Boxer "worked so hard" for her title

Well, your personal interpretation aside, the Right has gone nuts complaining about this when in fact Boxer simply asked to be addressed exactly as military protocol dictates. What a jackass. How dare she? Now we'll talk about any other point but never see the Right wingers admit that they have been wrong all along. Par for the course.

 

I'm confused. Are you actually arguing now that because the military protocol manual doesn't specifically say that using sir or ma'am is inappropriate but it does state exactly what is supposed to be used in this particular situation, the general was right? Do I have that straight? You want me to agree that because it doesn't state that using sir or ma'am is inappropriate it must be appropriate? You might notice that it doesn't state that using the term Ho is inappropriate either but I seriously doubt that would be acceptable even though it meets the same criteria as your apprarent logic. You can do better than making a completely illogical argument.

 

Oh, I agree that from a protocol stand point it was entirely proper for her to ask to be called 'Senator'. I just think that she came off as a jackass, kind of a whiny jackass really, in the way she went about it but that is her right too.

But, if anyone is saying she didn't have the right to be called Senator, I think they are wrong.

 

There is nothing illogical about having more than one acceptable way to address someone. You have no ****ing idea what you are talking about. Was the General right? That depends on whose guidelines you employ. If the protocol of the Senate is to address all Senators as "Senator", then no he wasn't right. But posting an incomplete army regulation about how to address Senators does not mean that it is unacceptable to address them the same way you would a superior officer. The fact that it doesn't state that it is inappropriate doesn't mean it MUST be appropriate, only that it COULD be appropriate.

Hoes huh? And your the ****ing clown lecturing people about false equivalencies. Before you respond, but a dictionary and look up the following words:

MUST
COULD
LOGIC

 

Ahhh! You are the man I thought you were. I posted a link to the entire manual and you can't even agree with the military's own protocol but insist on making a completely inane argument in defense of your silly opinions. You've lost this one but just can't admit it. No wiggle room, no tangents, no proof of your position posted or links to facts in this thread.
I posted the entire military protocol and you have posted nothing that supports your strange argument but as you lose you do tend to start name calling and getting angier. If only there were some real men here to debate. If you had made that silly "it doesn't say you can't use sir or ma'am" argument during a debate, you'd be laughed off the stage and deserve it.

 

The General was not INTENTIONALLY disrespecting Senator Boxer by calling her "ma'am." When she requested to be called "Senator," to continue calling her "ma'am" would have been disrespectful. And that, for a commissioned officer, which the General is, is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He could have been court-martialled if he had ignored her request. However, she comes across as petty. If she was going to insist on her title as a Senator, she should have called him General. He has earned his title just as much as she has hers. And both will, even after retiring, continue to rate being called by their titles.

And Moen, military protocol does state that for a subordinate to call a commissioned officer by his/her rank is disrespectful. Senators and representatives rate the privileges of officers. When speaking to my CO, I don't call him "Colonel Smith." I'm required to call him "sir." So if Senator Boxer is the General's superior, to call her "ma'am" is entirely appropriate.

However, Senator Boxer IS NOT the General's superior, any more than a state governor is. The General's Chain of Command goes through higher ranking generals/admirals, then up through civilian leadership at the Defense Department, and to the President. HOWEVER, both a Senator and a governor are due a certain amount of respect as senior elected officials. The UCMJ orders it of officers. But Senators are not the superiors of military personnel. This is, to be sure, in a purely legal sense. Were I to not treat the reasonable and legal request of any Senator (or even state governor) as an order, my chain of command would give me a good chewing of my you-know-what.

But I should say this: my wife chides me all the time for worrying about how I should be formally referred to. Not only do I hold military rank, I also hold religious ordination. And a graduate degree. All can be recognized in my name. However, her point is that how and what I demand says more about my pride (in the sinful sense of the word) than in my accomplishments or role. And when I can put my pride aside, she's right.

 

Moen, in your desperate crusade to prove you are right (which is still debatable after 3 pages), you seem to have completely missed the point. Whether she was completely justified in doing so or not, it doesn't matter in the least! It's called having some class and common courtesy. This was so trivial, that there was NO NEED to address it at that point in time, in front of everybody, just to make a scene. The proper way to handle it would have been to approach the general in person, after the meeting had concluded and nobody would have known the discussion ever took place. I'm sure that would have been much more appreciated.

Instead, now the whole country knows and it's on tape. She comes off looking like an elitist and a fool. If the voters actually paid attention to who this woman is for 5 minutes, she'll be gone in a few days. Long over-due.

 

I did not see your link to the entire manual, but I was correct that you did not post even the entire passage wasn't I clown.

I see nothing that states it is improper to address a Senator as "Sir" or "Ma'am" in conversation. What I do see is that it is acceptable to address both the President & Vice President as "Sir" in a prolonged conversation. You love to hang your hat on the ridiculous don't you clown? Is it your position that I would be laughed off stage in a debate because I stated that it may be acceptable to address a Senator with the same address used for the President of the United States even though it does not state that explicitly in the manual issued by the Army?

Let see you answer YES to that question. Furthermore, I have already stated (twice) that the General should have addressed her as Senator. If you want to act like a complete clown like Tom I will treat you that way which includes f-bombs and name calling. And since we are treating you like Tom, why don't you post a poll to see if you really won this debate rather than just declaring yourself the winner. I guess they really do teach that in clown school! Come on clown, post a poll.

 

Yes it would have wrong for her to call him Mr. But he wasnt calling her Miss or Mrs. Anything was he? He was simply saying Ma'am. And he really didnt have to do that did he? He could have just answered her. It seems you are just taking the side that everyone else isnt. She showed bad form. He didnt. Oh and she is Not a superior to a general. she isnt even a superior to a PFC. She answers to me and you. She is the people's subordinate.

 

Actually it can be Sir or the rank in which to address a superior officer. Maybe you can notice who has more respect the ones more often called sir to the ones more often called by their rank.

 

I'm not conceding anything to any of you apologists especially Lehigh. According to military protocol specifically addressing this very situation the general should have addressed the senator by her proper title. If he was unaware of the protocol or decided to take a subtle jab at her we can't know but in either case she certainly wasn't out of line in any way to ask him to address her properly according to his own military protocols, not hers, his. It is just another poorly orchestrated Right wing witch hunt by people that hate Boxer from the start and taken to the absurd point of defending the indefensible out of mean spiritedness and a fair amount of misogyny. I don't really care why you hate her but I suspect that is probably the same reason I can't stand Palin without the misogyny. But I certainly wouldn't defend someone who mocked her Down’s Syndrome kid publicly or make excuses for them. Behavior like you are exhibiting here is exactly why people properly label you as hypocrites. Your inconsistent moral judgments leave you open to that accusation and you walk right into it every time. You have no one else to blame when you hear the hypocrite label but yourselves. I need to go take a shower.

 

As much as it pains me to do so, I completely agree.

 

It does not pain me at all to disagee.

"Madam, or madame, is a polite title used for women which, in English, is the equivalent of Mrs. or Ms., and is often found abbreviated as ma'am"

 

I only have one more comment to make. A Senator is not superior to a Private let alone a General. She is under the Legislative and the Private is under the Executive. Thank goodness for the Constitution that all embrace but very few understand.

 

Since none of you have even bothered to post a transcript of the exchange, allow me...

Boxer: You know, do me a favor. Could say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am? (Requests a "favor" from the General)
Walsh: Yes, ma'am. (The General is apparently a little slow this morning and again says ma'am)
Boxer: It’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I’d appreciate it, yes, thank you. (Explains the request, says that she'd appreciate it and thanks the General)
Boxer: Yes, senator. (Reiterates her request a second time)

Man! Could she have torn him a new one with any more viciousness? What a monster! Quick, grab the torches and lets bring this she-beast down. If you ask me, this Brigadier General is a couple of rounds short of a full clip.

 

OK, doctor

 

It was petty! She couldve ask him off the record, right? There were many ways to go about it. She mustve watched 'A Few Good Men' the night before or something. Wait. youre right. He was out of line.

 

Was it the general who shouted that out? I thought it was a dumb-ass senator or congressman or something. Either way it has nothing to do with this.

 

Do you actually know the general's political party? I didnt see the hearing. Is he a mongoliod too?

 

The way the Right sees this is that Boxer was wrong.

The way the Right sees this is that the represtative was right.

That is an ugly term even if you had spelled it correctly. His political party is irrelevant. It is his behavior that is in question.