Posted on 07/05/2007 10:43:24 AM PDT by AFA-Michigan
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, an outspoken critic of pornography, is called to task for his ties to Marriott hotels, a chain that makes money by providing porn to guests.
Full audio of news report broadcast on over 1,000 Christian radio stations:
http://www.oneplace.com/Ministries/Family_News_in_Focus
Family News in Focus is a service of Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, founded by Dr. James Dobson.
I also believe that Mormons disapprove of caffeine - just think of all those Marriotts with in-room COFFEE MACHINES!
If your facts are correct, you have a good point.
“Called to task” by a handful of pathetic bigoted nutjobs.
Wow, between this and the dog on the roof thing, they sure are scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard.
Proximity anyone?
This type of story does Romney’s campaign more good than he could even do for himself. If this is the worst they can bring up, then I’d be OK with Mitt.
ROFLAMO! I hate it when that happens.
“This is a non-story.”
In WWII, President Roosevelt said, “Tell it to the Marines.”
Your opinion is duly noted, Lab, but in this case, “Tell it to Dr. Dobson.”
And the over 1,000 Christian radio stations that are today broadcasting your “non-story” as their lead story.
Don’t tell me you didn’t post this story 2-3 days ago...I saw you do it. Same story from a different source doesn’t make a new story nor does it mean that anyone other than the relative handful you fall into actually care that Mitt, as a board member, did nothing to rid Marriott of in-room porn pay-per-view.
There’s plenty to go after Mitt without resorting to this lame BS.
It’s very simple. Mitt’s job was to make money for the Marriott hotel chain. By allowing prostitution at the hands of Marriott, it would generate enough negative attention towards Marriott that it wouldn’t be fiscally viable as a program. They are, afterall, a 2-4+ star hotel chain. They might actually lose business for being a bordello. In-room porn does not do this at all because it’s still a choice...and it’s freakin’ EVERYwhere as a choice....that one has to pay for...and only a tiny handful of folks care that a board member didn’t do away with this and would go to another 2-4+ star hotel chain that didn’t provide in-room porn.
Good luck finding that porn-free hotel...maybe you won’t get bed bugs, as it would be less than a one star place that doesn’t even give free cable.
You gonna post this story again when it’s brought up by yet another source?
The original poster has posted three different versions of this ridiculous story since Tuesday.
That is really the point being argued; however, if one believes he shouldn't have joined, yet it is a historical fact that this anti-porn defender of the family (sic, of course he was ardently pro-abortion at the time) decided to join the board of a company that distributes pornography, it is reasonable to ask why he did join, whether he thought selling porn was bad, and whether he made any effort to change the status quo with regard to porn distribution.
It's kind of a speculative chain of questions, since I'm sure the Romneys see it as an issue best ignored and thus there's little evidence of what Mitt was thinking (or, more likely, not thinking about the issue at all), but I do agree that it pales in comparison to Mitt's many other more serious anti-family stances.
So he uses his opposition to R-rated movies in his campaign yet served on the board of a company (with a generous salary) that generates major profits (yes, it's a cash cow) from ppv pornography.
Okay, didn't know that. You're right - he's a hypocrite.
No Bull, Marriott in the decade Mitt was on the board made a different policy decision than the boards of Omni Hotels and Days Inn, for example, which believe that NOT selling destructive material is part of their “fiduciary responsibility.”
“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.’”
http://www.omnihotels.com/AboutOmniHotels/Press/PressReleases/991105PressRelease.aspx
Marriott decided it was more important to profit from porn despite the fact that it disrupts marriages, is a motivating factor in sex crimes against women and children, and which we and some law enforcement officials believe constitutes “obscenity,” which is a federal offense. (Witness the two Marriotts that removed their porn flicks under threat of obscenity charges by prosecutors in the Cincinnati area).
Not a Romney fan myself, but I don’t elect a President of the United States to worry about porn.
How many times are you going to post this same story?
So you submit that if sponsoring prostitution in Marriott hotels was a profitable business decision, Mitt would have and should have supported it? Put down that shovel, boy.
The point is you have to apply your morals to your business dealings for them to mean anything. Whether one's beliefs require staying on a Board and pressing for changes, or resigning because the business conflicts with one's beliefs, a businessman cannot check his morals at the boardroom.
If only they had the national id card for more evidence!
“You gonna post this story again when it’s brought up by yet another source?”
Yes. Cover your eyes. Or will you claim that my posting the stories FORCES you to respond to them?
> but I do agree that it pales in comparison to Mitt’s many other more serious anti-family stances.<
Lest there be an inference conveyed that I have spoken about “Mitt’s many other more serious anti-family stances”, I have not. I am not familiar enough with his entire record to make an assertion like that - though others may be.
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.