- MonoAus
- Nov 5, 2012
-
|
Sounds a bit loving la-de-da for auspol doesn't it?
Auspol is more of a polony and tomato sauce sandwich kind of thread.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:16
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:52
|
|
- Cartoon
- Jun 20, 2008
-
poop
|
rear end - A kind of four legged beast. Jesus' mum rode one apparently.
Arse - The bit where the poo comes out. The bit we rode on Jesus' mum.
Let's at least pretend we aren't in the US already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:01
|
|
- Graic Gabtar
- Dec 19, 2014
-
squat my posts
|
Heh, heh, heh. "Meat"
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 07:43
|
|
- Anidav
- Feb 25, 2010
-
ahhh fuck its the rats again
|
by The Australian Financial Review posted:
Federal Greens leader Richard Di Natale is to be congratulated for making another effort to drag his party away from the cranky fringe and towards making a real contribution to policy formation by daring to soften its policy against genetically modified foods.
Whether this effort, which involved little more than Senator Di Natale saying he was not philosophically opposed to such foods, survives the reaction by party hardliners remains to be seen. But at least Senator Di Natale is in there and swinging against the policies that are irrational, make his party hard to sell to the middle ground, and obstruct the pragmatic deals that make politics work.
Genetically modified crops account for about 12 per cent of crops worldwide, and are present in an estimated 70 per cent of supermarket food products in Australia, while extensive studies have failed to identify any risks. Yet this reality has failed to make any impression on significant section the grassroots membership, which reaffirmed the party's opposition to GMOs at its 2015 national convention.
That decision in turn emphasised the fact that the Greens emerged as a party of protest rather than government, better suited to tearing down policies than to forming them. This was particularly evident under their former leader Christine Milne, who was opposed to any policy supported by former prime minister Tony Abbott, even when that policy agreed with party policy, notably petrol excise indexation. Ms Milne was stridently opposed to GM foods and farming.
There are indications that Senator Di Natale's efforts to shift the Greens away from its protest base are having some success for his party, with membership increasing by 30 per cent over a year to 13,400 last year. His shift is also making the business of government easier, with the Coalition managing to push a tighter means test for the pension through the Senate in June, thanks to support from the Greens. In contrast, Labor tied itself in knots defending its opposition to reducing pension payouts to the wealthy.
Senator Di Natale's job as a voice for reason in the party is far from easy. But to observers of the political scene the Greens make considerable more sense and seem more relevant than they did under his predecessor, and that is something to be grateful for in any political party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:16
|
|
- Graic Gabtar
- Dec 19, 2014
-
squat my posts
|
Is Di Natale angling to be the next Meg Lees?
Totally not auspol but David Bowie died today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 08:31
|
|
- Birb Katter
- Sep 18, 2010
-
BOATS STOPPED
CARBON TAX AXED
TURNBULL AS PM
LIBERALS WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN A LANDSLIDE
|
Is Di Natale angling to be the next Meg Lees?
Totally not auspol but David Bowie died today.
Yeah, we're talking about it in the crew thread. It's a poo poo day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 09:14
|
|
- Birb Katter
- Sep 18, 2010
-
BOATS STOPPED
CARBON TAX AXED
TURNBULL AS PM
LIBERALS WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN A LANDSLIDE
|
David Bowie didn't die. He went undercover as Bill Shorten.
I've heard of Bowie though, this doesn't check out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 09:48
|
|
- Doctor Spaceman
- Jul 6, 2010
-
"Everyone's entitled to their point of view, but that's seriously a weird one."
|
David Bowie didn't die. He went undercover as Bill Shorten.
Well he is a shape-shifting super-villain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 09:59
|
|
- Smegmatron
- Apr 23, 2003
-
I hate to advocate emptyquoting or shitposting to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
|
Australia Day is coming. Be prepared.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-al0xSFJo
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:10
|
|
- Ettin
- Oct 2, 2010
-
|
Looking forward to the next First Dog tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:25
|
|
- Orkin Mang
- Nov 1, 2007
-
by FactsAreUseless
|
gently caress. What is that?
its the episode viii scroll
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:36
|
|
- Orkin Mang
- Nov 1, 2007
-
by FactsAreUseless
|
looks like more ewoks :/
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:37
|
|
- Graic Gabtar
- Dec 19, 2014
-
squat my posts
|
its the episode viii scroll
#WheresRey
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 11:02
|
|
- Schneider Inside Her
- Aug 6, 2009
-
Please bitches. If nothing else I am a gentleman
|
Holy poo poo first dog is unreadable
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:08
|
|
- I would blow Dane Cook
- Dec 26, 2008
-
|
The first First Dog of the new year. The first of many.
These loss edits are getting really weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:37
|
|
- Sparticle
- Oct 7, 2012
-
|
I still don't understand why he doesn't just write a blog? I mean his art never improves so what's the point?
I still don't understand why he doesn't just write a blog? I mean his posts never improve so what's the point?
e: but seriously, gently caress First Dog.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:52
|
|
- Graic Gabtar
- Dec 19, 2014
-
squat my posts
|
I still don't understand why he doesn't just write a blog? I mean his art poo poo never improves so what's the point?
I see the word "misogyny" thrown around so much these days it's about as credible as sports commentators calling everyone a "superstar".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 12:56
|
|
- ssmagus
- Apr 2, 2010
-
Assmagus, LPer ass-traordinaire
|
Just because it's a new year doesn't mean you can ignore the kittens
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 13:12
|
|
- Pred1ct
- Feb 20, 2004
-
Burninating
|
Late to sandwich chat but
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/03/is-a-hot-dog-a-sandwich-nature-america
quote:
America's Fourth of July celebrations always provide fodder for uncomfortable conversations. Sure, there's that sophomore back from college running a Baby's First Howard Zinn rap to remind you that America owes its entire existence to the French military, a gay Prussian inspector general of the Continental Army, two giant oceans and a genocide. But those aren't big-picture issues. I'm talking about whether a hot dog is a sandwich.
It's a question widely posed – and how we approach it speaks to who we are, as individuals and as a nation.
Consider: neither the hot dog nor the sandwich were invented by America, yet we feel a passionate possessiveness over both. (You can turn on the Food Network, the Discovery Channel, CNN or – by now – the History Channel and see a show ranking the world's best sandwiches, all without leaving the continental United States, followed by a nauseating closeup of Guy Fieri's Baconated Hamapeño Chipotle-Chicken Despair Ziggurat.) We define ourselves and our sandwiches as much by what they are as by what they are not, finding an identity in both recognition and rejection.
Others have engaged the Hot Dog-Sandwich debate in the past, but they have not gone far enough in exploring the scope of sandwich ontology. For instance, my colleague at Sports on Earth, Patrick Hruby, addressed this a couple years ago by citing the dictionary:
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a sandwich is "two or more slices of bread with a filling such as meat or cheese placed between them, or a partly split long or round roll containing a filling." Thus, bun-plus-Dodger Dog equals ... Voila!
But appeals to etymological authority get us nowhere. I've seen definitions that omit the mention of non-meats (essentially defining the grilled cheese sandwich out of existence) or the presence of a partly split long or round roll (rendering the existence of such manifestly sandwiched meals as the hoagie or sub impossible).
Though appeals to history often create stifling parameters, the alleged story of the sandwich's invention – the Earl of Sandwich needed a way to enjoy a portable meal without utensils or much mess – should inform our approach to understanding the sandwich's apotheosis as, ultimately, an American form pairing necessity with an elegance of individual expression. That the mass adoption of the sandwich during the industrial revolution followed his lead (and provides ample evidence as to the utility and common appearance of the sandwich as a meal) likewise should inform our conceptions of a normative sandwich state.
Thus the Great Hot Dog-Sandwich Debate should be over as soon as it begins: if a sandwich is a portable, relatively tidy meal of meat inside a bread conveyance, the fact that the bun is sliced lengthwise but not all the way through affects nothing in this discussion. The bread is in essence no different when fully sliced and presenting a more familiar sandwich form. To quibble further, one might say, is to simply argue about hinges.
Stopping here, though, is actually the action of a fool – because this conclusion naturally opens up further counterarguments to sandwich ontology that sandwich reactionaries invariably make in bad faith. For instance, the various Charles Krauthammers of the sandwich punditocracy employ the "slippery slope" argument to deny the hot dog's sandwich-status by going into hysterics (like those parodied by my colleague The Hot Take Man) about a taco being a sandwich – which, of course, it manifestly is.
Sandwich segregationists generally prefer to designate tacos and the like with the separate-but-equal designation of "wraps" – which is a distinction without a difference. Arguing against the wrap's inclusion in the sandwich category merely returns us to the hinge contention militating against the hot dog. Its functionality, however, easily demonstrates a means of conveying meat or other fillers with portability and a lack of utensils. Thus, not only is a taco a sandwich, but so is a burrito (and its Levantine antecedent, the gyro) – the only difference being that one is more neatly packaged than the other, analogous to the difference between a sloppy-pressed reuben and the near-hermetic sandwich tubes of Jimmy Johns. (Meanwhile, the taquito is a finger sandwich.)
But! you might protest, what of the nature of the wrap itself? Well, what of it? If you wish to argue that the substance encasing the meat in a wrap cannot qualify as bread because it is too flat, then the rabbi Hillel the Elder's willingness to dine on unleavened sandwiches over 2,000 years ago dispatches that argument. A flour tortilla is just a flat loaf of bread without yeast in it and, as for a corn tortilla, that is processed just like wheat flour.
(If you, however, wish to argue that it is not the processing but the corn itself that cannot become bread, then you have just radically postulated the nonexistence of cornbread, whose breadedness has heretofore never been in dispute.)
Still, there are some limits to what makes a sandwich. The presence of some form of bread alone is not criterion enough. As soon as "bread" transitions from noun to verb form it transgresses the space between sandwich and non-sandwich. Breading food does not make a sandwich, tempura offers no challenge to our understanding, and fried chicken is merely seasoned chicken. Likewise, while the flaky pastry of a Croissan'wich makes for a kind of sandwich, the same pastry baked around a steak filet does not make beef wellington a sandwich.
And, despite its possible shape, I cannot agree with my friend that the universe is a sandwich.
Here, then, we can best understand the boundaries of sandwich taxonomy via intentionalism. While breads might abound in the world's cuisine, whether they are employed as a means of making a reasonably tidy portable meal limns the sandwich classification. Breaking off bits of flatbread to dip into hummus does not create hummus sandwiches. (You know drat well that you are snacking.) On the other hand, a calzone is a sandwich, while a pizza is not. That a diner may adapt the shape of a sliced subsection of the latter to create a portable meal does not reflect the intent of its crafting; that is a secondary, user-generated adaptation. The former, however occasionally ill-crafted, possesses an inherent form that is both portable and independent of utensil intervention. (To argue that the presence of sloppy, boiling-hot calzones belies their sandwich nature is a debate on elaboration, not intention, like saying that a leaky building proves that buildings are not a form of shelter.)
This brings us naturally to the biggest red herring of the sandwich debate – the open-faced sandwich, which, via an intentionalist approach, is not a sandwich at all. The open-faced sandwich is a plate-bound horror, largely dependent on utensils and usually drenched in a humiliating amount or variety of sauces, that, if eaten by hand, make your face look like the aftermath of a hollandaise bombing in a farmer's market. That an open-face sandwich is named sandwich makes it a sandwich as much as calling the team the "New York Giants" makes the New Jersey-based games played in New York. If we're going to give open-faced sandwiches whatever vaguely inappropriate appellation we want – and not something more physically descriptive of their splayed form, like "glutenated lunch vaginas" – we might as well come closer to the truth. As my friend Chareth Cutestory (a pseudonym) once said before security dragged him kicking and screaming away from a city council meeting, "AN OPEN-FACED SANDWICH IS A PIZZA!".
Please don't misunderstand me: I argue for these boundaries not because I fear some slippery slope of sandwich identity, but because I want to better appreciate the new sandwiches I encounter and not be led astray by mislabeled foodstuffs that alter our perception of the sandwich universe. I am, at heart, a sandwich expansionist and will always argue for inclusionary sandwichism. But I understand how frightening those ideas are to others whose worldviews have been warped and terrified by Guy Fieri's "Mondo Pita-Partied Hemorhhagic Meated Wads with Volcano Adobo Mayo and You-Don't-Know-Chedder-Jack™ Agglutinate".
America is a country founded by people from someplace else on ideas borrowed from someplace else, ultimately to try to distinguish itself from every place else. It is a fraught balance of identity – to take and be of an other, yet define yourself by contrast to that other. This is the strange impulse of our "exceptionalism", to always borrow something and modify it slightly, then declare the end result definitively, uniquely American.
You can see this at play with the hot dog: the sandwich and sausage were both invented elsewhere, so to celebrate them separately as uniquely American on America's day of independence would present an empty gesture, immediately undermined by the tools used to make it. Combining the two, however, to create a distinct third entity creates something singularly American in our minds. The hot dog qua hot dog thus becomes a patriotic novelty – and slamming the door on any debate over its place in a pre-existing internationalist universe of sandwiches allows us to avoid confronting other issues, like the changing nature of what it is to be American.
But if we accept that a neat meal package of either hinged or wrapping breads or the classic two-slice model are the ontological bases for a sandwich, suddenly we must introduce new food to that classification – arepas, banh mi, a disruptive new egg roll out of Shanghai the size of a football or an infant. The sandwich evolves and broadens as we do, without abandoning the intent that informs it and animates it. A hot dog is a sandwich. A taco is a sandwich. God bless them, God bless America, God bless sandwiches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 13:32
|
|
- BBJoey
- Oct 31, 2012
-
|
what does american nonsense have to do with sausage sandwiches
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 13:48
|
|
- Graic Gabtar
- Dec 19, 2014
-
squat my posts
|
Dear God.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 13:51
|
|
- Schneider Inside Her
- Aug 6, 2009
-
Please bitches. If nothing else I am a gentleman
|
That writer is right on the loving money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 14:06
|
|
- Birb Katter
- Sep 18, 2010
-
BOATS STOPPED
CARBON TAX AXED
TURNBULL AS PM
LIBERALS WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN A LANDSLIDE
|
Does GSC know that his birb is really just a sammich?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 18:09
|
|
- Pidgin Englishman
- Apr 30, 2007
-
If you shoot
you better hit your mark
|
More evidence of American unexceptionalism and losingness. News at 11.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:08
|
|
- I would blow Dane Cook
- Dec 26, 2008
-
|
Sausage chat you say?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:22
|
|
- open24hours
- Jan 7, 2001
-
|
Drugs in [professional] sport: an issue for the federal government (or state, for that matter)?
open24hours fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jan 12, 2016
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 03:40
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2024 15:52
|
|
- Laserface
- Dec 24, 2004
-
|
Drugs in [professional] sport: an issue for the federal government (or state, for that matter)?
Who cares? its entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 04:00
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 05:16
