self righteous Barbara Boxer

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:31 am

arrogant anti-miltary self serving pompas ass.

the General was addressing her with respect, which is a far cry from what she showed him.

Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh, with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was testifying on the Louisiana coastal restoration process in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He began to answer one of Boxer's questions with \"ma'am\" when Boxer immediately cut him off.

\"You know, do me a favor,\" an irritated Boxer said. \"Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?'\"

\"Yes, ma'am,\" Walsh interjected.

\"It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you,\" she said.

\"Yes, senator,\" he responded

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06 ... ling-maam/

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:18 am

This is news-worthy?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:21 am

Foil wrote:This is news-worthy?

I'm sorry you dont understand

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:22 am

She worked so hard?
If she chokes on those words next time she uses them I'll have to re-consider my disbelief in Karma!

If she and Pelosi could spontaneously just dry up and blow away I'll bring the dustbuster and the beer and we'll have a party!

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:43 am

CUDA wrote:
Foil wrote:This is news-worthy?
I'm sorry you dont understand

I understand you don't like Barbara Boxer, or her stances, or her attitude. Okay, fine, I don't disagree.

But is this news-worthy? Or is it just yet another inane political shot?

[Yeah, I'm tired of the political chest-thumping in here. After not being around for a couple weeks, I was hoping to find some interesting topics in E&C... but, no, it's still 90% a partisan whine-fest.]

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:09 pm

It's justified by the same manner that CNN is reporting that PETA is up in arms for the Prez killing a house fly.

its what they chose to report, its not for you to deciede what they think is news worthy

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:18 pm

So why did you post it?

I expect this kind of stuff from political junkies like Woodchip and Zuruck. I mostly put up with all the rhetoric last year (hey, an election year, fine). No surprise that these things get articles on Fox News and CNN.

But, come on. Is this really E&C worthy?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:29 pm

well ya know what they say. Opinions are like A$$holes, everyone has one and all of them stink.

And since the E&C is all about Opinions

not to mention it is the Ethic and Commentary forum, So yes this is E&C worthy since it is a commentary,

Edit, maybe what they should do to appease you is break up the E&C into a couple of different forums, we could have the

Politics Forum
Religious Forum
And the Forum where Foil approves of what you post forum

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:44 pm

Ha.

Seriously, though - I just have higher expectations of E&C on .net. When I joined a few years ago, I found it much more interesting. Now, I'm just tired of wading through the political muck to find a thread worth reading.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:45 pm

You can still find a thread worth reading?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:01 pm

Foil wrote:Ha.

Seriously, though - I just have higher expectations of E&C on .net. When I joined a few years ago, I found it much more interesting. Now, I'm just tired of wading through the political muck to find a thread worth reading.

Understood, but you know what they say, you never discuss religion and politics with family and friends

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:10 pm

Foil wrote:This is news-worthy?

Almost as important as this:
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL - Today a Pasadena resident went over the 40 MPH speed limit, going 42 miles in the speed zone. That is two miles over the 40 mile limit per hour.

JESUS CHRIST! Did you read it? IMPORTANTNESS!

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:15 pm

Dakatsu wrote:SAINT PETERSBURG, FL - Today a Pasadena resident went over the 40 MPH speed limit, going 42 miles in the speed zone. That is two miles over the 40 mile limit per hour.

Reference? Where's the link? I gotta see this!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:00 pm

There is this button, it’s called “mark all topics read”…use it.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:13 pm

13 replies, 5 of which are from the same guy complaining the thread isn't worth discussing?

If it's not worth discussing, stay out of it and let it drop on its own merits or lack thereof.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:32 pm

Oof, reprimanded by the admin.

Point taken, please accept my apologies (especially to Cuda).

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:48 pm

didn't bother me

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:20 pm

As a career military officer myself, I will tell you that this man was indeed annoyed, BUT, as you can see he accomadated her request gracefully. However, the shocked look on his face was priceless.... She obviously doesn't understand military ettiquette. With that said, who cares? If the senator wants to be called Senator and not ma'am, then call her senator..... Just because sir or ma'am when addressing one's senior is acceptable military ettiquette doesn't mean that she can't have a preference. Her political ideology is completely irrelevent if that is where this thread was hoping to go. This is indeed only a story because of the 24/7 news world of today..... It would not have fit in with the old news at 6 format of 2 decades ago. Heck, this story wouldn't have made the daily paper.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:33 pm

Unlike THIS which completely news-worthy, but is barely mentioned in mainstream.

Hostile, i think you're correct. She should be taken aside and explained that there is as much honor in \"Ma'am\" or \"Sir\" from a General as there is in an official title of head of state. (that sentence is a bit awkward, sorry)

I find her reply annoying as she's being poignant about her efforts. She doesn't need to justify herself. The cruel thing about this is (as you know Hostile) Generals rely on Senators and other high ranking officials for recommendations when trying for the next step in rank. This could be conceived as grade school antics; although i rather doubt it in the instance.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:38 pm

I agree, she has every right to be called Senator, but she did not need to handle it as disrespectfully towards that Officer as she did.

he WAS being respectful towards her. she did not return that respect. It is a two way street.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:41 pm

Dakatsu wrote:
Foil wrote:This is news-worthy?
Almost as important as this:
SAINT PETERSBURG, FL - Today a Pasadena resident went over the 40 MPH speed limit, going 42 miles in the speed zone. That is two miles over the 40 mile limit per hour.

JESUS CHRIST! Did you read it? IMPORTANTNESS!

How can I know how to feel about this story without knowing whether the driver was a Republican or Democrat?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:19 pm

I can't believe for a minute that a Senator of so many terms in office doesn't know that military officers use Sir and Ma'am as terms of respect. she knew damn well he wasn't being disrespectful!
I think she was belligerently flexing her strap on out of contempt for a male authority figure who belongs to an organization she despises.

Unlike the General who feels duty bound to honor her even though she doesn't come close to deserving it I don't, so as a citizen who ultimately pays her rich ass to abuse my freedom and waste my tax revenue, revenue that I really do work hard for, she can go piss up a rope!

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:21 pm

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:44 pm

Foil wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:SAINT PETERSBURG, FL - Today a Pasadena resident went over the 40 MPH speed limit, going 42 miles in the speed zone. That is two miles over the 40 mile limit per hour.
Reference? Where's the link? I gotta see this!

I just made it up on the spot, sorry

Will Robinson wrote:she can go piss up a rope!

Quote of the day

In all seriousness - I don't think it's newsworthy, and I didn't know the military had that code (I always thought that was only between military personnel). In any case, while I don't mind her asking for him to refer to her as Senator, she was a b**ch when she interrupted him while he was speaking to say so.

EDIT:

Duper wrote:Generals rely on Senators and other high ranking officials for recommendations when trying for the next step in rank.

Please pardon my total ignorance... but I thought General was the highest rank...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:04 am

Dakatsu wrote:Please pardon my total ignorance... but I thought General was the highest rank... :?

Generals go from 1 to 5 stars, plus "General of the Armies" (held only by Pershing and George Washington.) One might argue that certain cabinet positions are "above" the rank of General. The man in question is a Brigadier General (1 star).

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:18 am

Easiest way to remember the ranking system of generals is this. Be My Little General.

Brigadier General
Marjor General
Lt. General
General

General of the Army

The temporary grade of \"General of the Army\" (five-star) was provided for by Public Law 482, 78th Congress, approved December 14, 1944, and became permanent on March 23, 1946, under provisions of Public Law 333, 79th Congress.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:03 am

Will Robinson wrote:she can go piss up a rope!

Come on Will, you have to use the whole statement for it to be totally effective. After urinating up the rope, she has to then suck the wet end!

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:17 am

Duper wrote:I find her reply annoying as she's being poignant about her efforts. She doesn't need to justify herself. The cruel thing about this is (as you know Hostile) Generals rely on Senators and other high ranking officials for recommendations when trying for the next step in rank. This could be conceived as grade school antics

I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. Unfortunately, this is daily life in the military which is why the General was not only graceful with his answer, but actually skilled and experienced in handling this situation. You would not believe how many officers of all rank there are in the military that were once the kid who got his/her ass kicked a lot in grade school and now has a chip on his/her shoulder. There is a lot of useless chest beating in that organization. You see this kind of behavior literally on a daily basis from people who are senior to you from the bottom to the top...... One just gets used to it.

And Will, even though she was showing disdain for him or his organization, she wanted to be called senator, so he called her senator. Yes she was disrespectful. Yes he did not deserve that. Acknowledging her behavior will only embolden her type to continue it......

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:58 pm

Having been in the military myself, I've found that the higher rank the officer, the chances of being a \"run of the mill\" ass becomes less; particularly after Captain (Army/Air Force - Navy's \"Captain\" is a higher rank)They tend to let things (smaller stuff) slide a bit more. But that might be because they are more greatly removed from the situation; more so than a Lt. or Capt. That, and they are more accustomed to dealing with situations above, which the General probably barely remembers.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:53 pm

It must have been a while since you have been in.

It's just a different animal these days......

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:16 pm

yeah, since 84' two wars ago. Most of those guys are dead now or well retired.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 7:46 am

What Barbara Boxer could learn from Gomer Pyle
(via InstaPundit)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:20 am

First of all, I agree that she was being disrespectful to the general when she cut him off to get her point across, but you BOYS need to get a little female perspective here. The term ma'am is defined as madam. The general should have addressed her as 'Madam Senator' if he'd wanted to use a gender term in addressing her. But check out the third definition here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madam

Nice of him to call her a 'whore'!

Women of Boxer's generation, including me, grew up when feminists were fighting for equal rights, INCLUDING the right to be addressed as equals, not as lesser subjects or minions to be talked down to. The term ma'am was always meant as a polite but subjugating title to address women back before the 1960's. When I heard the exchange, my immediate gut reaction was anger and agreement, another pig, self-righteous male with no respect for a women in authority. He was essentially saying to her, although subliminally; my balls are bigger than your's biiiaaatch! Unfortunately, she corrected him with a quick reaction and not more reasoned thinking on her part and she just came off catty. Don't males get mad when called effeminate terms? She would have done better to correct him in private. But it was more fun to see her castrate him in public, a little schedenfreud on my part!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:28 am

TC I don't care what the history of the word is or how it used to be used. There are plenty of words that used to be considered one thing and now another..or words that when used by one group means something totally different than when they are used by another!
It requires a little humility and grace to simply stay your gut reaction and ask yourself what is most likely the intent of the speaker? What is his groups most likely use of the word in question? what is my relationship to this group or person?

What is important is how the General used it and what his most likely intent for it's use was! If anyone needs to gain some perspective it would be the female that projects her contempt upon another, reaches back into another era to grasp for an insult so as to infer the wrong meaning and intent... in this case that would be you and the ★■◆●-who-needs-to-be-called-Senator!

Ask yourself this, if a Private encounters the General and his wife on the base and the Private greets her with 'Good afternoon ma'am... would the General be pissed off at the Private referring to his wife as a whore or find the Privates behavior proper?
Or does being a feminist mean that you assume all men are pigs and therefore the General too thinks of his own wife as a whore..?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:38 am

tunnelcat wrote::words:

If you find the term "ma'am" offensive, then you are most definitely out looking to be offended. Do you also yell at people when they hold a door open for you?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:21 pm

tunnelcat wrote:First of all, I agree that she was being disrespectful to the general when she cut him off to get her point across, but you BOYS need to get a little female perspective here. The term ma'am is defined as madam. The general should have addressed her as 'Madam Senator' if he'd wanted to use a gender term in addressing her. But check out the third definition here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/madam

Nice of him to call her a 'whore'!

Women of Boxer's generation, including me, grew up when feminists were fighting for equal rights, INCLUDING the right to be addressed as equals, not as lesser subjects or minions to be talked down to. The term ma'am was always meant as a polite but subjugating title to address women back before the 1960's. When I heard the exchange, my immediate gut reaction was anger and agreement, another pig, self-righteous male with no respect for a women in authority. He was essentially saying to her, although subliminally; my balls are bigger than your's biiiaaatch! Unfortunately, she corrected him with a quick reaction and not more reasoned thinking on her part and she just came off catty. Don't males get mad when called effeminate terms? She would have done better to correct him in private. But it was more fun to see her castrate him in public, a little schedenfreud on my part!

OMG you cannot possibly be serious about this comment. you really are a Nutjob TC. I see how you've selectively chosen the one derogatory use of the word Madam, contrary to what most feminists want to believe. Men that use that term no not think of women as whore's. and its a sad statement for any woman that thinks they do.

FYI in the Military it is a sign of respect AND REQUIRED to call a superior Sir or Ma'am, and you only dress your Inferiors by their title. Typical Femi-Nazi BS

Websters wrote:ma'am
/mæm, mɑm; unstressed məm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mam, mahm; unstressed muhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. madam (def. 1).
2. (in Britain) a term used in addressing the queen or a royal princess.

Related Words for : ma'am
dame, gentlewoman, lady, madam

now here is the other definition of the word Madam

Websters wrote:mad⋅am
/ˈmædəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mad-uhm] Show IPA
–noun, plural mes⋅dames /meɪˈdæm, -ˈdɑm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mey-dam, -dahm] Show IPA for 1; mad⋅ams for 2, 3.
1. (often initial capital letter) a polite term of address to a woman, originally used only to a woman of rank or authority: Madam President; May I help you, madam?

and Thirdly I take offense at your use of the term "BOYS" it is HIGHLY disrespectful if you don't like to be called a Whore then no not call grown Men Boys. apparently there is one distinct difference between you and the General. he meant no disrespect with the term Ma'am. you on the other-hand with your bolding of the word Boys, seems you were intending to offend

Websters wrote: boys - 2 dictionary results
boy
/bɔɪ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [boi] Show IPA Disparaging and Offensive. a man considered by the speaker to be inferior in race, nationality, or occupational status.

EDIT: besides the fact that Whore accurately describes Boxer, she is a politician after all, they are all whore's the Men and Women alike

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:46 pm

TC obviously didn't mean what she was saying. It was a ruse to spin you up..... You BOYS just got Thunderbunnied!!!!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:04 pm

Hostile wrote:TC obviously didn't mean what she was saying. It was a ruse to spin you up..... You BOYS just got Thunderbunnied!!!!

I disagree having been around TC's posts long enough, I think she believes every word of what she posted.

Hostile · Post by **Hostile** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 2:14 pm

[sarcasm]

Hostile wrote:TC obviously didn't mean what she was saying. It was a ruse to spin you up..... You BOYS just got Thunderbunnied!!!!

[/sarcasm]

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:52 pm

Hostile wrote:[sarcasm]
Hostile wrote:TC obviously didn't mean what she was saying. It was a ruse to spin you up..... You BOYS just got Thunderbunnied!!!!
[/sarcasm]

heh stick your tongue out further next time

self righteous Barbara Boxer

self righteous Barbara Boxer

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: