My comment as to what is ridiculous is the idea Mitt Romney is a pornographer or benefiting from such. Mitt doesn’t own Marriott. If he did you might have a point, but he is one of several board members who don’t sit around and choose the movie offerings at their meetings. I’m 100% sure the subject never came up and if it did, why would his opinion be more valuable than anyone else’s?
Lose the preaching on Catholic doctrine. I don’t need it or want it. It’s garbage like this that gives Christian conservatives a bad name. There’s a little something called free will. People can choose to sin or not to sin and other people, especially the government, have a limited say in the matter unless it injures another person. America is a secular country based on a Judeo-Christian framework. It is not a theocracy but if you want one we’ll give it to you and I guarantee you won’t like it.
Would you prefer we break down people’s doors, monitor their lifestyles and jail them for anything contrary to your personal interpretation of religion? That mindset is shared by people of a different sort; the Taliban and communists like Hillary. It goes both ways.
Very well stated. I’ve been a solid Fred supporter since I first learned he was entertaining the thougt of running, but this specious, vapid attack on Mitt is the most pathetic peice of crap I’ve seen against any candidate this election cycle.
Tickle, you identify yourself as a “Catholic for Mitt,” using your church affiliation to lend credibility to your support for Romney, then you protest my citing the Catholic Church Catechism statement that “civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic material”? http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Does the term cafeteria come to mind?
Then you absurdly ask: “Would you prefer we break down people’s doors, monitor their lifestyles and jail them for anything contrary to your personal interpretation of religion?”
Easy answer: no.
But social conservatives do believe that Marriott and other white-collar porn peddlers should be held accountable publicly for their sale of porn and prosecuted in instances in which what they sell meets the legal definition of obscenity (which is a federal crime regardless of the age of the user).
And we believe that a guy who sits on the board of a white-collar porn peddler for a decade and never says a word about it, then says porn flicks were responsible for the VA Tech shootings, should also be held accountable publicly.
And neither even remotely approaches your resort to the hackneyed “Taliban” and “communist” labels in a feeble attempt at demonization.
Canticle, you say you’re “100% sure the subject (of pornography) never came up (in a Marriott board meeting).”
Utilizing your amazing psychic powers, how do you explain the fact that the issue was obviously of sufficient concern that Bill Marriott himself — while Romney was a board member — wrote a letter defending the company’s sale of porn?
Ya think that happened with no discussion, no thought whatsoever, among board members?
And that contract with On Command by which they contributed free TVs to Marriott in return for the porn sales, ya think they might have run that little multi-gazillion dollar document by the board legally responsible for corp. finances?