Dude Isn’t Just Wrong, He’s Evil

 

It’s long been said that the Left believes the Right is evil and the Right believes the Left is just wrong. Well, I’m over that. Joe Biden is evil and he’s the head of the party of evil. The Democrat party is historically the party of slavery and currently the party of racism (disguised as anti-racism) and murder. Yes, Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud (h/t Robert Spencer at PJMedia):

“The idea that we’re gonna make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court I think goes way overboard.”

Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.” That’s the only truthful part of the statement. The rest is just a Big, Huge Lie, since overturning Roe will not outlaw abortion, but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs. New York City can continue its genocidal abortion of more black babies than are born, Colorado will allow you to kill your child at the point of crowning, and California can pay to fly you in from another state to abort, abort, abort. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is.

But, Biden gets worse. He tells an even bigger lie, if possible, about the historical view of religions toward abortion:

“Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”

First off, could he be more incoherent and dishonest? Mainstream religions have concluded that the start of human life is inconclusive? And that’s why we should be allowed to kill children? Because we don’t know when life begins? Wouldn’t that mean, ethically, since we don’t know, we should err on the side of caution and not kill children at any stage of development??

And secondly, the Catholic church — Joe Biden’s church! — couldn’t be more clear conclusive. Life begins at conception (it’s science, duh!) and must be protected from conception until natural death. The Left will surely take to the streets in the coming days and weeks, but I can tell you, the scandal in the Catholic church will be momentous if the bishops don’t have a serious response to this. I will join my fellow Catholics camping outside the chanceries of our dioceses in protest until the bishops make clear that Joe Biden’s position is anathema to Catholics, both historically and in the present, because it is the longstanding teaching of the church established by Christ that “thou shalt not murder.” Joe’s position is, in fact, mortal sin. It is soul-killing. This is literally what excommunication is for –“to awaken an individual’s conscience to repentance” (canon 1312 & 1331).

Get on it, your excellencies. Joe Biden better not be receiving communion this Sunday. Our Lord is too precious to be so defiled and we won’t stand for it after these vile, scandalous statements.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 92 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist: It’s long been said that the Left believes the Right is evil and the Right believes the Left is just wrong. Well, I’m over that.

    I’ve always been uncomfortable with this formulation.  I’ve always figured, The Left accuses the Right of being evil, but the Right should know that the Left is evil.

    • #1
  2. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Just more projection.  It’s what they do best/worst.

    • #2
  3. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Mendacious and cruel. That’s Brandon for you. 

     

    • #3
  4. James Lileks Contributor
    James Lileks
    @jameslileks

    He’s old and daft, his mouth still operating on the assumption that everything that comes from upstairs is solid. But because he is old and daft,  his brain reached for a neutral term – well, neutral to his side – like “fetus” or “pregnancy, ” and came up with child, because in the end that’s what his brain knows it to be. Because he is old and daft, he had no idea what he had just revealed. It now falls to the young and clever to defend not his words, but his basic point, which is warblegarble unelected handmaidenstale women’s health.

    As for the second point, well, that’s the left: religions are absolutely at sea when it comes to defining human life, and all the pediatricians are agreed when it comes to “gender affirming care.” 

    • #4
  5. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Like all of us, Biden and his family and every bishop will face the Judgment. Teach your children well the things that matter. 

    • #5
  6. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    all the pediatricians are agreed when it comes to “gender affirming care.” 

    Every pediatrician I have talked to about this is dismayed and even frightened by “gender affirming care”.  They want naught to do with it and would prefer to send the kids to psychiatrists along with their addled parents.

    • #6
  7. namlliT noD Member
    namlliT noD
    @DonTillman

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Just more projection. It’s what they do best/worst.

    Yes.  Right there.  What you said.

    “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” — Joseph Goebbels

     

    • #7
  8. hoowitts Coolidge
    hoowitts
    @hoowitts

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Just more projection. It’s what they do best/worst.

    Yes. Right there. What you said.

    “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” — Joseph Goebbels

     

    Yep. Confession by projection. That is the left.

    • #8
  9. jaWes Member
    jaWes
    @jaWesofTX

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery. 

    Please elaborate.  

    • #9
  10. Scott Wilmot Member
    Scott Wilmot
    @ScottWilmot

    I agree with you that Joe is evil, as is the Democrat party. And since neither his bishop, nor the Archbishop of DC has corrected him of his idiotic defense of abortion, I assume them to be evil as well. What a disgrace these men are.

    • #10
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The issue is thrown back to the states, where it always was before and where it has always belonged.

    • #11
  12. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Just more projection. It’s what they do best/worst.

    Yes. Right there. What you said.

    “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” — Joseph Goebbels

     

    Are Goebbels and Alinsky the same person?  I can’t recall ever having seen them together.

    • #12
  13. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    Right. I in no way intend to defend even the states allowing for abortion, which is why I gave the examples I did. But, I’m a realist about this. There was legal (not moral) abortion before Roe and there will be legal (not moral) abortion after Roe. That’s our (ostensible) system of federalism. I pray that some day, governments at all levels everywhere in the world will choose to protect human life from conception to natural death, but it would take a miracle to get there from where we are today. In the meantime, we do what’s possible, including materially support women in tough situations who choose life, pray, sidewalk counsel outside abortion clinics, and did I mention pray, among other things like praying?

    • #13
  14. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    jaWes (View Comment):
    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery. 

    The Constitution does not define when life begins, and says nothing about abortion.  So yes – it should be up to the states.  And yes – it is the same argument that was made about slavery, which is why we have the 13th Amendment.  Do you think you can get an Amendment banning abortion?  Good luck with that.  On the other hand, the lefties won’t have any better luck getting an Amendment that guarantees the right to have an abortion.  So I guess both sides will just have to march around, chanting slogans, until they drop.

    I’m just worried that this will be the trigger for the lefties to make their big attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

    • #14
  15. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    Despite what leftests say this will not outlaw killing babies overnight.  This has to be regarded as part of the long game.  The left always move forward even when they lose.  Some states will outlaw it, some states not.  Take this as a victory and move forward.  It’s not everything, but it’s more than we have now.

    • #15
  16. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Percival (View Comment):

    The issue is thrown back to the states, where it always was before and where it has always belonged.

    But the Left has so maleducated our people that vast numbers (a majority?) believe Joe’s lie that overturning Roe outlaws abortion. These people couldn’t be more mendacious if they were working for the devil. Ahem.

    • #16
  17. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    all the pediatricians are agreed when it comes to “gender affirming care.”

    Every pediatrician I have talked to about this is dismayed and even frightened by “gender affirming care”. They want naught to do with it and would prefer to send the kids to psychiatrists along with their addled parents.

    That makes me feel better about the medical profession.  Although, you guys really need to get your professional organizations out of making political statements about hot button social issues.  When medical associations start echoing the gender nonsense it makes me question the competence of the medical community.

    • #17
  18. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    namlliT noD (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Just more projection. It’s what they do best/worst.

    Yes. Right there. What you said.

    “Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.” — Joseph Goebbels

     

    Are Goebbels and Alinsky the same person? I can’t recall ever having seen them together.

    They are together now.

    • #18
  19. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    jaWes (View Comment):
    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    The Constitution does not define when life begins, and says nothing about abortion. So yes – it should be up to the states. And yes – it is the same argument that was made about slavery, which is why we have the 13th Amendment. Do you think you can get an Amendment banning abortion? Good luck with that. On the other hand, the lefties won’t have any better luck getting an Amendment that guarantees the right to have an abortion. So I guess both sides will just have to march around, chanting slogans, until they drop.

    I’m just worried that this will be the trigger for the lefties to make their big attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

    Never sacrifice your morals because of fear over what the left will do. If they threaten to do that, threaten them with the “national divorce.”

    • #19
  20. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    The issue is thrown back to the states, where it always was before and where it has always belonged.

    But the Left has so maleducated our people that vast numbers (a majority?) believe Joe’s lie that overturning Roe outlaws abortion. These people couldn’t be more mendacious if they were working for the devil. Ahem.

    If young people want to live in a free country, they need to start earning that freedom..

    • #20
  21. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    The opinion offered by the Supreme Court which we are seeing in draft form doesn’t go that far.  It doesn’t convey rights on the unborn child.  It simply says that abortion is not a right.  That means that States are few to regulate it under what is termed “Generalized Police Power”.  The Federal government doesn’t have “Generalized Police Power”, so actually the calls for congress to codify Roe probably wouldn’t survive the court either.  It maybe that some future court does decide the child is a person that should be protected.  This court didn’t go that far.  

    Federalism means that different states will come down in different places on important questions based on how the citizens of the state see the issue.  Placing this back in the realm of conventional politics means that those lines can be redrawn if the opinions of those citizens change.  It is not ideal to either side in the debate, but it is better for us to work this out in drafting laws rather than have a fixed standard for interpreting the law.  

    If this ruling stands than the work of the prolife movement is ending it is starting.  Also the prochoice folks should take that position as well.  Want the laws to change? Convince your neighbor to change them.  It is important that major questions get solved democratically in a our system.   

    • #21
  22. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Scott Wilmot (View Comment):

    I agree with you that Joe is evil, as is the Democrat party. And since neither his bishop, nor the Archbishop of DC has corrected him of his idiotic defense of abortion, I assume them to be evil as well. What a disgrace these men are.

    Seems the Pope is cool with it.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-pope-francis-told-good-catholic-amid-criticism/story?id=80769817

     

    • #22
  23. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Re Biden. A man one step away from judgement day is saying some pretty damning things.

    • #23
  24. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    It now falls to the young and clever to defend not his words, but his basic point, which is warblegarble unelected handmaidenstale women’s health.

    It might be amusing to watch them squirm if the subject weren’t so (literally) grave.

    • #24
  25. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    See comment #11 below.

    • #25
  26. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    The issue is thrown back to the states, where it always was before and where it has always belonged.

    But the Left has so maleducated our people that vast numbers (a majority?) believe Joe’s lie that overturning Roe outlaws abortion. These people couldn’t be more mendacious if they were working for the devil. Ahem.

    If young people want to live in a free country, they need to start earning that freedom..

    I was just thinking this morning, if you wouldn’t teach in a public school that requires that CRT or gender ideologies or Marxism or atheism be taught, why the hell are you sending your kids there??

    We’ve failed the kids. We’re answering for it now.

    • #26
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    EHerring (View Comment):

    Re Biden. A man one step away from judgement day is saying some pretty damning things.

    You know who else should be worried? Those who are two steps away from judgement who allow him to go out and say such wicked things in public. If the man truly is demented, that mitigates his culpability to some degree — but not theirs! If he is demented, it actually increases their moral culpability to allow this puppet show to continue to exploit him. 

    • #27
  28. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    The opinion offered by the Supreme Court which we are seeing in draft form doesn’t go that far. It doesn’t convey rights on the unborn child. It simply says that abortion is not a right. That means that States are few to regulate it under what is termed “Generalized Police Power”. The Federal government doesn’t have “Generalized Police Power”, so actually the calls for congress to codify Roe probably wouldn’t survive the court either. It maybe that some future court does decide the child is a person that should be protected. This court didn’t go that far.

    Federalism means that different states will come down in different places on important questions based on how the citizens of the state see the issue. Placing this back in the realm of conventional politics means that those lines can be redrawn if the opinions of those citizens change. It is not ideal to either side in the debate, but it is better for us to work this out in drafting laws rather than have a fixed standard for interpreting the law.

    If this ruling stands than the work of the prolife movement is ending it is starting. Also the prochoice folks should take that position as well. Want the laws to change? Convince your neighbor to change them. It is important that major questions get solved democratically in a our system.

    My problem with the states each deciding this is my own state, Kansas. We don’t have anything restricting or outlawing abortion that I’m aware of. Efforts to do that will be met by our Democrat governor, Laura Kelly. She will almost certainly veto any restriction. Which brings up another question—she was a TEACHER, so why not permit more children to be born? There are too many TEACHERS who support abortion—WHY?

    • #28
  29. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    carcat74 (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    The opinion offered by the Supreme Court which we are seeing in draft form doesn’t go that far. It doesn’t convey rights on the unborn child. It simply says that abortion is not a right. That means that States are few to regulate it under what is termed “Generalized Police Power”. The Federal government doesn’t have “Generalized Police Power”, so actually the calls for congress to codify Roe probably wouldn’t survive the court either. It maybe that some future court does decide the child is a person that should be protected. This court didn’t go that far.

    Federalism means that different states will come down in different places on important questions based on how the citizens of the state see the issue. Placing this back in the realm of conventional politics means that those lines can be redrawn if the opinions of those citizens change. It is not ideal to either side in the debate, but it is better for us to work this out in drafting laws rather than have a fixed standard for interpreting the law.

    If this ruling stands than the work of the prolife movement is ending it is starting. Also the prochoice folks should take that position as well. Want the laws to change? Convince your neighbor to change them. It is important that major questions get solved democratically in a our system.

    My problem with the states each deciding this is my own state, Kansas. We don’t have anything restricting or outlawing abortion that I’m aware of. Efforts to do that will be met by our Democrat governor, Laura Kelly. She will almost certainly veto any restriction. Which brings up another question—she was a TEACHER, so why not permit more children to be born? There are too many TEACHERS who support abortion—WHY?

    If she is an obstacle and the good people of Kansas want to restrict abortion then they will have to vote her out of office.  This is a feature for me rather than a bug.  As to the teacher thing, that is easy most of them are leftist first.  Teachers as a profession, not necessarily as individuals, long ago gave up on making it about the children.  It is about pushing a leftist agenda in society.  It is the same situation as medical organizations pushing transgenderism.   The associations are all woke leftist that don’t necessarily speak for their members.  

    • #29
  30. carcat74 Member
    carcat74
    @carcat74

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    carcat74 (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    jaWes (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist:

    Abort not just a clump of cells, but an actual, living “child.”

    but will return the decision to the states, where it started pre-Roe and where it belongs.

    Can you please explain the logic here? If the fetus is a child with all the inalienable rights of a born child, then why does the question of abortion belong with the states? It’s okay for California to deny the right to life of a child?

    If we’re going to be wishy washy about whether an unborn child has a right to life, then I don’t see why the pro-choice position that the decision should reside with the woman is not correct. I don’t understand how someone can hold the position that the fetus is a child with a right to life and at the same time that the question of abortion should be left to the states.

    The only way this makes sense to me is if the argument is that the constitution does not define when life begins so therefore states should be able to define it. But this seems like the same kind of argument that was made about slavery.

    Please elaborate.

    The opinion offered by the Supreme Court which we are seeing in draft form doesn’t go that far. It doesn’t convey rights on the unborn child. It simply says that abortion is not a right. That means that States are few to regulate it under what is termed “Generalized Police Power”. The Federal government doesn’t have “Generalized Police Power”, so actually the calls for congress to codify Roe probably wouldn’t survive the court either. It maybe that some future court does decide the child is a person that should be protected. This court didn’t go that far.

    Federalism means that different states will come down in different places on important questions based on how the citizens of the state see the issue. Placing this back in the realm of conventional politics means that those lines can be redrawn if the opinions of those citizens change. It is not ideal to either side in the debate, but it is better for us to work this out in drafting laws rather than have a fixed standard for interpreting the law.

    If this ruling stands than the work of the prolife movement is ending it is starting. Also the prochoice folks should take that position as well. Want the laws to change? Convince your neighbor to change them. It is important that major questions get solved democratically in a our system.

    My problem with the states each deciding this is my own state, Kansas. We don’t have anything restricting or outlawing abortion that I’m aware of. Efforts to do that will be met by our Democrat governor, Laura Kelly. She will almost certainly veto any restriction. Which brings up another question—she was a TEACHER, so why not permit more children to be born? There are too many TEACHERS who support abortion—WHY?

    If she is an obstacle and the good people of Kansas want to restrict abortion then they will have to vote her out of office. This is a feature for me rather than a bug. As to the teacher thing, that is easy most of them are leftist first. Teachers as a profession, not necessarily as individuals, long ago gave up on making it about the children. It is about pushing a leftist agenda in society. It is the same situation as medical organizations pushing transgenderism. The associations are all woke leftist that don’t necessarily speak for their members.

    Thank you for the clarification, although I hold to the theory many teachers these days are brain-damaged, or evil—take your pick.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.