Slog Comments


Comments (34) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Metered pour sucks.

The bafflement foreigners tend to have about tipping makes way more sense when you realize they get *exactly* 2cl of liquor, regardless of how the bartender feels about them. Oh, and the living wages paid.
Posted by Tyler Pierce on July 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM · Report this
ScienceNerd 2
I'm hoping that glass is freakishly large. Sadly, the table top gives scale.
Posted by ScienceNerd on July 4, 2013 at 3:49 PM · Report this
Reverse Polarity 3
Grant, are you so tired of the excess of flag waving that you've fled the country for the weekend?
Posted by Reverse Polarity on July 4, 2013 at 4:59 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 4
Don't worry, it is just a matter of time before liberal progressives put forward the legislation regulate the fun out of Washingtons bar industry as well.
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 4, 2013 at 5:08 PM · Report this
venomlash 5
@4: What, liberal progressives want to ban fun? Let's see, who was it that got alcohol banned? Who wants to legislate against recreational sex? Who wants stores to be closed on Christmas? If you answered "the religious right", you would be correct.
Posted by venomlash on July 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM · Report this

Don't forget who repealed the Teen Dance Ordinance, the Poster Ban and the statewide "liquor to be served in restaurants only" B.S., pushed for allowing liquor to be served in movie theatres, supported the re-legalization of small-batch local distilleries, passed I-502, shows up en-masse every year for the annual Fremont Solstice naked bike ride (or National Naked Bike Day for that matter), and enthusiastically supports the local Burlesque scene.

The only real "fun" Conservatives support is procreative sex between married men & women (missionary position only), cigars, and perhaps whiskey & soda - but, that's about it.
Posted by COMTE on July 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM · Report this
Metered pours in Utah too. And a Zion curtain, so that the poor Mos won't be contaminated by seeing someone prepare a drink.
Posted by StuckInUtah on July 4, 2013 at 5:48 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 8
@ 6, what about hazing,date raping, harassing, and fag bashing? Cons find that stuff just grand.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM · Report this
@8 - don't forget about the vaginal ultrasounds! The cons love that bit of fun.
Posted by StuckInUtah on July 4, 2013 at 5:55 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 10
What brand of whiskey, Grant?

//whiskey afficionado
Posted by Urgutha Forka on July 4, 2013 at 6:54 PM · Report this
Well, I was really just pointing out things both liberals AND conservatives could conceivably consider "fun"...
Posted by COMTE on July 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 12
HAHAHA @ Bacon getting pwned yet again! Hey, Bacon, you ever tire of getting shat on by them lefty liberal elite smartypantses? I certainly hope not, 'cause it's so much fun to see you get schooled.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on July 4, 2013 at 7:49 PM · Report this
13 Comment Pulled (Trolling) Comment Policy
@1 My idea of a standard drink is 5 oz. table wine (12% ABV), 12 oz. beer (5% ABV) or 1.5 oz. liquor (40% ABV), which each contain 0.6 oz. pure ethanol.

One and a half ounces is about 4 cl. What's with the half-sized drink?
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on July 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 16
Does Matt From Denver ever tire of being a child molester?

Does Venomomlash ever tire of supporting Mohammeds child raping ways?

Do you ever tire of choking on the administrations dick, while brown nosing others sloggers in a vain attempt at wit?


It was the PROGRESSIVES that supported prohibition of drugs and alcohol the first time.…

It was DEMOCRAT Lyndon Johnson who'd began what Nixon would later term "the war on drugs"
"In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson decided that the government needed to make an effort to curtail the social unrest that blanketed the country at the time. He decided to focus his efforts on illegal drug use, an approach which was in line with expert opinion on the subject at the time."…
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM · Report this
@16 Which arch-conservative Slogger named himself after a Michael Moore movie? Yes, THAT Michael Moore.

By the way, the barbarous Rockefeller Drug Laws were named after a fellow named Nelson Rockefeller, a Republican who was busy pandering to fellow Republicans so he could run for President.
Posted by Brooklyn Reader on July 4, 2013 at 8:34 PM · Report this
You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me 18
What happened to the rest of it???
Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me on July 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM · Report this
venomlash 19
@16: It's called the Progressive Era, so it must be the same as today's progressives! Just like the National Socialists were actually socialist, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is democratic, and a peanut is a nut. THEY WERE RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES. EVANGELICALS.
And LBJ was by no means whatsoever the first to go after drugs. Marijuana was restricted in 1937, while FDR was in office. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was created in 1930 under Hoover. What did LBJ do? He merged the Bureaus of Narcotics and of Drug Abuse to form the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to better organize anti-drug policy.
Posted by venomlash on July 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM · Report this
mikethehammer 20
But that's just the thing there dilrod, is that your free market, every-man-for-himself, right wing inspired ideology is so fringe and lunatic-centric that it could never garner any actual clout as a political movement until it was co-opted by the religious right. And so now you're forever tied to them and all of their even more fringe and nut-jobbish beliefs if you ever hope to gain a foothold in your movement.
Posted by mikethehammer on July 4, 2013 at 9:08 PM · Report this
Cascadian Bacon 21
Marijuana was made illegal under DEMOCRAT Franklin Roosevelt.

National Socialist WERE actual socialist

And todays "progressives' support the limiting of individual freedom in the name of safety and control. Just like their name sake.

"Progressives especially supported Prohibition, as these reformers tried to convince their fellow residents of the U.S. to live a more moral lifestyle."…
Posted by Cascadian Bacon on July 4, 2013 at 9:22 PM · Report this
All of your ideas of fun suck.
Posted by stating the obvious on July 4, 2013 at 10:29 PM · Report this
Fnarf 23
I guess the Canadians follow the British example, the metered 1/6 gill pour? Such an embarrassment. One quickly learns to order a double (they won't usually give you a triple) and just suck up the cost. Yes, even in Scotland, the home of whisky.

If you're not watching Barry Manilow on KCTS right now, you're missing something....special.
Posted by Fnarf on July 4, 2013 at 10:42 PM · Report this
Fnarf 24
Oops, forgot to mention -- 1/6 gill, the standard liquor pour in Britain, is about 3/4 of a US ounce. OH, wait, they've gone metric -- it's now 25 ml, a whopping 0.84 oz. Fuck me, just a pint of bitter please.
Posted by Fnarf on July 4, 2013 at 10:47 PM · Report this
@7 Thanks for introducing me to the concept of the Zion curtain. I looked it up. How curiously amusing.
Posted by floater on July 4, 2013 at 11:02 PM · Report this
You're welcome, @25.
It is indeed curious, but not all that amusing, really. Though watching the reactions of out of state/country visitors when they are introduced to the Zion curtain can be entertaining at times, I suppose..... Alas the Utard legislators fail to recognize that most visitors and citizens are laughing at them, not with them.
Posted by StuckInUtah on July 4, 2013 at 11:22 PM · Report this
Fnarf 27
My Utahan relatives just drive to Vegas to buy their booze, bring it home in the trunk, and pour at home. I've been in a Utah liquor store, and it's not a pretty sight.
Posted by Fnarf on July 4, 2013 at 11:43 PM · Report this

All the fun things I mentioned were - and are - promoted by the Progressive Left; libertarians didn't lift a finger to get any of the legislation passed, nor to support any of these activities. Basically, you-all are just riding on the coat-tails of the Left. You may be FOR all those things - but only so long as somebody else does all the heavy lifting to make them happen.

And at least Obama's domestic surveillance is being done under legal authority of the FISA courts; unlike Bush's domestic surveillance, which had to CREATE the FISA court as a cover for its illegal activities.

Also, you probably should have read that entire Wikipedia entry; if you had, you would have noted that the leaders of the Progressive Movement included just as many prominent Republicans & Populists as it did Democrats: Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover & former Wisconsin Governor Robert La Follette, just to name a few.
Posted by COMTE on July 4, 2013 at 11:57 PM · Report this
Also, referring to @21:

Many states had already outlawed marijuana going back to the '20's, mostly under the Hoover Administration. When the Federal Bureau of Narcotics was created in 1930, also under Hoover, it's first Director, Harry Anslinger set as his goal the systematic eradication of marijuana usage in this country, as a means of maintaining White superiority. Anslinger was an avowed racist and saw pot as a problem largely confined to "the degenerate races" (i.e. blacks and Mexicans); smoking pot made colored people "uppity", or as he himself put it, “Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.” With the aid of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, the two essentially created the "reefer madness" scare from whole cloth, and used the lurid, sensationalist - and patently false - tales of murderous rampages committed almost exclusively by people of color under-the-influence to convince an entire nation that marijuana was the most dangerous, most lethal, most addictive drug on the planet. By the time the Marijuana Tax Act reached Congress in 1937, you would have been hard-pressed to find many who would have opposed its passage (the American Medical Association being the sole notable exception) based on the propaganda onslaught orchestrated by Anslinger & Hearst, who had additional support from major pharmaceutical manufacturers and the chemical industry (hemp being a cheap competitor to newly emerging synthetic fabrics such as nylon and rayon).

In short, the prohibition against marijuana had nothing to do with Progressives, and everything to do with racist, right-wing authoritarians, who exaggerated and outright lied to bring it about, all in the name of maintaining White Supremacy.
Posted by COMTE on July 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM · Report this
Thanks Comte. That was most enlightening.
Posted by crone on July 5, 2013 at 1:48 AM · Report this
fletc3her 31
The left believes in personal liberty. The right in corporate liberty. The Republicans have coopted the libertarian label since otherwise they would have no college presence. They hope the poor saps lured in by the promise of campaigning for drug legalization will get so enmeshed in the party they won't realize the party doesn't actually support their agenda.
Posted by fletc3her on July 5, 2013 at 5:35 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 32
If anyone wants definitive proof of CB's unrepentant idiocy, it's his statement that "national socialism was socislism." The Nazis implemented few policies approximating socialism in any guise, and actually murdered the poor suckers in the NSDAP who believed that the word "Socialism" in the phrase "National Socialism" actually meant socialism.
Posted by Matt from Denver on July 5, 2013 at 8:05 AM · Report this
@27 Bootlegging is still on the books in Utard land. Not surprising, I guess. I used to bring supplies from WA down when I drove back and forth between Seattle and Salt Lake. Now however, the prices in WA pretty closely match the prices in UT, so I usually hit Idaho or Oregon instead.
Posted by StuckInUtah on July 5, 2013 at 8:15 AM · Report this
Also, it's probably worth noting that when conservatives & libertarians pull out the "Nanny State" canard, they're usually not referring to legislation that restricts personal freedom per se, but rather they tend to be laws that restrict personal freedoms because of the larger negative social consequences engaging in certain activities have on others.

The smoking ban is a perfect example. The ban was put in place, not to prevent people from smoking, but instead to isolate the activity away from people who DON'T smoke, and who do not wish to risk developing the health problems associated with smoking and second-hand smoke.
Posted by COMTE on July 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Dougsf 35
Ehem, in Canada, I believe it's "whisky", which is just the tip of the iceberg of what's gone terribly wrong in this picture.

You'd never guess it until you can't find it—other places do certain aspects of drinking very well, but there's few things that compare to an American bar.
Posted by Dougsf on July 5, 2013 at 12:39 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.