Ale To the Chief: White House Releases Beer Recipe

MMMMMMMMM by bobstreo · 2012-09-01 11:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Taste the freedom

Re:MMMMMMMMM by fustakrakich · 2012-09-01 13:29 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, let's see the White House hydroponic set up in the grow room. Nothing but the best kind for these guys

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:MMMMMMMMM by slick7 · 2012-09-01 13:39 · Score: 1

Taste the freedom
But first, I want verifiable pedigrees for each ingredient, right Sheriff?

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:MMMMMMMMM by djfake · 2012-09-01 14:19 · Score: 1

Taste the votes

--
www.itjerk.com
Re:MMMMMMMMM by ozmanjusri · 2012-09-01 15:01 · Score: 1

Taste the freedom
Sour grape flavoured from Slashdot?
This recipe was fulfilling a promise made in a Reddit AMA by Obama.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/c60mom8

--
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Re:MMMMMMMMM by steeviant · 2012-09-01 15:24 · Score: 1, Funny

Yeah, let's see the White House hydroponic set up in the grow room. Nothing but the best kind for these guys
What would be the point? Everyone knows the president doesn't inhale.
Re:MMMMMMMMM by AlamedaStone · 2012-09-01 17:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, let's see the White House hydroponic set up in the grow room. Nothing but the best kind for these guys
What would be the point? Everyone knows the president doesn't inhale.
No... you're thinking of the FIRST first black president.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:MMMMMMMMM by fm6 · 2012-09-01 18:14 · Score: 4, Informative

You're thinking of Clinton. Obama's version was "of course I inhaled."
There's actually some evidence that Obama exaggerated his own use of illegal drugs during his college years. In any case, he's now known as the kind of guy who leaves the bachelor party when the strippers arrive — something he actually did once.
Re:MMMMMMMMM by steeviant · 2012-09-01 18:33 · Score: 1

That's incredibly disappointing, my esteem for Obama has been decimated
Re:MMMMMMMMM by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-09-01 19:46 · Score: 4, Funny

That's incredibly disappointing, my esteem for Obama has been decimated
Oh, come on, sweetie, there will be many more bachelor parties, your job as a stripper is safe.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:MMMMMMMMM by steeviant · 2012-09-01 20:03 · Score: 1

No no, you misunderstand... I'm disappointed that Obama wasn't able to handle getting a hard-on in public. Doesn't speak well of his ability to handle awkward situations.
Maybe I just don't have the full story, perhaps he was feeling ill from all the drug taking, or maybe his hooker arrived. But as things stand it sounds like Obama ran away afraid someone would notice how small his peenie is.
Re:MMMMMMMMM by AlamedaStone · 2012-09-02 01:49 · Score: 1

I'd rather have a post than a funny mod - and I got both! =D So thank YOU sir, for making my morning.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:MMMMMMMMM by slick7 · 2012-09-02 02:38 · Score: 1

Yeah, let's see the White House hydroponic set up in the grow room. Nothing but the best kind for these guys
What would be the point? Everyone knows the president doesn't inhale.
No... you're thinking of the FIRST first black president.
Weren't Washington and Jefferson hemp growers?

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:MMMMMMMMM by Cute+Fuzzy+Bunny · 2012-09-02 02:38 · Score: 1

No no, you misunderstand... I'm disappointed that Obama wasn't able to handle getting a hard-on in public
Its also entirely possible that he has a 17 inch dick, and didn't want to rip his pants and poke the poor girls eye out.
Re:MMMMMMMMM by Boronx · 2012-09-02 02:42 · Score: 1

He was already thinking presidency. It's inevitable that the first black president would be clean as a whistle.

--
Play Command HQ online
Re:MMMMMMMMM by AlamedaStone · 2012-09-02 04:34 · Score: 1

Weren't Washington and Jefferson hemp growers?
True, they grew hemp: a non-psychoactive strain of the cannabis we all know an love. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't strong evidence one way or another on the topic of Founding Tokers.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Re:MMMMMMMMM by steeviant · 2012-09-02 11:45 · Score: 1

No no, you misunderstand... I'm disappointed that Obama wasn't able to handle getting a hard-on in public
Its also entirely possible that he has a 17 inch dick, and didn't want to rip his pants and poke the poor girls eye out.
Very true
Re:MMMMMMMMM by hazydave · 2012-09-03 03:27 · Score: 1

The choice is clear: one candidate drinks beer (like all the Founding Fathers) and now even has it brewed in the White House. The other is in a weird religious cult that doesn't even allow beer drinking.

--
-Dave Haynie

Tax dollars? Not so much by ultraexactzz · 2012-09-01 11:23 · Score: 5, Informative

According to the blog post, Pres. Obama bought the equipment himself, and the staff works on it in their spare time. Now, the video and the blog are taxpayer funded, so there's that. But after seeing that recipe - totally worth it.

--
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein

Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Now, the video and the blog are taxpayer funded, so there's that.
Ho ho ho, we've got him now.
Impeach!
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:49 · Score: 1

Besides, you either dislike the fact that the whitehouse has a chef or not. Whether they're brewing beer or making iced tea is kind of irrelevant, right?
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by sl4shd0rk · 2012-09-01 12:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd rather my tax dollars went to beer breweing anyway. It's either that or some military money pit facade.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by FitForTheSun · 2012-09-01 15:18 · Score: 1

maybe you meant 'farce'?
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by Mitreya · 2012-09-01 15:21 · Score: 1

I'd rather my tax dollars went to beer breweing anyway. It's either that or some military money pit facade.
A minor issue, but that's a very dangerous, false (and common) dichotomy.
Unless this is literally coming out of the military budget, any such expense comes out of the additional money that will be borrowed somewhere. Without a zero-sum budget, there are no balancing trade-offs forcing spending less on B because we spent more on A.
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by steeviant · 2012-09-01 15:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'd rather my tax dollars went to beer breweing anyway. It's either that or some military money pit facade.
A minor issue, but that's a very dangerous, false (and common) dichotomy.
Unless this is literally coming out of the military budget, any such expense comes out of the additional money that will be borrowed somewhere. Without a zero-sum budget, there are no balancing trade-offs forcing spending less on B because we spent more on A.
Still, you'd have to admit that blowing trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars against people who pose very little credible military threat, while ignoring the true aggressors for years because finding them was a bit difficult is more of a problem than spending taxpayer dollars videoing Obama's personal brew kit. No?
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by zill · 2012-09-01 17:03 · Score: 1

Do you not know what false dichotomy means?

"Still, you'd have to admit that murder is more of a problem than theft. No? Then let's turn the entire police force into homicide detectives and catch nothing but murderers all day."
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by steeviant · 2012-09-01 17:31 · Score: 1

Do you not know what false dichotomy means?
"Still, you'd have to admit that murder is more of a problem than theft. No? Then let's turn the entire police force into homicide detectives and catch nothing but murderers all day."
The last half of that quote isn't mine, and being a false dichotomy doesn't mean you can't compare the two problems in scope and magnitude which the OP was insinuating.
There's no need for a dichotomy in order for two things to be compared in magnitude. For example, "my feet are longer than my hands" is a valid comparative statement that needs no dichotomy.
You need to brush up on your comprehension skills and stop misquoting people.
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by toopok4k3 · 2012-09-01 21:49 · Score: 1

I'm sleeping pretty safely in finland with all my freedoms without our army blowing stuff up in the middle-east. No country in the world would attack USA directly. But they will gladly terrorize your citizens with bombs after you have been blowing up weddings in their own countries. Payback and all that shit.
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by hey! · 2012-09-02 03:20 · Score: 2

Actually, the White House has three kitchens, an executive chef, four sous chefs and an executive *pastry* chef (the current officeholder is the author of "Desserts for Dummies" -- make of that what you will, but he *was* hired in the Bush Administration). The White House has a large kitchen and wait staff as well -- all to host state dinners that will blow jaded diplomats' socks off. Since the White House is in effect the world's largest three-star restaurant, and most of that capability goes unused most of the time, it hardly makes sense to make the Commander-in-chief microwave his own Hot Pockets.
The White House also has an official calligrapher who does insanely perfect work.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by mjwalshe · 2012-09-02 05:02 · Score: 1

you should see what No10 and the Civil service have in their wine collection :-)
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by newcastlejon · 2012-09-02 05:23 · Score: 1

We will pay you back for your cheap furniture by sending you terrible pop music.
IKEA is Swedish.

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Re:Tax dollars? Not so much by khallow · 2012-09-02 18:09 · Score: 1

I'm not sure you get the technique of insults. Conflating you with a group you might abhor is a standard tool in the box. It's something your ancestors would have appreciated while looting Frank hovels.

This is a nice change by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 11:23 · Score: 1, Informative

...compared to the recipe for bullshit we got from the last crew that lived at the White House.

tax dollars are not involved by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 11:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

The brewing equipment and expenses were paid for by the Obamas personally. The same for all White House meals (I mean the POTUS family's personal consumption, I don't know about state dinners and such): their cost is paid from the POTUS salary. The POTUS is paid pretty well by most people's standards so s/he can afford it.

See: Reuters, "Taxpayers are not footing the bill for the beer, as both the cost of the equipment and the cost of brewing the beer is paid for by the Obamas personally, the official said."

Re:tax dollars are not involved by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-09-01 11:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Guy literally has the most stressful job on the planet.
I think we should at least pay for his dinners.
Re:tax dollars are not involved by Rootkit · 2012-09-01 11:35 · Score: 5, Funny

Nice try Obama.
Re:tax dollars are not involved by fm6 · 2012-09-01 12:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, the first family only pays the grocery bills. Taxpayers cover the cost of preparing the food.
Re:tax dollars are not involved by TheLink · 2012-09-02 03:42 · Score: 1

Really? It's one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. About 9% of the US presidents died due to job-related issues, aka they got assassinated.

And then there's the assassination attempts. Sure a some of them were by wackos who wouldn't have succeeded. Maybe that won't worry you. But it'd worry most people.

You're in a job where millions of people hate you (sometimes/often for things you weren't even responsible for!). Many of them think of killing you. Many of them have guns.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:tax dollars are not involved by TheLink · 2012-09-02 03:59 · Score: 1

9% of the US presidents were assassinated. One of the most dangerous jobs in the world, in terms of job-related fatality rates. I don't think 9% of the US CEOs get assassinated on the job. Millions of people (US and worldwide) know the US president and hate him (whether the hate is justified or unjustified is irrelevant). Many of these people have access to lethal weapons. And people actually do still try to kill the US presidents.

The CEO of a typical large company can get what he wants done more easily than the US President. Steve Jobs didn't need Congress to pass his decisions. When you get all the responsibility for a lot of things, but not enough power to actually achieve those things, you end up with more stress.

Of course many CEOs just use their power to sack people for short term gains. But despite that, the assassination rates for CEOs don't seem to be as high.

Surgeons have it good. Taxi drivers have more stressful (and dangerous) jobs than surgeons. Their "customers" sometimes try to kill or rob them. The more sedated ones might puke all over the cab, causing even more stress. I think hookers have more dangerous jobs than taxi drivers (higher death rate).
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Your tax dollars hard at work yet again! by fustakrakich · 2012-09-01 11:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, well, compared to the wars, prohibition, TSA, etc., it's money well spent.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Hey! by rsilvergun · 2012-09-01 11:26 · Score: 4, Funny

This would be a great time for the two candidates to sit down over a beer and talk... oh. Wait. He's a Morman. Oh well. I guess he can drink weak tea. Wait. Sorry. Can't have that either. Caffeine. I guess there's always caffeine free diet Pepsi.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-01 12:18 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, the Mormon Word of Wisdom only forbids specific stimulating and intoxicating beverages, not alcohol or caffeine as such. Official LDS doctrine uniformly condemns alcohol, but they don't get uptight about the odd caffeinated cola.
Beside the point. Regardless of beverage, Romney can't be seen to treat Obama as anything other than Satan Incarnate. Notice how all the speeches at the recent convention were about how uncool BO is;
Indeed, the whole GOP brand is about condemning liberalism in any shape or form. Nancy Pelosi is evil. Harry Reid is evil. Liberals hate America. That's been their whole brand for the last decade or so.
This is a bad thing. Democracy only works when nominal enemies look past their differences and come up with solutions both sides can live with. If we don't outgrow this holier-than-thou crap soon, we're in big trouble.
Re:Hey! by PopeRatzo · 2012-09-01 12:26 · Score: 1

I guess there's always caffeine free diet Pepsi.
With a twist of money.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Hey! by Kagato · 2012-09-01 14:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm going to have to disagree with that one. A bunch of old mainframe guys I know worked for Control Data Corporation in the 80s. One of their big customers was the LDS for their massive genealogy project. Most of them spent a good deal of time at LDS offices in SLC, where they clearly recall having to sneak caffeinated coke from the local 7-11 inside a thermos.
I'm not an expert on what their holy book says or doesn't say, I can only say that LDS managers back then got bent out of shape over caffeine.
Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 14:35 · Score: 1

Are you trying to illustrate the parent’s point?
Re:Hey! by ClickOnThis · 2012-09-01 14:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh, spare us. After eight years of liberals calling Bush every name in the book and inventing a few new ones too, you have the gall to blame Republicans for condemning liberalism? Who do you think you're trying to fool, besides yourself?
False equivalence. Bush didn't have people demanding to see his birth certificate, and then denying its legitimacy once they saw it. Bush didn't have a congress whose Democratic members vowed to make him a one-term president by any means necessary. Bush didn't have a senate whose Democratic members filibustered more (by a huge factor) than any other senate in history. Bush didn't inherit a financial crisis created by his predecessor (quite the opposite in fact.) I could go on but what's the point.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Hey! by FitForTheSun · 2012-09-01 15:20 · Score: 1

"Morman" would be an awesome superhero secret identity for Mitt Romney.
Re:Hey! by BryanL · 2012-09-01 15:55 · Score: 1

Read about a third of the way down. This is a response to last weeks Rock Center piece on the Church, but it still answers the question you are trying to answer.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news--getting-it-right-august-29
Re:Hey! by bigstrat2003 · 2012-09-01 16:00 · Score: 1

Both mainstream parties are guilty of a great deal of mudslinging and general douchebaggery towards the other. While what you say is unacceptable, it's also not new or only a one-way street. Calling out only one side is hardly fair.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:Hey! by timeOday · 2012-09-01 16:28 · Score: 2

Oh, spare us. After eight years of liberals calling Bush every name in the book and inventing a few new ones too, you have the gall to blame Republicans for condemning liberalism?
Bush started two wars based on lies that cost trillions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands of people. Obama hasn't done anything remotely that harmful. Simple facts.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-01 16:40 · Score: 1

No doubt many Mormons are stricter than the official rules. I've known Mormons who avoided caffeine in any form. It makes sense that if coffee and tea are unMormon, other caffeinated beverages are too. But here's the official LDS word: caffeinated soda is kosher.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-01 17:01 · Score: 2

Yeah, the Demos have a lot to answer for. But I would submit that they can't begin to compete with the GOP for simple "my way or the highway" assholedness.
For one thing, there's no left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party. Yeah, the Occupy Movement can match them in terms of extreme ideology and political temper tantrums. But Occupy refuses to have anything to do with formal politics, and thus has no influence over the Democratic party. As opposed to the Tea Party, which pretty much set the agenda for the GOP nomination process.
And there's no GOP equivalent of Barack Obama, a guy who has honestly tried to reach out to the GOP, and taken a lot of flack from his own side for doing so. You might recall him addressing that GOP congressional retreat early on in his term; in that speech he actually praised Paul Ryan for his anti-deficit initiatives. Which initiatives failed, incidentally, because of Ryan's total inability to compromise,.
Re:Hey! by ExploHD · 2012-09-01 18:48 · Score: 1

Obama didn't inherit shit.
Really? The economy was still going uphill until his budgets went into effect? Then maybe you should return your 2008 $300 stimulus check and realize that any of Obama's budgets that he signed, did not take effect until 2010.
Re:Hey! by DNS-and-BIND · 2012-09-01 20:56 · Score: 1, Troll

You know, you're not doing your side any favors by invoking the "I can criticize you, but you can't criticize me for any reason" argument. Bush (shouldn't you be spelling that Bu$hitler?) didn't have people demanding to see his birth certificate because there was no doubt as to his citizenship. Obama claimed to be a foreign student at one point. But oh well, opposition to your side is racist. Just more of the "free speech for me, but not for thee" crap that liberals are so famous for.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 22:48 · Score: 1

There's a joke out in Idaho that goes something like this: Why should you always bring two Mormons fishing with you? Because if you bring one, he'll drink all your beer.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 00:26 · Score: 2

It's worth recalling here that Obama used to be a birther himself and claimed he was born in Kenya for the purpose of selling some of his books (at least one of which he backed out of).

So not only did we have the possibility of Obama being born in Kenya, but he made that claim himself at times. So why again, was it a bad idea to demand his birth certificate?

The thing I find remarkable about Obama is how, even by the already lofty standards of politicians, pathological and self-centered he appears throughout his adult life.

Bush didn't have a senate whose Democratic members filibustered more (by a huge factor) than any other senate in history.
Fortunately, Obama and the leadership of congress were incompetent enough that not much crap got passed. It's just not that hard to override a filibuster when all you need is one or two votes (which was most of the situation theoretically during that period). But they needed a lot more than one vote as it turned out, since they couldn't get their own party on board for many of these attempts without huge concessions.

I find it interesting how many people on Slashdot continue to blame Republicans and a successful and warranted use of the Senate filibuster for what really was a Democrat problem.
Re:Hey! by glueball · 2012-09-02 00:39 · Score: 1

It's not often I see a slashdot post that is wrong on every single point.
Bush didn't have people demanding to see his birth certificate, and then denying its legitimacy once they saw it.

No, they said he wasn't elected by the people, he wasn't a real pilot (or really in the military), and that he was stupid.
Bush didn't have a congress whose Democratic members vowed to make him a one-term president by any means necessary.
No, he had the press doing that. (Dan Rather for starters)
Bush didn't have a senate whose Democratic members filibustered more (by a huge factor) than any other senate in history.

Cloture is not the same as filibuster.
Bush didn't inherit a financial crisis created by his predecessor (quite the opposite in fact.) I could go on but what's the point.

Ummmm, actually he did. The Clinton go-go '90's were done. A recession had started as Bush was being inaugurated. To use Obama's words "We inherited that"
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 00:49 · Score: 1

And there's no GOP equivalent of Barack Obama, a guy who has honestly tried to reach out to the GOP, and taken a lot of flack from his own side for doing so.
Huh, looks like you missed the GOP nominee, Romney himself. Let us keep in mind that he supposed a Massachusetts version of the health care program that Obama is taking so much heat for.

Frankly, I think the problem today really is with current Democrat leadership and their followers. There's way too much "ends justify the means" (where the means are brazen attempts to undermine the Constitution).

For example, why have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? One doesn't need an an organization with that structure to protect the rights of the customer. Or the Obamacare issues, such as passing massive costs on to states and fining people for not carrying health insurance.

in that speech he actually praised Paul Ryan for his anti-deficit initiatives
Obama likes to talk a lot. You might have noticed that.
Re:Hey! by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-02 01:41 · Score: 1

For example, why have the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? One doesn't need an an organization with that structure to protect the rights of the customer.
Seriously? Before the credit card reform law of 2009, credit card companies could arbitrarily change the interest rate (sometimes retroactively), the billing cycle, and any and all terms of the agreement without little notice to the consumer. The law also created the bureau to ensure that the credit card companies followed the rules. The bureau's aim is also to ensure that consumers know exactly what they owed and how long to they have to pay off any debts. Credit card companies have long gotten away with shady practices. It's the same reason why a SEC exists. In light of the financial shenanigans, some would argue for more oversight, not less.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Hey! by timeOday · 2012-09-02 02:10 · Score: 1

I somewhat agree; it's hard to call Obama a "strong leader." And comparing Obama vs. Bush doesn't have a direct bearing on the election since Bush is not running.
I just don't buy the argument that whatever people said about Bush justifies saying the same about Obama. Two very different situations.
Re:Hey! by hey! · 2012-09-02 03:26 · Score: 1

Obama didn't inherit shit. He asked for the chance to do the task just like anyone else who applies for a job. He made a promise that if he couldn't do the job by his own metric that he wouldn't seek re-election. The man is a fucking liar. Love him or hate him, those are the facts.
You are missing the point. The question isn't whether we should feel sorry for Obama, the question is whether he is an incompetent president. For that you have to consider what it would be reasonable for him to have accomplished, and that depends on the situation when he took office.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Hey! by houghi · 2012-09-02 03:33 · Score: 2

As with any religion, it never is about what the book says, it is about what some people say the book says.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Hey! by tomhath · 2012-09-02 04:51 · Score: 1

Bush didn't have people demanding to see his birth certificate
But they did falsely claim he went AWOL while serving in the National Guard (ask Dan Rather if you don't believe me)

Bush didn't have a congress whose Democratic members vowed to make him a one-term president by any means necessary
As I recall, they did exactly that, including trying to block almost every judicial nomination to the point Republicans had to threaten to change the rules against filibustering. Once Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 Pelosi called all the shots.

Bush didn't inherit a financial crisis created by his predecessor
Yes, he did. The country was already in a recession from the dotcom bubble burst and the banking laws had already been changed that set up the financial crisis we've been suffering for the past 5 years.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-02 04:58 · Score: 1

Huh? You're saying that the Mitt Romney who was governor of MA is the same guy the GOP just nominated as their Presidential candidate? That makes no sense. The Tea Party would never stand for it.
Re:Hey! by ClickOnThis · 2012-09-02 06:05 · Score: 3, Informative

It's worth recalling here that Obama used to be a birther himself and claimed he was born in Kenya for the purpose of selling some of his books (at least one of which he backed out of).
Wrong. Obama didn't claim he was born in Kenya. The brochure you and Breitbart are talking about was created by Obama's literary agent with bios of several of its clients. The "born in Kenya" part was a fact-checking error by Miriam Goderich, then an assistant at the agency. Goderich herself admits to the error.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Hey! by JackieBrown · 2012-09-02 08:04 · Score: 1

This would be a great time for the two candidates to sit down over a beer and talk... oh. Wait. He's a Morman. Oh well. I guess he can drink weak tea. Wait. Sorry. Can't have that either. Caffeine. I guess there's always caffeine free diet Pepsi.
It's funny talking about other people's cultural and religious differences. I actually hope these Mormon attacks continue so we can bring attention back to Reverend Wright.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 09:41 · Score: 1

Seriously?
Uh, yes. Look I know this is a subtle point. But one doesn't need an organization with a legal status similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in order to enforce regulation for "consumers". The problem is implementation.

In light of the financial shenanigans, some would argue for more oversight, not less.
That is a noble sounding sentiment. But let's look at what actually happened. The law in question created an organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with minimal connection to any existing branch of government. It's basically an attempt to run around some aspects of our current government (namely, that most enforcement of federal regulation is done directly by the executive branch) without a reason, compelling or otherwise, for doing so. If one were to attempt to deliberately undermine what passes for US democracy in an innocuous appearing way, one couldn't do better than this.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 09:52 · Score: 1

So what? Where's the supporting evidence for your assertion? All we have is the word of the literary agent who at this point has considerable incentive to lie.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 09:57 · Score: 1

And there's evidence that they didn't stand for it. I gather there's been shifts in voting from other nomination candidates (usually one other candidate) to Romney throughout the Republican nomination process. The usual victim has been Ron Paul, though Gingrich and Santorum have suffered at times. It looks to me like a case of election fraud through suborning of the tabulation process. It'll be interesting to see if this occurs in the actual presidential election as well.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-02 11:59 · Score: 1

You're kind of missing my sarcasm, so I'll make the point more directly. When Mitt Romney was governor, he had some claim to be the Republican Obama. He had some real achievements, all of them made in collaboration with a legislature controlled by the other party.
But as soon as the 2012 primaries began, that Mitt Romney disappeared. The No Compromise with Evil Liberals meme had so thoroughly taken over the GOP, that no candidate who even said the word "bipartisan" had a hope of achieving the nomination..So the Mitt Romney who got picked is basically a different person who happens to look like the other Mitt Romney. Ok, that's an exaggeration, but the way Romney has completely sold his soul to the NCwEL crowd simply negates his previous success at working with the Demos in MA.
Now, the Demos certainly have their No Compromise with Evil Conservatives crowd. But they just don't dominate the party the way their right-wing counterparts do. If they did, Barack Obama would have had no hope of getting nominated 4 years ago.
Going back to our previous exchange about Obama and the Paul Ryan deficit reduction plan. The failure of this plan had nothing to do with Obama. Ryan could have gotten a big chunk of his plan in the Simpson-Bowles commission plan. But that plan had too many compromises for Ryan, and he helped scuttle it.
The bottom line for me: yes both sides need to get away from stupid No Compromise ideas. But the stupidity is a lot worse on the GOP side. They got the Palins and the Ryans and the rabid TPers that the party ignores at its peril.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-02 12:20 · Score: 1

But they did falsely claim he went AWOL while serving in the National Guard (ask Dan Rather if you don't believe me)
Sigh. Dan Rather lost his job because of the way he gathered evidence about Bush going AWOL. The story itself was never discredited. But of course, Rather was a bad person, so everything he claimed must have been false, right? Typical ad hominem crap.
Re:Hey! by rastoboy29 · 2012-09-02 15:33 · Score: 1

Agreed.

--
expandfairuse.org
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 16:01 · Score: 1

The No Compromise with Evil Liberals meme had so thoroughly taken over the GOP
One only needs to look at the actions of the so-called "evil liberals" to see why "no compromise" is not only catching on, but warranted. How can one rationalize even slight support for the abusive and gratuitously anti-constitutional nature of laws such as Obamacare and the act that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? As I see it, there are certain compromises that simply are untenable even in a democracy where compromise is the norm, namely, compromises that undermine the very democratic nature of society.

For example, how can one rationalize forcing people to pay for something they don't want or for that matter need? It is antithetical to democracy to force people to do things. I don't understand why people don't get that. My take is that in a democracy, if you set up a public good which gets leeched, then you either stop providing the public good or you accept the unintended consequences of providing that public good. The creation of powerful bureaucracies to enforce rather dumb public good choice and subsequent unintended consequences such as business-government corruption never made sense to me. But it keeps going on.

Or how can someone rationalize the creation of a powerful, unaccountable bureaucracy, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Regulatory agencies are typically housed under the executive branch and answerable to the US president and funded directly by US Congress. This could have easily been done with the CFPB, say putting it under either the Department of the Treasury or the Department of Commerce. One could still argue the merits of the organization, but it would have firm constitutional standing.

Instead, they put it nominally under the Federal Reserve Bank and funded it through the same. So we have a regulatory agency that doesn't answer to the US President directly. To be blunt, that shouldn't ever be allowed constitutionally, especially, since it will make precedent for further abuses along these lines.

What happens when someone else extends that idea to national security? The creation of a powerful law enforcement agency which is independently funded and controlled is but a small step from the CFPB.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-02 16:45 · Score: 1

One only needs to look at the actions of the so-called "evil liberals" to see why "no compromise" is not only catching on, but warranted.

Hey, thanks for proving my point!

How can one rationalize even slight support for the abusive and gratuitously anti-constitutional nature of laws such as Obamacare and the act that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Mainly by a desire to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off.
BTW, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous. But then, I'm just one of the Evil Liberals (and crypto-Socialists) who need to be rounded up so you can have your single-party state where all dissent is outlawed. An ironic attitude, coming from a political grouping that likes to take credit for the downfall of the Soviet State.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 17:33 · Score: 1

Mainly by a desire to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off.
So why do the ends justify the means, especially when there were sounder and less undemocratic means to achieve similar ends? Fire ants are bad in a yard so does that mean that it is just fine to raze the yard with a flamethrower even though less destructive methods exist to deal with the pests?

Heavy use of recreational drugs are bad so does that mean we need as in the US to outlaw such drugs, even possession of minute amounts, seize property that was used in drug transactions or manufacture, no matter how unintentional or tangential, and otherwise trample on our freedoms and rights? Ends justify the means, right?

Just because there is a perceived need, here, affordable insurance (how one gets that from increasing insurance costs for insurers while simultaneously heavily subsidizing the purchase of such insurance is an exercise for the delusional) and getting ripped off by banks (solution is to go to a bank that doesn't rip you off, such as most credit unions).

BTW, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word gratuitous.
It means "Uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted." Why would you think that I don't understand the term? In the examples I gave, there was no reason for forcing people to do things harmful to their interests (such as forcing healthy people to buy expensive insurance) or creating yet another consumer protection bureau but with unusual lack of oversight and absence of usual constitutional controls.

But then, I'm just one of the Evil Liberals (and crypto-Socialists) who need to be rounded up so you can have your single-party state where all dissent is outlawed.
Well, if you need to be rounded up as you say and shipped to a glue factory or something, then let's do that. Ends justify the means, right?
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-02 18:26 · Score: 1

Jeez, first you spend a lot of time telling me it's not fair to lay the "You're Evil!" schtick on the Right, then you go into an angry, not very coherent "You're Evil" rant,. If you ever calm down, you'll realize how supremely stupid that is.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 19:13 · Score: 1

first you spend a lot of time telling me it's not fair to lay the "You're Evil!" schtick on the Right
Didn't happen. You didn't lay the "schtick" and I didn't say it was unfair.

then you go into an angry, not very coherent "You're Evil" rant
Didn't happen. I never said you were evil. Whether my rant, angry as it is, was "not very coherent" or not is a matter of subjective taste.

But I am a bit surprised that you can't seem to get the message. I repeated "end justifies the means" for a reason. My complaint was about implementation such as forcing mass health insurance, creating a bureau that has the powers and funding immunity akin to the Federal Reserve Bank, or sending thousands of high quality guns to murderous Mexican drug cartels. That's "means".

Desiring "to have insurance one can afford and being tired of banks ripping us off" doesn't address that. That's "ends". There are multiple ways for an end to be achieved. The key question must be asked. Why did the Obama administration and its congressional allies choose notably anti-democratic means to achieve the ends they desired?
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-02 19:30 · Score: 1

TLDR.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 19:35 · Score: 1

It is interesting to note here that we have just the word of the literary agent that Obama didn't intend what was presented. Where is the supporting evidence for that assertion?

Basically, it was advantageous in this case for Obama to claim he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii (a sexier locale for the potential customers and the venue), and we see that through a proxy he did so whether in error or not.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-02 19:42 · Score: 1

Sigh. Dan Rather lost his job because of the way he gathered evidence about Bush going AWOL. The story itself was never discredited. But of course, Rather was a bad person, so everything he claimed must have been false, right? Typical ad hominem crap.
If the story is based on falsified evidence as was the case here, then that's a good indicate that it is fake. One shouldn't need to discredit such things since such sources discredit themselves by default.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-03 00:34 · Score: 1

TLDR.
Sure, it was. That was a mere ten lines of text on my screen. You mouthed a lot about "compromise", but one part of actual compromise is to listen to the opposition.

When it comes to actions matching words, you fail hard.
Re:Hey! by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-03 01:52 · Score: 1

Uh, yes. Look I know this is a subtle point. But one doesn't need an organization with a legal status similar to the Federal Reserve Bank in order to enforce regulation for "consumers". The problem is implementation.
Then how do you plan to enforce any of the laws that Congress enacted. There is no such organization today.

That is a noble sounding sentiment. But let's look at what actually happened. The law in question created an organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with minimal connection to any existing branch of government.

The minimum connection was for independence as it is part of the Federal Reserve. If there was a dependence, then politics could interfere with their decisions (say from congressman connected to credit card companies). During the 1990s, Brooksley Born who headed the Commodity Futures Trading Commission warned that unregulated derivatives had the power to take down the market. Under the rules set by Congress, her agency was to oversee derivatives. Pushed by powerful lobbies and Alan Greenspan, Congress stripped her agency of any power. It was unregulated derivatives that caused the crash of 2008.

It's basically an attempt to run around some aspects of our current government (namely, that most enforcement of federal regulation is done directly by the executive branch) without a reason, compelling or otherwise, for doing so. If one were to attempt to deliberately undermine what passes for US democracy in an innocuous appearing way, one couldn't do better than this.
No, there is no single agency that had the authority to do anything about the shady practices of the credit card companies. The agency was created to consolidate different aspects of different agencies for this single purpose.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Hey! by timeOday · 2012-09-03 07:46 · Score: 1

OK, I somewhat misspoke about Afghanistan, as Iraq and Afghanistan are two rather different situations. But if I had said "a war" instead of "two wars" the rest would still be true.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-03 09:57 · Score: 1

Then how do you plan to enforce any of the laws that Congress enacted. There is no such organization today.
The US president has been tasked by the US Constitution with overseeing the regulations and bureaucracies mandated and paid for by Congress.

The minimum connection was for independence as it is part of the Federal Reserve.
And why is that considered a good thing?

If there was a dependence, then politics could interfere with their decisions
As it should be. The CFPB is a political body making political decisions. It should be interfered with routinely by elected politicians who should be overseeing its activities directly, just as happens with most other federal government bureaucracies.

Under the rules set by Congress, her agency was to oversee derivatives. Pushed by powerful lobbies and Alan Greenspan, Congress stripped her agency of any power.
So what? That's the prerogative of Congress to do so.

No, there is no single agency that had the authority to do anything about the shady practices of the credit card companies. The agency was created to consolidate different aspects of different agencies for this single purpose.
So what? It would have been trivial to allocate such powers to an existing agency rather than create a new one with novel powers and immunities.
Re:Hey! by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-03 11:26 · Score: 1

The US president has been tasked by the US Constitution with overseeing the regulations and bureaucracies mandated and paid for by Congress.
Ok then we should abolish the Federal Reserve then?

As it should be. The CFPB is a political body making political decisions. It should be interfered with routinely by elected politicians who should be overseeing its activities directly, just as happens with most other federal government bureaucracies.
Did you read anything I wrote above? Congress interfered with the CFTC. It was not for the betterment of the country. It was for Wall Street who wanted no regulation or oversight. When it blew up in their faces, they got bailed out by the government and to this day resist any oversight or regulation despite that being the direct cause of the problems.

So what? That's the prerogative of Congress to do so.
Lassiez Faire to the bitter end I see.

So what? It would have been trivial to allocate such powers to an existing agency rather than create a new one with novel powers and immunities.
Okay the which agency? Please tell us which one should have been in charge of it. For each agency you name, there will be reasons why that agency was not selected.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-03 13:32 · Score: 1

Ok then we should abolish the Federal Reserve then?
Think about it. They did after all just print somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 trillion dollars in order to prop up "too big to fail" banks and other such institutions.v Maybe their activities just aren't in the best interests of the US.

Did you read anything I wrote above? Congress interfered with the CFTC. It was not for the betterment of the country. It was for Wall Street who wanted no regulation or oversight. When it blew up in their faces, they got bailed out by the government and to this day resist any oversight or regulation despite that being the direct cause of the problems.
Yes, and you correctly read my reply. What makes you think the US would remain a democracy, if the regulatory agencies are placed out of reach of the voters and their proxies? It's bizarre how much effort is being expended to attempt an untouchable organization.

And your explanation above needs to consider the role that the Federal Reserve and other central banks played in the mess. Keep in mind that their years of easy credit coupled with extremely low reserve requirements (that plus accounting standards are the only regulation the financial world needs) were the primary engine for the creation of the real estate bubble, not the morass of poorly thought out finance law that passes for regulation in the developed world.

So what? That's the prerogative of Congress to do so.
Lassiez Faire to the bitter end I see.
"Democracy" not "laissez faire". The government is corrupt merely because that's what large, unaccountable governments do.

Okay the which agency? Please tell us which one should have been in charge of it. For each agency you name, there will be reasons why that agency was not selected.
Department of the Treasury or Department of Commerce. I don't care which.
Re:Hey! by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-03 21:15 · Score: 1

And your explanation above needs to consider the role that the Federal Reserve and other central banks played in the mess. Keep in mind that their years of easy credit coupled with extremely low reserve requirements (that plus accounting standards are the only regulation the financial world needs) were the primary engine for the creation of the real estate bubble, not the morass of poorly thought out finance law that passes for regulation in the developed world.
That is an oversimplification of the problem. The problem wasn't just easy credit. The problem was a complete lack of controls in lending. The lack of controls was brought on by the fact that banks were selling loans as commodities as the primary vehicle for financial growth. In order to trade more loans, there had to be more of them. So banks had to ease sensible lending practices. In decades past, regulation prevented banks from having dual roles as this led to the Great Depression.

"Democracy" not "laissez faire". The government is corrupt merely because that's what large, unaccountable governments do.
Yet you are advocating not to have an agency that stops the shady practices that commercial credit card companies have done for decades. I say you are too focused on the wrong problem.

Department of the Treasury or Department of Commerce. I don't care which.
Both were created by acts of of Congress. So what is to stop Congress from gutting the CFPB of all power like they did with the CFTC?

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Hey! by khallow · 2012-09-04 00:37 · Score: 1

Yet you are advocating not to have an agency that stops the shady practices that commercial credit card companies have done for decades. I say you are too focused on the wrong problem.
Don't get me wrong. I think such an organization is a colossal waste of society's resources (the credit card customer should be doing due diligence). But that's not what I've been arguing all along. That this organization could have been implemented in a democratic way rather than a way that attempts to put it out of reach of democratic processes or reform.

Recall the saying, "the ends justify the means"? Well, in my view, that saying isn't true. One can indeed have means that discredit the ends. This is such a case.

Both were created by acts of of Congress. So what is to stop Congress from gutting the CFPB of all power like they did with the CFTC?
The ignorance in this paragraph is remarkable. Congress should be able to gut the CFPB at any time just like any other regulatory agency. It is their power and prerogative as I noted before. That is the primary way we keep such organizations under control and aligned with the interests of US citizens and society.

From my point of view, what happened is that the politic elections of 2008 brought a quirky political faction to power which doesn't see that sort of power very often. Rather than pass sensible law with a few compromises which would have weathered an opposition regime, they forced through their agenda (at least as much as they could get their allies in US Congress to support) and tried some anti-democratic gimmicks to prevent that law from being reversed.

To be blunt here, nothing makes the CFPB any more special than any other regulatory agency. If it can't survive an onslaught from the Republicans, then it means that the US public didn't want that agency enough.
Re:Hey! by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 05:47 · Score: 1

Actually actually... While frowned upon Soda is okay:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021026175515/http://templehill.com/soda_caffeine.html
As long as you don't heat it up in the microwave first. God hates it when it's warm.

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-04 07:30 · Score: 1

The interesting thing is that the Word of Wisdom specifies hot drinks, but the LDS reads that as "coffee and tea and nothing else". I assume iced tea is also verboten.
Re:Hey! by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 08:15 · Score: 1

The myth that I had heard which lead me to the Soda / Caffeine answer, was that since the LDS has "active" prophets they can get the daily version of the word of god... meaning that any time the corporation of the Morman Church desires they can update dogma (see changing stance on polygamy), and as far as I know that part was true. The myth that I heard (and busted on myself thanks to this thread and snopes) was that Soda had come down as being "Okay", partially because the Morman church had an ownership in Pepsi Co. Which was a fun story to latch on to, but untrue - http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/mormon.asp

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Re:Hey! by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 08:17 · Score: 1

I also find it fascinating that such a nit-picky discussion on verbiage can have such wide reaching, but otherwise ridiculous impact on the lives of strict church-goers. :)

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-04 09:02 · Score: 1

I believe the main prophet is the LDS President. I remember back in the 70s, the LDS was taking a lot of flack for excluding "Africans" from the Aaronic Priesthood, making black male Mormons essentially second-class members of the church. Conveniently enough, the President had a revelation in 1978 lifting the ban.
It's easy to make fun of this sort of thing. But if a religious leader prays and meditates and examines his conscience, and decides that one of his doctrines has to change, I'm not going to sneer, even if I don't believe in the God he's praying to. Having a way to adapt your doctrines to changing times is a good thing, with or without the hocus pocus.
Re:Hey! by BadPirate · 2012-09-04 09:16 · Score: 1

It's easy to make fun of this sort of thing. But if a religious leader prays and meditates and examines his conscience, and decides that one of his doctrines has to change, I'm not going to sneer, even if I don't believe in the God he's praying to. Having a way to adapt your doctrines to changing times is a good thing, with or without the hocus pocus.
I totally agree... While I believe that everyone has a responsibility to examine the moral beliefs of their society and come up with their own code, I certainly can understand individuals that want a guidebook, and for the purveyors of such guidebooks, I appreciate when they are able to adjust the rulings based on changes in society. The Catholic church has the same dogmatic law, and through the Pope can make changes as well, but at the same time, they don't move at the speed of our society and the changes in it, and often then end up with a moral code that doesn't match that of the time.

--
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-04 09:26 · Score: 1

Hey, the whole Christian religion is founded on one such issue, Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that an "almah" will give birth to the Messiah. It's pretty clear that in this context the Hebrew word means "young woman", but people in the first century people had forgotten their Hebrew (except for priests, most Jews spoke Greek or Aramaic) and were casting around for miraculous events that would show them the way out of the nasty times they lived in. There were lots of candidates for the Messiah, but the one that got the most following was a guy who supposedly was born of a virgin — just as Isaiah prophesied!
Of course any Christian who believes in the Immaculate Conception will not accept my logic. And that's fine. The fact remains that a major religion is based on a particular translation of a word.
Re:Hey! by Magius_AR · 2012-09-05 15:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, the Demos have a lot to answer for. But I would submit that they can't begin to compete with the GOP for simple "my way or the highway" assholedness.
Did Obama not say to Republicans, "They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back"? How the hell can you not consider that "my way or the highway" assholedness? Moreover, how do you consider that mindset "honestly trying to reach out to the GOP"?
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-05 16:16 · Score: 1

Sigh. If you cherry pick Obama's statements and interpret them to suit yourself, you can get him to say anything you need him to say.
This particular statement can be read two ways. You prefer, "Go sit in the back and STFU." I see "We want you to be part of the process, but you no longer control it." I think the latter reading is consistent with with his actions during the first two years in office, and also his writings before he was elected. (He talked a lot about the need for all sides to be involved in the process; this is the main reason I preferred him to Hilary.)
Now, I could be wrong about this, and maybe your reading is the right one. But if you want to convince me of this, you have to look at the whole guy and what he's done, not just pick some quote whose nastier interpretation seems obvious to you.
Re:Hey! by Magius_AR · 2012-09-07 09:10 · Score: 1

I see "We want you to be part of the process, but you no longer control it."
Really??? That's some crazy rose-tinted lenses you have there. It also doesn't jive with the way the healthcare bill went down (written behind closed doors, republican suggestions summarily shot down, etc, etc): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101701810.html
I'm sorry but "I'm going to write 1000 pages without you and then offer you a chance to pitch an amendment to my grand plans" is not "working together or across the aisle". It's exactly what Obama stated, coming along for the ride with a pittance of consideration.

you have to look at the whole guy and what he's done
I am looking at the whole guy. I'm not seeing a guy that loves to reach across the aisle. Heck, his entire rhetoric is "Change", namely "you did it wrong, so we're gonna do it my way now." And everything he's done or said in office has confirmed this mindset. The stimulus bill went down the exact same way: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/president_obamas_i_won_to_repu.html
"The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm:
"drawn up, amended and negotiated in record time. "
"The bill's final passage would represent far less than the bipartisan victory Obama had hoped for weeks ago, a hope he tabled as it became clear that Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats were adamantly opposed to the size and contents of the bill. Republican critics believe there are more targeted and effective ways to create jobs than the measures in the bill, including more spending on infrastructure and more tax relief."
In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., blasted the bill as misguided. "Republicans are not about saying 'No' but about saying 'Yes' to solutions that put Americans back to work," Pence said. "[This legislation] will not grow our economy. It will grow our government."
he compromise bill was crafted after intensive negotiations in recent days between the House, Senate and White House, although Republicans said repeatedly they felt excluded from the process. And on Friday, several said they did not think it was fair that they were being asked to vote on a 1,000-page-plus bill that was posted online only late Thursday night.
And you know the really sad thing? The Republican's concerns were dead on . The stimulus spending wasn't targetted at all -- it was just a bunch of tax rebates to the public. So it didn't actually stimulate the economy, because those people just used the money to pay down debt.
"Bipartisanship" is more than just listening to and then disregarding your opponent. It requires actual acceptance of some of their beliefs, even if it goes against your ideology (you think the Democrats under Clinton wanted to turn Welfare into workfare???). Obama is not willing to accept this. The Bush tax cuts are another example -- Obama is essentially holding them (and the economy) hostage on an ideological stance that the 250k+ income level see a tax hike.
I'm sorry, but being "part of the process" as a minority party is supposed to be 70/30 input, not 97/3. Though to be fair I'll grant that the Republicans are just as ideologically stubborn on refusing any and all tax hikes. Though I believe that stance is more reasonable since our economy is on eggshells and you aren't supposed to raise taxes during those periods. Point is, at best Obama is exactly the same in stubborness. He's not bipartisan.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-07 11:14 · Score: 1

You know, our conversation is pretty much a case of what I'm talking about. I'm trying to share my opinions, but you don't want to hear. Your only priority is denouncing my opinions as evil and stupid.
One-way conversations are waste of time, so I won't bother you any more..
Re:Hey! by Magius_AR · 2012-09-07 12:42 · Score: 1

Wait a minute...so exactly what do you call a conversation then? You tell me your opinion, and then I just say nothing and accept it? You told me Obama is being cherry-picked and misinterpreted and that I should "look at the big picture". So I do exactly that and take his full term into account with multiple quotes and multiple issues, including several pieces of legislation. And in doing so, I find that my interpretation of Obama remains valid and is not simply "cherry-picked". And somehow that's a one-way conversation? I feel like the opposite is true -- you seem to be desiring a one-way conversation.
So I ask you, what was I supposed to do in this conversation when you expressed the opinion that I was simply cherry picking data in coming up with my opinion of Obama?
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-07 13:40 · Score: 1

Wait a minute...so exactly what do you call a conversation then? You tell me your opinion, and then I just say nothing and accept it?
No. I tell you my opinion then you do the Wikipedia thing and assume good faith. You do some constructive listening. You start from the premise that I'm a reasonably intelligent human being, and that my opinions have some kind of rational basis, even when they conflict with yours. Most of all, you try to act with civility, not just because it's the polite thing to do, but because it gets you in the habit of giving the other person's ideas a fair chance.
Believe it or not, I actually have friendly conversations with people whose views are far to the right of mine. Sometimes they even manage to change my opinions. (And, shock of shocks, sometimes I change theirs.) But that doesn't happen unless both parties go into the conversation open to the possibility that they will have to put their ego to one side and admit to being wrong.
When the point of the conversation is to simply demonstrate that the other side is a fool, it's not actual conversation. It's just mutual verbal masturbation.
Re:Hey! by Magius_AR · 2012-09-10 06:10 · Score: 1

No. I tell you my opinion then you do the Wikipedia thing and assume good faith. You do some constructive listening. You start from the premise that I'm a reasonably intelligent human being, and that my opinions have some kind of rational basis, even when they conflict with yours. Most of all, you try to act with civility, not just because it's the polite thing to do, but because it gets you in the habit of giving the other person's ideas a fair chance.
Have I not done these things? How am I not civil? Do you see me calling you a libtard or something? You still fail to respond to the line of civil dialogue i'm trying to have. I don't see why you seem to think that my intention is to demonstrate you a fool (seems like a waste of time there) rather than seek actual justification for your belief. More importantly, I don't see why you're so eager to be dismissive when I've clearly expressed an interest in carrying on a conversation in a reasonable fashion.
Re:Hey! by fm6 · 2012-09-10 06:21 · Score: 1

Sorry, I can't prove anything to you, because I can't see through my rose-tinted glasses.
Re:Hey! by SleazyRidr · 2012-09-12 02:26 · Score: 1

a) Bush was criticized for being stupid because almost every time he opened his mouth something stupid came out of it. People are still criticizing Obama for his "57 states" flubb while he was campaigning.
b) At the end of the 90's the Nasdaq and S&P 500 slowly dropped to about 50% of their highs over a period of 2-3 years, the DJIA lost 30% over the same period. In 2008 all three indexes lost 50% of their value over 3 months. Hardly what you'd call similar circumstances.
I don't really know enough about Dan Rather to comment on that point, and as for not really being elected I may have to partially concede that point.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?

Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so what? by theshowmecanuck · 2012-09-01 11:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

For those who bitch about this, if the president spent his money collecting stamps or collecting guitars I doubt you would you beat him up over it. But maybe you would: Oh sure he does or doesn't do XYZ, but he buys a Fender amp? You're evil Mr President; what a scumbag. Forget about it. So brewing beer, good for him. There are many people in America who like to brew their own beer. There's nothing wrong with it and nothing wrong with the president doing it on his own time either.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Link to FOIA Request for Beer Recipe by theodp · 2012-09-01 11:34 · Score: 2

HuffPo: White House Beer Recipe: Freedom Of Information Act Request Filed For Obama's Brew

As far as hobbies go by Dyinobal · 2012-09-01 11:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

As far as hobbies go this one is pretty cool and even a bit nerdy. I've always wanted to brew my own beer, or make my own tequila and I don't even drink.

Re:As far as hobbies go by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Go for it!
I'm a former IT nerd turned nerdy brewer via homebrewing. The very basics are easy: you dump sugar into water, raise it to a boil, add hops, continue boiling for an hour, chill, dump the sugar water (wort) into a sanitized bucket, add yeast, wait a couple weeks, bottle with a small amount of sugar (for fizz)
And things go from there.
Some yeast strains work best below room temp, some at, some above (i.e., temperature control).
If you move to using base ingredients (malted grains) instead of sugars, you'll need more gadgets (malt mill, pump, thermometer, etc).
You can add or subtract flavours by using different yeast strains (usually phenols and esters), which moves into yeast culturing (chemistry and biology).
FWIW, all in, I can do something like Obama's beer in 3 hours. And in 2 or 3 weeks, be drinking something pretty decent.
And if I can make good beer, anyone can.
Re:As far as hobbies go by fm6 · 2012-09-01 12:29 · Score: 2

Well yeah. This dude is pretty much the most nerdy POTUS ever. When he was a kid, he collected Spider-Man comic books. When he first met Leonard Nimoy, he gave him a Vulcan salute. Nerd, nerd, nerd.
Re:As far as hobbies go by bigstrat2003 · 2012-09-01 16:03 · Score: 1

I don't know that I could call this Obama's hobby, since the video embedded in TFA says that it's the chefs, not the man himself, brewing the beer. It's simply something he encourages.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:As far as hobbies go by Patch86 · 2012-09-01 17:15 · Score: 2

Brewing is easy. I make wine all the time out of any fruit or vegetable that I come into possession of in large enough quantities. I find beer trickier, but I think that's just because I'm a picky ale drinker.
Distilling, on the other hand, is not (that's what you'd need to do to make a tequila). It's pretty dangerous in terms of exploding stills, pretty dangerous in terms of poisonous final product, and it's also probably illegal depending on your jurisdiction (in the UK, you need a licence). That's not to say don't do it, but it's a bit of a different ball game.
Re:As far as hobbies go by hawk · 2012-09-02 12:32 · Score: 1

Using grain instead of extract, though, makes an *amazing* difference in flavor.
I can smell extract a foot away, most of the time . . .
All grain, liquid yeast, and whole hops all make huge differences.
(You can search old usenet and find my explanations of using certain dry extract in part to cheat, if you're really ambitious, and much better dry yeast exists now than did when I wrote that).
hawk
Re:As far as hobbies go by rogerz · 2012-09-02 13:53 · Score: 1

Exactly, I was totally disappointed to see that these super-duper chefs were brewing beer! Why can't the President do it himself? I'm a total idiot in the kitchen, but I brew and bottle my own. I guess this is just another case of "you didn't build that".

--
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
Re:As far as hobbies go by Patch86 · 2012-09-02 19:09 · Score: 1

...which also gets rid of any methanol if it happened to be present (it wouldn't be when your fermentation was any good).
Speaking from experience- there's always methanol (or something similar) in my home-brew wines. It's unavoidable unless you've got climate controlled environments, etc. It doesn't matter if you drink it sensibly (my last batch was about 15% vol, so you wouldn't normally drink too much of it). If you drink it non-sensibly, you'll be in a world of hurt though.

FINALLY, Slashdot! by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-09-01 11:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

We like to complain about which stories get posted, and which don't... butI think we can all agree - this qualifies as stuff that matters.

--
#DeleteChrome

Free beer as in free beer by CuteSteveJobs · 2012-09-01 11:41 · Score: 4, Funny

> Your tax dollars hard at work yet again!"

If they are going to serve beer in the Whitehouse it's much cheaper to brew it themselves then to buy it. About 30 cents for a 750 mil bottle holding the equivalent of two cans. They also don't have to pay the extortionate government sales tax on alcohol. Hey hang on...

http://taxfoundation.org:81/article/state-sales-gasoline-cigarette-and-alcohol-tax-rates-state-2000-2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing

Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 11:52 · Score: 4, Informative

If home-made beer and wine are just fine in this day and age, why does distilling your own whiskey for your own use get you time in the federal prison system? I just want my "Awesome-Swill-From-Dawsonville" party-liquor each New Years without worrying about the BATFE...

Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 13:49 · Score: 1

I've yet to seen a case of blindness caused by home brewed mead.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by demonlapin · 2012-09-01 14:10 · Score: 1

You have to trust your supplier. Same as any other illegal intoxicant.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 14:15 · Score: 2

I trust people with licenses.
I'm just funny that way.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 14:18 · Score: 1

I might be a bit hypocritical about...the...other...illegal substances...you know *wink wink* *toke toke*
Then again I'm to much of a pussy to buy it myself.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by khallow · 2012-09-01 15:24 · Score: 1

I'm sure home brewing has led to all sorts of fun accidents and illnesses, including blindness inducing ones. You just haven't seen them. The distillation thing is about tax revenue and frankly, I doubt a home distiller who never sells their product would have any trouble with the law.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 15:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually, it's pretty hard to brew beer or mead that can actually hurt you. Usually the mistakes just end up tasting like shit.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Patch86 · 2012-09-01 17:22 · Score: 2

Because:
1) Stills can and do explode. In my part of the UK, illegal moonshine was a bit of a trend in my grandparent's generation, and they've got many a tale of exploding farm sheds.
2) Because it's easy to accidentally make poison if you don't do it just right (by brewing a high quantity of methanol or other non-edible alcohols instead of ethanol).
3) It's far more valuable when you're done, and you're less able to consume your entire output without outside help (selling home-brew is always illegal in the UK, but you're far less likely to try to sell your home-brew bramble wine than you are moonshine vodka).
For the record, it'll only land you in prison if you don't have a licence. In order to get a licence, you need to prove you're competent, that you're distilling safely, and that you're correctly reporting (and paying taxes on) all sales. Personally, I think that's a licensing scheme worth keeping...
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 17:25 · Score: 1

I'm sure home brewing has led to all sorts of fun accidents and illnesses, including blindness inducing ones. You just haven't seen them. The distillation thing is about tax revenue and frankly, I doubt a home distiller who never sells their product would have any trouble with the law.
There is nothing in beer brewing that can kill you. Distilling is different. When done correctly you produce ethanol, when done incorrectly you create a poison known as methanol.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by TubeSteak · 2012-09-01 20:15 · Score: 1

2) Because it's easy to accidentally make poison if you don't do it just right (by brewing a high quantity of methanol or other non-edible alcohols instead of ethanol).
When you're distilling, there are three ways to poison yourself
1. Using a car radiator held together with lead solder in your cooling loop
2. Not throwing away enough of the heads or tails of your distilling run
3. Cutting the hooch with lye, antifreeze, etc because you're cheap and want to kill your customers.
When you're making vodka or grain alcohol, you throw away most of the heads/tails.
But when you're making anything with flavor, you have to keep some of the nasty stuff,
because that's where the flavors are.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Hatta · 2012-09-02 02:22 · Score: 2

If beer and wine are just fine in this day and age, why does growing the much less harmful Cannabis for your own use get you time in the federal prison system?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by hey! · 2012-09-02 03:38 · Score: 1

I've yet to seen a case of blindness caused by home brewed mead.
Having made mead myself, I'd say that until it's aged a year or two you can probably strip paint with it. The problem is that honey, unlike malt, isn't that nutritious, and fermentation proceeds opportunistically, starting with the easy step, converting sugar to long chain alcohols, then breaking down the long chain alcohols to ethanol. Beer fermentation completes in weeks; the same batch of mead that is very good at two years at six months is dominated by compounds used as industrial solvents and paint thinners. Will it blind you? Possibly; I can't imagine being desperate enough to drink the stuff.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Muros · 2012-09-02 05:57 · Score: 1

MMMmmm. Cannabis beer....
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-02 08:38 · Score: 1

A monopoly with licenses(plural).
Right'O'!

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Beer & Wine Are Just Fine... by Lehk228 · 2012-09-02 14:55 · Score: 1

Improperly fermented beer or wine will

A) smell bad

B) taste worse

C) in the event you ignore these warning signs, send you to the toilet to learn your lesson about following the steps properly and paying attention to your senses to tell you when something went wrong.

Improperly distilled liquor can maim or kill you

granted I would love to try my hand at distillation of homemade liquor and I did well enough in chemestry classes that I am confident that I could properly test the end results before taking a swig..... I can also understand the public interest being served by strongly discouraging such activities.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by Shining+Celebi · 2012-09-01 11:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Obama promised a surge into Afghanistan. He promised an eventual pullout from Iraq, and it looks like he's following through - on Bush's schedule.

Congress shut down Obama's attempts to close Gitmo and forbade him from using any federal funds to do just about anything with it. While I wish he'd tried harder, he did attempt it. I'd be more concerned about the continued NSA wiretapping.

The President is not a dictator. People tend to radically overestimate how much the President can really do.

And yes, the same is true for Bush. Bush couldn't have gone to war without Congress. He couldn't have passed the Patriot Act without Congress. He couldn't have passed No Child Left Behind without Congress. He couldn't have racked up massive deficits without Congress. Heck, even today, virtually our entire deficit (that comes from government policy and not the recession) comes from the Bush tax cuts Congress (including Paul Ryan) passed and the wars.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by Shining+Celebi · 2012-09-01 11:59 · Score: 4, Informative

Dang Slashdot without an edit button. I meant to include this link:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/US-Economy/PublishingImages/20120229_EssentialEcon9.jpg

It shows the sources of the current budget deficits. Keep in mind Paul Ryan, famed serious "fiscal conservative," voted for every single thing in green.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by fm6 · 2012-09-01 11:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Oh, give it a rest. You've been reciting the same Obama-bashing crap over and over for 4 years now, we've all heard it a dozen times. This conversation is about beer.

Reddit the other night by Riddler+Sensei · 2012-09-01 12:01 · Score: 2

Is this as per Obama's response to his Reddit appearance the other night?

Re:Yep, its election time by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-01 12:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

you are missing the point.

it seems he's calling indirect attention to the mormon guy who is running as his opponent.

how many people can relate to those who are 100.0% against alcohol drinking?

seems a smart move on obama's part. and I kind of agree: I don't trust anyone who takes a prohibitionist view on what most of us think is perfectly fine behavior!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Fishing for Tweets and Likes? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-09-01 12:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Where there are no burning issues at hand, human interest stories are a good tactic to keep a candidate in the news or at least in Twitterverse. Expect to learn more trivial, but harmless stuff like these "brewed" by the campaign strategists who work behind the scenes.

Somehow this only convinces me that come November a new occupant will fill that hopefully not empty Chair at the Oval Office.

Re:Fishing for Tweets and Likes? by sociocapitalist · 2012-09-02 23:22 · Score: 1

Where there are no burning issues at hand, human interest stories are a good tactic to keep a candidate in the news or at least in Twitterverse. Expect to learn more trivial, but harmless stuff like these "brewed" by the campaign strategists who work behind the scenes.
Somehow this only convinces me that come November a new occupant will fill that hopefully not empty Chair at the Oval Office.
No burning issues like the [ US World European ] economy? American Jobs? Civilian casualties in Syria? The ongoing [ American led ] war in Afganistan?
You're right that it's a tactic but it's a tactic to distract people from anything that actually matters, not that it takes much to distract Americans from anything happening outside America.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Amazing what the government is able to accomplish now that they've got the budget balanced and a job for everyone that so desires.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by Greyfox · 2012-09-01 12:21 · Score: 5, Funny

If I were President, I would collect dildos. I would collect them, and I would leave them in random places around the White House. But... That's why I'm where I'm at and Obama's where he's at. I'm sure collecting dildos never even occurred to him. I suppose I could ask him. He's in town tomorrow, fucking up my airspace. That's not code for anything, I literally can't fly until he leaves. So I have some time to kill.

Good beer, though, that's something we can all agree on. Well except Mitt Romney. Mormons aren't allowed to have beer. Or coffee. How you're supposed to go about having 5 wives without coffee is beyond me. I'm pretty sure you can't get through 4 years of a presidency without dropping the F bomb at least a couple times, as well, so good luck with that, Mormon-boy. Maybe collecting dildos and leaving them in random places around the White House would help.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Beginner recipie by trout007 · 2012-09-01 12:23 · Score: 3, Informative

All of the extract and pellets make this a real beginners brew. They should really step up to all grain brewing. Much better flavor.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.

Re:Beginner recipie by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 14:22 · Score: 1

I agree about the extract portion of your comment, but there is no difference in brew quality when using whole leaf hops vs. the pellet hops. Hell, most of the major breweries use pellets because you tend to get better utilization.
Re:Beginner recipie by trout007 · 2012-09-01 14:57 · Score: 1

I've use some real basic equipment to do all grain brews. Just a 5 gallon water cooler and hot water PVC pipe. I put the grain in the cooler and add hot 170 F water to end up with a 155 F mash. Let it sit for an hour or so then drain off the wort until it isn't cloudy. Then put the cloudy wort back though the grains to filter. Then sparge with 150 F water.
Your don't professional extraction but grain is pretty cheap and the flavor is great.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:Beginner recipie by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 17:32 · Score: 1

You know professional breweries use pellet hops. The only difference between these recipes and all grain is you replace the malt extract with 7 pounds of two row malt.
Re:Beginner recipie by I_am_Jack · 2012-09-01 18:28 · Score: 1

I'll admit, however, that I'd use actual hops instead of pellets, and bloom or "start" the ale yeast before pitching (I don't know if ale yeast is safely pitched dry)-- or, just use liquid yeast.
Pellets are real hops, just compressed into pellet form. Falconer's Flight is only available in pellet form, as it's a blend of several different hops. A lot of imported hops are only available in pellets. Leaf, pellet, doesn't matter unless you're using a hopback, then you need leaf.

And yes, you can pitch ale yeast dry. You just might not get consistent results, like you would using a starter.
Re:Beginner recipie by hey! · 2012-09-02 03:40 · Score: 1

I don't know. I think the problem with extracts is largely shelf-life.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Beginner recipie by tomhath · 2012-09-02 04:55 · Score: 1

Yea, that was my first thought. Looks like someone bought a kit and wrote down the ingredients.
Re:Beginner recipie by afidel · 2012-09-04 00:23 · Score: 1

Fresh extract makes fine beer, there's a brew on premise place near me that goes through 50 gallon barrels of extract on a weekly basis and the beer I've made there compares favorably to most commercial microbrews. In fact if it wasn't for the difficulty in handling the liquid extract I'd probably go that route for base grains most of the time. I've also known award winning brewers who use DME to adjust OG if they missed their mark for some reason, you could never tell from the finished product.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

Tip for the Chefs by ZipR · 2012-09-01 12:24 · Score: 1

Switch to kegging it ASAP. Bottling, as you probably already know, is the worst part. It's surprising that they do it 5 gallons at a time, just like a typical homebrewer. Don't they serve it at official functions?

Re:Tip for the Chefs by johnny+cashed · 2012-09-01 13:58 · Score: 1

It's hard to take home a keg as a momento. I'm pretty sure the bottles will be well kept long after the beer was consumed. That is probably why it is bottled.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by fm6 · 2012-09-01 12:25 · Score: 5, Funny

... if the president spent his money collecting stamps or collecting guitars I doubt you would you beat him up over it.

Are you kidding? This President has been condemned as "elitist" for his choice of condiments.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by fm6 · 2012-09-01 12:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Somehow I don't think you're ever going to be President.

Free as in ... by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-09-01 12:35 · Score: 2

At least this ought to help BHO understand the difference of Free as in Beer.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:Almost human by Tablizer · 2012-09-01 12:42 · Score: 1

Not as alien as the Kolob dude

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Yep, its election time by Type44Q · 2012-09-01 12:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Look at me, i drink beer just like joe sixpack. Vote for me"

disgusting pandering.

Close. The two elections before last were "Look at me, I'm an ignorant fool just like joe-bob sixpack. Vote for me"

This time it's "Look at me, I'm enjoy a good microbrewed ale like any normal, thinking person would. Vote for me"

where's the american ingredients? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

Perusing the ingredients:
Munich (germany) malt
Hallertauer (again, germany) hops
Kent Golding (UK) hops
Fuggles (UK) hops
Nottingham and Windsor dry yeasts are from Danstar (Canada) and mimic UK strains

I'm surprised they didn't make something with west coast hops & some of the liquid yeasts. The US keepst fantastic yeast banks at White Labs (California/Colorado) and Wyeast (Oregon).

Re:where's the american ingredients? by Unknown+Lamer · 2012-09-03 07:25 · Score: 1

I mean, the US Government even funded the development of multiple hop cultivars (descended from the very varities in use in this recipe)... the UK Fuggle could be switched with Willamette, there is a US Golding (but it's not quite the same... oh well, at least we have a global economy eh), and I've had good luck subbing Mt Hood for Hallertauer.
Munich malt can easily be sourced from the US (in fact, I'm not sure my LHBS carries non-US stuff), it's just the originating area applied as a name to a particularly processed malt.
Quick! Someone create the Americanized Version of this Commie Liberal Beer REcipe!

--

HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!

Re:Yep, its election time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:59 · Score: 1

"Look at me, i drink beer just like joe sixpack. Vote for me"

disgusting pandering.

Or how about: look at this elitist, he thinks Budweiser's not good enough for him!

Or if he hadn't published the recipe: what's the big secret? Must be a cover-up. Maybe he brought the recipe from Kenya!

Of course, if he didn't brew beer and did buy Budweiser, that would be even more blatant pandering!

And if he didn't buy *or* brew beer, he's some kind of sanctimonious elitist who think's he's too good to drink beer like the rest of us.

I'm sure I missed a few.

Roll your own! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 12:59 · Score: 1

Joe Sixpack isn't brewing their own beer.

I think it's a great message to put out there, especially in economic times like these: "Make your own stuff!" - don't rely on prefabricated products by corporations whose main goal is to maximise profit via incessant ads and vendor lock-in (walled gardens, terminator genes, etc.), not product quality. And making your own beer is actually doable by most people (unlike making your own smartphone OS or life crops).

Re:Yep, its election time by epiphani · 2012-09-01 13:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seriously? Dood can't brew beer in his spare time without it being politically motivated?

Timing might be politically motivated for releasing the recipe, but I highly doubt the beer is.

--
.

Why isn't he being arrested? by HellYeahAutomaton · 2012-09-01 13:02 · Score: 1

For all of the incidents with busts of raw milk and lemonade sales http://www.naturalnews.com/035397_Ventura_county_raw_milk_rampage.html

Why can't he be arrested under the laws too? Brewing in a building held in the public trust...
Next thing you know they will be brewing in courtrooms, libraries, and public schools.

Think of the children!

Re:Why isn't he being arrested? by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 13:54 · Score: 1

OH LOOK! Natural news!
Fighting the lies of Louis Pasteur and his milk profits!

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Why isn't he being arrested? by bigstrat2003 · 2012-09-01 16:09 · Score: 1

I'll be the last to deny the health benefits of pasteurization. But, as I grew up on a dairy farm, we drank raw milk all the time (cause it would be kind of dumb to go buy milk at the store when you have a large supply at your home). Having grown up on that stuff, I cannot stand the taste of pasteurized milk. There is a very significant difference in flavor between the two, and the pasteurized stuff literally makes me gag. When I was a kid I almost made myself throw up trying to force myself to drink the stuff they gave us at school.
So yeah, pasteurization has some great benefits, but there's also a perfectly legitimate reason for people to want to have raw milk. Why shouldn't we permit those who prefer their milk that way to be able to obtain it?

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:Why isn't he being arrested? by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 17:09 · Score: 1

HEY! Me to I grew up with dairy farmers as neighbors, (even tried milk directly from a cows teat once).
But..did you drink low fat milk or whole milk.
For me that's the whole difference(though its been a while since I've drunk raw milk, even with subsidies most farmers in Norway still needs a second job so...now its strawberries instead).
Now getting raw milk which is only days old, sold locally should be permissible i think, the moment the distribution get more ambitious, even slightly...then NO.
I don't like the idea of people in cities should be able to pick unprocessed bacterial cultures from the local supermarket

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Thank you Jimmy Carter by shuz · 2012-09-01 13:29 · Score: 5, Informative

The leetist and best president ever!

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, signed the bill, H.R. 1337, into law in October 1978 legalizing home brewing. Bill 1337, can't make this stuff up folks. :-)

--
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle

Re:Thank you Jimmy Carter by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 14:21 · Score: 1

j1/\/\/\/\'/ (4R73R 15 b357 pR351D3|\|7 'j00!

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Thank you Jimmy Carter by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 20:48 · Score: 1

Combine the two legislations...
LeeT Beer googles!

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Also don't worry too much about it by aliquis · 2012-09-01 13:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Swedish Vin & Sprit was also built with tax money.

It served us good but was sold in 2008 to Pernod Ricard (for 55 billion SEK = 8.31 billion USD with todays exchange rate, actually Wikipedia says 5.6 billion euro so I guess the SEK value was someones conversion.)

Their most well known brand is/was likely Absolut.

Re:Also don't worry too much about it by SwedishPenguin · 2012-09-01 22:37 · Score: 1

A very short-sighted and ideological decision of course, the current government seems to want to sell all property of the state no matter what the long-term conseuqences. Vin & Sprit would have generated more than that over X number of years or the purchaser wouldn't have bought it. I'm only waiting for the decision to sell off LKAB...

An extract recipe? by gatkinso · 2012-09-01 13:35 · Score: 1

How very noob.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.

how radical is that? by slick7 · 2012-09-01 13:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Alcohol drinking Muslims. Is that true radicalism or an oxymoron?

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.

Re:how radical is that? by TubeSteak · 2012-09-01 14:35 · Score: 1

I've met plenty of Muslims who pray 5 times a day and then go out drinking at night.
Some of them actually felt bad about their hypocrisy. /the conspiracy minded would probably argue that Obama is drinking alcohol in order to trick the American people

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:how radical is that? by slick7 · 2012-09-02 02:20 · Score: 1

... that Obama is drinking alcohol in order to trick the American people
We trick ourselves. With the ever-decreasing attention sp...SQUIRREL!

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:how radical is that? by hey! · 2012-09-02 03:44 · Score: 1

And I've met Muslims who won't touch food that's been cooked with wine as an ingredient. I asked one my friends about this and she said, "there's probably no rational reason not to, but you have to draw the line somewhere and total prohibition is easier."
By the way, I've also met Christians who don't love their neighbor, turn the other cheek, or pick the log out of their own eye.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Now, if we can just get .... by WindBourne · 2012-09-01 13:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

romney to release his tax forms. Then we can find out who is patriotic and who is not.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Now, if we can just get .... by tomhath · 2012-09-02 04:56 · Score: 1

He has released his tax forms as required by law. Why do you have a problem with that?
Re:Now, if we can just get .... by WindBourne · 2012-09-02 13:35 · Score: 1

He released the minimum. OTOH, since we had such corruption under Nixon esp. Agnew, all candidates starting with George Romney, have released 10-20 years back, EXCEPT for John McCain and now Mitt.

I suspect that it will not matter.
It is obvious that the dems have had access to these and KNOW that something incriminating is in them.
I think that these will appear in Europe, Mexican, or other press that will not censor it around late sept time frame.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Now, if we can just get .... by will_die · 2012-09-03 06:25 · Score: 1

You left out names of candidates who did not release 10-20 years such as Barack Obama, he only released 7 years.

Re:Yep, its election time by AmazingRuss · 2012-09-01 13:59 · Score: 1

The prohibition I can handle, but a guy that wears magic underpants in control of the world's largest nuclear arsenal give me the heeb jeebs.

What is white house honey? by gargeug · 2012-09-01 14:10 · Score: 1

The recipe is pretty straight forward, but what is white house honey? It looks like it is 1 lb of actual honey based on the fact you add it at the end. But is it just normal honey, or is there some special twist that makes it 'white house honey'? Do they have a bunch of bees in the attic?

Re:What is white house honey? by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 14:23 · Score: 3, Informative

They do actually...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/06/23/secret-life-white-house-bees

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:What is white house honey? by gargeug · 2012-09-01 15:47 · Score: 1

No shit. Now I know. Thanks for the knowledge.
Re:What is white house honey? by Deus.1.01 · 2012-09-01 17:10 · Score: 1

...and knowing is half the battle!

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.

Really? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-09-01 14:10 · Score: 2

Sam Kass, White House Assistant Chef and the Senior Policy Advisor for Healthy Food Initiatives, after much buzz, today released the recipe for White House Honey Ale and White House Honey Porter...

I see what you did there.

Re:Yep, its election time by Revotron · 2012-09-01 14:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

"i'm a hip cool new President. I use Blackberries and Twitter and Reddit and I brew my own beer. I'm just like all you young impressionable voters. Hey, look, we're open-sourcing the White House website! Open source is cool, right? Hey, who wants some free stuff? Young people like free stuff, right? How about healthcare? You guys don't understand any of it so have some for free. Naw, I promise, it's just as good as the other stuff. And nevermind who's paying, you guys don't make enough yet to worry about that..."

Still waiting for President Obama to show up to a convention wearing Converses and empty Rayban frames while he gives a speech ironically.

Re:Yep, its election time by VortexCortex · 2012-09-01 14:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

how many people can relate to those who are 100.0% against alcohol drinking?

Man, they believe Jesus visited the Americas, and when they die they'll get to (literally) fucking populate a planet (if they're the chosen ones)... And not drinking beer is the "weird" part? Uhm. I would have point out the Christians believe in Sky Wizards and Magic Zombies, but the Mormons do too. Mormon = Xenu + Jesus (where you get to be Xenu). For the record, I'm not picking on Mormans or other religious folk. I take all religions as seriously as any other; Take Greek Mythology for example: Where's the candidate for Athena? Aphrodite? Ah, Now there's a candidate I could really get behind.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by theshowmecanuck · 2012-09-01 14:26 · Score: 1

:) I hope you tell people right up front down at the DMV or any other place you need to get government workers to help you that they have no expectation of having time to themselves since they work for the government/public. Is that what you are saying? As for not expecting privacy when he says something publicly... what? Was there a point there?

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Beer is good food! by kimanaw · 2012-09-01 14:44 · Score: 2

Massive doses of B vitamins, purified water (you know fish breed in that stuff ?), yeast hulls, and reduced stress levels.

Alas, as a Libertarian, Mssr. Obama's socialist leanings disallow me from voting for him, but I applaud his choice of quality beverage. Perhaps a good pint of Pliney, or a Firestone Parabola, or Black Butte XXIV, will clear his mind. I'd be happy to volunteer a pint of my excellent Saison or Belgian Quad if it will end America's perpetual war on "whoever we're trying to kill at the moment:"

(Have no fear, I have no such delusions that Mssr. Romney will be swayed by a friendly magic pint - mores the pity...)

--
007: "Who are you?"
Pussy: "My name is Pussy Galore."
007: "I must be dreaming..."

Re:Beer is good food! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 22:46 · Score: 1

"Alas, as a Libertarian, Mssr. Obama's socialist leanings disallow me from voting for him, but I applaud his choice of quality beverage."
I'm really curious which of the last, say, dozen presidents do *not* have "socialist leanings", by whatever definition it is you are using. I'm expecting that Richard Nixon and Ronald Regan had substantial "socialist leanings" as well.
Anyway, yeah, it would be nice to sit down with a beer and talk about it. At least we can agree on that.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 14:48 · Score: 1

And what happens when the economy keeps getting worse? Or another bridge falls down? It's hard enough to convince the stupid half of the country to do the right thing, but handing ammunition with which to scare them to the opposition is hardly a recipe for success.

Loads of positive comments here by poity · 2012-09-01 14:51 · Score: 1

Very unexpected for a typically pessimistic crowd. Definitely bookmarking this thread for comparison when a Republican President posts his putting tips or something. I'll bet /. would pounce on that, but you never know... you guys have surprised me before.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:Loads of positive comments here by UnknowingFool · 2012-09-02 01:45 · Score: 1

I don't think this crowd cares about golf as much as they do about beer. As far as I know, almost all the recent Presidents have played golf.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

No caffeine at BYU by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 14:56 · Score: 2, Informative

Gotta go off campus several blocks to the 7-11/Circle K. Significant disciplinary offense to get caught bringing it on campus.

if you go to philly by ganjadude · 2012-09-01 15:11 · Score: 4, Informative

If you go to philly, you can go to the "bar" where the revolution was "planned." at this location, you can get the beer recipies that were brewed by washington, jefferson, adams, and franklin (washingtons was the best IMO - franklins tasted like pine needles)

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:if you go to philly by skine · 2012-09-01 20:36 · Score: 1

Did Franklin's taste like a hoppy IPA, or did it literally taste of pine needles?
Re:if you go to philly by bla · 2012-09-02 08:15 · Score: 1

http://www.yardsbrewing.com/ales/ales-of-the-revolution/poor-richards-tavern-spruce

the first time they made this, they posted pics of the guys putting a whole spruce tree into the tank.

there are also links on that page to the other "ales of the revolution."
Re:if you go to philly by Creepy · 2012-09-02 15:23 · Score: 2

Seriously, IPA is predominantly a recent fad. The reason India Pale Ales were created was so that they would survive the trip from Britain to India without refrigeration. Hops traditionally were used as a preservative - in fact, many beers brewed for immediate consumption didn't use them at all. Hops became more common for flavoring beer in the 1800s.
Oh, and to the pine needle flavor below, that was not an uncommon flavoring. There are still Belgian beers that have been brewed for hundreds of years that use them (some don't use hops, either).
Re:if you go to philly by omfgnosis · 2012-09-02 18:28 · Score: 1

It's pretty doubtful that it tasted like a hoppy IPA; the hop trend is extremely recent, even modern American pale ales tend to be substantially hoppier than traditional IPAs. Traditional American recipes often used other herbs besides hops, and it would be unsurprising if pine needles were included. In fact, it was also common in many traditional American recipes to use sugar sources other than malted barley, such as molasses.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by FitForTheSun · 2012-09-01 15:15 · Score: 2

I think Bush definitely could have gone to war without Congress. He would have suffered a bit of criticism, but he could have done it. Remember, technically he never went to war, he just deployed troops; we haven't declared war on anybody since WWII. Both of the two Bushes each tried to go to war without Congress, then Congress complained, so they took a side-trip to Congress on the way to war. That was perfunctory of them, but nobody would have stopped them if they hadn't done so. Don't you think?

I think Obama could have fought harder to close Gitmo, but it was a boondoggle. He was suddenly faced with the difficult reality of what the fuck to do with a handfull of really pissed off terrorists. You can't kill them, you can't release them, you can't try them, and nobody is willing to take them. The one option is that he could have opened a new facility, also outside of the US, and put them there. That would have been a purely symbolic move, a total waste of time and money -- but I think he should have done exactly that.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by ganjadude · 2012-09-01 15:16 · Score: 1

Actually I am mad at him for stealing fenders wood and blocking them from building their guitars.

--
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by jd2112 · 2012-09-01 15:19 · Score: 2

Congress shut down Obama's attempts to close Gitmo and forbade him from using any federal funds to do just about anything with it. While I wish he'd tried harder, he did attempt it. I'd be more concerned about the continued NSA wiretapping. The President is not a dictator. People tend to radically overestimate how much the President can really do.

He could sit on his hands and not approve any legislation until it was shut down. Perhaps he would get overridden from time to time, but it would send a clear message.

Here's an idea, Congress not passing any legislation in protest of the President not approving any legislation!

--
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by Leafheart · 2012-09-01 15:22 · Score: 1

Holy shit! Are you serious??? I didn't heard of it when it happened. Seriously??? They had so little to talk about the guy that they went with criticizing his mustard choice?

--
--- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by steeviant · 2012-09-01 15:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Just don't ask about Gitmo

Are they brewing beer at Gitmo as well? (is waterboarding just "soaking the malts"?)

Mmmm beerboarding.

Nor should anyone care by Sycraft-fu · 2012-09-01 15:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

The President is an expensive office. There is a shit ton of money spent on keeping the person in it safe, happy, connected, getting them where they need to go, and so on. The cost of brewing some beer wouldn't even stack up to the salary of a single Secret Service agent, never mind the cost of running something like Air Force One.

There is no real way around it either. Security costs are going to be extremely high because the President is a very high profile target. So you need good security keeping them safe. Some might argue that a lot of the pomp and circumstance should be cut out which would save a bunch but then you have to remember that the President is not just the head of government but also the chief of state, they are the head diplomat. All that pomp and circumstance plays a very useful role in international relations.

So frankly they can charge the cost of brewing beer to the taxpayers, I don't mind at all. It is an expensive office to maintain and there really isn't any other way it can be so long as the US maintains its place of prominence among nations.

Re:Nor should anyone care by TClevenger · 2012-09-02 08:04 · Score: 1

The President is an expensive office. There is a shit ton of money spent on keeping the person in it safe, happy, connected, getting them where they need to go, and so on. The cost of brewing some beer wouldn't even stack up to the salary of a single Secret Service agent, never mind the cost of running something like Air Force One.
The ENTIRE cost of the 2008 White House, to include Air Force One, the helicopter squadron, Secret Service, the White House Visitor's Center, the White House branch of the postal service, and all salaries including the president's, is about $1.5 billion. That's about 0.05% of the 2008 total budget (and that budget didn't include the cost of the wars, since they were still off the books in 2008.) Whatever costs for the beer project not paid out of the President's pocket presumably would be covered by the $1 million "unanticipated needs" line item in that budget.
Needless to say, I'm not worried about the cost of this project, and hey, if it increases the awareness of homebrewing, just the increase in economic activity around that area would probably raise enough taxes to cover the cost of the White House brewing project.
Source
Re:Nor should anyone care by mdielmann · 2012-09-02 08:34 · Score: 1

So frankly they can charge the cost of brewing beer to the taxpayers, I don't mind at all. It is an expensive office to maintain and there really isn't any other way it can be so long as the US maintains its place of prominence among nations
Hell, its probably cheaper than vetting beer brought in from outside manufacturers.

--
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Re:Nor should anyone care by RevDisk · 2012-09-02 10:23 · Score: 1

If you really want your brain to hurt, look up the costs associated with the now closed VH-71 Kestrel project. Half a billion per helicopter. I worked at Sikorsky at the time, working on their civil aircraft line. We made some seriously pimped out aircraft. Up to and including gold plated toilets. Never saw a single S-92 go over $120m per. Even with precious stones and gold.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by fermion · 2012-09-01 15:38 · Score: 1

I am reminded of Hank William's, jr., The fact is that some people have nothing better to do than control what others do. They are elitist religious fanatics who lose sleep over a concern that someone, somewhere, might be having fun. These people are no better than terrorists. I mean if I am an adult and I want to go to a bar after the late shift, why should I not be allowed to? If I want to see naked people dance, why not? The most arbitrary restriction of my right to chose as an adult was no being able to order a Guinness and Scotch at the same time when I was in New England. Cretans.

The fact is that in 1979 Jimmy Carter lowered taxes by removing levies on adults who wanted to brew their own beer. Can you imagine if we had a tax on people who wanted to make their own macaroni and cheeses in a effort of social engineering to force families to buy the product from the store? Conservatives would go madd. But somehow the government forcing us to buy a commercial product was ok. Go figure. On result partially attributed to this change was a rise in local entrepreneurship in small breweries. Yes, people who once were unemployed due to the religious laws enforced by those who hated capitalism now had a job. Thanks to Jimmy Carter.

Now, not to get chauvinistic, but I am fortunate enough to live in an area with two local breweries. Why is this important? Because the two major brands of beer, Coors and Bud, are not US brands. They are controlled from Belgium and Canada, respectively. I am sure conservatives would argue that foreign ownership of our biggest beers is not big deal, but I would argue that having local expertise and control in all industries is critical. We have seen the damage that losing manufacturing expertise has cost the US. Once it is lost, it is very hard to get back. It is dangerous to pick and choose what is and is not important based on personal superstition.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 15:39 · Score: 1

I'd vote for him

Well we do, in a manner of speaking by Sycraft-fu · 2012-09-01 15:39 · Score: 1

After all, the President's salary is paid by taxpayers. Now yes, it is kind of silly to take out grocery costs and so on but then the President doesn't need his salary anyhow. It isn't like he's going to run off and spend it on a car or something, what with all the official cars that he really has no option but to use. In terms of after the presidency, the public speaking events and so on pay way more than the presidency itself ever did.

I suppose the theory is to keep him from going buck wild and ordering Beluga caviar as a garnish for every meal or something. Whatever the case, while it is a rather silly, it is inconsequential really.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by Enderandrew · 2012-09-01 15:53 · Score: 2

The President can not deploy troops for more than 90 days without Congress approving it. So even when it isn't called war, the President can't go to war with a country without Congress backing it and financing it.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by jamstar7 · 2012-09-01 16:25 · Score: 1

... if the president spent his money collecting stamps or collecting guitars I doubt you would you beat him up over it.

Are you kidding? This President has been condemned as "elitist" for his choice of condiments.

Yeah, by a couple of right-wing whackjobs that don't deserve the label 'Republican'. Jesus Christ, if they gotta try crucifying him for eating a fucking hamburger he paid for out of his own fucking pocket, the far-gone Right has serious fucking problems. Course, go after their guy and criticize every fucking move he makes and you're un-American.

FWIW, I don't put ketsup on my hamburgers either. Ketsup belongs on french fries goddammit, just like GAWD ordained in the fucking Bible.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by artor3 · 2012-09-01 16:28 · Score: 1

I also distinctly remember them complaining when the Obamas grew some arugula in their gardens. Apparently growing a lettuce commonly used to top soups and pizzas and baked potatoes makes them elitist snobs. And don't forget how they eviscerated Kerry over his windsurfing (an elitist hobby!).

It's effective. Scream and holler about how awful someone is every day, and eventually the hatred starts to rub off on the public.

Re:No all grain? by jamstar7 · 2012-09-01 16:40 · Score: 1

Probably lack of time to do it right. It'd kinda suck to be in the middle of something finicky and get called away for a state emergency or something.

At least he fills his spare time with something reasonably harmless like making some homebrew. It could be worse.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by fm6 · 2012-09-01 16:48 · Score: 1

There was more to Poupongate than a couple of whackjobs. Lots of pundits were making noise. Among the leaders were Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, both people GOP politicians are loath to offend.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by zill · 2012-09-01 16:58 · Score: 2

A clear message that he's a door mat? You do realize that any bill not signed or vetoed within ten days automatically becomes law, right?

Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by jamstar7 · 2012-09-01 17:01 · Score: 1

Two media 'leaders' propped up by their corporado masters. Both have had their share of scandals over the years, but both keep comin back just like zombies. The problem with a legitimate Republican 'pissing them off' is, do so, and they'll campaign for your Tea Party alternative with an axe to grind and zero incentive to learn compromise in order to form a better government. If what you need to get done isn't on their agenda, or if you're on the wrong side of the aisle, yer fucked.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by fm6 · 2012-09-01 17:16 · Score: 1

Not to defend either of those idiots, but they're not propped up by anybody. They have a real ability to rouse the rabble. It's a morally repugnant way to make a living, but there's no doubt that they're good at it — and that a good chunk of America hangs on their every word.

I like to think that most conservatives despise this bullshit, and eventually common sense will return, and we liberals can go back to having honest arguments with them based on intelligent differences of opinion. God help us if I'm wrong about that.

not all grain? by pandymen · 2012-09-01 17:27 · Score: 1

Is anyone else disappointed that the "presidential" beer recipe is an extract recipe instead of all grain?

Re:not all grain? by Jon+Abbott · 2012-09-01 18:19 · Score: 1

Noticed that... they also use European rather than American hop varieties.

--
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Re:not all grain? by I_am_Jack · 2012-09-01 18:36 · Score: 2

All grain, while being superior to extract in the way you can build a very sophisticated flavor profile with a well-thought grain bill, takes a fair amount of work. I usually have to spend the better part of a day brewing an all-grain batch. I assume that as they're trying to run the country, especially in an election year, a 60 minute extract boil versus a mash-sparge time of approaching four hours, plus a 90 minute boil makes more sense.

Dont look here by SuperCharlie · 2012-09-01 17:31 · Score: 1

Dont look at the surveillance network, the military complex, the prison system, the food system, the healthcare system, the fiscal clusterfuck..

Oh shiny.. look beer.

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by AlamedaStone · 2012-09-01 17:39 · Score: 1

Congress shut down Obama's attempts to close Gitmo and forbade him from using any federal funds to do just about anything with it. While I wish he'd tried harder, he did attempt it. I'd be more concerned about the continued NSA wiretapping.

The President is not a dictator. People tend to radically overestimate how much the President can really do.

He could sit on his hands and not approve any legislation until it was shut down. Perhaps he would get overridden from time to time, but it would send a clear message.

Here's an idea, Congress not passing any legislation in protest of the President not approving any legislation!

My impression of Congress over the last four years is that they have already taken that measure preemptively.

--
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by Hognoxious · 2012-09-01 17:50 · Score: 1

WTF? If you were writing a TV comedy and you put that in they'd reject the script for being totally unrealistic.

And has anyone actually tasted standard American mustard? The only difference between it and mayo is that the mayo has yellow colouring in it (the mustard has lots of yellow colouring in it).

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Obama consisgtently drinking beer ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-01 18:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

And yet, it is in much better shape then when he inherited it.

Re:Yep, its election time by Hognoxious · 2012-09-01 18:07 · Score: 2

How about "And what would a muslim want beer for, anyway?"

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:Romney Can't Drink Beer by I_am_Jack · 2012-09-01 18:31 · Score: 1

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's the best they're going to feel all day."

-Frank Sinatra.

Re:Romney Can't Drink Beer by dunkelfalke · 2012-09-01 21:32 · Score: 1

So that was the guy who used to wear shoes two sizes too small so he could feel really good when he took them off?

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by drinkypoo · 2012-09-02 00:21 · Score: 1

I'd vote for him before I'd vote for the republicrat or democan "candidate".

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by multipartmixed · 2012-09-02 02:37 · Score: 1

Five wives without coffee is doable.

Five wives without beer, OTOH...

--

Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?

Re:Yep, its election time by Hatta · 2012-09-02 02:37 · Score: 1

I don't trust anyone who takes a prohibitionist view on what most of us think is perfectly fine behavior!

You shouldn't trust anyone who takes a prohibitionist view on anything that doesn't harm others.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Re:Just don't ask about Gitmo by dargaud · 2012-09-02 02:41 · Score: 1

And I'd rather see politicians compete on who's making the best brew...

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?

Re:Yep, its election time by hey! · 2012-09-02 03:39 · Score: 1

Because right-thinking people go to church to be told how awesome they are.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by TheLink · 2012-09-02 04:07 · Score: 1

No. It's just shows what they think of the average voter.

Their opinion could be correct. That'd be unfortunate for the USA, but hey that's the way Democracy works.

No surprise that few self-serving politicians would want a highly educated population. Don't blame them. Life would be much harder for us if chickens, sheep, pigs and cows were much smarter...

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Re:Yep, its election time by TheGratefulNet · 2012-09-02 07:35 · Score: 1

sadly, I think that to get big countries (like the US) to change requires a boiling-of-the-frog approach. it has to be slow and in steps so that people don't notice. make the change too big and they *will* fight you back and you'll gain nothing, perhaps even going backwards a bit (we've seen this the last decade or two).

obama can't admit a lot of things. I do believe that he wants to make 'serious changes' but that the system and the electorate simply won't move faster than they're prepared to (ie, almost no speed at all). you can't force people to grow if they don't want to, and people in the US have been collectively brainwashed to accept certain things and to reject other things. these don't make sense when you examine them but they are burned-in to the US psyche and its going to be hard and take a lot of time to have that crap age-out.

so, yes, I agree; but baby-steps are what we have to use and have patience for time to help heal us from where we're at right now.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Re:Did he have a girlfriend at that time? by wisdom_brewing · 2012-09-02 08:10 · Score: 1

I am very happy to know that there are still guys out there that think this way.

I'm not one of them but thanks for making my day. Faith in humanity and all that

--
I am very sucseptible to "let's have another drink"

Re: Some conservative by vandamme · 2012-09-02 10:51 · Score: 1

THIS conservative despises that bullshit. And wishes Mr. Obama well in his new microbrewing career.

Re: Some conservative by fm6 · 2012-09-02 11:09 · Score: 1

What, you call yourself a conservative, and you don't hate everything about Barack Obama? Clearly a CINO!

Seriously, please start a blog or something. We liberals so need rational conservatives to make noise so we can argue about stuff that really matters, instead of obsessing about each other's supposed personality flaws.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by theshowmecanuck · 2012-09-02 14:19 · Score: 1

They get American mustard from babies. To be fair, they sell the same crap up here in Canada. Difference is we also, or used to, have a tradition of hot mustard on our roasts etc, so know other kinds i.e. Coles, except we don't have Coles but instead of Keans Mustard which has almost exactly the same packaging. But the younger generation is falling into the elitist Dijon syndrome. Probably aided and abetted by Obama, the communist. I prefer hot mustard on everything except maybe a hamburger and hotdog... then Dijon will do. The baby poo mustard if I have to but sometimes I'll just opt out. And I think sir you are disparaging mayonnaise far too much.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Re:Some people like to brew beer as a hoby, so wha by theshowmecanuck · 2012-09-02 14:23 · Score: 1

I watched a documentary one time on the sex toy industry. They showed an assembly line where they made silicone dildos. At the end of the line before packaging they had them standing on their bases on this really large table, as many as could fit on the table. Whenever the table would get bumped they would all kind of sway together. It looked like an obscene flower garden in a mild wind. Just bizarre.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.

Slashdot Mirror

Ale To the Chief: White House Releases Beer Recipe

240 of 340 comments (clear)