I am on point. Your question in reference to the difference between USSR communism's and the Catholic Church's concern (emph. DZP) for the poor was, . Those differences being... ?
And I explained that the Catholic sees the image of Christ in the poor while the Soviet Union saw a mass of people to be conquered and enslaved.

No, you're not. Again, from you, emph. mine...

There is a difference in the way the Catholic Church takes care of the poor and the way the USSR took care of the poor. 

You either cannot, or will not make distinctions save when they serve you, and regardless your "supreme pastor and teacher" begs to differ WITH YOU. 

Just what was "the Soviet Union?" Other people, and a HUGE chunk of that was your pals/comrades/relatives THE JєωS. 

Who set it up? Your Yeshiva buds. Surely you aren't saying such horrid things about "our elder brothers in faith... our masters", are you?

Keep painting to the corner.

Now, again, the point was, pay attention, the WAY, the MEANS that each, admitted by you repeatedly CARES/CARED for the poor.

No, you're not. Again, from you, emph. mine...

You either cannot, or will not make distinctions save when they serve you, and regardless your "supreme pastor and teacher" begs to differ WITH YOU.

Just what was "the Soviet Union?" Other people, and a HUGE chunk of that was your pals/comrades/relatives THE JєωS.

Who set it up? Your Yeshiva buds. Surely you aren't saying such horrid things about "our elder brothers in faith... our masters", are you?

Keep painting to the corner.

Now, again, the point was, pay attention, the WAY, the MEANS that each, admitted by you repeatedly CARES/CARED for the poor.

God hears the cry of the poor.

God hears the cry of the poor.

And?

Again this is pointless, just more run-of-mill, standard dishonesty and deflection and so thereby is completely non-responsive. (This means non-responsive to the matter at hand, not the person/s you're "in dialog" with.)

Save it, it's just more of the same dishonesty; ESL isn't an excuse here, nor is some possible inherent defect of intellect.

And?

Again this is pointless, just more run-of-mill, standard dishonesty and deflection and so thereby is completely non-responsive. (This means non-responsive to the matter at hand, not the person/s you're "in dialog" with.)

Save it, it's just more of the same dishonesty; ESL isn't an excuse here, nor is some possible inherent defect of intellect.

No, it is not dishonesty. It comes from the Psalms.

Presumably the Presumably the Scottish poor.

Presumably there were plenty of "poor"--and destitute--in Scotland alone, or across its southern border, from the year that the Nordmanni (d.b.a. vikings) began their destructive raids on northern Britain at Lindisfarne (793), thro' at least William the Conquerer's suppression of the Rising of the North and colder-blooded Harrying of the North [†] in not-yet pacified newly Norman Britain (1069--1070).

The poor and the destitute wherever [St. Margaret of Scotland] found them

Irrelevant & immaterial.  And fascinatingly, not even mentioned in the  Catholic Encyclopedia article about her [‡].

To be an analogy that's honestly applicable to the current immigration controversy in Europe:
•  all of the queenly saint's "poor and destitute" would've had to travel all the way to Scotland from distant places like Cyprus, Crete, or Sicily (how would the genuinely "poor" pay for such extensive travel?);
•  selfishly bypassed several nearer ports of refuge known not to offer a reception as profitable as in Scotland (altho' her realm is really quite the contrary--a harsh physical environment in which frugality was a necessity, not merely an eccentricity); and
•  the queen's "destitute" would have been primarily downtrodden families--many women & children--arriving in wretched health, instead of being primarily young adult men in excellent health, exhibiting a degree of health & fitness like newly deployed soldiers, and wearing nearly fresh clothing and shoes instead of wearing rags and walking on unshod battered feet.

-------
Note †: The quaintly-titled "Harrying" (lit. "to ravage, despoil, pillage") by William the Conqueror Bastard must've been a great inspiration to Yankee Gen. W.T. Sherman, 8 centuries later.

Note ‡: Elevated from English royalty to Queen of Scotland by marriage to King Malcolm III "Canmore" of Scotland: uncertain year in period 1067--1070.  Died 16 Nov. 1092.  "St. Margaret of Scotland".  Catholic Encyclopedia (vol. 9): <www.newadvent.org/cathen/09655c.htm>.

Arrrgh!  I reversed the sense needed to express the idea I intended in my final bullet point; it should've been like this:

•  [Queen St. Margaret's] "destitute" would have been primarily young adult men, exhibiting a degree of health & fitness like newly deployed soldiers of a First-World sovereign state, and wearing nearly fresh clothing and shoes, instead of the Big Lie that the propaganda of the mainstream news-media and the globalist Church of the Nova Ordo are trying to condition us to believe: Downtrodden families--many women & abundant children--arriving pitifully malnourished and in wretched health, wearing rags, and walking on unshod battered feet.

"Workflowy" it ain't, so don't stroke yourself out about it; you tried.

I'm a big "PIM" guy, so I "feel you".

I miss "Tinderbox"...

Time out!  On a side note let it be known that St. Pius X would presumably  have sent Catholic Bannon packing just as readily as he did Theodore Herzl, both of them staunch Zionists.