Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL noise from the losers. The general came right to heel didn't he? Yes Senator, no Senator, three bags full Senator.
Yes, because he is an officer and a gentleman. He is also smart enuff to know that she looked absolutely ridiculous. Obviously. Or we wouldn't be talking about it.
The facts are: he did not commit a faux pas. Boxer is an arrogant, bloated up ole toad and an embarrassment to the Senate.
Yup, any woman who has the audacity to defend another woman is a man hater which makes you a woman hater...so I guess we're even. BTW, it was sexism from the start.
I'll type slowly for you.
A senator and a general are in a formal setting. The general is being asked some questions by the senator. In a response to a question he respectful replies begins with a yes ma'am no ma'am what ever and begins to answer.
The senator abruptly interrupts the general to tell general that the senator has a "title" which the senator says thorough hard work was attained.
Then you [SIZE=6]WANT[/SIZE] to make a sexist issue out of the senator disrespecting the general.
The two parties involved just happen to be male and female which is a byproduct NOT THE ISSUE. Deal with it!
Yes, because he is an officer and a gentleman. He is also smart enuff to know that she looked absolutely ridiculous. Obviously. Or we wouldn't be talking about it.
The facts are: he did not commit a faux pas. Boxer is an arrogant, bloated up ole toad and an embarrassment to the Senate.
LOL well your "officer and a gentleman" (funny how civilians persist in this archaic nomenclature) is in Secretary Gates' doghouse for embarrassing the department and I'm sure will be at the next refresher course on political etiquette. A course that you will not be invited to teach.
I'll type slowly for you.
A senator and a general are in a formal setting. The general is being asked some questions by the senator. In a response to a question he respectful replies begins with a yes ma'am no ma'am what ever and begins to answer.
The senator abruptly interrupts the general to tell general that the senator has a "title" which the senator says thorough hard work was attained.
Then you [SIZE=6]WANT[/SIZE] to make a sexist issue out of the senator disrespecting the general.
The two parties involved just happen to be male and female which is a byproduct NOT THE ISSUE. Deal with it!
It was sexist because if a male senator had asked to be called Senator it wouldn't have even made the news....and the absurd level of hatred would not have been reached.
It was sexist because if a male senator had asked to be called Senator it wouldn't have even made the news....and the absurd level of hatred would not have been reached.
I disagree, I think this is an example of Republicans being professional offendees.
Whether it's Letterman making jokes, Michelle Obama touching the Queen of England, or Senator Boxer correcting a general, Republicans seek out offense and make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
LOL well your "officer and a gentleman" (funny how civilians persist in this archaic nomenclature) is in Secretary Gates' doghouse for embarrassing the department and I'm sure will be at the next refresher course on political etiquette. A course that you will not be invited to teach.
Truehorn: Nobody is going to the doghouse . . . Too bad Boxer's constituents won't take her to the doghouse, as that is definitely where she should be.
I am not interested in teaching etiquette to the military, nor am I interested in teaching it to you, altho it appears a course in civil discourse might serve you well.
Truehorn: Nobody is going to the doghouse . . . Too bad Boxer's constituents won't take her to the doghouse, as that is definitely where she should be.
I am not interested in teaching etiquette to the military, nor am I interested in teaching it to you, altho it appears a course in civil discourse might serve you well.
Good God, she isn't Queen of England. This was no faux pas on the General's part (there is no requirement to show any special respect to someone who has a political title) but it sure as hell was unseemly on Boxer's part to make an issue out of Her Eminency's title, for god's sake.
Military protocol is to address others using Sir and Ma'am and I AM POSITIVE there is no "protocol" requiring ANYONE to address a Senator as "Senator." You can address them as Mr. or Mrs, for that matter. It is correct to address the President as Sir, also.
If you have ever spent time watching CSPAN over the years, Senators and Congressmen are addressed in many different ways on the floor - everything from "my esteemed colleague" to "Mrs. Brown of Indiana" etc etc.
However, in this instance, it would have been more ACCURATE to address Boxer as "you arrogant B&TCH."
She is just a public servant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
Listen - protocol is just that - protocol. It is etiquette and gives guidelines. He did not commit a faux pas by referring to her as Ma'am. If he had called her what she deserved to be called, then yes, that would have been a faux pas.
I happen to teach etiquette classes. There are ideals and then there is real life . . . and referring to a Senator as Ma'am is NOT an infraction of any sort.
I really don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. You are an arrogant jerk yourself and probably work for Boxer.
ETA: I just looked at your link and you are awfully selective about how you try to prove a point.
(And I quote)
In diplomatic and other public circles, "Sir" is generally considered an acceptable alternative to the formal address in both written and spoken greetings; this does not apply to religious or titled persons. The use of "Madam" or "Ma'am" for a female addressee is less customary but still acceptable, especially for high officeholders ("Madam Governor"). This rule also holds for high officials of foreign countries.
How's this for etiquette? Kiss my arse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
Truehorn: Nobody is going to the doghouse . . . Too bad Boxer's constituents won't take her to the doghouse, as that is definitely where she should be.
I am not interested in teaching etiquette to the military, nor am I interested in teaching it to you, altho it appears a course in civil discourse might serve you well.
Bolding mine.
Thank you for providing examples of YOUR civil discourse!!!!
I disagree, I think this is an example of Republicans being professional offendees.
Whether it's Letterman making jokes, Michelle Obama touching the Queen of England, or Senator Boxer correcting a general, Republicans seek out offense and make a mountain out of something that isn't even a molehill.
Good point...they DO like to whine over the silliest stuff...takes their minds off their failed party , I guess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Deal with it!
