I’m watching “Versailles” right now. It’s good to see something that is not about the Tudors or the War of the Roses, much as I enjoy English history of that time period.

Yes, that’s right - it was Louis XIV who was more extravagant. The problem with XVI was that he was weak, indecisive and not really cut out to be a king. He’d have been better off as a scholar or locksmith (he had an unusual interest in that pursuit). And 100 or so years of French kings living at Versailles had caused…

Tbh, this does not surprise me at all.

Yep. Obviously when it’s on the taxpayer’s dime, it’s a different story. Just throwing my two cents in as to why I think this is happening. People like Pruitt probably have zero concept of self-control. They are likely used to spending obscene amounts in their personal lives and believe they should be entitled to…

These people do. They either don’t know history or don’t believe something like the French Revolution could happen here (and let’s face it, it’s not like they’ve ever been given cause to believe that the hoi polloi in the U.S. would ever come after them with pitch forks over their decadence).

It’s the old saying about how money can’t buy you class. Trump’s apartment in New York is a case in point. It looks like the 80s (and Versailles) went and threw up all over it.

The thing that is mind-boggling to me? I have heard (directly from parents) of college-age and young (post-college) adult girls going to Soul Cycle and putting the expense on their parents’ credit card. I can afford that shit and I don’t take those classes myself! Forget about letting my kid do it on my dime. There…

It’s extremely expensive to start a winery - it takes five years and a lot of capital down the drain before you can even start making any product. Totally a vanity project for rich celebrities.

That bit about the Democratic Committee is why Democrats lose. They adopt mealy-mouthed tactics when what they should be doing is taking a strong stand and writing off Trump voters.

They’re definitely more expensive than entry-level Scotch, but the Laphroaig 10-Year is, for my money, the best bang for your buck. That said, first-time Scotch drinkers are better off trying Scotches like Glenlivet and McCallan.

I agree with this. I much prefer single malts, but I’ll drink a Black Label from time to time. It’s a decent blended Scotch. Hell, I’ll even take a Red Label if there’s nothing else at hand.

Something tells me many of the folk shitting on Laphroaig are not serious Scotch drinkers (interestingly enough, many of them, in the same breath, like to shit on Johnnie Walker as being inferior, which, ok, it’s true that even the best JW is not as tasty as a good single malt, but it’s not horrible either). I’ll take…

Exactly. It’s definitely not a gateway Scotch, but it’s my favorite and, if you like peat, the 10-year is the best bang for your buck. I’d never recommend it to a first-time drinker. Something like Glenfidditch or McCallan would be better.

I drink a lot of Scotch and think Laphroaig is excellent. If you like peaty Scotches, it’s probably the best bang for your buck.

I’m with you - Laphroaig and Lagavulin are my favorites.

Laphroaig 10-Year. Best bang for your buck but FYI, it’s peaty.

My local liquor emporium sells the Laphroaig 10-year for just over $40. It’s a permanent fixture in my liquor cabinet.

It’s definitely an acquired taste. I don’t even know that many men who drink it. As others have mentioned, it doesn’t really lend itself to cocktails the way that Bourbon and Rye do. I got into it because my father was a Scotch drinker and so is my husband. It’s now my favorite hard liquor, and I take it neat, but I…

This. I’ll drink Johnnie Walker Black if there’s no single malt available. At home, it’s Laphroaig or Lagavulin.

Possibly? Not sure. I read somewhere he’s Turkish.