• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In apparent shot at Trump, Pope says 'builders of walls' sow fear and divide

Vatican city sits behind a wall with armed guards. It isn't radical to point out the hypocrisy in the Pope's comments.

Your TDS is a poor substitute for an argument.

Your point is well taken.

Why "everyone knows" that there was no wall around "The Vatican" until the current absolute monarch of that country took office after the mysterious "resignation" of the former absolute monarch.

PS - There is only one walled city in North America. Do you know which one it is? Do you know why its walls were built? Do you know when its walls were built?
 
I will never understand why it's considered by some to be immoral, wrong, and/or racist to want to control your own borders.

Possibly that's because no one is actually saying that.

You might want to consider the possibility that is THE WAY that some people want to "control our own borders" that is "considered by some to be immoral, wrong, and/or racist".

You might also want to consider the facts that:

  1. something can be "immoral" without being "wrong" or "racist";
  2. something can be "wrong" without being "immoral" or "racist";
  3. something can be "racist" without being "immoral" or "wrong";
  4. something can be "immoral" and "wrong" without being "racist";
  5. something can be "immoral" and "racist" without being "wrong"; and
  6. something can be "wrong" and "racist" without being "immoral";

which means that by establish a single category of "immoral, wrong, and/or racist" you end up making an almost totally meaningless statement.

As an example "Murder is immoral, wrong, and/or racist." is correct, but the extension of that to "Anyone who condemns murder is a racist." isn't.

The problem with "two value logic" is that the odds are highly in favour of drawing erroneous conclusions.
 
You were the one going on and on and on......about the metaphorical wall!

I wouldn't speculate that every pope will put his foot in his mouth like this one did. Lol.

Of course it annoys conservatives - Christian conservatives!
This pope is tackless (and a proven hypocrite - if, we go by the Scriptures, as shown).
I had to keep explaining his remarks to you because you were having problems understanding. But it was never about what I said.

The politics here is in the highly selective outrage here in the US, not in the Pope's speech, which neither mentions the US or Trump. It's clear from his prepared remarks that he not giving a speech about the US/Mexico border or even specifically borders between countries, but divisions between people.

"On the other hand, we know that the father of lies prefers people who are divided and quarrelling to people who have learned to work together.

You teach us that encountering one another does not mean having to look alike, or think the same way or do the same things, listening to the same music or wearing the same football jersey. No, not at all… The culture of encounter is a call inviting us to dare to keep alive a shared dream. Yes, a great dream, a dream that has a place for everyone. The dream for which Jesus gave his life on the cross, for which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost and brought fire to the heart of every man and woman, in your hearts and mine, in the hope of finding room to grow and flourish. A dream named Jesus, sown by the Father in the confidence that it would grow and live in every heart. A dream running through our veins, thrilling our hearts and making them dance whenever we hear the command: “that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35)."

Wow, "love one another", that's some highly political stuff there. The Pope has certainly no business talking about that divisive stuff! :roll:
 
No, I bet those are just policy details to most of them. Trump's messaging is still about "the wall" even if it isn't actually a wall. All of this talk about a national emergency and sending troops to the border is what they pay attention to.
All of those sound like they could be reasonable ideas in principle. The devil is in the details though. How much will it cost? How many people will lose their land to the government? etc...

In the long run, the numbers show that the money saved that the illegal alien problems cost may balance out the cost, perhaps even come out ahead. Either way, US citizens harmed by illegals, along with the women and children migrating that are raped, trafficked and killed attempting to make that long journey are things it's hard to put a price tag on. Sooner or later somebody will have to address this issue. By the looks of the thousands that are headed this way now, if Trump doesn't do it, it may be too late. It's gotta be somebody that's willing to take a lot of heat . If not Trump who? Certainly no professional politician will take this on, lest they be labeled a racist/xenophobe.
 
Your point is well taken.

Why "everyone knows" that there was no wall around "The Vatican" until the current absolute monarch of that country took office after the mysterious "resignation" of the former absolute monarch.

PS - There is only one walled city in North America. Do you know which one it is? Do you know why its walls were built? Do you know when its walls were built?

The French built a wall around Quebec city so they could stand on the ramparts and yell, "I wave my private parts at your maiden auntie" to the nasty Hinglish (apologies to John Cleese).
 
Possibly that's because no one is actually saying that.

You might want to consider the possibility that is THE WAY that some people want to "control our own borders" that is "considered by some to be immoral, wrong, and/or racist".

You might also want to consider the facts that:

  1. something can be "immoral" without being "wrong" or "racist";
  2. something can be "wrong" without being "immoral" or "racist";
  3. something can be "racist" without being "immoral" or "wrong";
  4. something can be "immoral" and "wrong" without being "racist";
  5. something can be "immoral" and "racist" without being "wrong"; and
  6. something can be "wrong" and "racist" without being "immoral";

which means that by establish a single category of "immoral, wrong, and/or racist" you end up making an almost totally meaningless statement.

As an example "Murder is immoral, wrong, and/or racist." is correct, but the extension of that to "Anyone who condemns murder is a racist." isn't.

The problem with "two value logic" is that the odds are highly in favour of drawing erroneous conclusions.

Yeah, lots of people are saying it.
 
I had to keep explaining his remarks to you because you were having problems understanding. But it was never about what I said.

The politics here is in the highly selective outrage here in the US, not in the Pope's speech, which neither mentions the US or Trump. It's clear from his prepared remarks that he not giving a speech about the US/Mexico border or even specifically borders between countries, but divisions between people.

"On the other hand, we know that the father of lies prefers people who are divided and quarrelling to people who have learned to work together.

You teach us that encountering one another does not mean having to look alike, or think the same way or do the same things, listening to the same music or wearing the same football jersey. No, not at all… The culture of encounter is a call inviting us to dare to keep alive a shared dream. Yes, a great dream, a dream that has a place for everyone. The dream for which Jesus gave his life on the cross, for which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost and brought fire to the heart of every man and woman, in your hearts and mine, in the hope of finding room to grow and flourish. A dream named Jesus, sown by the Father in the confidence that it would grow and live in every heart. A dream running through our veins, thrilling our hearts and making them dance whenever we hear the command: “that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35)."

Wow, "love one another", that's some highly political stuff there. The Pope has certainly no business talking about that divisive stuff! :roll:

No. It's not me who misunderstands. You don't understand the hypocrisy that's being displayed by the Pope.

As for the rest - I don't want to go around in circles with you. I've already addressed those.
Review my posts.
 
I had to keep explaining his remarks to you because you were having problems understanding. But it was never about what I said.

The politics here is in the highly selective outrage here in the US, not in the Pope's speech, which neither mentions the US or Trump. It's clear from his prepared remarks that he not giving a speech about the US/Mexico border or even specifically borders between countries, but divisions between people.

"On the other hand, we know that the father of lies prefers people who are divided and quarrelling to people who have learned to work together.

You teach us that encountering one another does not mean having to look alike, or think the same way or do the same things, listening to the same music or wearing the same football jersey. No, not at all… The culture of encounter is a call inviting us to dare to keep alive a shared dream. Yes, a great dream, a dream that has a place for everyone. The dream for which Jesus gave his life on the cross, for which the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost and brought fire to the heart of every man and woman, in your hearts and mine, in the hope of finding room to grow and flourish. A dream named Jesus, sown by the Father in the confidence that it would grow and live in every heart. A dream running through our veins, thrilling our hearts and making them dance whenever we hear the command: “that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:34-35)."

Wow, "love one another", that's some highly political stuff there. The Pope has certainly no business talking about that divisive stuff! :roll:

You might want to take note of the fact (absent any emphasis on the "__[fill in the blank]__ Church INC.") that that "... shared dream. Yes, a great dream, a dream that has a place for everyone ..." is common to all religions and all great "humanitarian leaders" (regardless of faith).
 
In the long run, the numbers show that the money saved that the illegal alien problems cost may balance out the cost, perhaps even come out ahead. Either way, US citizens harmed by illegals, along with the women and children migrating that are raped, trafficked and killed attempting to make that long journey are things it's hard to put a price tag on. Sooner or later somebody will have to address this issue. By the looks of the thousands that are headed this way now, if Trump doesn't do it, it may be too late. It's gotta be somebody that's willing to take a lot of heat . If not Trump who? Certainly no professional politician will take this on, lest they be labeled a racist/xenophobe.

If there is nothing waiting for them if they cross the line "protected" by "The Wall", then there is no incentive to cross that line.

Building "The Wall" costs more than removing the incentive to cross the line "protected" by "The Wall".

Admittedly removing the incentive to cross the line "protected" by "The Wall" WOULD mean a decrease of profits for those who have a vested interest in NOT removing the incentive to cross the line "protected" by "The Wall" (and those people make fairly substantial donations to "campaign finance funds"). At the same time building "The Wall" increases profits for others who make fairly substantial donations to "campaign finance funds".

Now since:

  • REMOVING the incentives and NOT BUILDING "The Wall" will likely [a] (substantially) reduce the problem, and reduce donations to "campaign finance funds" from two groups; while

    [*]NOT REMOVING the incentives and BUILDING "The Wall" will likely [a] not (substantially) reduce the problem and increase donations to "campaign finance funds";


which do you think is the more likely to find favour, Option A or Option B?
 
The French built a wall around Quebec city so they could stand on the ramparts and yell, "I wave my private parts at your maiden auntie" to the nasty Hinglish (apologies to John Cleese).

You got one out of three correct.

The wall was built to protect what is now Canada from being invaded and conquered by forces controlled by the government of the area that is now the United States of America.

[The fact that the main reason why those forces prevailed over a French military strength that outnumbered them and which could outlast them through any conceivable siege is that the French military leadership was a bunch of arrogant dolts is one of the reasons why the licence plates in Quebec have "Je ne me rappelle pas." on them.]

The original walls were built between 1620 and 1665.

BTW, forces based in what is now the United States of America endeavoured to invade and conquer Canada is 1711, 1744-78, 1754-63. 1775-83, 1812-14, 1837-38, and 1866-71. None of those attempts were successful which means that the "Canada"/"US" record is 7 and 0.

PS - As an amusing sidelight, during WWII the US government asked the Canadian government to supply RCAF units to defend Alaska. The Canadian government complied and dispatched two squadrons of aircraft within days. When they landed in Alaska, they were met by an official agent of the US government who asked them to do something that they hadn't been prepared for. Do you know what that was? (See first spoiler) Do you know what the result of that request was? (See second spoiler)

They were asked to pay duty on the aircraft that they were importing into the United States of America.
The local customs agent in charge was reassigned to the remotest location that the US government could find.
 
You're right and mucho thanks for speaking up.
That poster is notorious for the use of the red herring logic fallacy. .

Oh, and the eyeball rolls; emojis
:lol:

Did you look that up in Wikipedia all by yourself? :roll:

By the way, the correct terminology is red herring logical fallacy. A quick read of your threads will show you would not know logic if it bit your ass. ;)
 
In the long run, the numbers show that the money saved that the illegal alien problems cost may balance out the cost, perhaps even come out ahead. Either way, US citizens harmed by illegals, along with the women and children migrating that are raped, trafficked and killed attempting to make that long journey are things it's hard to put a price tag on. Sooner or later somebody will have to address this issue. By the looks of the thousands that are headed this way now, if Trump doesn't do it, it may be too late. It's gotta be somebody that's willing to take a lot of heat . If not Trump who? Certainly no professional politician will take this on, lest they be labeled a racist/xenophobe.
Yeah, not convinced there is any sort of emergency happening at the border. Good luck with that.
 
If there is nothing waiting for them if they cross the line "protected" by "The Wall", then there is no incentive to cross that line.

Building "The Wall" costs more than removing the incentive to cross the line "protected" by "The Wall".

Admittedly removing the incentive to cross the line "protected" by "The Wall" WOULD mean a decrease of profits for those who have a vested interest in NOT removing the incentive to cross the line "protected" by "The Wall" (and those people make fairly substantial donations to "campaign finance funds"). At the same time building "The Wall" increases profits for others who make fairly substantial donations to "campaign finance funds".

Now since:

  • REMOVING the incentives and NOT BUILDING "The Wall" will likely [a] (substantially) reduce the problem, and reduce donations to "campaign finance funds" from two groups; while

    [*]NOT REMOVING the incentives and BUILDING "The Wall" will likely [a] not (substantially) reduce the problem and increase donations to "campaign finance funds";


which do you think is the more likely to find favour, Option A or Option B?


A.Which incentives are illegals crossing for? Specifically? And is there any empirical evidence to support the claim that by simply removing the incentives would stop the illegal crossings?

B. Is it possible that combining barriers where they are needed, with administrative actions removing the incentives and making legal immigration easier will work better than an either or option?

C. Why doe the old Miller Lite commercial, "less filling vs. tastes great" keep coming to mind.:lol:
 
Yeah, not convinced there is any sort of emergency happening at the border. Good luck with that.

Most of Obama's "National State of Emergencies" were for actions in countries other than America. The problem being caused by Illegal aliens here in our own country seem more important. If congress would've done their job when the Republicans held a majority in both houses, or do it now, instead of trying to stop anything Trump wants, the national emergency wouldn't be necessary. And it shouldn't be necessary. The immigrants dying trying to cross the border, the girls being brutalized during the harrowing trek, in addition to the strain it's putting on our border officers, prison systems and American citizens being assaulted/murdered to me constitutes an emergency. JMHO https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iminal-alien&usg=AOvVaw0UXz6A22BC6sMOoxwNZdfM

The arrests include allegations of more than 1 million drug crimes, a half-million assaults, 133,800 sex offenses and 24,200 kidnappings. Even more serious, the imprisoned illegal immigrants, over a five-year period, had been arrested for 33,300 homicide-related offenses and 1,500 terrorism-related crimes.
In terms of cost, federal taxpayers shelled out more than $15 billion during the period studied — or $2.5 billion a year — to keep criminal aliens behind bars in federal, state and local facilities.
Many are repeat offenders. Of about 146,500 criminal aliens who finished a federal prison term, about one in six — around 24,800 — already had been imprisoned again at least once.
 
A.Which incentives are illegals crossing for? Specifically? And is there any empirical evidence to support the claim that by simply removing the incentives would stop the illegal crossings?

Very few people go someplace to "earn a living" if they cannot get jobs there. Very few people go someplace to "go on welfare" if they cannot get "welfare" there.

B. Is it possible that combining barriers where they are needed, with administrative actions removing the incentives and making legal immigration easier will work better than an either or option?

If you do not remove the incentives (to either "getting a job" or "going on welfare"), then people will still go there to "get a job" or "go on welfare".

Now if "Team Trump" was proposing to actually enforce the existing laws that are disincentives to either of those two things, I might take a different view of a proposal to build realistic physical barriers to supplement those actions. I cannot support building unrealistic physical barriers as a total alternative to taking steps to actually enforce the existing laws that are disincentives to either of those two things.

C. Why doe the old Miller Lite commercial, "less filling vs. tastes great" keep coming to mind.:lol:

Either because you don't know what real beer tastes like or because "parroting slogans is easier than actually thinking". There might be others, but those two spring instantly to mind.
 
Very few people go someplace to "earn a living" if they cannot get jobs there. Very few people go someplace to "go on welfare" if they cannot get "welfare" there.



If you do not remove the incentives (to either "getting a job" or "going on welfare"), then people will still go there to "get a job" or "go on welfare".

Now if "Team Trump" was proposing to actually enforce the existing laws that are disincentives to either of those two things, I might take a different view of a proposal to build realistic physical barriers to supplement those actions. I cannot support building unrealistic physical barriers as a total alternative to taking steps to actually enforce the existing laws that are disincentives to either of those two things.



Either because you don't know what real beer tastes like or because "parroting slogans is easier than actually thinking". There might be others, but those two spring instantly to mind.


The laughing emoji was an indicator that I was remarking in jest. But, there may be a communication breakdown since we are in different countries. So, when I said "B. Is it possible that combining barriers where they are needed, with administrative actions removing the incentives and making legal immigration easier will work better than an either or option?
By "removing incentives" The wording "removing incentives was meant to include all incentives. That would include( "getting a job" or "going on welfare".)


The reference to the Miller lite commercial, was meant to reflect the way I am starting to see the dems and the pubs. The dems state " upgraded technology!!!", the pubs state "physical barriers". They've been doing this for a month. Hence, a satirical application came to my mind. The model would be : LESS FILLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TASTES GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE!!!!!PHYSICAL BARRIERS!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, they say if you have to explain a joke it isn't funny. BUT, my comic analogy was directed at the silly game Pelosi and Trump are playing. I thought it was clever, but I hadn't thought that you would take it personally. Especially since we agree in principle. So, if it felt that way, I apologize. On the up side, your insult was half right. "Parroting a slogan" is much easier than trying to explain political satire. As for not knowing what real beer tastes like, swing and a miss. I'm about 50% German. I knew beer so well, I had to stop drinking it in 1991. Got tired of the state having a say in my comings and goings, you see. ;) Anyway, hope that clears things up, and your sense of humor returns. Be well my northern friend :peace
 
The laughing emoji was an indicator that I was remarking in jest. But, there may be a communication breakdown since we are in different countries. So, when I said "B. Is it possible that combining barriers where they are needed, with administrative actions removing the incentives and making legal immigration easier will work better than an either or option?
By "removing incentives" The wording "removing incentives was meant to include all incentives. That would include( "getting a job" or "going on welfare".)

I'd be the last person to suggest that (to simplify) "Doing A plus B will C.". What I'm saying is that NEITHER the "Republicrats" NOR the "Demlicans" are in the least bit interested in doing "B" - although it would appear that they have different reasons for not doing "B".

The reference to the Miller lite commercial, was meant to reflect the way I am starting to see the dems and the pubs. The dems state " upgraded technology!!!", the pubs state "physical barriers". They've been doing this for a month. Hence, a satirical application came to my mind. The model would be : LESS FILLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!TASTES GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE!!!!!PHYSICAL BARRIERS!!!!!!!!!

I agree. The situation is (to be slightly less simple) "If we do A[SUB]1[/SUB] plus A[SUB]2[/SUB] and also do B then we will C." - with the Republican position being "We will do a whole lot of A[SUB]1[/SUB] (but not much A[SUB]2[/SUB]), and we won't do any B - which means that we will C." and the Democrat position being "We will do a whole lot of A[SUB]2[/SUB] (but not much A[SUB]1[/SUB]), and we won't do any B - which means that we will C.".

Anyway, they say if you have to explain a joke it isn't funny.

Which is not the case with analogies.

BUT, my comic analogy was directed at the silly game Pelosi and Trump are playing. I thought it was clever, but I hadn't thought that you would take it personally. Especially since we agree in principle.

I didn't take it personally.

So, if it felt that way, I apologize.

Accepted, but not needed.

On the up side, your insult was half right. "Parroting a slogan" is much easier than trying to explain political satire.

As for not knowing what real beer tastes like, swing and a miss. I'm about 50% German. I knew beer so well, I had to stop drinking it in 1991. Got tired of the state having a say in my comings and goings, you see. ;)

My condolences on your grievous loss.

Anyway, hope that clears things up, and your sense of humor returns.

It does, and it never went away - it's ALWAYS been a bit "bent".

Be well my northern friend :peace

And the same to you my Southron one.

(That's a "Civil War joke" in case you missed it.)
 
I'd be the last person to suggest that (to simplify) "Doing A plus B will C.". What I'm saying is that NEITHER the "Republicrats" NOR the "Demlicans" are in the least bit interested in doing "B" - although it would appear that they have different reasons for not doing "B".



I agree. The situation is (to be slightly less simple) "If we do A[SUB]1[/SUB] plus A[SUB]2[/SUB] and also do B then we will C." - with the Republican position being "We will do a whole lot of A[SUB]1[/SUB] (but not much A[SUB]2[/SUB]), and we won't do any B - which means that we will C." and the Democrat position being "We will do a whole lot of A[SUB]2[/SUB] (but not much A[SUB]1[/SUB]), and we won't do any B - which means that we will C.".



Which is not the case with analogies.



I didn't take it personally.



Accepted, but not needed.





My condolences on your grievous loss.



It does, and it never went away - it's ALWAYS been a bit "bent".



And the same to you my Southron one.

(That's a "Civil War joke" in case you missed it.)


I did, BUT, I googled it and I thank you for my "learn something new every day" moment. I was unaware of that! (in a Johnny Carson voice). Anyway, the more our politicians keep at each other, the more I fear for our country. SMH
 
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/americas/pope-walls-panama/index.html

"In apparent shot at Trump, Pope says 'builders of walls' sow fear and divide"

Pope Francis has taken another shot at wall-building politicians, telling thousands of Catholics in Panama gathered for World Youth Day that "builders of walls sow fear" and "divide people."

"We know that the father of lies, the devil, prefers a community divided and bickering," Francis told a crowd of tens of thousands of youth Thursday night at a seaside park in Panama City.

Hard to not respect a man of conviction who speaks to rally attention to world evils.

Much respect.
 
Yeah, people who live in glass houses.
And I'm not just talking about the wall which surrounds his house.

I must have missed the part in the Bible which says cuss out the poor and desperate and let them just die off because they deserve it.
 
Most of Obama's "National State of Emergencies" were for actions in countries other than America. The problem being caused by Illegal aliens here in our own country seem more important. If congress would've done their job when the Republicans held a majority in both houses, or do it now, instead of trying to stop anything Trump wants, the national emergency wouldn't be necessary. And it shouldn't be necessary. The immigrants dying trying to cross the border, the girls being brutalized during the harrowing trek, in addition to the strain it's putting on our border officers, prison systems and American citizens being assaulted/murdered to me constitutes an emergency. JMHO https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iminal-alien&usg=AOvVaw0UXz6A22BC6sMOoxwNZdfM

The arrests include allegations of more than 1 million drug crimes, a half-million assaults, 133,800 sex offenses and 24,200 kidnappings. Even more serious, the imprisoned illegal immigrants, over a five-year period, had been arrested for 33,300 homicide-related offenses and 1,500 terrorism-related crimes.
In terms of cost, federal taxpayers shelled out more than $15 billion during the period studied — or $2.5 billion a year — to keep criminal aliens behind bars in federal, state and local facilities.
Many are repeat offenders. Of about 146,500 criminal aliens who finished a federal prison term, about one in six — around 24,800 — already had been imprisoned again at least once.
FYI, a "criminal alien" is probably just as likely to be someone who has come to the US legally. A wall won't help with that. Criminal alien incarcerations have steadily declined from 2010-16 (according to your article's source). A brand new border wall wasn't necessary for that.

Many of the numbers you've quoted do not appear to be in the source that was cited by the opinion piece you linked to. From 2010-16, there were only 196 individuals with terrorism convictions (per the GAO report that you opinion pieced cited pg.91-92)

" the highest number of convictions were from individuals born in Somalia (19 convictions), Pakistan (14 convictions), and Colombia (12 convictions). No other country of birth outside of the United States had more than five individuals with convictions directly related to international terrorism."

So somehow we are supposed to link "1,500 terrorism-related crimes" to less than five dudes from Mexico :roll:
You know what country had the highest representation? The United States. Don't think a wall is going to help with that.

The opinion piece you offered is often vague and appears to be mixing up facts freely and it looks quite a bit like either lying or being outright wrong.
 
Anyway, the more our politicians keep at each other, the more I fear for our country. SMH

Politicians are a bit like bureaucracies, and the saying is "God preserve us from an efficient bureaucracy.".

As long as the politicians are fighting each other, they aren't ganging up on everyone else.

Admittedly I would prefer it what the politicians were arguing about had something that I could reasonably confuse with substance to it, but as long as the Barons are fighting over the colour that the rose is supposed to be they aren't knocking on my door and collecting taxes.
 
Back
Top Bottom