Liberal Forum

 Vance Says the Pope Should Be More Careful When Talking About Theology

The vice president, who is Catholic, took issue with Pope Leo XIV’s statement that disciples of Christ are “never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/us/p ... orgia.html


you gonna take that...on your knees, Papists?


 

https://youtube.com/shorts/t7bCErP0p9Q? ... 9vWY6ugg_S

Blackvegetable » 15 Apr 2026, 5:20 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 5:20 am

 Vance Says the Pope Should Be More Careful When Talking About Theology

The vice president, who is Catholic, took issue with Pope Leo XIV’s statement that disciples of Christ are “never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

no spam

you gonna take that...on your knees, Papists?

I saw some spiel on the Youtube channel "Redacted"  about a  pope that got assasinated after 33 days on tthe job by the Free Masons?


 

Tom Homan agrees with Vance’s take. Asked by a reporter for his take on a controversial post by President Trump where he depicted himself as Jesus, Homan responded, “Look, I’m not gonna speak for the president. I’m speaking for myself, a lifelong Catholic. I wish they would stay out of immigration if they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-ca ... out-of-it/

Tom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump’s DOJ shut it down.
 

Blackvegetable » 45 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

45 minutes ago

 Vance Says the Pope Should Be More Careful When Talking About Theology

The vice president, who is Catholic, took issue with Pope Leo XIV’s statement that disciples of Christ are “never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/us/p ... orgia.html

you gonna take that...on your knees, Papists?

How ironic for the New York Times to worry about piety in view of their concerted efforts to cover-up the murder of 6 million Jews during  WWII.
 

RebelGator » 15 Apr 2026, 6:03 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 6:03 am

How ironic for the New York Times to 

Post a list of your sources...

I wonder how the Rent-a-Papists on the Supreme Court are feeling at the moment...

Seems to me the Pope needs a history lesson of his own religion.

MR-7 » 15 Apr 2026, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 8:58 am

The FBI opened the case under Biden — Trump’s DOJ is the one that shut it down.

Snopes explicitly says they could not verify the underlying allegation because the reporting relies on anonymous sources and no firsthand evidence was released.   

The FBI itself said it wasn’t confident it could prove the transaction was bribery, which is why the case was closed — according to the New York Times reporting summarized by Forbes...  
 
The White House and Homan deny he ever took the money, and no charges were filed. That’s also in the reporting.

I believe the WH and Homan. They have not steered us wrong yet.

The FBI itself said it wasn’t confident it could prove the transaction was bribery,

What "transaction"?

Blackvegetable » 15 Apr 2026, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 9:00 am

What "transaction"?

You can find the summarized reporting from Forbes on the New York Times......I gave that to you already Brown.

The FBI itself said it wasn’t confident it could prove the transaction was bribery, which is why the case was closed — according to the New York Times reporting summarized by Forbes
 

MR-7 » 15 Apr 2026, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 9:11 am

You can find the summarized reporting from Forbes on the New York Times......I gave that to you already Brown.

The FBI itself said it wasn’t confident it could prove the transaction was bribery, which is why the case was closed — according to the New York Times reporting summarized by Forbes

So we've established that SOMETHING involving Tom, a bag of cash and a transaction actually happened....

But Kash is stumped..

Is that fair?

Blackvegetable » 15 Apr 2026, 9:15 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 9:15 am

So we've established that SOMETHING involving Tom, a bag of cash and a transaction actually happened....

But Kash is stumped..

Is that fair?

Copilot...why did the fbi not pursue Homan?

Homan was not a government official at the timeThis is a major legal barrier.
 According to the New York Times summary (via Forbes and CNN):

• Homan was not in government when the sting occurred.
• That makes federal bribery statutes much harder to apply, because bribery laws require an “official act” or “public official.”

Without that, the case becomes extremely weak.

So....you sound like the one that is stupid. 
 
 

MR-7 » 15 Apr 2026, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 9:11 am

You can find the summarized reporting from Forbes on the New York Times......I gave that to you already Brown.

The FBI itself said it wasn’t confident it could prove the transaction was bribery, which is why the case was closed — according to the New York Times reporting summarized by Forbes

-------------------------------------------------------

According to September 2025 reports, Tom Homan, the "Border Czar" in the Trump administration, was involved in a federal investigation where he allegedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents in September 2024. The sting involved a bag of money provided in exchange for promised government contracts. The investigation was closed by the Trump administration

jerrab » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

-------------------------------------------------------

According to September 2025 reports, Tom Homan, the "Border Czar" in the Trump administration, was involved in a federal investigation where he allegedly accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover FBI agents in September 2024. The sting involved a bag of money provided in exchange for promised government contracts. The investigation was closed by the Trump administration

**** liberal lies...

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:10 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:10 am

Post a list of your sources...

color me surprised…another **** ****** gallery thread…

#******
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Apr 2026, 5:40 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 5:40 am

Tom Homan agrees with Vance’s take. Asked by a reporter for his take on a controversial post by President Trump where he depicted himself as Jesus, Homan responded, “Look, I’m not gonna speak for the president. I’m speaking for myself, a lifelong Catholic. I wish they would stay out of immigration if they don’t know what they’re talking about.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-ca ... out-of-it/

Tom Homan was investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. Trump’s DOJ shut it down.

--------------------------------

 The incoming Trump Administration was reportedly alerted to the investigation. It must have realized that a story this odiferous had a high likelihood of being leaked, yet it gave Homan a prominent role. It is hard to imagine another Administration in the post-Watergate era making that judgment—even if officials didn’t find Homan’s actions morally repugnant, they would avoid him out of self-preservation. But for the Trump team, with its high tolerance for embarrassment and supreme confidence in its impunity, there isn’t much that is off the table. So the Administration can brazen its way through self-serving deals that would have made its predecessors blanch: the gift of a luxury jet from Qatar; the various ventures into cryptocurrency, including a gala dinner for the biggest investors in the $TRUMP meme coin. A bag of cash pales by comparison.

MR-7 » 12 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

12 minutes ago

Copilot...why did the fbi not pursue Homan?

Homan was not a government official at the timeThis is a major legal barrier.
 According to the New York Times summary (via Forbes and CNN):

• Homan was not in government when the sting occurred.
• That makes federal bribery statutes much harder to apply, because bribery laws require an “official act” or “public official.”

Without that, the case becomes extremely weak.

So....you sound like the one that is stupid. 

the simpleton’s got his little headline here like Kaplan’s worthless quote based solely on his feefees…
 

Blackvegetable » 15 Apr 2026, 5:20 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 5:20 am

 Vance Says the Pope Should Be More Careful When Talking About Theology

The vice president, who is Catholic, took issue with Pope Leo XIV’s statement that disciples of Christ are “never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/us/p ... orgia.html

you gonna take that...on your knees, Papists?

• Apr 13, 2026 19:13 pm IST

Trump Casts God As 'Co-Commander' In Iran War, Pope Says 'No' The president framed the Iran war as 'divinely sanctioned' but the pope insisted 'God does not bless any conflict', setting up a clash between presidential power and papal moral authority.

MR-7 » 15 Apr 2026, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 9:31 am

Copilot...why did the fbi not pursue Homan?

Homan was not a government official at the timeThis is a major legal barrier.
 According to the New York Times summary (via Forbes and CNN):

• Homan was not in government when the sting occurred.
• That makes federal bribery statutes much harder to apply, because bribery laws require an “official act” or “public official.”

Without that, the case becomes extremely weak.

So....you sound like the one that is stupid. 

is that to suggest that there wasn't a "transaction" involving a bag full of cash and Tom Homan?

ROG62 » 15 Apr 2026, 9:43 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2026, 9:43 am

the simpleton’s got his little headline here like Kaplan’s worthless quote based solely on his feefees…

Was there a transaction or not?


Why was Kaplan obliged to opine?