RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer

RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/19/2009 10:26:48 PM)
No need to rely on transcripts and blogs, when Youtube's on the case. Here, watch it yourselves - Watch it yourselves! To me she came across as very arrogant and condescending. The man was just trying to be respectful, for christ's sake, and she spoke to him in a tone of voice that made her sound like she was scolding a servant for getting fingerprints on her waterglass. I don't care what your politics may be (I'm a frothmouthed, barking mad, treehugging liberal who probably makes Abby Hoffman look like Joe McCarthy on some issues) that man has served his country with honor and distinction his entire adult life, and he deserves a hell of a lot more courtesy than that from the elected officials to whom he faithfully reports. I think she owes him an apology, and I just sent her an e-mail telling her so.

CuriousPuppy -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/19/2009 10:45:28 PM)
I watched a video of the exchange a few days back, and I much agree with everything the panda said. I don't consider myself religious, and could not by any stretch of the imagination label myself as someone who leans right, but I felt she was pretty far out of line and just acting petty. At best she came off as simply acting rude.

iwearpanties -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 6:44:59 AM)
wow i never would have thought seeing this clip early on tv this saturday am that it would get any mention here at collar me but im so glad it has . she is an ass did any one notice the army personnel not sure of his rang never even said back too her hey i serve my counrty for your ass and i deserve the RESPECT IF BEING CALLED SIR OR NOTEING HIS RANG ? she she didnt even say to him

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 9:15:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No need to rely on transcripts and blogs, when Youtube's on the case. Here, watch it yourselves - Watch it yourselves! To me she came across as very arrogant and condescending. Wow, now I didn't see that at -all-. I saw a person who was tired, and who was obviously re-hashing some questions on a subject that may have been pretty unpleasant overall -- and I saw her asking, almost resignedly, if he could -please- use the title she'd worked long and hard for... and you know, he didn't seem to have an issue with saying "Yes", immediately -- so why the flip are WE all making a huge issue out of it. I have to say, though, that the 17 second sound-byte certainly isn't any way to get a firm grasp on what kind of dynamics were going on there, and to make such a big deal out of it and make all kinds of speculations about her motivation and his motivation and whether there was disrespect or not. Hell... I ask people, all the time, to call me X or Y or Z, depending on where I am. Some of them are superiors (bosses, etc.), some of them are subject to my authority, and some of them are peers -- and you know, it just -isn't- that big a deal. She wasn't rude, wasn't vulgar, and even took a moment to explain that it wasn't -him-... that she just really preferred hearing the title she'd worked so hard for... Maybe she shouldn't have interrupted him for it, but everyone in the room looked tired and pissy, so I really think people need to stop looking for reasons to feel nasty and snipey about such petty stuff. I mean, it's not like when Senator Helms used the "N" word to describe a Senatorial candidate in his state. Dame Calla

Lockit -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 9:45:28 AM)
I've been thinking on this a little bit and there are a couple of things that stand out to me. The General was not being disresectful, was trying to answer her and the time for a formal address was long past. They were discussing important business... our business... our nations business and it was interupted and the answer interupted, which could have taken the General off course and therefore in my opinion was uncalled for in that moment and could have been addressed when he finished his statement or answer. I did notice that he wasn't called General whoever in her correction and he would deserve just as much respect as a servant of our nation as she does. One little problem I think we face in this nation is that our hired (voted in) employee's tend to think of themselves as higher than their employer's who voted them in. They seperate themselves with some higher importance rather than seeing themselves as an American representive of the People and I really wonder how much they consider us when they are representing us. I have spoken to a number of representives of the People and have found that few really consider us as individuals or give credit to our importance and are more focused on their position or career. Do they think about us when they hear us speak and talk about what we feel is important even when we provide proof of what issue or cause we are asking their representation on? I have found that most do not. They will give lip service, fuck us and we don't even get a kiss. I even said this to Ben Nighthorse Cambell. Yes I did... I wrote to the man on an average of once a week at one point and I got a letter or a call in response very quickly each time. He made me a promise to investigate and was going to create a commity to address what I was telling him about. About two months later his response to me proved that he was calling it something other than what he called it two months prior and I knew he had lied. I had that lie in writing. I have talked to Senator Owens on the phone and I found him to be very respectful, honest and he really listened. We started the call and he was saying there was no way there was enough money in the state budget to do what I wanted done and it could not happen and they would be again voting on it in a couple of months. I stated why this was a crisis and how it was manifesting in society. He gave me a direct name and number to call someone else for some information and I called and then was to call him right back. By the time I argued and proved my point to this other person, I called Senator Owens back and he told me that he had gotten the same answer.... the answer I claimed all a long. He sounded frustrated because he saw my point and I am rather graphic when I speak on certain matters and do not mince words. When they voted, they found the money I claimed was needed because of how bad things were filtering in to society. He pushed things through and convinced the others because he knew how bad it really was. This was the same issue that I spoke with Ben Nighthorse Cambell on. One lied and gave me lip service and the other did something about it. One I will call Senator and the other I call an ass who should be fired. A California Congressman, his wife and a few friends were all in a hot tub and I was right there with them. I will leave his name un-named. I found him to be very personable and he listened. Later when I called him on a certain matter... something that was and still is happening to hundreds of thousands of people in our nation... within that day, he set a fire under a number of people and I had them calling me, trying to please me and making sure things got settled legally and with respect that wasn't there before my call to him. Right about now I think it is time to call a spade a spade... I don't care how much they put into being who they are. When a doctor is guilty of malpractice or negelect, I hesitate to call him doctor or put much worth into his title. The same with anyone else. I call them employee's and they are not doing their job effectivily and do not deserve honor, but a calling out. This should not be a gender issues simply because women need and should have more respect... it should be a national issue of what is right for the people and to call attention to a senator's gender and issues of respect is not the most important issue of the day. The issue is the People and want is important to them. The General was doing his job and meant no disrepect and the senator was condsidering her position and self, before her employer's. She could have waited until he finished if she was so moved to protect her efforts and title... until then she simply was intrusive to the matter at hand.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 10:22:00 AM)
Lockit - excellent perspective, as always. I agree with you completely. Dame Call - reasonable people can certainly disagree, but what I saw was an arrogant, condescending, borderline snit fit. I don't care how tired she was, the test of of good breeding is how courteously you treat people even when you're having a bad day. And she failed that test. And of course he immediately said "yes." That's what military officers do. It's the chain of command. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or feel you've been treated fairly; you've just been given a clear and unambiguous directive by a superior, and you comply. That's it. I only wish the poor bastard had replied, "yes ma'am", but he's probably not close enough to retirement to go all in like that. Anyway, using the terms "sir" and "ma'am" when addressing superiors is standard military protocol, and she's been around long enough to know that. Why in god's name anyone would be offended by that in the first place is a mystery to me, and why someone would respond to it by snapping at the person who, in accordance with his training, is trying to address you with a lot more respect than he probably feels is beyond my ability to comprehend or sympathize with. This was a childish, petty abuse of power, and she should be embarrassed.

aidan -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 10:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No need to rely on transcripts and blogs, when Youtube's on the case. Here, watch it yourselves - Watch it yourselves! To me she came across as very arrogant and condescending. Wow, now I didn't see that at -all-. I saw a person who was tired, and who was obviously re-hashing some questions on a subject that may have been pretty unpleasant overall -- and I saw her asking, almost resignedly, if he could -please- use the title she'd worked long and hard for... and you know, he didn't seem to have an issue with saying "Yes", immediately -- so why the flip are WE all making a huge issue out of it. I have to say, though, that the 17 second sound-byte certainly isn't any way to get a firm grasp on what kind of dynamics were going on there, and to make such a big deal out of it and make all kinds of speculations about her motivation and his motivation and whether there was disrespect or not. Hell... I ask people, all the time, to call me X or Y or Z, depending on where I am. Some of them are superiors (bosses, etc.), some of them are subject to my authority, and some of them are peers -- and you know, it just -isn't- that big a deal. She wasn't rude, wasn't vulgar, and even took a moment to explain that it wasn't -him-... that she just really preferred hearing the title she'd worked so hard for... Maybe she shouldn't have interrupted him for it, but everyone in the room looked tired and pissy, so I really think people need to stop looking for reasons to feel nasty and snipey about such petty stuff. I mean, it's not like when Senator Helms used the "N" word to describe a Senatorial candidate in his state. Dame Calla Thank you. Jesus tap-dancing christ... Lockit, I've read your posts a few times, and I'm still confused so I have to ask: are you suggesting that the senate and civilian government are beholden to or "employed" by the armed forces? Because that's...wrong. I don't mean in a moral sense, I mean it's factually inaccurate, if indeed it's what you're suggesting.

Lockit -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 10:47:24 AM)
Anyone paid by tax payers is an empolyee of the People.

girlygurl -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 10:55:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW so why the flip are WE all making a huge issue out of it. Dame Calla My guess is because the senator is a female. I have to ask why she felt it appropriate to make her comment. Equality? My bet is if that man were addressing a male he would have said "sir".

aidan -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 11:15:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Anyone paid by tax payers is an empolyee of the People. Correct, according to democratic theory and liberal political philosophy which a large portion of our nation's government is based on. But this doesn't really address my question and possible confusion over your post. Servicemen and servicewomen in the armed forces do pay taxes, yes, but so do senators. And both receive their salaries from coffers filled by the taxbase. In this sense they are both "employees of the People." The issue does not lie in who is employed by whom. However, in looking at our laws and government structure, the civilian government (and especially the congress) are lexically ordered ahead of the armed forces. The matters, needs and will of the civilian government take primacy over those of the armed forces, as the civilian realm wields the authority to govern, not the armed forces. The military serves at the behest and order of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Lockit -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 11:29:07 AM)
I wasn't separating them or commenting on that. My comment is on the people and those who are serving this nation, paid by the tax payer. Due respect for any person, military, private person or senator should be given to all persons. Anyone not doing their job properly should be fired. I know I am thinking rather simplistic but I think it is time that a whole lot of people got down to some basic's and work towards improving what is happening to us all... especially those who don't seem to have a voice and who are most vulnerable based on what these employee's are doing to us! I don't care who is in charge of someone else. I don't care who does what. I care about the people and what is happening to them, that the employee's don't seem to notice or care about. Period. You can call them god for all I care as long as they do their job and stop ruining things. To vote on a bill that most did not read and rush to action is foolish. Now we have to face more taxation and bs to cover that foolishness. If my salesperson started giving away my product, they would be fired. If a doctor cuts off the wrong limb... he should be held accountable. Where is the accountability with our representitives? Will they be held accountable other than maybe not making it into office again? I don't care who they are. If the tax payer pays their wages, even if indirectly and isn't personally handing them a check... they need to be subject to the desires and needs of their employers. I don't play the.. I'm the boss of you and even if I am wrong, I am still the boss and you will suffer. Not even in my power dynamic relationships. It's time to start thinking like adults and not spoiled um's.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 11:50:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aidan quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Anyone paid by tax payers is an empolyee of the People. Correct, according to democratic theory and liberal political philosophy which a large portion of our nation's government is based on. But this doesn't really address my question and possible confusion over your post. Servicemen and servicewomen in the armed forces do pay taxes, yes, but so do senators. And both receive their salaries from coffers filled by the taxbase. In this sense they are both "employees of the People." The issue does not lie in who is employed by whom. However, in looking at our laws and government structure, the civilian government (and especially the congress) are lexically ordered ahead of the armed forces. The matters, needs and will of the civilian government take primacy over those of the armed forces, as the civilian realm wields the authority to govern, not the armed forces. The military serves at the behest and order of the legislative and executive branches of government. Sure, but does that negate the value of common courtesy and basic human respect in professional relationships? I think that's what this issue comes down to. It's not a question of whose metaphorical dick hangs lower than the others', it's a matter of treating with basic respect someone who is acting in good faith and showing respect to you and your authority. Which he was doing, and which she apparently did not feel she needed to do.

Steponme73 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 1:11:47 PM)
I was embarrassed for the General as he was showing proper respect as he is taught to do. Ms Boxer showed to me, that she has no class, no common sense an acted very unprofessional.

Andalusite -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 2:43:59 PM)
She did sound a little snippy/aggravated, but I think it's being blown out of proportion. One of my previous managers, who is a lovely woman, and as far as I know, completely vanilla, hates being called Ma'am. She said it makes her feel old, and she'd rather be called "sir" for that matter! When a waitress did call her ma'am, she politely asked to be called her real name, instead.

DavanKael -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/20/2009 5:53:24 PM)
She not only showed her flaming insecurity (Masquerading as feminism), she also showed disrespect toward someone who has served our country honorably. And yes, Peon, it is common for a female to be called ma'am in military circles. Davan

maletpeslave -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/21/2009 10:33:37 AM)
Ms. Boxer worked very hard to BUY her seat. I can see where she would be insulted. shakes head

Starbuck09 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/21/2009 10:44:36 AM)
I believe the senator has made a fool of herself. The appropriate time to bring something of this nature to the general's attention would have been in private, which would make the request both respectful and dignified as opposed to this which was neither and came across as humiliating to the general and made the senator appear both petulant and trivial. The way she was addressed was not wrong ma'am is perfectly acceptable the fact that she prefers senator is a matter of taste not function and is a matter for her and the general to discuss alone.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/22/2009 1:18:57 AM)
If this had been a farmer testifying on agricultural subsidies, she wouldn't have dared to interject with that pretentious bullshit. No way, now how would she have dared to pull that nonsense. She interrupted this man purely to belittle him, because she could. That's what the big fucking deal is about. Madame Boxer [8D] is just a nit-picky, show-off. She doesn't like the military, and she seized on an opportunity to knock this well accomplished man down a peg. I'm sure giggled like a school-girl to herself in her office later as she thought about how she put this man in his proper place. She's a cunt.

housesub4you -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/22/2009 5:55:08 AM)
Normally, I would think she was a little out of line. However, the General did address all the males as Senator and she was the only Senator not addressed by her title.

ShaktiSama -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/22/2009 9:19:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you Normally, I would think she was a little out of line. However, the General did address all the males as Senator and she was the only Senator not addressed by her title. Bingo. Sorry, folks, but each and every one of you who doesn't "get" why Boxer asked for the title in this instance is completely full of it. You cannot take these things in isolation. Calling a female senator "Ma'am" when you call each and EVERY male senator "Senator" is simply belittling. Also, I do not buy the argument that "Ma'am" is automatically and always a term of reverence or respect that should be equal to a political title. Having lived in the South, I know damn well that "Ma'am" is not necessarily an honorific or a term of respect; it's just what you say when addressing a woman you do not know. Addressing Senator Boxer as a random woman off the street when she should have been addressed as a senator is classic male sexist behavior, plain and simple. The fact that it may have been unconscious is only ALL THE MORE REASON for her to call him out about it in a simple, direct, and immediate fashion. Nor do I buy into the line that people are spouting about how a person who makes a public mistake of this kind should be addressed "in private" about it, to spare him embarrassment and let it pass publicly. HE IS NOT THE INJURED PARTY and his behavior merits no special consideration. When people fuck up in this fashion in public, you correct them in public. You don't need to create any melodrama, but it's a deadly mistake to sidle up in private and "ask" them to address you correctly and respectfully after the fact--it gives them too much power, confirms them in their condescension, and it also perpetuates and multiplies the problem by creating a precedent for the screw-up. Also, quite honestly, you really don't need to say "mother may I" when it comes to the acknowledgment of your authority, when you've earned it. Calling a senator "ma'am" is no more polite than calling a senator "mister", and singling out a female senator for this when all her male colleagues were acknowledged by title was NOT ok. Period. I don't care if he was a general or a street sweeper. Bringing in this man's military status is so ridiculously sentimental that it disgusts me--who the hell CARES that he's in uniform? And why in the world is a GENERAL getting the benefit of all this sentimental rhetoric about "the common folks who serve our country"? A general is a political animal--many of them have become senators or Presidents themselves--not just some common soldier who spends so much time on the line getting his ass shot off that he's forgiven for forgetting to mind his manners. A general moves in the halls of power and addresses senators and congresspeople quite frequently--they're the people he ends up communicating with quite frequently on budget oversight committees and during routine inquiries, much less during formal situations like this. The heavily engineered backlash against her demand for professional dignity is also a classic tactic. This aggrieved and pseudo-wounded bs is the sort of crap that I have seen leveled against countless women in countless situations when they demanded the professional respect that they had earned. I am surprised that so many women here would fall for this shite, but I've seen that too in my time; often the worst enemies you have as a feminist are other women who think you're "uppity" or "insecure" because you want to not only BE equal to a man, but to be TREATED as if you are. They hate the fact that you're "rocking the boat" and "making a fool of yourself" and blah, blah, vicious undermining hateful blah--essentially they're just repeating the script which has been handed to them over generations, which says that it's their job to keep each other in line for Massa while he's away. shakes her head Whatever. Any time you wonder why women have a hard time achieving anything in this world? Keep situations like this in mind. Not only does a woman have to do all the work of achieving the goal--she then has to fight to force people to acknowledge it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875