January 30, 2007
— Ace ...because O'Reilly's newest, and most shameless, promotion is that for every copy of Culture Warrior you buy, he'll send one copy to "the troops" in Iraq in Afghanistan.
Yeah. Not money. Just books he pretty much has lying around anyway.
I saw him mention this sometime last week, and I caught a case of the shivering douchechills that lasted me the whole weekend.
Next: For every copy of Culture Warrior you buy, Bill O'Reilly will send one "No Spin Zone" coffee mug to a pediatric burn victim. So, you know, start ordering --- or do you hate burned children?
Crash and burn. Not an "if" but a "when" at this point.
Quite frankly, the whole FoxNews management seems intent into turning the network into the moronic parody that liberals already believe it is. It's almost like Roger Ailes has turned Manchurian Candidate, and is determined to discredit the idea of a less-liberal news alternative for all eternity.
You know. The one's I keep under the bed for when the wife's away.
Sick, I know. I don't even have a blog.
Posted by: Warden at January 30, 2007 06:52 PM (QWUn5)
Ink is not commonly used for the purpose of blogging, however.
Posted by: Professor Warden at January 30, 2007 06:54 PM (QWUn5)
Posted by: Ian at January 30, 2007 06:57 PM (tgM23)
Posted by: Johnny at January 30, 2007 06:58 PM (beuUN)
My favorite thing was when he took credit for the drop in oil prices. I remember he had Cavuto and that Hoenig guy that looks like a monkey on a few times, they try to explain that its a free market and he's in on the tinfoil conspiracy bullshit.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 06:59 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 06:59 PM (oHd6r)
O'Reilly wants to be a modern-day Will Rogers, but he has neither the humor nor the mental quickness to carry it off.
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 07:01 PM (7Iqke)
Because it is not a GIFT to the troops. It is a self-serving, manipulative marketing device to guilt people into buying his stupid ass book.
If he just sent 3000 copies of the book to the troops, whatever, terrific. Not the hugest display of generosity, given that the're virtually free in a big run, but a nice gesture.
But no-- if YOU buy a book, he'll send one over. And if you DON'T, well, the troops don't get anything to read.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 07:01 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: eman at January 30, 2007 07:02 PM (FWrFx)
seriously... getting upset about this is silly.
"hmmm. I got a free book!" or "Hmmm. I got a free book!"
do you think that the troops give a shit?
Posted by: prolix at January 30, 2007 07:05 PM (U2Z6k)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 07:06 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Sticky B at January 30, 2007 07:09 PM (wkjFE)
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 07:10 PM (7Iqke)
How stupid . . . is news really this slow?
Posted by: Johnny at January 30, 2007 07:10 PM (beuUN)
Compounding the guilt factor is the narcissistic idea that what our troops need most of all... is a fucking diatribe about "SP's."
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 07:14 PM (4qddO)
Besides, I hate getting bogged down on this penny-anti- shit that the Left loves to jump all over to tear down a Conservative.
O'Reilly is not a Conservative. He's also not a bad guy. He does far more good with his show than bad. O'Reilly is a voice against the douches of the world.
Do you think we'd better off if Bill O'Reilly didn't have a show? I don't.
The fact that the Left absolutely hates O'Reilly tells me that he gets under their skin. And that's enough for me. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly for doing what you do.
Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2007 07:18 PM (ujOqi)
O'Reilly is an ego-driven messianic douchebag. That "man of the people" shtick is just that -- shtick. The airwaves would suck considerably less if his show were consigned to the depths (and hopefully take Savage Nation with it).
Read Elmer Gantry, I'm serious. It's freaky how well O'Reilly fits in that role.
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 07:20 PM (7Iqke)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 07:21 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 07:25 PM (oHd6r)
That's the feeling I get every time I see Bill Maher on that Ali Raps commercial. "I come from the house of shock."
I just got it again right there.
Posted by: fugazi at January 30, 2007 07:26 PM (iU1sC)
Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2007 07:27 PM (ujOqi)
I would bet my last breath that this promotion is due to an overprinting of the last print run. They ordered 40,000 books or so, only sold 10,000.
Now those 30,000 extra books are a liability -- storage costs are not negligible. So O'Reilly says, Hmmm, I'll do this total douchebag "giveaway," where I'm giving away books that ARE ALREADY PRINTED BUT NOT SELLING AND THEREFORE FREE (actually, more than free, becuase getting them out of the warehouse ends the storage costs), and I'll sell maybe 15,000 more, give away 15,000 extra, pretty much clearing the print run oversupply. More money in my pocket, and I get to pretend to be a hero.
Note that this offer was NOT made earlier in the book's sales-cycle, when pretty much every book in a print run would be expected to be sold.
So, what is he giving away? Nothing, really. At least he's not giving away his money, or any money he'd expect to recoup from the already-printed books.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 07:28 PM (4qddO)
Oh hell yeah. Jean Simmons was a stone-gold gorgeous woman, no doubt about it. Guys And Dolls is a good one too. Only a young Elizabeth Taylor was better-looking than Jean Simmons.
Burt Lancaster wasn't very well-cast, though; I'd have picked someone with a harder edge, like Robert Mitchum or even Marlon Brando.
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 07:34 PM (7Iqke)
He's got brass ones.
Isn't Imus the one who lives on a ranch which is totally tax exempt because he hosts sick kids there a couple of weeks a year?
Didn't Imus even do fundraisers to help build his home, so that he could live in style while helping the "kids"?
"The Imus Ranch, a 4,000-acre ranch in northern New Mexico, is run by Mr. Imus and his wife, Deirdre, to help sick children by teaching them how to be cowboys and cowgirls. The ranch's expenses totaled $2.6 million last year, although the ranch hosts only about 100 children annually, mostly during the summer. Mr. Imus raises the funds through his radio and television broadcasts."
100 children, 2.6 Million dollars.
Do the math.
Posted by: j.pickens at January 30, 2007 07:35 PM (bGelp)
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 07:36 PM (7Iqke)
Yes, we have a Borders, and we got a Starbucks late last year, and the Borders has a Seattles Best, not that I'm a huge fan of either, except they had like a peppermint mocha thing at seattle that was good(I like minty goodness). We're still waiting for a Target(which i have to imagine will come soon as a major distribution center is going up about 30 min away), but we do have a Wegmans, and wegmans is awesome.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 07:37 PM (oHd6r)
Burt Lancaster's angelic and trustworthy face is what sold him as the religious con man. You can't get that Mitchum or Brando. Well, maybe Brando. For that role, they needed someone like Lancaster or Glenn Ford.
Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2007 07:44 PM (ujOqi)
Posted by: Monty at January 30, 2007 07:47 PM (7Iqke)
Don Imus, the man dresses like a 7 year-old boy with his stupid cowboy hat and belt buckles.
The only time I've ever enjoyed Howard Stern was when Stern would shit on Imus and how he looks.
Posted by: Bart at January 30, 2007 07:49 PM (ujOqi)
I just feel like pounding my head on a desk or table when he opens his mouth. Let Brit Hume, Cavuto, Julie Banderas and Reena Ninan and a few commenters run the channel.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 07:55 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 07:57 PM (oHd6r)
He's almost barely tolerable when he comes down hard on some obvious leftard, but he's otherwise useless. At least, that's what I think until I flip back to CNN - long-established habit - and see Jack Cafferty's latest question for the viewers. Last week it was "What can you do help stop the war" or something very close to that. "We'll come back with suggestions." Wolf's segueway was "And there's a lot that everyone can do." I wish I'd taped it, or had the strength to listen to what they actually came up with. At times like that Fox can do no wrong - even if I still find something about Fox kind of annoying.
Posted by: Police Commissioner Akim Hussein at January 30, 2007 08:08 PM (muz9j)
And we won't use lame-ass promotions designed to guilt people into buying my book. Nosiree, bob -- I'm simply giving mine away to the brave men and women serving our country, which they can read after being redeployed to Okinawa.
To be honest, I think what O'Reilly is doing is completely unethical. I'm going to send Fox a strongly worded letter urging his firing, assuming I can get Rosty to mail it for me.
Posted by: Former House Speaker Jim Wright at January 30, 2007 08:09 PM (O+9Yg)
I dunno. I don't see what's wrong with that.
I would bet my last breath that this promotion is due to an overprinting of the last print run.
I'm pretty sure I heard about this deal many weeks ago. Not 100% sure, but I do think it's something you oughta check on before you say this offer wasn't made earlier. Because I think I recall hearing about this well before Christmas - though I'm not 100% sure, as I usually am not paying close attention during the last few minutes of his show when he does his plugs etc.
But I am sure that O'Reilly visited the troops in Iraq to thank them.
I don't see what is wrong with arranging a deal with the publisher to get free books to the troops. No one is "guilted" into buying the book. If someone doesn't want the book, they can help the troops directly.
You're aware that hosts on MSNBC are told to try and do hits on O'Reilly because he's their competitor?
To this person who keeps saying if I read Elmer Gantry I'll see what a demagogue O'Reilly is: Why not give specific examples of his demagoguery? I'm curious what you mean by that.
I don't watch his show every night, but I do watch it a lot. Simply because he has good topics and interesting guests and there's often a bit of fireworks.
Posted by: at January 30, 2007 08:09 PM (ZQnRG)
2. Imus also hosts the children's family members at the ranch.
3. Cheap ass morons who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Posted by: at January 30, 2007 08:10 PM (1oAi9)
And he's not giving away anything that costs him anything here.
I don't like Imus much, either. I linked the HotAir story, which mentioned Imus, just because that was a "source." I don't give a shit what Imus said, or even that he said it; I'm not relying on his moral authority, such that it is, to make this call.
When I heard O'Reilly announce this shameless sales stunt, I got the shivering douchechills.
I also thought that he was a melted-bastard sandwhich on whole-bastard bread with side of cole-bastard and a crunchy dill bastard on the side.
Posted by: ace at January 30, 2007 08:16 PM (4qddO)
I don't watch O'Reilly -- my time seems better spent watching reruns of Aqua Teen Hunger Force and 1980s smash hit "Gotcha!" -- but O'Reilly isn't saying that the troops will have nothing to read if you don't buy his book. And I doubt anyone watching actually believes that or otherwise feels morally compelled to do so. This is just a silly marketing campaign designed to push people who were otherwise on the fence to do so for a good cause.
If we start acting like all consumers are idiots that have to be protected from manipulation, then we're travelling down the slope towards WTO protests.
And believe it or not, I think just about any mention of helping our troops is a pretty good cause. We should be doing more for them. Hell, I think we should be doing more for them than we do for Katrina victims.
Yeah, I said it.
Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2007 08:20 PM (li6vs)
"You boys out there oughta know, I, too, am being all warror-like on the home front fightin' for the folks. I'm a warrior just like you guys. Kind of."
Maybe the troops can build berms from copies of the book. When an incoming round hits the books and the energy is dissipated, two things are accomplished at once.
I don't mind O'Reilly so much, really. He does ask tough questions of liberals, which is pretty nearly unique on T.V. It's pretty funny to hear Imus be the pot calling the kettle black. He's a world class asshole. He's the only guy that made me feel sorry for the Clintons.
Posted by: caspera at January 30, 2007 08:34 PM (iluXx)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 08:38 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: Kevin at January 30, 2007 08:58 PM (CZNpp)
I think that's a more appropriate method of restriction (and it says something good about the folks here that they're saying that BOR is a jerk, but not that he should be removed from the airwavesk, which seems to be a strong impulse on the left), but I still think that it's motivated by the same impulses that drive the nanny staters.
That's my biggest problem here: the idea that people can't fend for themselves so we need to protect them from being manipulated. I think people generally can fend for themselves. I think hardly anyone is going to believe that he/she needs to buy Bill's book or else the troops won't get anything to read.
I think the logic being advanced here won't even occur to most people. They'll just buy the book if they want it, and they'll feel a little better about themselves because another copy is being sent to the troops.
Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2007 09:07 PM (li6vs)
And for what it's worth, my younger brother served in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain and would probably have rather stared at the sand dunes than read BOR's book. But it's nice to see that someone would have gotten some enjoyment out of it.
Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2007 09:11 PM (li6vs)
We have the right to do it, and you can call the people that do it shitheels if necessary. It has its painful side, as we've learned with the left in the Iraq campaign, but we can cause them pain as well using the same tactics. its a double edge sword.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 09:23 PM (oHd6r)
Posted by: The Comish (sic) at January 30, 2007 09:25 PM (li6vs)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 09:29 PM (oHd6r)
As for populism? Yeah, I think the Elmer Gantry model seems to fit, not just with O'Reilly, but you've also got Lou Dobbs and Michael Savage out there as well.
I have no problem with people getting pissed off and active about certain issues or agendas, but to follow a general demagogic mesage by these fools? Just to rail at the wind with no specific target, just that "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"? or "Who's Looking out for You?"
(and who are also incredibly unfunny people)
Take a look at the masthead for this blog...it's a quote by H.L. Mencken. (who is nearly as witty as our nation's foremost political humorist/satirist P.J. O'Rourke). We'll here's an additional quote by Mr. Mencken defining a demagogue: "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
So please, put down the "Spin Stops Here" coffee mugs and doormats. If anyone wants to do the troops a favor, send them copies of Hustler and some fuckin' decent (2-ply min.) toilet paper.
It's what I'd want.
Posted by: genghis at January 30, 2007 09:32 PM (0/c+a)
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 09:41 PM (oHd6r)
O riley's a blowhard
Imus is a walking acid victim.
I give them both little credence.
Posted by: Barry in CO at January 30, 2007 09:49 PM (KOkrW)
Posted by: someone at January 30, 2007 09:49 PM (I/t4f)
how about aerosol pork mace?
Posted by: genghis at January 30, 2007 09:50 PM (0/c+a)
Posted by: Scot at January 30, 2007 09:56 PM (kuRty)
Humes on at 6pm on the east side.
Posted by: Sinistar at January 30, 2007 10:04 PM (oHd6r)
The man lacks the native intelligence to debate the f'n editor from al-Jazeera, on his own show. His wondrous comeback to every point the other man made? "You're wrong!" What. The. Hell.
Posted by: Mastiff at January 30, 2007 11:11 PM (TUuB+)
How 'bout just plain ol' aerosol pork? With the Superbowl coming up and all. Now that I said that, all I can think about is Slim-Jim-Whiz, Li'l Smoky Whiz, and Tony Roma's bbq Rib-Whiz. On tasty Ritz crackers.
Damn you and your so-called "ideas"!!!
Posted by: genghis at January 30, 2007 11:36 PM (0/c+a)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 31, 2007 01:00 AM (LITKT)
Seriously though, the inflammatory ideological hand grenades thrown by that instigator news caption writer are about the only thing I enjoy about Fox News anymore. They make me laugh. And, of course, Kirsten Powers.
Posted by: Mark V. at January 31, 2007 01:25 AM (X5HHU)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 31, 2007 03:02 AM (lCheg)
Posted by: Sinclair Lewis at January 31, 2007 03:05 AM (PgNVv)
You mean a shameless stunt like telling your readers Spring 2005 you were going to stop blogging? That kind of shamelss stunt?
Posted by: at January 31, 2007 04:14 AM (HeVbx)
There is a media rate. A lot cheaper to send books that way.
Posted by: DSkinner at January 31, 2007 04:23 AM (Z887G)
Posted by: DSkinner at January 31, 2007 04:25 AM (Z887G)
Posted by: Golden Boy at January 31, 2007 04:43 AM (t8LmT)
Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2007 04:56 AM (m6c4H)
So, if you purchase a book, the money goes to charity and an additional book is offered for free to any soldier requesting one.
And this is not a good thing because......?
Granted, he's no Mother Teresa but this isn't Gekko Gordon either.
Posted by: ErichH at January 31, 2007 05:42 AM (hFAin)
Posted by: ArrMatey at January 31, 2007 06:07 AM (Th77e)
I watch O'Reilly all the time and he is not that bad. For one he gives all his profit from all his books to various charities he supports (mostly childrens). Second, he deserves respect for what he is doing to support Jessica's Law and highlighting lenient sentences given to child sex offenders. It's good for ordinary people to know that you can repeatedly r@pe a child for years and get probation. I don't think that many people are aware that is the case. In any case I don't detect the level of demagogery that you clearly feel is present, I detect high levels of ego mania and blowhardism and he sometimes takes silly positions on issues to appear "moderate" but for a TV guy he is a pretty good advocate for a certain brand of populist conservatism.
I guess I'd just like it explained a little better to me why you think he is so evil.
Posted by: Big E at January 31, 2007 06:54 AM (uw1/g)
Regarding Limbaugh, I mean demagogue in the most neutral sense: that he argues by emotion and persuasiveness rather than by relying on a sober evaluation of the facts. But Limbaugh, unlike O'Reilly, Hannity, and their ilk, is entertaining: he's funny, tells a good story, and is very smart under all that bonhomie (far smarter than his enemies give him credit for).
I don't listen to talk radio very much -- not even Limbaugh -- but sometimes I'll tune in if there's a good interview guest on. But as far as policy discussions go, you're not going to get much depth or context from a talk show; the format doesn't really reward it.
Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2007 06:58 AM (7Iqke)
Unless, of course, the book had a werewolf or a spaceship or some shit on the cover. Then you dorks would be fighting over it to read on the can.
OR's promotion isn't any worse than any other, just a promotion. What's more, he'll be stuck with a hefty shipping tab too. For the life of me I can't figure out why this stunt deserves such derision. And I even think OR's kind of a douche to begin with.
Hey, live long and prosper, dorks!
Posted by: spongeworthy at January 31, 2007 07:06 AM (uSomN)
That bullshit about oil company profits though, that was textbook demagoguery.
or however that fucking demoaogoerty word is spelled.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2007 07:32 AM (pzen5)
FYI, for the record, I did NOT write that.
But it's funny that others are still peeved about it.
Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2007 08:27 AM (L2JwE)
26 bucks on bill's site
15 bucks at amazon
Looks like he's just trying to keep you from buying from amazon and then taking a charitable write off (for himself) for the donation.
Posted by: at January 31, 2007 09:00 AM (CyjMp)
making an appeal to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered to be politically manipulative and dangerous
So...appeal to emotion. OK. I get that.
As I have allways understood the word, however, the key part of that definition is manipulative. In a manipulative way. In other words, demagoguery is when you advance a position you know is not true in order to mislead people into supporting your policy, which has ulterior motives.
If Bill O'Reilly knows damn well oil companies are not conspiring to manipulate markets but says so anyway in order to win the accolades of stupid people who think they are, he is a demagogue.
If Bill O'Reilly beleives the oil companies are conspiring to manipulate markets and says so, he is not a demagogue, he is just very wrong.
In this specific instance I'm not going to claim to know what he actually believes apart from what he says. To be honest, if I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, or if I want to deny him the benefit of the doubt....I can never decide which is better and which is worse. Is it a greater insult to say he's lying, or say he's a moron? I can't ever seem to decide which is worse so I just leave it out there as an 'either/or'.
Limbaugh certainly does not do that sort of demagoguery. But appeal to emotion? Sure. That's not neccessarily entirely bad.
Posted by: Entropy at January 31, 2007 09:23 AM (m6c4H)
This is news?
Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 31, 2007 09:26 AM (O9Cc8)
Posted by: Mikey NTH at January 31, 2007 09:33 AM (O9Cc8)
For every copy of "Culture Warrior" you purchase, I will send one copy of the acclaimed movie "Lasses's Asses 15" to the troops.
I'm just looking out for the folks here.
Posted by: O'Reilly at January 31, 2007 09:58 AM (t9v6o)
Second, who the hell is Imus? A douchebag of the first water!
Third, thanks Ace for having a site that allows comments to use the words normally not used in polite society. Makes commenting easier for the dullards out there.
Like O'Reilly or not, agree with him 100% or not, he beats the hell out of the competition and that's a first in
the tin-hatted leftists loons MSM sphere. Viewers have choices, they can use their channel changers or not and lots don't!
Posted by: Sue at January 31, 2007 10:05 AM (4PaFQ)
Posted by: adullard outhere at January 31, 2007 01:32 PM (nbkCt)
Both egotistical blowhards, so it's not like I'm an imus jock sniffer.
Speaking of sniffing jocks, though "Sue" (or let's just dispense with teh fascade and call you Bill), O'Reilly is a douchebag, and no pne here cares one whit for his assinine schtick.
Wow, "viewers" like him! Oh, boy. Well, "viewers" like Wheel of Fucking FOrtune, but that doesn't mean it's not populated exclusively by retards.
Go back to the jock-sniffing, "Sue" and tell Bill to get over himself.
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 31, 2007 01:47 PM (p1s9n)
But I kind of figured out that it was watered-down pap for the fashionably conservative when they sensationalize everything they touch and seek to stir up emotions rather than provoke rational debate. They don't do anything about abortion. They only put on the most opportunistic political players, rather than the more sober minded conservatives that built the movement. They kind of do for the right what the feminists did to women's rights, turn it into a repulsive stereotype of the lowest order.
Yeah, they've pretty much made conservativism into the pet rock of politics. An odd historical fad, bereft of any substance, and worthless to future generations. But, we just need to kick em to the curb and get back to our roots: read some Burke.
Posted by: Shreve at January 31, 2007 01:56 PM (1WdUw)
This is silly. I had a throw-away line that I wouldn't be blogging anymore because I had posted THE BEST POST EVER (Lauren Bush's boobies or something), and then, suddenly, Instapundit takes it seriously and puts up a post "Ace retiring"?
So based on that I did some schtick. Some funny stuff too, I think.
But I never planned any such hoax. It was an obviously silly line that for some weird reason got emailed to Instapundit and he took seriously.
Posted by: ace at January 31, 2007 01:59 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Knemon at January 31, 2007 02:17 PM (Z+wnO)
Posted by: hobgoblin at January 31, 2007 03:00 PM (p1s9n)
C'mon Ace, do you honestly think O'Reilly is that sort of greedhead? I certainly don't.
Posted by: Hoosier Daddy at February 01, 2007 12:10 AM (45bPr)
I've never even met his mother.
Posted by: MegaTroopX at February 01, 2007 10:53 AM (v5fbO)
It was one of the last things Jim Baen did before his death.
Now that is generous.
Posted by: MegaTroopX at February 01, 2007 11:01 AM (v5fbO)
I would not donate the $1 because the Katrina victims were, and are, such bucking fastards. They want to raise money? Have a "Kick Ray Nagin in the nuts for $1" booth. I'll bring my next paycheck.
Posted by: MegaTroopX at February 01, 2007 11:14 AM (v5fbO)
Posted by: Jordan at February 01, 2007 11:26 AM (Jauav)
Posted by: jaysigkm lfwc at February 28, 2007 06:54 AM (sjuhk)
Posted by: irtwk sacnfrjze at July 31, 2007 11:44 PM (1K+7W)
Posted by: free download software at March 28, 2012 02:13 AM (DR59r)
Gel beds are better for a few Jordan Retro 12 reasons. First, gel is one of few materials that has the ability to both provide support for your body's weight while still being comfortable. Intelligel beds are made up of gel columns arranged in a honeycomb pattern. Each column supports a certain amount of weight. Jordan Retro 12 When that weight limit is reached then the column buckles. This ends up meaning that the areas of your body that need to sink into the mattress (e.g. your shoulders, your hips) are able to while the rest of your body--your back, legs, etc.--is able to receive comfortable support. This means that with gel beds you'll be getting a more comfortable and healthier night's sleep each night.
Posted by: Jordan Retro 12 at May 12, 2012 03:49 AM (omWiw)
62 queries taking 1.2254 seconds, 327 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.