I want to roast neuralnoise so so bad...but, god I just can't bring myself to do it. First I thought, hey, siftbot has more character, than this no-name nobody. After reading his roast prep, though I realized I was wrong. He comes off as one of those men of latin descent that are both very passionate, but also in touch with their feminine side. Enough so, that he can cry openly. Maybe like a character from "Y Tu Mama Tambien." I think roasting him would bring him to cry and cry. And then to relieve his anguish, he'll play some Flamenco on the guitar or maybe sip on some sangria in the courtyard of his Spanish style villa. Maybe he'll even do a couple lines of cocaine he picked up at the local farmer's market.

Fact of the matter is, his life is probably 20 times better than any of you jizz-tarts...

"Prison ain't so bad. Ya can make sangria in the terlet."

What an oaf.

Ed. an oaf who apparently spikes his guest's sangria.

Sangria comes in a bottle, already made.

Ooh! What a great use for my 2 cases of 2 Buck Chuck from Trader Joe's I have waiting for me to be done bleaching my teeth!

There's a restaurant in Florida that my family goes to and we always order pitchers of Sangria. They add cinnamon in theirs. It sounds a little strange, but it works really well, especially if you are using pears, peaches, and apples. I highly recommend experimenting with it.

P.S., I love the unruly sweeter stuff, so I'd add simple syrup/sugar.

Soaking overnight in brandy is necessary!! This allows the alcohol to totally soak into the fruit bits. This is good because chickas like to eat the pieces of fruit, and, because of the alcohol, become free of conditioning preventing them from enjoying being female, enjoying males !! I LOVE Sangria!!

>> ^burdturgler:
So .. you're insulting me or agreeing with me? I think maybe something is wrong with your sangria this evening my friend.


I think I'm using the third option you left out: disagreeing with you. Not everything I say is an insult, you smelly, toothless bastard. And stop thumping your chest at people in Canada who aren't interested in our elections.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^burdturgler:
we have to get out of this petty bullshit mind set

I was going to tell you the same thing. You think because we're the bullies of the world every country should stand at attention when our elections come around? The balls.



So .. you're insulting me or agreeing with me? I think maybe something is wrong with your sangria this evening my friend.

Obviously, the Scientology cult of Apple has been angered. But, yeah, maybe I am being too harsh, but I was trying to not go into too much detail when writing this. Let's just say, this isn't the first issue I've had with an Apple product, and this particular iPod was new when the first firmware update took it down that dark path.

The fifth generation iPods have been out for a while, and mine has been sitting in a drawer for a long time because it is simply a POS. I just recently dusted it off and tried to upgrade the firmware to 1.3 thinking maybe they shook the kinks out of the update, but of course it ruined my iPod for good. It was only a matter of time before I stabbed my knife blade through the screen.

Maybe I shouldn't post an anti-Apple post when I'm drinking sangria. Or maybe Apple can suck my ass. Also, you can read my earlier post against Mobile Me if you want to see the beginnings of my public outrage against Apple. There, too, the army of Dag was there to defend Apple's honor.

America's Test Kitchen covered sangria -- here's an excerpt

Many people mistake sangria for an unruly collection of fruit awash in a sea of overly sweetened red wine. There's also the premade sangria sold in liquor stores, which is at once sugary, watery, and flavorless--a poor substitute for Hi-C.
The Goal

A robust, sweet-tart punch.
The Solution

Start with cheap red wine, which actually makes a better sangria than the expensive stuff. (Experts told us that the sugar and fruit called for in sangria throw off the balance of any wine used, so why spend a lot on something that was carefully crafted?)We experimented with untold varieties of fruit to put in our sangria and finally concluded that simpler is better. We preferred the straightforward tang of citrus in the form of oranges and lemons. And we discovered that the zest and pith as well as the fruit itself make an important contribution to flavor. Orange liqueur is standard in recipes for sangria, and after experimenting we found that here, as with the wine, cheaper was just fine, this time in the form of Triple Sec. Fortification with any other alcoholic beverage, from gin to port to brandy, simply gave the punch too much punch. What we wanted, and what we now had, was a light, refreshing, very drinkable drink.

Here's the recipe -- http://www.recipezaar.com/The-Best-Sangria-64855 . I haven't tried it yet, but it's on my list

By the way, do not trust the picture. The idea of putting lemons in any Sangria only serves to add needless acidity (already an acidic drink) and it also absorbs the alcohol and no one wants to eat a lemon slice for the alcohol, right? Fucking terrible.

Peaches, pears and apples work very well. Also, be careful of things like grapes (okay for white sangria) and especially raspberries and blueberries and all kinds of berries (they tend to breakdown in liquid). Stick with fruits like apples and pears and peaches.

Oh, and oranges!

Sangria is pretty awesome. So are margaritas. So is Mexican food...what a great holiday.

Oh, man, a margarita sounds really good to me now. Haven't had one in ages.

But you know what will really kick your ass?

Sangria.

It's the Hispanic ninja of all libations.

"And this is precisely why we're canceling Sangria Thursdays!"

Here we go again...

To Persephone:
That "righteous tone" that Condell, and most of us anti-theists seem to take on is a result of us being sick and tired of religion, religious "values", and religious practices being shoved down our throats time and time again due to the weakness of politicians and the loud vocal religious constituents that demand these practices be put in place despite their not being the only voice. For some reason it's okay in society today to be passionate about one's religion, but it's not okay to be passionate about one's lack of religion. Explain to me why that is reasonable?

To BlueCliff:
I don't even know where to begin... I'm probably going to let another Sifter who is more eloquent, smarter and more historically savvy than me to expound, because I just can't think straight due to my disgust, but I'll give a short reply. Anyone, feel free to correct me, as I'm on my second glass of Sangria and am very angry.

The United States of America was specifically designed to NOT involve God. The founding fathers, during the Age of Reason, knew better than to involve any sort of theocratic stipulations within the Constitution. Yes, many of the founders were Christian, however many were deists, and many, including Jefferson showed a great deal of doubt about any God at all to the point of at least agnosticism. There was a lot of deliberation on the subject, from what I understand, but in the end, they reasoned that the separation of church and state was beneficial for BOTH the church and the state. And as a result, they created the longest running Republic in the history of the world. It has only been after the creation of the union, and in particular in the 1900's due to the evil threat of "Godless communism" that the religious have gained any sort of foothold and perverted American politics. To say that America can't exist without God, to me, is offensive and an affront to everything that the founding fathers tried to do.

That is why I get so passionate about my atheism. Yes, we have a lot of Protestant "morals" in this country, but most of them are antiquated and childish and based on repression and shame. They mostly serve to hold society, reason, and science back. However removing God from the equation in no way means that we are going to resort to some anarchistic, amoral society.

Condell's whole point of this is that European countries have been becoming more of a free democracy and less of a theocratic state in the last century, while we've gone backwards, and yet for some reason, they are now allowing a new Islamic theocracy to invade their system and allow for crimes that would otherwise be intolerable. And why? Just so that they don't offend that small religious segment? The freedoms that they've gained are too important to lose to another set of religious dogma, whatever the religion may be.

Okay, that was way longer than I intended... With apologies...