JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:42 pm, "Reginald P Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEGmkjv8R8

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Problem is with her, she always has that attitude with military.. It's
part of her Shtick while her husband makes a fortune in the supply
side of it..

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam
Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have been
sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you and
the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who should
know from not knowing.






--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist, hates blacks and latinos.

"HK" wrote in message
m...

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have addressed
a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of speech, he
could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam Senator, madam
being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have been sufficient, as
would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you and
the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who should
know from not knowing.



You can tell by listening to the General that he addressed her as "ma'am"
purposely to indicate disrespect for her or her official title. Sure he
did.

He screwed up, that's all. A simple, innocent and human mistake.
I am sure this is hard to understand by those who never make mistakes.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam
Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have
been sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you
and the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who
should know from not knowing.



You can tell by listening to the General that he addressed her as
"ma'am" purposely to indicate disrespect for her or her official
title. Sure he did.

He screwed up, that's all. A simple, innocent and human mistake.
I am sure this is hard to understand by those who never make mistakes.

Eisboch


A general testifying before Congress should be aware of simple protocol,
because once you are doing that for part of your living, you are as much
a politician as the elected representatives. and you should know what
you are doing. I'm sure that if Mrs. Boxer had addressed the general as
"mister," the usual crowd would have jumped all over her.





--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist, hater of blacks and latinos.

"HK" wrote in message
m...

A general testifying before Congress should be aware of simple protocol,
because once you are doing that for part of your living, you are as much a
politician as the elected representatives. and you should know what you
are doing. I'm sure that if Mrs. Boxer had addressed the general as
"mister," the usual crowd would have jumped all over her.


I suspect that if *Ms.* Boxer had inadvertently referred to the general as
"mister", he probably would have ignored it.

Eisboch

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as
Madam Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would
have been sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you
and the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who
should know from not knowing.



You can tell by listening to the General that he addressed her as
"ma'am" purposely to indicate disrespect for her or her official
title. Sure he did.

He screwed up, that's all. A simple, innocent and human mistake.
I am sure this is hard to understand by those who never make mistakes.

Eisboch


A general testifying before Congress should be aware of simple protocol,
because once you are doing that for part of your living, you are as much
a politician as the elected representatives. and you should know what
you are doing. I'm sure that if Mrs. Boxer had addressed the general as
"mister," the usual crowd would have jumped all over her.





Accusing a general of the army of being a common politician is an
extreme insult. A career asshole, like you, who has spent at least 4
college years learning to speak and understand the English language
should know that.

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam
Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have
been sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you
and the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who
should know from not knowing.



You can tell by listening to the General that he addressed her as
"ma'am" purposely to indicate disrespect for her or her official
title. Sure he did.

He screwed up, that's all. A simple, innocent and human mistake.
I am sure this is hard to understand by those who never make mistakes.

Eisboch

During the exact same committee meeting General Walsh referred to the
male Senators at the hearing as "sir" without receiving even a dirty
look for any faux pas in protocol. Sure the correct protocol would have
been Senator, but the male senators focused on the purpose of the
meeting, instead of worrying about someone inadvertently using the wrong
title.


--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Jun 18, 1:56*pm, "Reginald P Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
om...

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam
Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have
been sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you
and the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who
should know from not knowing.

You can tell by listening to the General that he addressed her as
"ma'am" purposely to indicate disrespect for her or her official
title. * *Sure he did.

He screwed up, that's all. *A simple, innocent and human mistake.
I am sure this is hard to understand by those who never make mistakes.

Eisboch

During the exact same committee meeting General Walsh referred to the
male Senators at the hearing as "sir" without receiving even a dirty
look for any faux pas in protocol. *Sure the correct protocol would have
been Senator, but the male senators focused on the purpose of the
meeting, instead of worrying about someone inadvertently using the wrong
title.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

No need to insult bitches everywhere, just refer to her as "Democratic
Senator" which is as derogatory as possible.

Reginald P Smithers III, Esq. wrote:
Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as
Madam Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would
have been sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you
and the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who
should know from not knowing.



You can tell by listening to the General that he addressed her as
"ma'am" purposely to indicate disrespect for her or her official
title. Sure he did.

He screwed up, that's all. A simple, innocent and human mistake.
I am sure this is hard to understand by those who never make mistakes.

Eisboch

During the exact same committee meeting General Walsh referred to the
male Senators at the hearing as "sir" without receiving even a dirty
look for any faux pas in protocol. Sure the correct protocol would have
been Senator, but the male senators focused on the purpose of the
meeting, instead of worrying about someone inadvertently using the wrong
title.



Well said. I agree with this post.

On Jun 18, 1:19*pm, HK wrote:
JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:42 pm, "Reginald P Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEGmkjv8R8

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Problem is with her, she always has that attitude with military.. It's
part of her Shtick while her husband makes a fortune in the supply
side of it..

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister. If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam
Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have been
sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you and
the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who should
know from not knowing.

Please show us the OFFICIAL protocol you claim to know so much about.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:19:49 -0400, HK wrote:

JustWaitAFrekinMinute! wrote:
On Jun 18, 12:42 pm, "Reginald P Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryEGmkjv8R8

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

Problem is with her, she always has that attitude with military.. It's
part of her Shtick while her husband makes a fortune in the supply
side of it..

The senator was absolutely correct. That general would not have
addressed a male senator as mister.

Always thought that Miss or Missus were the Mister equivalents.
And that M'am was the Sir equivalent.
That's how I've always used the terms. And they connote respect.

If he wanted to use that form of
speech, he could have properly and respectfully addressed her as Madam
Senator, madam being the full form of ma'am. "Senator," would have been
sufficient, as would have "Senator Boxer."

Jesus H. Christ. These Senate panel participants are always saying
"yes ma'am" and "yes sir" to Senators.
And maam is practically codified in the military as a term of respect.
Boxer acted like a ****ing idiot.
And he acceded to her wish.
He didn't ask that she refer to him as Brigadier General, which he
could well have done to put her in her place.
But then maybe he wasn't suffering from menstrual cramps as she was.


There is a protocol for addressing officials, and the fact that you and
the other uneducated ****s don't know it doesn't excuse those who should
know from not knowing.

There's also a protocol for not coming off as a rude bitch.
Boxer doesn't have a handle on that protocol.
Maybe she's a dyke.

--Vic