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.
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.