I thought this was quite a cute way to make a point!
Russian vodka in a Chicago gay bar? Nyet. In response to the passage of anti-gay laws in Russia — and subsequent clashes between police and gay activists there — some Chicago gay bars are pulling Russian vodka and other spirits from their offerings in protest.
Vodka, of course, is a truly horrible drink and should be banned in ALL bars! I remember as a student testing it’s virtues and it didn’t end well! So, maybe what Chicago gay bars do today, the world will follow tomorrow!!
Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]
88 thoughts on “NYEY STOLI!”
Comments are closed.
Try Polish vodka (eg Belvedere) or Ukrainian Bison Grass Vodka (eg Zubrovka) (with apple juice).
Smirnoff (ie what you most likely had) is a crime against humanity.
Vodka is a terrible drink, but probably no worse in its affects on Russians today
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=KTEanhqKUnB6VM&tbnid=CbBvdVXD1lLkVM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Feternalremont.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F08%2Fmedvedev-takes-on-alcoholism.html&ei=uEvyUe3JFqqd0AWU9YHgDA&psig=AFQjCNHJJ2bdHsb3JR2rjFxLes_GMF6t_g&ust=1374919977887763
than gin was in in England in Hogarth’s time..http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_image.aspx?image=ps318789.jpg&retpage=21828
Of course, you got a better class of drunk in England… 😉
Vodka from Russia is one of the only things good that has ever comes from there. All this new fancy shmancy fruity stuff that the metrosexuals and the new castrati drink is lame.
I’ll take mine straight, and if I want to get fancy I’ll put it in the freezer first thank you.
Zubrovka (flavoured vodka) is older then the USA. Vodka itself is arguably Polish too, not Russian.
“I’ll take mine straight…
Not in a gay bar you won’t Troll 😉
The only way to drink vodka is get the authentic stuff (Belvedere’s ok), freeze it and sip it with food. Mixers are for filistines.
sip it ? Should real men sip anything ?
Take a sip with each mouthful of food.
even breakfast ?
I’m not anti vodka, but I never saw the point of it, especially the modern yuppie affectation where people pretend that one tastes better than the other.
In a world that has red wine and good beer in it, what’s the purpose of vodka?
A drink that in its native lands is for people that want to get drunk, fast.
//A drink that in its native lands is for people that want to get drunk//
Same could be said of whiskey. Apart from being a source of energy in wintertime, which in places Ireland and Poland they were for centuries for poorer people, these drinks can be healthy, even medicine.
As Paracelsus said, there’s no difference between medicine and poison – it’s all a question of the dosage.
That was the point of whiskey, then.
The younger whiskey drinkers I see now drink better stuff in very small amounts.
There’s a mini boom in distillery openings in the US, following the trend of micro breweries. We even had some in NYC.
“A drink that in its native lands is for people that want to get drunk, fast.”
A drink that in its native lands is for people that want to escape by getting drunk, fast.
Vodka is indeed a vile invention.
Back to the post.
Even though these bar owners are punishing the innocent, aren’t free markets and economic rights and rights to free association great? If you don’t want to buy something, or trade with certain people, you don’t have to.
Great, let’s have that in everything and for everyone.
This ain’t gonna hurt Stoly or Russia that much at all.
Let’s not go around the free movement of labour across borders mulberry bush again Pete.
Paul McMahon –
Let’s not then.
Still, duh gayers agree that boycotts and free association can be good things. Of course, a part of free association is free disassociation. They should be careful what they wish for.
The Russians don’t drink to get drunk, they drink to stay drunk.
I am not partial to vodka and find the “good stuff” is a distinction without a difference from the “bad stuff”.
Am I the only one who is amused by the fact that a protest against anti-homosexuality could be seen as a refusal to swallow?
(beat you to that one Colm).
Boycotts are fine, good.
The problem though is that boycotters will use heavy handed tactics to compel others to boycott too, by means various means including threats of secondary boycotts. Which is bullshit.
Pete
Are there any laws stopping commercial organisations from boycotting goods in protest at ‘pro-gay’ policies enacted by certain countries ?
Boycotts I think are legal anywhere.
Secondary boycotts by unions I believe are illegal in the US. ( ie I don’t think that XYZ union can refuse to transport Stoly because some guy doesn’t like what Putin has done )
Phantom
Same situation applies here.
Colm –
“Are there any laws stopping commercial organisations from boycotting goods in protest at ‘pro-gay’ policies enacted by certain countries ?”
Of course. You’re in such a country. If you ran a anti-homosexual pub (say, no homosexuals allowed, not stocking Pink News alongside other papers, not stocking drinks from producers which would employ homosexuals etc) you’d very quickly get a visit from plod.
There’s a marketing opportunity here to cater for the 90+ who are not ‘gay’:
Vodka – for the straight man
You’re an awful eejit, Allan, in addition to being a genocidal racist.
Pete
Not true (apart from not allowing homosexuals in) all the other things are perfectly legal.
Allan
Why do you want to promote Vodka only to very old straight men ? 😉
Allan
Who were the good guys in WW2?
The non Jews ?
Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich.
They’re his ” good guys “
Well their complaints against the Jews were understandable.
Pete – What complaints? The Holocaust never happened or was greatly exaggerated according to your crowd.
Their complaints about ” the Jews ”
Oh my.
Allan
Who were the bad guys in WW2?
Speak up.
“Oh my”, Phantom?
Have you already forgotten?
What did I forget?
Pete
Unless all Jewish people behaved badly then no you cannot say their complaints against ‘The Jews’ were understandable. You can have a complaint against individuals or people common together to act in a specific manner but unless you can prove all Jews of all ages behaved in ways that merited ‘punishment’ then your statement is baseless.
I think Pete’s paraphrasing Roosevelt again.
He thinks that no-ne will criticise Roosevelt for saying that. Why wouldn’t they ? If Roosevelt said that he was an ignorant bigot.
Colm –
It’s not my statement.
FDR? An ignorant bigot?
Rendite this blasphemer to America at once! FDR is a National Hero. He has his own memorial and everything. Plebs are not supposed to go off piste and find out stuff for themselves.
Pete
I know – it’s probably too liberal for you 😉
FDR was a world hero, as was Churchill, George Patton and others who were not perfect and who said bad things at times.
Yet, when it counted, they played leading roles in crushing the Third Reich didn’t they?
The propaganda is powerful.
crushing the Third Reich…
And you think that will find favour with Pete and Allan ? 😉
Should we be knocking back some Vodka, before this thread gets any sillier ?
Some have la nostalgie pour le Reich.
Pity, in 2013 yet.
It’s funny really.
FDR is a world hero apparently, but he said worse things about Jews than Allan@Aberdeen ever has.
FDR hated the idea of mixing blood, he was proud that their was no Jewish blood in his veins, and many tens of thousands of Jews were killed because he denied them asylum. But he’s a world hero.
The propaganda is strong among believers.
I care more about what he did than what he, at times, said.
What do you care about?
Pete – you aren’t speaking German because of Roosevelt. In fact you can credit him for helping to preserve the free country in which you can look up selected quotes in a childish effort to discredit him. He exhibited some of the prevailing anti-Semitism of his time, but it was certainly never the vile nonsense put out by the Nazis regime and their silly little descendants like Allan. And his overall accomplishments for the free world are impossible for a sane or honest person to dispute.
You’ve never had the decency to challenge Allan on any of his daily racist or anti-Semitic remarks, leading to the obvious conclusion that you share them. Look, the people here aren’t gullible like the teenagers, shut-ins and wackjobs you must interact with on conspiracy sites.
It is rather astonishing to hear someone claiming to be British to say these things and to think in this way.
It is being an opponent of the historical record to think this way.
Oswald Mosley rides again.
Phantom – FDR denied asylum to many thousands of Jews.
Mahons – I’m not the blog police. “Challenging” opinions that don’t accord with official history or tastes is for the po-faced. And it’s very boring.
Rather than selected quotes, FDR appears to be a lifelong anti-semite who could have saved many thousands of Jews. He ensured they weren’t saved and is highly complicit in the weak American response to the holocaust.
He hated Asians and Japs too. The internment of thousands of Japs, and all the lives that were destroyed it, was down to him.
But hey, government says he’s a national hero. He has a memorial and everything.
FDR wasn’t perfect.
Yet he led the war effort for years before the US was even in the war, swatting aside the Ron Pauls of the day, and he expended the full resources of the US towards the crushing of Japan and Germany.
Churchill liked the dude. But boy oh boy our Pete found him out!
Well you’re never likely to find anything out. All you do is soak up whatever old shit the government pumps into your head. I love how Ron Paul was a supposed racist a year ago, but an actual racist like FDR is still worshipped.
What would it take for you to admire Allan@Aberdeen? Does he have to sit in a wheelchair or something?
Pete – Oh nonsense. Allan’s ravings aren’t in accord with basic facts and decency, not merely “official” history. FDR certainly could have done more, but you’ll be hard pressed to find a world leader who did as much. And that is where you depart from reality.
Was FDR an effective and dedicated leader in the fight against Hitler and Hitlerism?
Yes or no
Did FDR, in 1943, suggest that the best way to “settle the Jewish Question” is to “spread them thin all over the world”?
Res ipsa loquitor
Pete – still hoping random quotes in the face of the entire historical record will convince people with any sense? He most certainly made that and some other distasteful comments. But it really is juvenile and laughingly ignorant to portray him as you do.
Pete is like a defense attorney trying to mislead a jury with this stuff.
It is wilful ignorance of the essential facts of what went on during one of the very dark eras in history.
Well that’s clear then gents.
When Allan@Aberdeen makes “distasteful” remarks, he’s a bad man.
FDR says worse, spreads the Jews thin in Georgia, ensures tens of thousands are killed, and he’s a great man.
As long as we know what’s expected.
Huh?
Does Pete make sense to anyone here that isn’t Allan?
Pete – Should FDR comment on ATW I will review what he says and challenge him on any remark I find to be anti-Semitic.
Allan makes daily racist and anti-Semitic remarks here in the present day, not in the 1940s. And you’ll have to remind me of any positive things Allan has done to balance the ledger in his favor, such as leading a reluctant nation to fight and defeat the AXIS Powers in a World War. I seem to have missed him doing that.
You are a fine example of someone who learns a little and thinks they have learned a lot.
Does our friends Pete and Allan have a kind word about Churchill?
Or was he a no good bum also?
Mahons posted:
FDR wasn’t perfect. Yet he led the war effort for years before the US was even in the war, swatting aside the Ron Pauls of the day, and he expended the full resources of the US towards the crushing of Japan and Germany.
Yes, this nails it.
For goodness sake children. We can forget the court history fairy tales. FDR’s government led the Japs on to bomb Pearl Harbour.
While those remarks of FDR would have him hanged on ATW, mahons is right that they have to be seen in the context of the general anti-semitism of the day, and were of course nothing compared to the naked hatred shown by Nazis, who also wasted no time in putting that hatred into action.
Churchill also had his “anti-semitic” side, as did the conservative British press and in fact practically all conservative Europe at the time – linking Jews very much with Communism and the general breakdown in society and “morals” that they saw after the Great War
A lot of people today would understand the history of the period much better if they realised that – that the fight back then wasn’t so much between right and left as between the left and everyone else. The greater part of the western world had an insane fear of Communism, fuelled not least by the terrible stories coming from out of Russia. A lot of them were prepared to tolerate almost anyone who destroyed Communism (meaning everything from Bolshevism and trade unions to social licentiousness etc), and this was what gave the Nazis their strength and support all over Europe. French conservatives, for example, had for years been saying that this mixture of communism, sexual freedom, etc was poisoning and effeminising their Society (they constantly used that term). Jews, always strongly present in the labour movement, the media and intellectual life, were considered the apostles of this hated modernism.
Then, when the German armies rolled over France, conservatives had the zeal of the vindicated. Efficiency and discipline had won over a liberal and permissive society. They had no problem convincing most of their countrymen that this new German way was the best.
Basically the same ingredients were also present in Britain and even the US, and their people would no doubt have reacted the same way to the same experience.
FDR and Churchill got the big moral and defense issues right, early on, when many in their nations had those issues dead wrong.
Noel – I am afraid the fear of communism (as practiced by the Soviets) wasn’t fear as much as perception. However, that fear was used many times quite wrongly, which sullied at times the legitimate opposition to communism. You are quite correct however about the high level of anti-Semitism at the time in the US and when combined with isolationists and the desperation of the Great Depression (not to mention its advocacy by icons like Lindbergh) it was quite a force.
Phantom, the moral issue should have been settled in 1935 or even, to quote GB Shaw, when Hitler stole Einstein’s violin. They had interned, tortured and murdered thousands of people – socialists, democrats and liberals – by then, had excluded Jews from all civil life and ended democracy and free speech.
But all countries still continued trading and negotiating with them for years after that.
Noel
Spot on.
If it was interfering in Germany’s internal affairs so what.
Some things you don’t stand for.
“Some things you don’t stand for.”
Under what internal circumstances would you support a foreign alliance declaring war against, and invading, the United States?
A lot of people today would understand the history of the period much better if they realised that – that the fight back then wasn’t so much between right and left as between the left and everyone else. The greater part of the western world had an insane fear of Communism, fuelled not least by the terrible stories coming from out of Russia. A lot of them were prepared to tolerate almost anyone who destroyed Communism (meaning everything from Bolshevism and trade unions to social licentiousness etc), and this was what gave the Nazis their strength and support all over Europe. French conservatives, for example, had for years been saying that this mixture of communism, sexual freedom, etc was poisoning and effeminising their Society (they constantly used that term). Jews, always strongly present in the labour movement, the media and intellectual life, were considered the apostles of this hated modernism.
No.
The “insane fear” was totally justified by the mass famines, purges, show-trials, butchery of the kulaks etc. And when Stalin allied the workers’ paradise to the nazi jew-killing machine in 1939, it was a case of tyrants and genocidists getting together. Churchill and Rooseveldt were the good guys, albeit flawed like all of us.
1.
Course the irony of the anti-semites here pretending to care about anti-Semitism should not be lost on the readers. FDR was in his time considered a Jew-lover for his appointments to office and advocacy of their cause. The Allans and Petes of that time called his program the Jew Deal.
Pete
When the US opens Birkenau Kansas City, y’all can invade us. Of course, you’ll need to properly fund a military first.
When slavery was practiced in the US, it would have been a moral thing for a foreign alliance to come in and stop it.
Goodness me! I post an innocent little comment and return a few hours later to an explosion in a 4th year Modern Studies class – and modern history being degraded in just the same manner. A question was put by Phantom:
This is an attempt by somebody, who regurgitates everything that he has been told by the corporate ‘historians’, to drum up the ATW mob in an ‘anti-nazi’ group rant with little, if any, attention paid to any response on my part and to the supporting linked evidence. The question therefore should be taken no more seriously than Phantom’s views on economics – but the matter of the question is too important not to be taken seriously even if put by one of the more frivolous contributors to this site.
Like Phantom, I used to believe everything that the schools (approved history books and curricula) and Hollywood told me. The Nazis killed 6 million blameless jews who never did nothing wrong anywhere or at any time and turned them into soap and lampshades etc. I was told that Hitler attacked the innocent blameless Poland, Norway, France, Yugoslavia, Greece and finally the Soviet Union. Putting aside the jewish question which has been dealt with elsewhere, the archives of the former Soviet Union reveal that Stalin was prepared to invade Germany and Poland with 20,000 tanks and 6 million troops in July 1941 and it is these forces with their disposition to attack and not defence which were destroyed when Hitler got his attack in first. But firstly, are these the ‘good guys’?
http://www.ihr.org/other/july09weber.html
So who were the ‘good guys’?
FDR was an asshole and a communist dupe
Troll is most excellent comedian
now with my first comment as a qualifier I add with conviction.
Allan you are the most offensive creature to grace these pages. Hitler was as close as mankind has ever seen to the embodiment of the anti-christ in human form.
Your blind loyalty to the Nazi philosophy on a daily basis I find to be the spewing bile of a man equivalent to those men that ushered the jews, the gypsies, the catholics and every other victim of the ovens with smiles on their faces I also picture you as equal to those that then scoured those bodies to pull the gold from the teeth of the dead.
why Phantom?
FDR was the the second most destructive president to the US, and history has proven that a large group of his inner advisors were under soviet control.
You revere a man that if it wasn’t for the war would have destroyed this nation as the dictator that he was. He may have been popular, but he was a disastrous fool.
His economic performance we can debate about.
He saw the Nazi threat before many other Americans, or even British. He tilted to Britain well before Pearl Harbor / the German declaration of war, and increased the size of the US military as needed.
He was an enthusiastic proponent of the war, and managed the tricky diplomacy part of it very well.
He gave inspiration to Americans during the long days of Depression and War by speaking directly to them on the radio.
He got many things wrong, but he got the big thing right.
He was a very great president. There are streets named after him throughout Europe, and a station on the Paris Metro.
A very great man.
Ovens? OVENS? You mean these ovens?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPoNJ8QAIek
Phantom
His stance on the war and it’s threat can not be questioned the same can be said for GW Bush, but Bush was just an idiot on the home front where FDR was a Dictator with fascist tendencies surrounded by soviet plants.
There were only two great Presidents in the 20th century, one was a genius but only half right, and the other was pure perfection.
Nixon and Reagan
since this has turned into a war post here is something to make you smile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr155-C-0wc
Mr. Gingrich would disagree on FDR. He’s right here, and he has said it many times.
http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/12/13/newt-fdr-greatest-president-20th-century
Well for a light hearted post about a gay bar’s boycott of Russian Vodka, this certainly turned into a heavy but interesting debate. ATW at its best.