I also enjoy all of those more than bud (except maybe PBR), but it’s worth pointing out that they’re all brewed with corn. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s not any better than using rice. It’s still a grain sugar that isn’t barley.

For what it's worth, the defining characteristic of that style of beer (american pilsner) is being brewed with corn or rice. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using rice/corn in beer, anymore than there being something wrong with using wheat in beer. Corn gives it a distinct flavor. Try a kentucky common sometime. It's basically an amber brewed with a significant percentage of corn.

I think bud actually only uses rice and 6-row (i.e. old-style, harder to convert) barley. I could be mistaken about that, though.

At any rate, the adjunct grains used in US "megabrews" aren't just there because they're cheaper than barley. They're very much a part of the flavor profile, and a big part of the style. Whether or not you consider that a positive is personal preference, but they're not bad beers at all.

Two-row is the old style barley.

My problem with Bud is it doesn’t have much flavor or character for a pilsner - especially the Lite. Carbonated malt pop.

Well, "old style" isn't quite the right term, but 6-row is generally produces a bit lower percentage of fermentable sugars and has more proteins. It's not something you typically brew a beer with unless you're using adjunct grains or some two row in addition.

On the flavor part, I agree. I prefer Miller if we're going with the big breweries. Doesn't make it a bad beer, though, just a lighter profile.

Pilsner Urquell doesn't contain corn: https://plzenguide.com/pilsner-beer-pilsner-urquell.html#ing...

$5 pitchers of Yuengling are the best part of the Northeast US.

only thing about PA that I miss

Is PBR really that different from Bud?