zapatos

I used the words "cot" and "rest". For you to convert that to "sleep" and "house" for months, is a total misrepresentation of the words I used and the spirit of what I've been suggesting in this entire thread. Your approach is lacking in integrity.

I did? I must be getting old. Can you please provide the exact quote where I said we should give them a place to sleep?

The only person who mentioned housing 1,000,000 people in tents was you. I suggested that the asylum seekers be allowed to take a shower.

This is what I proposed regarding those seeking asylum (not those going to work across the border each day): "Meet them at the gate, give them some food and water, perhaps a shower and a place to rest, then either let them in or turn them away." "Presumably there is an entry point to go further into the US already. As far as I'm concerned we can just put up a tent in front of it and let people rest and get cleaned up while waiting." "for as long as it takes to eat, shower, and rest their tired feet." This is what Raider is arguing against: "100,000 people pass through that border a day. If you start housing them, there will be a backlog. Further, into this thread, you say "as long as it takes to rest their tired feet." What about when it becomes months? The backlog, if it lasts for just 10 days, could mean housing up to a million people. That is a major logistical concern, as it could me housing a relatively sized area like a city. Do you want to know what happens when you put more than a million people in tents? I fail to see how my proposal in any way corresponds to Raider's depiction of what I suggested.

Epic. Monumental. Colossal. Prodigious. The logistics of erecting a straw man of these proportions is truly something to behold. I'm in awe. Actually I was treating you as someone who is terribly naive and not very Christian, but perhaps you are right.

Clearly you are not interested in answers to any of your questions, but are using them as a method to simply say "I think the concept of a soul is ridiculous".

The big picture I was referring to was not the logistics you refer to with the rest of your questions, but our overall vision at the border with respect to humanitarianism, professionalism, and optics in the international community. I've also been trying to convey the point that the logistics involved in with implementing an empathetic and professional approach at the border are a relatively minor detail. We already have the skills, experience, and professionalism needed to implement a more empathetic and less confrontational approach. By changing our message from "invasion" and "responding to rocks as if they are guns" to "we'll get to everyone as fast as we can" and "why don't you get a meal and cleaned up while you wait", we decrease the likelihood of violence and soured international relations with minimal effort. Not to mention that it is the decent thing to do. In a similar vein, when protesters visit a site, we expect our officials to try to defuse any potential conflict rather than incite, and we render aid even to those who are breaking the law. I don't know why we would't want officials at the border and in government to also strive for a peaceful and respectful outcome. At the border, for as long as it takes to eat, shower, and rest their tired feet. Are you asking if we stop fights among the migrants, or if we take steps to keep them from illegally entering the US? If so, then yes, we keep it secure. Presumably there is an entry point to go further into the US already. As far as I'm concerned we can just put up a tent in front of it and let people rest and get cleaned up while waiting. I'm not suggesting any changes one way or the other with respect to immigration policy. Only that we act with respect, kindness, and professionalism while we are going about our jobs.

Yes, it is of course more of a logistical problem to add showers and cots, and it would be an even bigger logistical problem if we wanted to also give everyone hats and sunscreen. But it is not as if we are talking about the logistics of keeping a moon base supplied. Citing logistics in this case is more of a red herring or completely missing the big picture.

I did. He suggested we provide "drinking" water. Water for showers was a concern to him.

What exactly about the logistics concerns you? That we won't be able to figure out how much water per day? Or how to transport tents to the border? Or where they will get that many towels and bars of soap? Possibly it is determining which roads the supply trucks should take on the way to the border. We mobilized Desert Storm from Illinois. I suspect we could arrange showers and cots. Hell, church groups in Mexico provided showers and even CLOTHES to the migrants. Citing "logistic concerns" feels like someone searching for problems rather than solutions. Especially given that we are discussing humanitarian efforts, violence, and international relations.

Logistics involved in food and water too. You're right. Screw them. Not our problem.

To me it feels as if this is being mishandled by the US. Whether we allow the immigrants in or not, we should be able to set the tone and ensure the interactions at the border happen as pleasantly and professionally as possible. I believe if we start with a bit of empathy instead of hostility this could all go much better. Meet them at the gate, give them some food and water, perhaps a shower and a place to rest, then either let them in or turn them away. We can afford to show some kindness to people who have next to nothing.

Stop already!

Please stop coffeesippin. Preaching is preaching, whether you try to hide it from the mods or not. And it is still against the rules.

What does Jesus think about you lying? Are you trying to paint yourself as persecuted to garner sympathy? Playing the martyr will get you nowhere. You are barking up the wrong tree on this site pal.

Are you an expert on Christianity or merely a pompous ass? Are you suggesting that some people who are baptized and believe in Christ are Christians, but others who are baptized and believe in Christ are NOT Christians? Are you familiar with the fallacy No True Scotsman?

Give me a break. I was a Christian for a long time. There was no part of Evolution I refused to accept simply because of my faith. I suspect that in the entire world you will have a difficult time finding two Christians who are in complete agreement in their faith.

Thanks for sharing.

Just to help clear up your confusion, on this forum calling someone a "troll" is considered a personal attack. I'm sure he's relieved. How would he ever replace the income!

Lack of funding, lack of interest, special interests, economics, politics, inertia...

Unfortunately I don't think anyone here will be able to answer that question for you with any certainty. I suspect it is an HR rule, and different companies have different rules.

I just now asked God for a sign and my dog licked herself. I wasn't sure that was how God would present himself to me so I asked for another sign, and my OTHER dog licked herself. If that isn't proof of God I don't know what is.

Sounds like you are at a pulpit.

I have a swimming pool and have used test kits myself and also use a pool company. We have never been able to accurately address chlorine and acidity on the first try. I get the impression that factors that can affect acidity include the interplay of water temperature changes, type of chlorine and its ingredients (often acid) added to the pool, status of the chlorine in the pool, how much the pool is used, and the type and status of the filter used. Meaning that acidity is a bit of a moving target.

Sorry, I misread that as being before Christ. My mistake.