Budweiser has no taste, it's piss beer.
It's crap.

Although I like the Czech Budweiser:

I guess the question is, given the option either a Budweiser, or no beer at all, would you turn it away?

If it was so awful and so terrible, I would. But it's not.

Is it a preferred beer, given the choice of thousands of other beers? Hardly. But I will drink a Budweiser and not complain about it.

Budweiser, you are a functional beverage. Not crap.

Ty Webb wrote:it's generally the best of the bottles a bar is going to have for $4 or $5 (unless they have Yuengling).

Budweiser doesn't even compare to Yuengling. Yuengling has flavor.

Budweiser, promoted for its "crisp, refreshing taste" is just another malted water-substitute beer, which happens to be less offensive to some than the Miller products in the same price category. It tastes less shitty than Old Style or PBR or High Life, which are a price step down, because it has almost no taste. It has been "beechwood aged" to taste like nothing instead of tasting like crap. It does not quite taste as much like nothing as Coors light, but I suppose that's what makes it the King of Beers--to taste as inoffensive as possible, for as cheap as possible.

So it's not crap: it's not anything!

edit: they've been hedged out, though, in the Chicago market at least, where you can get a not-so-bad Tyskie pint (i thinnk it's Polish, maybe Czech...) at Jewel for just over a dollar. Beats Budweiser hands-down!

this reminds me of a story...

Several years ago my father was in a bar in Philadelphia. Some German vacationers came in, with whom he struck up conversation. The topic turned to beer.

"Vee Vant to try zie American Budvieser bier! Do you know zis bier?"

Germans asking about Budweiser! So he said:

"Zis bier, my friends, zie Budweiser... ist for ants, und for frogs!"

I like Ballentine Ale better, and that shits usually very cheap.

Has the odd distinction of being "America's Largest Selling Ale" , as written right there on the bottle.


I don't know exactly what that means, though. Seems like a very carefully worded statement.

Back in the day when I was a drunk, I used to prefer Miller over Budweiser, though being a loyal Michiganian my first choice was always Strohs. These days, I'm an NA man, and I have to say that Sharps (from Miller) is a decisively better non-alcoholic beer than O'Douls (from Anheiser-Busch) -- in fact, the only major NA beer that's significantly worse than O'Douls is the Coors NA (can't remember the name), which is essentially carbonated water with pretentions. Though if you're looking for a non-alcoholic beer, you're better off with Exel (from Molson), Arctic (from Labats), Kaliber (from Guiness) or, believe it or not, Old Milwaulkee NA (which is a lot better than you'd expect).

Budwesier: Kinda crappy with alcohol, even worse without it.

DISCLAIMER: The following contains Dry or Deadpan Humor and may be perceived as "arrogant" by some readers who are challenged with hidebound worldviews and sand in their vaginas. Parental guidance is suggested.

---

In 1899, a project was undertaken to reverse the west-to-east flow of the Chicago River with the digging of a Sanitary and Ship Canal that connected the Chicago river to the Mississippi river basin. This project in turn connected the freshwater source of Lake Michigan to the Mississippi via the Chicago in an unprecedented east-to-west flow.

This was done to address Chicago's primary sewage problem: before the canal project, the Chicago River flowed east into Lake Michigan, carrying the city's industrial waste and sewage into the lake...where we get our drinking water from.

Supposedly, cholera epidemics occurred (unsubstantiatied by Chicago medical records, by the way) and so the plans to protect the lake from city pollution were carried out over the complaints and lawsuits of cities situated further south on the Mississippi, including St. Louis, MO.

On Jan 2, 1900, without worrying about the legal ramifications, Chicago engineers dynamited a temporary dam and let gravity take its course. That day, the Chicago river flowed away from Lake Michigan and into the Mississippi, carrying Chicago's sewage south, toward St. Louis.

St. Louis, now awash in Chicago's dissolved poop, devised a clever plan to return the sewage to Chicago. The Annheiser-Busch Brewing Company was founded to collect, bottle and ship that sewage back to Chicago, labelled as "beer."

Thus was Budweiser born.

-r

Mayfair wrote:If this was Italy, we would be calling it Peroni.

Not crap.

Yeah, but Peroni doesn't give me heartburn like Bud does. I don't mind the taste (the non-taste?) of it, it just doesn't like me. So I must say crap, since I need to have Tums on hand when drinking Bud.

RANK:

PBR --The King of Beers! (among hipsters)
Schaffers --The oldest lager? C-Town was accidently ringing up 6-packs of this for 67 cents for awhile, then when I got greedy and started buying two 6-packs at once they figured out.
Schlitz -- the most fun to say!

Ty Webb wrote:Budweiser doesn't even compare to Yuengling. Yuengling has flavor.

I live an hour from the Yuengling spring, so it is cheap and plentiful here. The lager has a nastiness to it that I cannot define, though not nearly as nasty as Bud, or any of the other weak American brews.

Now here's a beer/ale that never fails to satisfy: