Forthcoming episode of Constitution USA to feature Jessica Ahlquist.

Ok, one more post.  PBS has produced a series on the Constitution, and episode of which will focus on Jessica Ahlquist’s battle in Cranston.

Watch Battles of School Prayer on PBS. See more from Constitution USA with Peter Sagal.

If you want to see exactly why Jessica’s case was necessary (or if you’re just not pissed off enough, which is unlikely if you’re reading this blog), skip ahead to 6:46 and listen to the man who authored the Cranston prayer.  What a despicable human being.

Ok, now I’m really going back to sleep.  zzzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz…

  • Glodson

    If you don’t like the prayer, if you don’t believe in the prayer, then don’t look at the prayer.”

    Yes, that makes total sense. “If you don’t like that we are breaking the law and feel no need to be beholden to it, then just ignore us breaking the law.”

    Asshole.

    Enjoy the nap.

    • vincent findley

      Are you a bigger asshole! Do we now have to take down pictures of the student of the month because he or she has a nose ring depicting a cross and it offends someone?

      • Glodson

        Hey, fuck-brained idiot, that isn’t the standard.

        The school, legally, cannot put up any statement that endorses any religious position. This is the Establishment Clause. It doesn’t matter the number of people offended, it is still illegal. Even if that number is zero. The school doesn’t have the right to hang the prayer banner.

        Offense is besides the point. It is about the rights. The right of the non-Christian students to not deal with this pubic endorsement of a religion. And the school’s lack of rights to hang such a banner in the first place.

        Taking down a student of the month for a facial piercing is a false equivalency. What law is being broken by hanging a picture of a student? Cite the case that could back your point, point to the relevant jurisprudence. What is illegal about a picture of a student with a facial piercing?

        Further, let’s point out another failing of your post. “Are you a bigger asshole!” reads like a question. But no question mark. So either you have a major problem with syntax, or don’t know what a question mark is.

        • vincent findley

          Her first beef was it was OFFENSIVE. Far from a false equivalency. Students put up the banner not school employees, and students put up student of the month pictures so aren’t the factulty endorsing it because it depicts a religion. Key here is it’s student led. Do they not have the right to religious freedom. If the banner had to come down then the picture has to come down, that’s common sense 101.

          • Glodson

            Cite the law. Cite the law that would require a picture of a student with a facial piercing to come done.

          • Glodson

            Further, her offense did start her on the path to taking action. But the Prayer Banner wasn’t removed because she was offended. It was removed because it was found to violate the Establishment Clause, with the established jurisprudence of Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971), Lynch v. Donnelly(1984), and Lee v. Weisman(1992).

            This is the legal decision. It has nothing to do with her offense. It has to do with what her rights are, and the rights the school lacks. In order to prove your asinine point, provide the law that requires any entity to remove anything offensive. On what legal grounds do you base that claim?

            edit: Spacing error needed to be fixed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.kohler.338 Andrew Kohler

            Her case clearly was not about being “offended.” Note the footage of her saying: “This isn’t about religion anymore, it’s about the Constitution and it always has been, and those of you who are bringing religion into it need to stop….” (addressing, I presume, the yelling guy in the American flag hat).

          • vincent findley

            Lynch v donnelly said the display wasn’t an endorsement of religion, which brings me to this. why was the county of allegheny v aclu even heard. And of course christianity isn’t being messed with here. this case said a creche was an endorsement of religion,yet a menorah wasn’t. pleeeeeeeeze,give me a freekin break.

          • Glodson

            Did you even read what you wrote?

            The issue in Lynch v Donnelly was the question of whether or not the display had a legitimate secular purpose. If it did, then it is allowed. The dissent was over this very issue. Secular purpose or not.

            In order to argue that this case law supports this, one would have to say that the prayer has a legitimate secular purpose. What is it? On what basis is a prayer secular?

            You can argue the particulars of the case all you want. But it is still jurisprudence. Even if I agree that the case of Allegheny v ACLU was decided wrongly. But that’s irrelevant.

            This is what the court found in the case. Yes, Lynch v Donnelly said the display had a secular purpose. That was the test, and why it was cited in this case. The Prayer Banner would need a legitimate secular purpose. If it did, and just had some religious imagery, then the judge could have ruled that it was permitted by the Establishment Cause.

          • invivoMark

            Vincent, I find your stupidity offensive, but you don’t see me trying to ban you from schools.

            On the contrary, I think you should be compelled to attend one regularly!

          • Loqi

            Whoever was teaching common sense 101 failed you.

            Anyone else hate the term “common sense?”

          • Glodson

            Loqi wrote:

            Anyone else hate the term “common sense?”

            I hate it when the term is used in the place of logic. The only way his statement works is to ignore the law, and the context. One has to believe that it the offensive nature of the banner which led to the ruler. One has to believe there’s a connection between being offended and one’s legal rights. One has to believe a mere object in an image which is not relevant to the nature of the image is the same as a banner endorsing an explicit position on religion. One has to believe that because the banner came form the students that this exempts the school being prohibited from displaying the banner.

            All of this is wrong. All of this is a poor foundation for any argument. I would say that calling it common sense would devalue the term, but the usage of common sense seems to be an attempt to supplant logic with what the person wants to be true.

          • invivoMark

            An appeal to common sense is simply a way to disguise a lack of critical thinking and evidence in coming to someone’s favorite conclusion.

            I always counter by mentioning how badly it fails in science. If common sense really were reliable, relativity wouldn’t work the way it does, and quantum physics would be right out!

        • Jasper

          You seriously don’t understand the difference between a school officially specifically endorsing and promoting a religious view, versus a religious article of clothing that a non-staff person was wearing that incidentally happened to make it into a photo?

          If a teacher was holding a sign in her official school portrait saying “Follow Jesus”, that may be one thing, but this is just silly.

          If the student of the month happened to be wearing a Boston Bruins t-shirt, that’s not the school endorsing a sports team. If the student tries to use his/her graduation speech to promote them, or the school put up a banner or monument to the Bruins, that would be an official endorsement.

          These categories aren’t that difficult to understand (I would think).

      • baal

        Hi Vincent, I just clicked your nym and read your last 20 posts. I’d not call you a troll but find the label ‘crank’ fits pretty well. Have you considered posting the occasional funny bit, insight from a new direction or just plain positive comment now and then?

      • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.kohler.338 Andrew Kohler

        “Do we now have to take down pictures of the student of the month because
        he or she has a nose ring depicting a cross and it offends someone?”

        The case you describe (hypothetical, one assumes–at least I’ve yet to see a cruciform nose ring) is one in which a student is expressing his or her *personal belief* through jewelry. Putting up a picture of that person to honor his or her accomplishments is not the same as endorsing his or her personal beliefs, even if these are evident in the picture. Further, the purpose of posting the picture in that case is secular in nature (rewarding good students and thereby valuing being a good student). This is *not* equivalent to the school posting a text that is supposed to represent the standards of the community.

        And indeed, no one has the right not to be offended, but we do have the right not to be marginalized. Having a theistic prayer on the wall marginalizes people who are not monotheists. By the way, I wonder why they didn’t put up a revised version omitting the “Our heavenly father” and “Amen” and retitling the text because it looked like the rest of it was religiously neutral. Probably its authors would rather have it completely removed than detheistified (detheified?).

        • Glodson

          The school wouldn’t take down a picture of a student wearing a cross. And no one would have a legal right to demand that. That’s a great point you bring up as well in this.

  • baal

    “i couldn’t care less about the 5%, the majority rules” <–more from the author of the prayer, milking his 15 minutes of fame. Only, that's not law and it's not a good rule. The right rule (and the law as it turns out) is that the majority wins but only until and unless they are taking an action that infringes the rights of a group (i.e. their fist hits my nose).

    • Glodson

      He clearly didn’t understand basic high school civics. The protections in the Bill of Rights are meant to protect the minority from the abuses of the majority.

    • islandbrewer

      Frankly, I’m happy that he said that he doesn’t care about the minority. That is a perfect encapsulation of this type of thinking – be it libertarianism or christian privilege, the idea is basically “I got mine, screw you.” Any apologists who watch this and cringe have to come up with some pretty complicated justification for his statement.

    • vincent findley

      So let me ask you all this? 10 people are in a room 9 of them don’t smoke and 1 of them does, the person that smokes lites up. Is that cigerette going out if asked? Bet your ass it is and the other way around also.

      • otrame

        That swooshing sound you hear is the point going over your head. There is nothing in the Constitution about smoking. There IS something in the Constitution about the government promulgating religion. It says the government can’t do that.

        This isn’t about majority/minority. It’s about the rule of law, the rule of the Constitution. It always has been. The difference these days is that people who espouse the majority religion are no longer being given a pass on breaking that law.

      • Glodson

        You really have a problem with what is or isn’t legal, don’t you?

        That would be a social issue, not a legal one barring smoking in a restaurant or other building. The people asking the other to leave would be exerting a form of social control.

        If ten people where in a room, and nine of them started to do something illegal, the one not doing anything illegal would be right to ask them to stop. If the actions of the majority in that room infringed on the rights of the one, that one would be right to ask them to stop. And if they failed to stop, the one would be right to ask for an outside agency to intercede.

        • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.kohler.338 Andrew Kohler

          What do you mean “the other way around also”–that if 9 people were smoking and one of them was bothered by cigarette smoke, the cigarettes would still go out? That is a better analogy here: it is the decent course of action not to do things in a group setting that cause people physical discomfort (smoking) or make them feel excluded (by organizing a prayer in a faith tradition of which they are not part). It doesn’t matter if it’s the majority that’s harming the minority or the minority that’s damaging the majority. That absurd looking man who authored the Cranston prayer seems to have missed that memo. Does it not occur to him that he might find himself some day in a 5% minority? (By the way, I’m glad the host acknowledged the possibility that students before Jessica likewise had been made uncomfortable; I’ve no doubt that’s true.)

      • islandbrewer

        Your analogy fails. Besides the distinction between legality and social pressure, as Glodson clearly points out, you’ve entirely switched the offended group from the minority to the majority.

        AND, as Glodson clearly pointed out above, offense is irrelevant to the question of legality.

        Please tell me that’s starting to sink in, or are you just a fuckwad troll?

        • islandbrewer

          Why fail me at teh tags?!?!

          • baal

            I think you wanted strong instead of bold.

          • Loqi

            <b> should work as well.

      • Baby_Raptor

        It might, if I get asked politely. If you just sit there giving me dirty looks and then demand that I put it out with the expectant attitude you just showed, I’ll blow the Fucking smoke in your face as a response.

        Newflash, dickwad: people do not have the right to not be offended or made uncomfortable. We have rights laid out in the Constitution, including the right to not have religions we don’t adhere to forced on us. That was what Jessica was fighting for.

        You are not guaranteed the right to be perfectly comfortable 24/7. You have to deal with people doing things you don’t like once in awhile, like, say, smoking a ciggarette. And you don’t have the right to demand that the person making you uncomfortable submit to your demands.

        • vincent findley

          You are right you are not guaranteed the right to be perfectly comfortable 24/7, so if a banner makes you uncomfortable don’t look at it. Ty for making my point.

          • Nate Frein

            Nope. Two completely different topics. The banner was taken down because it was a clear church/state violation, not because it was offensive.

        • vincent findley

          I would also suggest if you did blow that smoke in someones face you would probably need your health insurance card.

          • Nate Frein

            So you’d commit assault because you were offended?

          • vincent findley

            Did I say I’d commit the assault dipshit? You must have had your glasses off when reading the response.

          • islandbrewer

            You certainly appeared to imply it, or is this another shining example of your inability to communicate or think clearly?

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          I’d probably put up with it or try to move upwind of you if at all possible. I have (very mild) asthma, and smoke is pretty much the only trigger I’ve identified. A small amount isn’t too bad- just a little bit of chest tightening that focused, deep breaths of clean air can alleviate. But being in a smoky room? Having smoke blown in my face when I don’t expect it and can’t hold my breath? Yeah, I can’t do that.

          I know people who are much, much more sensitive to smoke than I am. Is your cig really so important to you that you’d risk triggering a life-threatening asthma attack in someone else, because they didn’t frame their request politely enough?

      • islandbrewer

        Oooh, better analogy!

        Ten people are walking down the street. Nine of them have baseball bats and are smashing car windows and stealing change out of cars. The tenth person says, “um, guys, that’s illegal.” One of the nine, named Vincent Findlay, says “Don’t be an asshole! If you’re offended, don’t look at us!”

        The tenth person says, “No, it has nothing to do with being offended, it’s just that it’s destruction of property and theft, which are, you know, illegal.”

        Vincent Findlay says, “What? I’m not allowed to smash the windows in my own house, now? I can’t take change out of my own car?”

        Tenth replies, “That’s not your car! How can you really confuse the two and not understand the concept of ‘ILLEGAL’?”

        Vincent says, “Look, what is it with you liberals?!? My friends and I have been smashing car windows and taking change for decades, and no one has cared! Even people in the cars don’t say anything!”

        “That’s because they’re intimidated by a bunch of assholes with baseball bats smashing their car window,” points out Ms. Tenth.

        There! Fixed your analogy for you!

        • vincent findley

          The only thing you need to fix is that hole in your face and ass, because you are blowing some serious smoke out of it. you should be doing comedy you are pretty good at it. this was very funny.

          • Nate Frein

            Can’t refute the analogy, so you insult the person who made it.

            Now this is Ad Hom.

          • vincent findley

            Where’s the insult, I’m only stating the obvious. It’s very good satire.

          • Nate Frein

            And now you’re insulting my intelligence.

            You’re a dishonest, disingenuous troll.

            Back up your assertion that the analogy is untrue or satirical.

          • Loqi

            Someone doesn’t know the definition of “satire.”

          • vincent findley

            Isn’t that what weird Al Yankovich does? you know ridicule,denouncing and sarcasm, stuff like that.

          • Loqi

            Ridicule is not satire.

          • Nate Frein

            First, Wierd Al does parody (and he’s an asshole).

            Second, you still have not demonstrated how the comment in question is parody. Your assertion that it is, in fact, parody is unevidenced, and therefore dismissed. Thanks for playing.

          • islandbrewer

            “Now this is Ad Hom.”

            Bingo!

        • Jasper

          Dude, you got ad hommed!

        • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com/ Lord Custard Smingleigh

          Try this analogy: Some “young urban artist” spray-paints a cross on the courthouse wall. Is it reasonable to demand the cross must stay, because it’s a sacred symbol of Christianity and is not offensive? Or does the cross have to be cleaned off, as it was illegal to place it there?

      • John D. Nugent

        No. This comes to personal responsibility. With each Right comes a Responsibility.

        The 1 is infringing on the Rights of the 9 (one’s body is personal property). It is the 1′s responsibility to make sure his lighting up does not infringe upon this Right. Either the 1 asks permission or finds some well ventilated, outside the populated area spot.

        Of course, in the case of smoking, it is my experience, at least 7 of the 9 will follow, so that they can complain about the smoke.

        But the smoking example is a straw man, anyway.

        • John D. Nugent

          And yes, the Responsibility would stay the same, if the smokers in the room were the majority, by the way.

          • vincent findley

            It has nothing to do with personable responsibility. What you just told me was the majority rules?

          • islandbrewer

            No, dipshit. The example he made up just happened to have the nonsmokers in the majority. The same would hold true if they were the minority. You’re still intentionally ignoring the whole “illegal” thing, aren’t you?

          • vincent findley

            You are without a doubt the product of some bad dna No shit calumbo, and my point was that majority would make the smoker put it out. Fuck the illegal thing! this is all about the majority rules with everything except your leftist whiny ass interpretation of things.We’re not talking about the law. I can’t wait to see how you godless heathens interpret the coming of your “Atheist Church” from England. Atheist Church? must be a religion!, but you whiny asses will figure a way to say it’s not.

          • islandbrewer

            Wow, blowing a gasket again, are you?

            And again, you really need to take some writing classes. Your word salad is barely comprehensible. I’m sure you could find some classes at a local community college.

          • islandbrewer

            You are without a doubt the product of some bad dna

            I going to go out on a limb and guess that your mastery of nucleic acid chemistry and corresponding phenotypic effects wouldn’t fill up the back of a cocktail napkin.

          • vincent findley

            lmfao!

          • islandbrewer

            Hey, vincent findley!

            Do you still contend that it’s ok to break the law if the majority and “tradition” are on your side?

          • John D. Nugent

            Your smoking example was a clear case of Right vs. Responsibility. I answered nothing more than that argument.

            I also told you, that if the 9 wish to smoke, they must ask permission of the 1 or find an out of the way place. Therefore, there is no majority rule. (In other words, read my clarification comment, immediately below my original).

            I also said, your smoking example was, well, irrelevant, shall we say, to the discussion at hand. However, I merely addressed your example, though, because such a thing as Right vs. Responsibility, so crucial to a Free Society, is forgotten in today’s Culture of Personal Entitlement.

  • Art_Vandelay

    Apparently Playboy gives out annual awards in different categories to celebrate the first amendment and Jessica won the award for education yesterday. So someone on my Facebook writes, “Anyone else find it fitting that the girl who fought so hard to get rid of the prayer banner in Cranston is getting the playboy award?” I don’t even know what this means but I’m sure it something awful. Oh and her friends think it’s the greatest status ever of course.

    • Glodson

      I don’t even know what this means but I’m sure it something awful. Oh
      and her friends think it’s the greatest status ever of course.

      I suspect it is the old “If you oppose the state endorsing my religion, you must be a bad person” thing. And equating her legal battle to enforce her rights to posing nude. Because she must be a person of loose morals.

      Don’t think too hard about this, as none of this line of thinking by them makes sense.

      These are not people gifted with overmuch in the way of critical thinking skills.

      • Art_Vandelay

        So, she’s basically calling her a slut then, right? That’s what I suspected. I’m going to plead the 5th but it’s killing me.

        • Glodson

          Pretty much. Since she cannot really say anything cogent about the reason Ahlquist won the award, or what the award actually was, it is easy to demean her.

          Sadly, Ahlquist gets it on both fronts. One for temerity of being an intelligent and outspoken young woman, and the other for being an atheist.

          And this is really low level stuff. It does connect back to why in cases involving the Establishment Clause, the religious side will seek to make the plaintiff’s identities known. For this type of social pressure as a means to bully them into dropping the case. And once the case is decided, the harassment and insults don’t end.

          They also never make any sense either, but that’s the norm.

          • vincent findley

            Hardly intelligent, Barely a B student in high school and now being home schooled because the leftist lying f…..king media says she still got harassed in school and my daughters one who graduated(and is an atheist) and one who is still there says that school was back to normal a week after the initial incident. Kudos to her though she got her high school equivalency recently. Now she can make $’s being the fake activist she is even though she stays in a house that puts up xmas decorations, sang in the school choir. I would also be motivated to do this if I was denied admittance to a CATHOLIC school. You see peeps I too believe everything the media says, because you know they always put out the whole story. They never ever hide anything relevant. She’s a freekin hypocrite.

          • Loqi

            How is she a hypocrite? Even if everything you said here was true (it isn’t), there’s nothing in here that is hypocritical.

          • vincent findley

            Are you from R.I.?

          • Loqi

            What does that have to do with anything? Do you own a toaster?

          • vincent findley

            1, I do own a toaster. 2, you said everything I said wasn’t true. 3. part of the definition of satire is sarcasm, ridicule denouncing. If you are from R.I. like I am you would know what I said was true. You follow the leftist media don’t you?

          • Loqi

            No, I said not everything you said was true. There’s a difference. Though I am pretty sure “everything you said wasn’t true” would have also been an accurate assessment of your post.
            *Part* of the definition of satire is ridicule. As in “not the whole definition.” Satire is a specific kind of ridicule, in which you have not engaged.

            If you are from R.I. like I am you would know what I said was true

            You shouldn’t make statements that are so easy to belie. The existence of a single Rhode Islander who doesn’t agree with you is enough.
            As for “following the leftist media,” I’m not sure what you mean there. Are you disputing that she was harassed at school? The judge in the case remarked about how hostile the response was from the community. A student was disciplined for issuing threats. Police had to escort her to classes because of the number of threats, and the police said most of the threats originated from Cranston. Here’s a story from the Daily Mail (one of the most right-wing news outlets in the world). Is the Daily Mail part of the “liberal media?”
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093136/Atheist-teen-getting-threats-campaign-remove-prayer-banner-vowing-leave-school.html

          • Nate Frein

            Hardly intelligent, Barely a B student in high school

            This coming from the person who doesn’t seem to know what a paragraph is, let alone how to let a coherent thought stray into his comment.

            now being home schooled because the leftist lying f…..king media says she still got harassed in school and my daughters one who graduated(and is an atheist) and one who is still there says that school was back to normal a week after the initial incident.

            You will, ah, of course be showing us verifiable cites that support your accusation that multiple news outlets were lying about the harassment Jennifer Alquist received?

            Remember, the plural of anecdote is not “data”, and if your daughters are anywhere near your level of douchecanoe-ness, I wouldn’t trust them to understand nuance if it came up and whacked them across the face with a two-by-four.

            Now she can make $’s being the fake activist she is even though she stays in a house that puts up xmas decorations,

            Are they religious decorations?

            sang in the school choir.

            I didn’t realize that choirs were religious in nature. A choir is a group of singers. I would expect a group of singers in a city’s public school would not be a religious choir.

            I would also be motivated to do this if I was denied admittance to a CATHOLIC school. You see peeps I too believe everything the media says, because you know they always put out the whole story. They never ever hide anything relevant. She’s a freekin hypocrite.

            Is there anywhere in this spittle-flecked rage drivel where you actually say something germane to the topic? Cranston High is not a Catholic school, it is a public school.

            At first I thought you were trolling. Now I think you’re just so dumb, self-centered, and incapable of grasping nuance that all you can do is rage at a girl who has more courage and charisma than you can ever hope to have.

          • Glodson

            Hardly intelligent, Barely a B student in high school and now being home
            schooled because the leftist lying f…..king media says she still got
            harassed in school and my daughters one who graduated(and is an atheist)
            and one who is still there says that school was back to normal a week
            after the initial incident.

            Conflating grades with intelligence despite those being two different issues.

            Tell me, did your daughter file suit to bring down a religious display and then get called an “evil little thing” by an elected official? This is a poor comparison. A false analogy.

            Further, the school was back to normal? When? No time frame given. And that doesn’t mean that Jessica’s life was back to normal. Conflating the larger activity of the school with the day to day life of a student.

            And you’ve made a claim. Now prove it. I’ve seen the evidence of harassment. What proof do you have that this is fake? I’ve also seen this repeat in other cases. Families often are harassed by Christians when they file Establishment Clause suits. This is a real tactic, harassment by proxy.

            Kudos to her though she got her high school equivalency recently. Now
            she can make $’s being the fake activist she is even though she stays in
            a house that puts up xmas decorations, sang in the school choir.

            Many non-Christians celebrate Christmas. Get over it. That has nothing to do with anything. We just don’t sing songs about Jesus, and we don’t have to go to church. We still exchange gifts(pagan), put up a Christmas Tree(pagan), mistletoe(pagan). Even the time of year is stolen form other traditions. So… why are you Christians putting pagan decorations on your holy day?

            Singing in what? A choir? You know a choir is just a group of people singing? She sung in an ensemble.

            Finally, how is filing a lawsuit fake activism? She’s gotten her activism credentials.

            I would also be motivated to do this if I was denied admittance to a CATHOLIC school.

            What in the name of fuck are you talking about? Citation fucking needed. What Catholic school?

            You see peeps I too believe everything the media says, because you know
            they always put out the whole story. They never ever hide anything
            relevant.

            Sarcasm only works if what you’re saying is relevant to the target. Most of us are skeptical.

            She’s a freekin hypocrite.

            Unless she turned around and tried to force her religious views into a public space, that is a baseless accusation.

            And I want to note that you are trashing her in response to us talking about how people were equating her getting an award from Playboy with questions of her character based on slut shaming. Despite the fact that she never appeared in Playboy, just given the award by a third party. Good going you.

            Edit: Still waiting for the law which says that offense is cause for censure.

          • Loqi

            Conflating grades with intelligence despite those being two different issues.

            Fun fact: I barely met my high school’s minimum required GPA.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            And I graduated #3 in my class of ~420, missing out on the salutatorian slot by a nose. Somehow, I don’t think I’m any smarter than Loqi …

          • Loqi

            Totally off topic, but I’m in the middle of a depressive episode, and this gave me the feel-goods. Thank you.
            (Also – 420 students? Yikes. Your graduating class was bigger than my whole town.)

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            *Hugs* Hope you feel better soon. Yeah, the class started at ~600 students, but people transfer or drop out so over four years, we suffered significant attrition. You grew up in a tiny town!

      • vincent findley

        Again I have to say most people on this sight must think asphalt is a rectum problem.

        • Nate Frein

          Says the idiot who can’t even use the proper word for “site”.

          Stop trying to foist your comprehension issues on us.

  • Art_Vandelay

    John Depetro, the local radio hack and vile human being, called her “Naked Little Thing” this morning and said she should give the $5000 back to the town of Cranston.

    • Glodson

      He does know that…. ah nevermind.

      Sounds like facts would never get in the way of the asshole saying something stupid.

      • vincent findley

        85% of Rhode Islanders don’t think so.

        • islandbrewer

          Then 85% of Rhode Islanders didn’t prevent the asshole from saying something stupid.

          Wait, is this one of those times when you’re demonstrating your total incompetence at expressing yourself and your lack of reading comprehension and you mean something other than “85% of Rhode Islanders don’t think facts should get in the way of an asshole saying something stupid.” That’s how one would reasonably parse your response.

          And Glodson’s still right, you nattering troll, facts don’t stop you from saying stupid shit. You’ve just demonstrated that now!

        • islandbrewer

          P.S. I LOVE that you have to wait until a thread is over a month old in order to get your drive-by troll poop in!

          • vincent findley

            Actually asshole an e-mail said I had a reply from one of you godless heathens from that thread 2 mos ago, so i thought I’d be polite and reply. You get e-mails don’t you? Isn’t modern technology great? Get past the troll thing peeps, it’s past it’s prime.

          • islandbrewer

            Get past the troll thing peeps, it’s past it’s prime.

            The problem is that you’re trolling, making you a troll (and a bad one, at that). If anyone needed to get past “the troll thing” it’s you, I regret to inform you.

    • vincent findley

      She should, she is nothing more than a fake and a hypocrite.

      • islandbrewer

        Hey, why doesn’t Cranston try to settle the matter in court, if you think she’s in the wrong. Don’t think it would go well for them? Now why could that be?

        • vincent findley

          Because your whiny ass faction only goes after cash strapped places. There is no money to appeal for the time being. It will be appealed at a later date. hopefully while the attention whore is still around.

          • islandbrewer

            Are you someone that Jessica turned down or dumped at some point? Your vitriol directed at her is kind of obsessive and, unsurprisingly, a little too frothy for a rational person.

            And if a school district doesn’t want a lawsuit, it should refrain from doing things that are blatantly illegal. Oh that’s right! You don’t give a flying fuck about legality, do you.

          • vincent findley

            Hardly obsessive. I have a problem with a hypocrite being an activist.

          • islandbrewer

            You’ve made the “hypocrite” accusation more than once, but you fail at explaining how she’s a hypocrite, troll.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X