After desperately casually ransacking the Internets shopping online for a product that would make our dick thick and kick-start reinvigorate our love life, we were briefly encouraged hearing the earnest lady lawyer on sports radio KIROAM promoting a product called Retoxor.
Wow! The Mormon Church, who owns the KIROs (and konservative KTTH) have long turned down ads for alcohol, the lottery, casinos, and sex-related products. So we figured that "the outer liquid capsule of Retoxor must really be "medically proven," and would definitely, no doubt "ensure a rapid and almost instant uptake of the clinical tissue-stimulating ingredients, [to go] to work widening benefits," as promised.
We could almost feel the widening benefits starting to surge. We dreamed the old dream of marching with the Terrible Swift Sword into heretofore unconquered "clinical tissues." Retoxor was, after all, "Discovered by Three Former Medical University Students."
With our implicit trust in Mormon business ethics, and having known many former medical university students, we asked ourselves? "what could go wrong?"
But before we plunked down the $153.99 for a 3 months supply, we put Retoxor into the Google machine and... OMG!
Seems quite a few needle-dicked men who did plunk down the gelt, had quite a lot to say about Retoxor: a) it didn't work; b) the company, within 24 hours, used or sold the men's personal contact information which launched an avalanche of spam and "harassing sales calls." c) despite cancelling by phone within the 30 days of the promised money-back period, the money was taken from the pencil-dicked patient's bank account with "no refund in sight." The company had to shut down an earlier version of the drug (Prolixus) because of legal entanglements from fraud complaints.
Made us wonder why Bonneville would accept this advertising. In the first place, they broke their own rule by accepting the sex-based product, thinking, apparently, they could get away with it by running these spots only on sports radio, where some of the listeners are weak, sad, and desperate men (like ourselves) who tune-in daily for sporting affirmations of their (our) masculinity.
That the product is the object of so many scam and fraud complaints is another matter- but hey, caveate emptor, sucker- this here's free market capitalism.
Bonneville International isn't just owned by some jack Mormons, it's owned outright by the LDS Church. According to Salt Lake City Tribune reporter, Glen Warchol, this ain't the first time they've seen to be blind to their own stated principles. The Code of Deseret Media was installed in 2009 and was supposed to force a “‘reawakening to righteousness,’ and be a ‘puritanical purge’ and series of ‘reorganizations’ at the Deseret News [their flagship paper] that replaced experienced reporters and editors with younger, more light-filled, devout [and cheaper] people.”
They made a big deal of removing Sean Hannity from their mother station, KSL in Salt Lake City in deference to their Code. But they didn't touch the delusional pig, Glenn Beck, or Hannity in markets like Seattle. They did cut the mic of vile reactionary scum, Michael Savage in Seattle, but for the most part, kept the wingers that pulled the ratings.
You don't have to dig deep to uncover the hypocrisy of this religious institution, which is so often the case with institutional religions... especially the ones involved in for-profit business.
But the LDS Church, because of Mitt Romney, will soon be given the colonoscopy of a presidential campaign. They might be well-advised to pick off such low-hanging fruit as this.
oh i laffed so hard at this. I have a couple of people to send it to..
Posted by: sparky | January 13, 2012 at 05:35 PM
I believe what pisses off the christian right about the mormon's, the mormon's used the same game plan that Christianity used to dupe all of their believers. It's all about the money and the mormon's found that boys who need lead in their pencils will spend any amount of money to get that lead. See, even the mormon's know it's all about the money.
Posted by: daman | January 13, 2012 at 05:48 PM
Retoxor might be many things, but I definitely wouldn't put it in the same sentence as the phrase "low hanging."
Posted by: Pete | January 13, 2012 at 05:57 PM
More filth and Mormon hating! You people are extremely low class!
Posted by: Mohammie | January 13, 2012 at 06:43 PM
Tax all religion. If God is really on their side He will take care of them.
Posted by: Ryder | January 13, 2012 at 07:40 PM
It's always funny when people refer to God as "he", because it clearly indicates that God has a penis - which brings up a lot of interesting questions.
Posted by: Mike D | January 13, 2012 at 08:25 PM
I read that a poll recently showed that 22% of those polled would never vote a Mormon for President. Even though it did not show a breakdown, I would venture to guess a vast majority of that 22% are registered Democrats and would not vote for Republican anyway.
For one thing, the GOP is less hateful about religion.
Posted by: KS | January 13, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Tell that to Muslims.
Posted by: sparky | January 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Tell that to athiests.
Romney is very similiar to Gordon Gekko. That's why we don't like him KS. If we were so anti-religion we wouldn't be voting in elections, period. Think, McFly.
Posted by: Mike D | January 14, 2012 at 12:22 AM
I remember the time republicans criticized Obama for his faith and that weird minister.
Posted by: Ed Bennett | January 14, 2012 at 06:12 AM
"Tell that to athiests.
Romney is very similiar to Gordon Gekko. That's why we don't like him KS."
The atheists have been told. So you buy into Newt Gingrich's propaganda ? I choose to hear out Romney's rebuttal before a rush to judgment (a characteristic of low information voters and mediocre politicians). What you say about anti-religion and not voting is ridiculous, but keep grasping at straws. Russia and Europe, with a higher atheist proportion than in the US have as good or even a higher voter turnout than here.
"I remember the time republicans criticized Obama for his faith and that weird minister."
Posted by: Ed Bennett
Oh yea, and the chickens have been coming home to roost. McCain did not want to bring up this issue in the 2008 campaign though, not to say it a pathetic campaign. It has always said something about who BHO is and now a majority of intelligent voters get that and some of the lesser intelligent ones also. Does it need to be brought up this time ? Maybe in passing but not dwelled upon, but there are numerous other more substantive issues about his sub-Carter-esque performance that would resonate more.
Posted by: KS | January 14, 2012 at 08:51 AM
OMG...fight about religion(s) another time. What about the dicks? Who'se thinking about the dicks?
The google is a fantabulous thing. (Just ask Rick Santourem). I google almost anything before I order/buy. I was all ready to order up the Grout Bully (not as exciting as the dick thickner thingee)...but alas... grout bully was another scam.
I do have say though, I would not have thought the Mormons would be advertising a sex object on one of their stations. Maybe it was okay because it was supposed to help the man of the house? Go forth and make babies sort of thing....
Posted by: kate | January 14, 2012 at 03:00 PM
Hahaha. You're funny, Kate, although I don't always get your point. Get religion out of politics and tax them. Then they'll be like the rest of us instead of exceptional.
So Glenn Greenwald makes the case that Paul is the most Progressive candidate. I might buy it. And before you all shout "racist" at me;remember, Robert Byrd turned out to be a great Democrat (if not liberal).
Posted by: Mary | January 14, 2012 at 04:40 PM
They run plenty of ads for casinos and a urologist who goes by the moniker, "Dr. Snip dot com. So, what's a few inches between friends?
Posted by: Ellywood | January 14, 2012 at 05:21 PM
Ron Paul would never become a Robert Byrd if he lived another 100 years. Just because he has been against the wars, some progressives wet themselves thinking he is the answer.
The old fart is against the civil rights movement. He thinks that women who are sexually harassed on the job bear some of the responsibility and should just quit if they dont like it. He is all for school vouchers unless a family wants to use their voucher to send their kid to a Muslim school, and then the government can intervene.
Posted by: Daniel | January 14, 2012 at 07:03 PM
And before you all shout "racist" at me;remember, Robert Byrd turned out to be a great Democrat (if not liberal).
Posted by: Mary | January 14, 2012 at 04:40 PM
'Sheets' was a Liberal? I guess in terms of spending other peoples money he would be termed 'liberal' with the pocketbook of the taxpayer.
The Mormon Church is like many others, very mainstream, and as such will do what it takes to make money in secular endeavors. Although some would find it disappointing, I actually find it reaffirms my faith in my fellow man.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 14, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Mary...by no means do I want to start anything. But, Glen Greenwald gives me a headache in the eye. Or maybe it's I want to stab myself in the eye after reading Glen Greenwald. I consider myself sort of liberal. Not Jim McDermott left...but liberal nonetheless. But dear ol' Glen is not my cup of tea. And to say that Ron Paul is the most progressive candidate...just shows (IMO) how out of touch Glen has become.
I thing Ron Paul is a crazy ol' coot and his son is a young(er) freakin' coot. I'm glad the repubs have to deal w/ those two crazy ass men. Just because someone says two things I may agree with...doesn't mean the other 98 things they say that I loathe...don't count against them.
Posted by: kate | January 14, 2012 at 07:43 PM
Daniel, the stuff that Paul advocates that I agree with are issues that a President can solve. The stuff you list requires Congressional support.
If people vote for a Congress to alter those positions, that's their choice. I'm no one-issue voter and I'd like to progress on some issues. Read the article: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
Kate: I totally agree with one exception: painting either side of Paul with a broad brush distorts the image. You have to decide what is important. In the short run, he supports what I think we need. Don't give him more power than he would have. There are a lot of apologists out there defending what Obama hasn't done saying Congress gets in the way. It's not like Paul is going to turn our world into a Ayn Rand universe his first or even fourth year in office. But, he might get us out of wars. He might actually set the Justice Department on Wall Street. I suppose my biggest worry would be his candidate for the Court. But, even there, Congress has to consent.
I have an open mind. No knee-jerk liberal am I. Strategize and analyze who might be best for the next four year. I like different perspectives and Greenwald always gives me that. As does Chomsky. As did Zinn.
Rand Jr. - all the arrogance and none of the experience or wisdom.
PS: I purposely called Byrd a Democrat. I did not call him a liberal.
Posted by: Mary | January 14, 2012 at 07:55 PM
Zinn and Chomsky are radical marxists, but don't let that stop you - if that doesn't smell like knee jerk, I don't know what does.
Me thinks you are delusional Mary much like a certain schoolteacher who once occupied this blog up until a few months ago. She also claimed to have an open mind. Nuff said...
Posted by: KS | January 14, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Zinn is dead.
Posted by: Daniel | January 14, 2012 at 10:09 PM
And before you all shout "racist" at me;remember, Robert Byrd turned out to be a great Democrat (if not liberal).
Posted by: Mary | January 14, 2012 at 04:40 PM
PS: I purposely called Byrd a Democrat. I did not call him a liberal.
Posted by: Mary | January 14, 2012 at 07:55 PM
actually, your wording was poor and subject to different interpretations. if you would have said, 'if not a liberal' then it would be clearer. the 'if not liberal' reads like he is not only a great Democrat but also a liberal.
but still interesting that you term 'Sheets' as a 'great Democrat.'
one thing that is noticeable is that mary likes to ask others to answer questions but is reticent to answer them herself at times. that is a very familiar trait.
and yes, Zinn is dead and hopefully his revisionist history is also kaput.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 15, 2012 at 03:58 AM
and yes Buckely is dead and hopefully his revisionist history for the 1% is also kaput.
Posted by: Jack Duffenais | January 15, 2012 at 09:11 AM
I'd like to hear examples of what you consider revisionist history from Buckley to be. I would not classify William F Buckley as an extremist like I would classify Zinn. Also, it is unclear whether Buckley was part of the 1%.
Posted by: KS | January 15, 2012 at 09:22 AM
the one who narrates or pitches those ads sounds like a Valley Girl more at home in the Mall and not an attorney capable of addressing a jury.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 15, 2012 at 09:58 AM
My wording was poor? Thanks, Professor. You two aren't used to being challenged, are you?
Posted by: Mary | January 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM
I am not used to being challenged with the truth and indisputable facts in this location. I am more familiar to being challenged here with fabrication and talking points. Disagreement is fine and clarity is just as important.
It seems like you are not used to being challenged and when you are, I have noticed that you try to disparage your dissenters and distort the truth.
Posted by: KS | January 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Mary
KS is right. Facts and analysis will serve you better then assertions without support.
Your posting was not clear. But I now understand you consider "Sheets" Byrd to be a Great Democrat.
Magnusen, Jackson, Mansfield, Paul Douglass, are just a few of those that I would rank as 'Great' Democrats.
"Sheets" Byrd was a southern Democrat who used his ability to 'bring home the bacon' to keep getting reelected.
In terms of the Mormon Church being willing to run ads that are tasteless and by Sombrero's account, ineffective, is to their discredit and makes them open for claims of hypocrisy.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM
You are one awesome dude Michael Hood. Thanx for the laugh.
Posted by: Taco | January 15, 2012 at 02:06 PM
"Sheets" Byrd. That's so cute. Kinda like Rush "Oxy" Limbaugh, or George "Alcoholic" Bush, or Laura "Vehicular Homicide" Bush. Or, David "I Paid For Prostitutes" Vitter, or Larry "Gay Restroom Sex" Craig. Or Ronald "Divorce" Reagan, or Newt "I Fucked Over My Cancer-Stricken Wife" Gingrich. Or Jerry "Gays Caused 9/11" Falwell, or Mitt "Massachusettes Liberal" Romney, or Arnold "I Fucked The Family Maid" Schwarzenegger, or Mel "Jews Are Evil" Gibson...
Posted by: Mike D | January 15, 2012 at 05:29 PM
you forgot, Ted 'left the girl to drown' Kennedy
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 15, 2012 at 06:19 PM
Waiting . . . surely, Puget Sound, you're not stopping there? Our Ted who became possibly the greatest senator of our time. And the others. Which of the others redeemed themselves so honorably?
Mike, you could have included Mitt "Massachusetts liberal who wasn't - then he was - then he wasn't - Bain operative who got rich off the pain of his employees" Romney.
Posted by: Truthseeker | January 15, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Well TS, Kennedy did ram through 'No Child Left Behind' legislation.
How'd that work out for you? I recall the day Pres Obama was sworn in and the big lunch to do that had both 'Sheets' and 'Flipper' having to go to the hospital due to medical issues. Very touch and go there for awhile.
Anywhoo, I am curious why Bonnevile thinks it's okay to run ads for sex based products. Product not working AND shoddy practices. Wonder how the product can stay legal? Surely our State AG's have received many complaints and begun to investigate same. I hope Sombrero gets his refund.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 15, 2012 at 07:32 PM
You sound a little tense tonight, professor. Kennedy was convinced by Bush that NCLB was a winning proposition. Kennedy later regretted going along with the bill.
Bonneville will run any ad that makes them money. Maybe McKenna is a customer.
Posted by: Walt | January 15, 2012 at 08:09 PM
It's sad that Jon Huntsman is going to drop out the GOP presidential race due to lack of funds. He will endorse Romney, which I find rather surprising, but at least he didn't endorse any of the others, who are worse.
This puts even more pressure on Romney, IMO. The Republicans have been stupid for allowing these asanine debates to take place with moderators who are out to make a circus out of them. Even worse, the GOP candidates have been lampooning Romney and each other ignoring the real issues. If this stupidity and nonsense keeps up, the Republican party has outlived its usefulness and must go the way of the Whigs and disappear and be rebranded.
The Democrats have become the walks like a neo-marxist and quacks like a neo-marxist party by their actions, but that's their cross to bear. All in all, its a sad state of affairs we all face in the political arena.
Posted by: KS | January 15, 2012 at 08:25 PM
Inquiring minds want to know, since Bonneville (KIRO's parent) is wholly owned by the Mormon Church is it tax exempt?
Posted by: Cueburner | January 15, 2012 at 08:35 PM
It's not the debate moderators who make Republicans look like clowns, it's the candidates themselves. The more they open their mouths the stupider they look. The only way it's gonna change for the GOP is if they return to the world of fact-based reality and leave the Ayn Rand fantasy cult behind.
Part of that requires putting an end to the "socialist", "marxist" name calling. The Dem party has become pro-corporate. The progressive crumbs they give us are worthless. Obama is pretty much Reagan without the fundy Christian trappings and old-man charisma. By trying to paint them as crazy ultra-leftists you make yourself look delusional.
Posted by: Mike D | January 15, 2012 at 08:39 PM
Well said.
Posted by: Coiler | January 15, 2012 at 09:14 PM
And regarding NCLB, Bush promised to fund it and then didn't. Kennedy got snookered by a handshake. Liberals are too nice.
What does NCLB have to do with anything anyway? Still waiting for that list of names. No redirection this time or mis-characterization.
Posted by: Truthseeker | January 15, 2012 at 09:18 PM
"It's not the debate moderators who make Republicans look like clowns, it's the candidates themselves. The more they open their mouths the stupider they look. The only way it's gonna change for the GOP is if they return to the world of fact-based reality and leave the Ayn Rand fantasy cult behind.
Part of that requires putting an end to the "socialist", "marxist" name calling. The Dem party has become pro-corporate. The progressive crumbs they give us are worthless. Obama is pretty much Reagan without the fundy Christian trappings and old-man charisma. By trying to paint them as crazy ultra-leftists you make yourself look delusional."
Posted by: Mike D | January 15, 2012 at 08:39 PM
OMG, You've been drinking some might potent and hallucinogenic kool-aid. First off you reek of hypocrisy, when you ask the name calling be set aside after you refer to the Repub candidates as clowns - yeah, right. You are the one who is delusional and gullible if you believe the Obama line that he is pretty much Reagan without the old man charisma, blah, blah, blah. He is going to implode the Democratic party if he continues at his current pace for 4 more years with his lack of leadership and thumbing his nose at the constitution, not to mention pissing off the far left and his narcissism. The Dem Party pro-corporate ? Ha - they have a weird way of showing it, as the White House has promulgated more regulations on corporations than the last 2 administrations - they are pro-union, pro-trial lawyer and pro-welfare state. Put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate how the Democratic Party today is not quasi neo-marxist. This should be interesting and the truth detectors are waiting. The ball is in your court, Mike D.
Posted by: KS | January 16, 2012 at 05:23 AM
Sounds like you have been listening hard to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and using her talking points. Problem is, she comes across like Bagdad Bob and Joseph Goebbels.
Posted by: KS | January 16, 2012 at 05:28 AM
And regarding NCLB, Bush promised to fund it and then didn't. Kennedy got snookered by a handshake. Liberals are too nice.
What does NCLB have to do with anything anyway? Still waiting for that list of names. No redirection this time or mis-characterization.
Posted by: Truthseeker | January 15, 2012 at 09:18 PM
TS, you were the one touting Kennedy and I just gave you a 'great piece' of legislation to consider. As far as funding, the power of the purse rest in Congress, not the Executive Branch.
Wasserman comes across as that sister in law from hell.
As far as list of names, it's too easy. Here's one to munch on 'Bernie 'the Lyon of the left' Ward.
You all still claim him with pride?
In regards to how a Church which pays no taxes can own secular activities that have profit/loss I am not clear how the taxes are reported in such a structure.
Posted by: Puget Sound Blathers | January 16, 2012 at 06:22 AM
This blog was finally free of name calling and a pleasure to read. Now it seems the name calling is starting up again. Disappointing.
Posted by: A Reader | January 16, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Puget Sound: who is Bernie Ward?
Posted by: truthseeker | January 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM
The best way to steer clear of name calling is to steer clear of politics, but that seems unlikely from the subject matter which is entertaining for the most part. In today's near toxic political environment, it seems virtually impossible to refrain from name calling in some form from the pundits.
I strive to keep the debate civil here as much as possible, but that doesn't preclude seeking the truth in the face of factual distortions or revisionist history.
Posted by: KS | January 16, 2012 at 01:22 PM
Got my copy of the economist today. Romney on the cover "America's Next CEO?" Is that we want? After 2008, another CEO? I'm sorry Huntsman pulled out.
Does that mean, KS, that you'll refrain from calling Obama all those names including socialist and marxist?
Posted by: Mary | January 16, 2012 at 01:26 PM
KS,>br>
Read this article. I'll quote some of it for you.
"A Bloomberg analysis of regulations reveals that Obama has approved fewer regulations than President George W. Bush “at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father.” Indeed, the record for the most expensive regulations still belongs to the GOP..."
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/26/353942/bush-more-regulations-than-obama/
Posted by: Mike D | January 16, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Those aren't names, they describe his ideology. Can you demonstrate that it is not the case ? (in case you want to try, it won't be easy).
It doesn't mean that any more than you or other liberal progressives calling Republicans or GOP candidates or other politicians names.
Posted by: KS | January 16, 2012 at 01:54 PM
KS, You said, quote, "the White House has promulgated more regulations on corporations than the last 2 administrations". Where are you getting this stuff? Do you even research something before you accept it as fact?
Posted by: Mike D | January 16, 2012 at 01:56 PM
Mike D - My statement was correct. The article by Think Progress - leftwing progressivist blog had to go back to 1992 and Bush 1 to find regulations (such as ADA) that cost slightly more money (by today's dollars), but there's still one year left, so that record is likely to fall. Where is your reading comprehension, dude ?
Posted by: KS | January 16, 2012 at 02:30 PM
The comparison to GW Bush is incomplete - still one year left to go, but the economy was considerably better with GW Bush then. Bush 1 had the all-time record in terms of today's $ though.
Bush-43 was a mediocre president. That is a flimsy case for saying that Democrats are pro-corporatist /alright, about the same as Republicans if you wish to play that game.
Posted by: KS | January 16, 2012 at 02:36 PM