also called GB.
I haven't read much about chronic exposure to it, and I should. I believe that the time-weighted average (amount that one can be exposed to without ill effects continually) is on the order of 0.0001 mg-min/cubic meter, a very small amount indeed.
I didn't miss that at all. I was facetiously calling him "tough guy" because of his ugly attitude, not his underlying impersonal arguments.
Ironically, his views seem aligned with mine (and yours?), but to label someone as a coward for being an "EZ chair patriot" is just as offensive to me as Sonny labeling those who question the government as traitors.
He has loose wire or two so he should fit right in round here.
Tough guy said "He spews patriotism but has never served in the armed forces".
Sonny replied "I served in the military".
Case closed. There was no discussion about being "on the line" invited or offered.
On a related note, I read the other day that of our 100 senators, only one has a child in the military. None has a sibling in the military. Pretty amazing statistics but not indicative that many of them are "battle veterans", I think.
believe you are wrong here. Sonny may be telling the literal truth, but you notice that he did not say that he was on the line. There are something like 5 uniformed support personnel for every actual soldier, and that's counting as soldiers field medics and such who know the score first hand. Battle veterans are seldom in a hurry to send others into harms way.
ethics or morality if you will of the situation, not the politics. I am curious, as one who prepares himself to look death in the face, do you consider it appropriate or even accurate to denigrate an opponent suicicde bomber as a "coward"?