a decade on the Marriott board did nothing to object or stop it, though he now says porn flicks were a motivating factor in the VA Tech shootings.
Many social conservatives believe he should be held accountable for that as well as his over a decade of promoting abortion on demand, homosexual activists’ political agenda, and gun control. Couldn’t care less whether you agree.
I simply posted a news article and expressed my agreement with the concerns raised in it.
You responded to that article and my comments — in your first post to me — by accusing me of being “disingenuous.”
Followed, in response to my question as to whether Romney might feel morally obligated to donate some of his porn profits to non-profits that assist porn victims, by characterizing the question as a “shakedown,” comparing me to Jesse Jackson, and suggesting that I could be bought off.
Followed by a question you admit was intended to let you rush to falsely accuse me of religious bigotry, which you did because you couldn’t understand my use of the English language.
Let me guess, as you whine about making enemies rather than friends...
Your accusations that I was guilty of disingenuousness, a “shakedown,” and religious bigotry were just your unique way of trying to make friends, right?
I suspect you can guess with some degree of accuracy how concerned I am about whether my repeatedly “eviscerating” (you like that word) your false and baseless charges makes you feel like my “friend.”
Craig: “There is a major difference between the entertainment industry trying to market porn and obsene lyrics to the public and something that is sold behind closed doors. ...So, what is the issue?”
The issue is the hotel industry, in this case Marriott, “trying to market porn and obscene (video) to the public.”
The purchase of such materials is constitutionally protected.
The sale of destructive materials for profit is of questionable morality and ethics, and if it’s indeed “obscene” as defined by law, it’s a federal offense.
And when a “family values” candidate who says porn videos were partly responsible for the VA Tech shootings, but did nothing over ten years as a member of Marriott’s board to stop his own corp. from selling the stuff, many social conservatives believe he should explain why.
I see you’ve wasted three feet of screen space listing all the channels available on your home cable TV system...
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the hardcore X-rated porn flicks the Marriott hotel chain sells via its in-room movie service, provided by a company named “On Command.”
Let me give you every benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re simply confused by the somewhat similar terms...
“On Demand” — the term listed on your post referring to the system by which you can purchase movies on your home cable system, and
“On Command” — the name of the company that provides in-room movie services to hotel chains
One has nothing to do with the other, Restor.
Yes, but its clear from your earlier posts that you think you know, but dont.
On Command is the name of the company, recently purchased by LodgeNet, with which Marriot Corp. and other hotel chains have contracts to provide in-room movies including hardcore X-rated porn flicks, many of which pro-family activists believe constitute illegal obscenity.
On Command web site:
On Command is not, as youve repeatedly posted in error, simply a term by which to describe pay-per-view video services available on digital cable systems in private homes.
But until you asked about it specifically, didnt think it worth the time of correcting.
That is very neat and similar to Home cable!
If I were to go to a high end hotel these are one of the amenities I would fine fun.
A few of you, your solution would be to deprive all of the guess of this because the package also contains adult stuff which has to be purchased and can be controlled by the parent omit the channel just like the home DHTV cable!
Personally I think many of you are using young people to champion your cause, because you are stepping into an area that violates another rights.
I detest porn and I even got upset over the dresses Jire Thompson wears it was too revealing.
But than I realized she might not know better in this generation.
I hope we can rid of it but I don’t think your way of going after it is correct it interferes with another free will!
Former addicted people would like such a solution to help them overcome their weakness but it is still wrong.
It like an alcoholic would like all boos illegal.
We have to bridle our weakness by leaning on the Lord; it is an internal correction not external.
Trying to link someone so you can force your will is a no, no especially when those you pound on are not your problem!
A friend just shared this with me.
That you continue to ignore the fact that Marriott does not own its properties.
Marriott is a brand name put in locally owned hotels. It is a franchise operation. Marriott is the company that provides day to day management services to the properties owned by others.
When you read the first bit of their annual report and its not too hard to figure out when read the first page letter to shareholders....
Marriott is a service company with a brand name.
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.