Posted on 07/02/2007 4:17:47 PM PDT by AFA-Michigan
The production of "child porn" is a serious felony, and any hotel official responsible for its broadcast should be prosecuted--the CBN's beef here is with Marriott and Romney, you will recall, and not with the customers. We have all seen "Skinemax" and their cheesy productions. This is what airs in hotels. There is absolutely no comparison between that crap and the evil and unlawful child porn. Moreover, the individuals in those production are consenting adults and not children.
An aside--how were you conceived, in a test tube? If not, then your parents had "sex". Do you wish to proscribe a manual on what methods of said "sex" is acceptable to the most vocal religious gurus in the land? If not, then why insert yourself into a silly debate over whether grown adults are permitted to watch other grown adults having "sex"?
Well said. Thank you.
Cincinnati prosecutors consider Playboy porn. They seem to spend all their time worried that somebody somewhere is having sex or taking their clothes off. What a waste of time and resources.
“Do you wish to proscribe a manual on what methods of said “sex” is acceptable to the most vocal religious gurus in the land?”
Unfortunately it seems there are quite a few on FR who would like to do exactly that.
Island says “find me an edict from Governor Romney dictating either policy and you might have a case.”
See Post 163 for what President Reagan did on this issue, back in the day when the definition of “conservative” — at least according to Reagan — meant opposing the distribution of pornography.
Island: “No one who views pornography defined by the SCOTUS) is forced to do so. In a hotel, it’s an additional charge to your room and requires additional and volitional steps by the consumer.”
Interesting. No one who does crack cocaine is forced to do so. In a club, it’s an additional charge to your wallet and requires additional and volitional steps by the consumer.
Despite whatever steps are taken by the consumer, the pusher/dealer in both cases bears a large share of the responsibility morally and legally. In this case, Marriott is the pusher, and Mitt had decision-making authority for the pusher. At minimum, he had motion-making authority for the pusher, as in, “Mr. Chairman, I move that Marriott join Omni and Days Inn and other hotels that prohibit pornographic and obscene materials on their in-room movie service.”
Careful, you may be the pay-per-view movie in the next room. ;-)
First of all, Smithee, an admirable return after so effectively torching yourself last night.
You write: “Thank you for being honest about having setting up a straw man argument! If only more people who do these hit-and-run threads with smears disguised as rhetorical questions were as candid as you are.”
Why, you’re welcome, though there’s nothing “straw” about suggesting to Romney a course of action that would remove him from a posture of hypocrisy.
But please define “hit and run.” Are you once again falsely accusing me of posting something and then “running”?
That would be “your own bloviating” at work again, right?
Timbo, you went from admitting you went “over the line” to going even further over the line, or just being plain stupid.
By all standards I’m familiar with — morally, ethically, socially, even Biblically — wanting to have sex with your wife is what you’re supposed to do. (There’s an entire book of the Bible committed to it; pull it out of the hotel drawer and read Song of Solomon to your wife tonight...just for kicks.)
But so you don’t enjoy yourself too much, please be assured that whatever you do with your wife afterward will not occupy my thoughts in the least, much less drive me or anybody else crazy.
In the spirit of the 4th, however, I wish you success in making her see fireworks.
You write further: “I do not need a porno flick to turn me own. I have a REAL woman.”
Good for you. Then why defend white collar porn-peddlers selling stuff proven to be addictive, disrupt marriages, and motivate sex crimes?
“I wish that prudes like you would get the hell out of my GOP. I hear the Taliban agrees with your views on sex.”
No, you don’t, since whatever “your GOP” is couldn’t win any election without social conservatives.
But this wish comes after you’ve stepped back “over the line,” right?
Sheesh, you anti Romney types are losing your minds these days.
Apparently it wasn’t enough to smear the man’s religion, eh?
His political positions - and the noted flip flopping should be more than enough to defeat him in the primaries.
This kind of thing is so Clintonite I feel the need for a shower.
Romney was on the board from 1993 to 2002. Estimated porn sales during that time (9 years x $30 mil a year) = $270 million. Flynt probably did more than that.
General Motors, on the other hand, did sell more porn flicks than Larry Flynt while it owned Direct TV, at a clip of $200 mil a year.
No! There goes my vote for Mitt!
Among many other things, yes. You are free to watch it or not, as you please.
You can’t watch pornography on broadcast television - so you aren’t free. What are you going to do about it?
“Questions about Romney’s ties to Marriott porn sales”
Unless he is personally IN the movies or personally making money off the sales or rentals, I see no problem here.
So, if the Mormon Priest, Mitt Romney, owned stock in perhaps Planned Parenthood, that wouldn’t be duplicitous in your eyes since he wouldn’t be doing the abortions personally, just collecting profits from them. Is that about it?
I doubt the Marriot chain would go “out of business” without pay for view porn.
Romney has stayed at Marriots so of course he knew.
I think the porn goes nicely with the BOM in every room, maybe add a biography of Joe Smith and his many wives to go with it
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.