abidabi
abidabi
abidabi

Sure, I've had some great blonde beers. But it's a chicken and egg problem, isn't it...alienate women, don't market to them, and then argue that you only should market to men because "women don't drink beer." As a home brewer and huge beer fan, I wish they'd try a bit harder.

Soooo overdone!

I'm more concerned about his comment that we're "wasting posts". I was sure we measured yearly allotments of indignant posts in calendar years, not fiscal. Now, thanks to this concerned troll (as opposed to concern-troll), I find out I've got 2.5 months left in which to get riled up about things that are repugnant,

I'm a dude. I'm a bro and a bro-in-law. I had friends in frats growing up. I like boobs and all the concomitant stuff to being a cis-het guy in his mid-30's in 2014.

I'm standing up to say, i am fucking sick of rape jokes, or jokey rape references, or douchey internet rape threats, or generally making fun of

Of all things, you can name beers the most ridiculously hilarious shit. 'Mouth Raper' is just crass and dudebro.

There is a whole system that must be gone through before fault can be found because teachers work contracts. If it's not followed, courts can and will throw out all accusations, and the accused can sue the district, and even the parents involved. The district is protecting themselves by following protocol. I used to

It certainly is indecent exposure to force a child to be partially nude in a classroom full of other children as punishment. It is part of normal human development that children don't necessarily want to be nude in public. It doesn't have to be "embedded in a child's head" that being stripped and forced to sit

The losing his cool and screaming in the classroom and terrifying a kid so much she was hiding in her shirt is actually far scarier to me than the whole taking the shirt of thing - how on earth is that guy in charge of little kids?

This is probably just a mandatory procedure set up between the state and the teacher union. Due process can be clunky and slow, but it's there for a reason. This guy should be dismissed, and they are moving him away from kids immediately which is the important thing.

Being a first grade teacher myself these stories infuriate me beyond belief. You are being trusted to help these children, how in the hell can you abuse that trust and do something like this?

Umm, I have to disagree. Yes, six-year-old girls do sometimes run around without tops, in private spaces, when it is there choice to do so. However, the fact that this teacher took this girl's shirt off as a form of forced punishment is completely unacceptable.

You are so utterly and terribly wrong. I have a six year old daughter and she would feel incredibly violated to have anyone other than me see her shirtless.

Most dogs yes, but I've met and trained with a few who were able to know who you wanted to track even without an article provided it wasn't an extremely busy area. But it would probably be really hard to get any sort of investigation going without an article to go on.

Eh, I have 2 large dogs and they give me a sense of confidence when I walk them. Her sense of safety is probably tied to them, especially since she grabbed one before it bolted after the guy. From my experience (I know, an anecdote) I'd guess that one dog is highly reactive so she keys into it and uses the dogs

"I know that your dog seen me because the hair on its back stood up."

With acid you probably give birth to kittens or puppies instead of human babies.

It is helpful to underscore this point: The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with sex.

California, like most states, is an employment at will state. That means they can fire anyone at anytime who does not have an employment contract as long as it is not due to employment discrimination that is banned by law (usually race, sex, religion). In this case the play is being presented in a community with a

the same people squawking over her 'first amendment right' to free speech (disregarding that pesky 'government shall not' portion) are also the same people advocating 'right to work'. hate to tell them, but they can't have it both ways. the theatre has the right to hire and fire whom they wish; that's the entire point

Seems to me that everyone here elected to exercise their rights. The woman chose to be in a commercial and the theater chose to let her go. Not sure what the heck first amendment rights has to do with her being booted from a play. The right to free speech does not guarantee the right to no consequences.