On Jun 18, 12:19*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."


Last time I knew, the military protocol for addressing senior
officers is either "yes/No Sir, or Yes/Mo Ma'am. Even to the point
where it becomes a natural habit. I address others with Sir/Ma'am,
even to this day because it was the way I was taught while young.

I'm sure the general meant no offense, and to him he was following a
proper protocol.

OK so Boxer thought it uncouth. well, I think it was her problem, not
his.

maybe being addressed as "Senator" makes her feel more important.
Maybe she has low self esteem or something.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

maybe being addressed as "Senator" makes her feel more important.
Maybe she has low self esteem or something.

Most politicians have low self esteem, and deservedly so.

Casady