Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The 10's nice, but after having the Quarter Cask, it seems inadequate. PA has the 18 on sale, but I'm leery I'll just be getting QC Light. Your take?

The 18 is very good, but different. More subtle than the 10, still with very clear peat and iodine flavors. The 19 is extraordinary. They really mellow together with a lot less iodine and a different kind of peat flavor.

The thing about the different Laphraoigsd is the aging isn't just producing a somewhat mellower version of the basic. The flavors seems to change with age.

But the QC is in its own category in a lot of ways. It's the choice of the litter for a really macho scotch you can eat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

He said that he thinks Griswold v. Connecticut (is that the right one? The case that said that laws banning birth control were unconstitutional) was wrongly decided and has stated repeatedly that he thinks that birth control is immoral, but also said that he does not intend to make it illegal.

but how do you over rule Griswold without a ban to challenge it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The 18 is very good, but different. More subtle than the 10, still with very clear peat and iodine flavors. The 19 is extraordinary. They really mellow together with a lot less iodine and a different kind of peat flavor.

The thing about the different Laphraoigsd is the aging isn't just producing a somewhat mellower version of the basic. The flavors seems to change with age.

But the QC is in its own category in a lot of ways. It's the choice of the litter for a really macho scotch you can eat.

Thanks. I may avoid it then and experiment with something else. By the way, as a Laphroaig drinker, you may be tempted to try the Ardbeg. I enjoyed it, but was unimpressed. A bit thin on flavor. Sort of like Talisker in that regard. Good up front, but no staying power.

Sadly, I cannot get the 19 in PA. And the cartel doesn't allow out of state shippers to send me a bottle.

I'm think of trying the Macallan cask strength. It seems a bit ludicrous at 57 proof, but I'm wondering what an atomic sherry bomb tastes like.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Thanks. I may avoid it then and experiment with something else. By the way, as a Laphroaig drinker, you may be tempted to try the Ardbeg. I enjoyed it, but was unimpressed. A bit thin on flavor. Sort of like Talisker in that regard. Good up front, but no staying power.

Sadly, I cannot get the 19 in PA. And the cartel doesn't allow out of state shippers to send me a bottle.

I'm think of trying the Macallan cask strength. It seems a bit ludicrous at 57 proof, but I'm wondering what an atomic sherry bomb tastes like.

Someone around here made a comment, was it you?, that a tiny bit of water added to the cask strength really opens it up - I endorse that, it was good advice. You kind of get two different scotches for the cost of one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Someone around here made a comment, was it you?, that a tiny bit of water added to the cask strength really opens it up - I endorse that, it was good advice. You kind of get two different scotches for the cost of one.

Less said it. He's right. It can sometimes be a bit too rich taken neat.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

is Santorum actually hoping to outlaw contraception or is he just against subsidizing it?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

but how do you over rule Griswold without a ban to challenge it?

As a mere slip-and-fall lawyer, I have no idea, but that sounds right to me. (Along with vetting judicial nominees for their views on the Griswold case, as both parties have done re Roe v Wade.)

Apropos of nothing, and of interest to perhaps two other posters, I am in The Ancestral Homeland today on a couple of matters. The courthouse is Not Bad, and (unlike my last out of town hearing), there were no deranged people muttering to themselves ("gonna kill you; gonna kill you") in the spectator benches in the courtroom.

Sadly, it doesn't look like I will be able to make it to my Aunt Mary's bar for a Black Bush and a "short one" of draft Schaefer's ("the one beer to have when youre having more than one") (yes, I like cheap American beer -- suck it) before my flight

[Hank Chinaski]

who deserved to die more Sonny Corleone, Teddy Kennedy or JFK, Jr. They all killed, but it strikes me that sonny only killed those in the game. Thoughts?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

He said that he thinks Griswold v. Connecticut (is that the right one? The case that said that laws banning birth control were unconstitutional) was wrongly decided and has stated repeatedly that he thinks that birth control is immoral, but also said that he does not intend to make it illegal.

Well that last part is really comforting.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

It's a weird set of line-drawing. I wonder how many votes he plans to save with that exception. "Boy, Santorum's position on contraception sucks. I would vote against him for it, but fortunately he says he won't make it illegal. He'll do everything short of instituting the ban, apparently, but no outright ban. I'll trust him."

A more accurate characterization would be "He'll do everything possible to let state governments impose a ban."

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

who deserved to die more Sonny Corleone, Teddy Kennedy or JFK, Jr. They all killed, but it strikes me that sonny only killed those in the game. Thoughts?

Sonny. His Mamma told him "don't interfere" with Connie and Carlo's marriage. And yet, interfere he did. A good Italian boy always listens to his Mamma.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So why do religious conservatives believe they should be able to deny employees birth control but that someone's right to marry based on their own beliefs isn't an issue of religious freedom?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So why do religious conservatives believe they should be able to deny employees birth control but that someone's right to marry based on their own beliefs isn't an issue of religious freedom?

Because they are deaf to irony?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So why do religious conservatives believe they should be able to deny employees birth control but that someone's right to marry based on their own beliefs isn't an issue of religious freedom?

do you mean for your question to imply a requirement that an employer pay for the wedding, or is it just a half-baked thought?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Because they are deaf to irony?

qed

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

do you mean for your question to imply a requirement that an employer pay for the wedding, or is it just a half-baked thought?

Ah! So employers should be able to decide who gets married?

Is that just religious employers, or all employers?