RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer

RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (Full Version)

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

Message

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 1:14:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sybilla *Sen. Boxer:* Well, why has it been delayed? *Gen. Walsh:* Uh... ma'am... at the uh... at LACPR is a... *(Sen. Boxer* *interrupting):* I don't - you know, do me a favour - could you say "Senator" instead of ma'am? It's just a thing ...I worked so hard to get that title. So I'd appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. She asked him, stated she'd appreciate it and she thanked him. It's true that if rather than saying "...do me a favour - could you...?" she'd asked him to excuse her for interrupting it would have been even more polite, but the fact that she didn't doesn't make her statement rude or demanding, either. I'm amazed that you can post the words used by both parties and then state she asked to be excused. Re-read what you posted. She didn't ask him to excuse her at all. She interrupted and stated what she wanted him to call her. (By the way, I fixed your version of the transcript to reflect what actually happened.)

Sybilla -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 1:22:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: Sybilla *Sen. Boxer:* Well, why has it been delayed? *Gen. Walsh:* Uh... ma'am... at the uh... at LACPR is a... *Sen. Boxer:* I don't - you know, do me a favour - could you say "Senator" instead of ma'am? It's just a thing ...I worked so hard to get that title. So I'd appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. She asked him, stated she'd appreciate it and she thanked him. It's true that if rather than saying "...do me a favour - could you...?" she'd asked him to excuse her for interrupting it would have been even more polite, but the fact that she didn't doesn't make her statement rude or demanding, either. I'm amazed that you can post the words used by both parties and then state she asked to be excused. Re-read what you posted. She didn't ask him to excuse her at all. She interrupted and stated what she wanted him to call her. quote: ORIGINAL: Sybilla It's true that if rather than saying "...do me a favour - could you...?" she'd asked him to excuse her for interrupting...

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 1:32:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sybilla Still, you say interrupting isn't rude. I say (and most of polite society says) that it is.

thetammyjo -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 2:51:44 PM)
Wow, if that qualifies as a "hissy fit" then you've lived a very sheltered life... lol. quote: ORIGINAL: kajirusilk "Attacked as a Woman"????? i've seen the tapes and basically Senator Boxer threw a hissy fit. End of story. Why is it that Women who do not agree with the radical left liberal agenda are not only attacked but publicly villified for days on end (Sarry Pallin, Ms Prejean, Ann Coulter, Nancy Reagan, etc. etc.) are not defended by the same folks who are mortally offended when anything, even mild criticism, is said of Senator Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, etc. BTW even Hilary was savagely attacked by the radical left wingers when she was running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Yet the lame stream media and the radical left, who previously "adored" Hilary said nothing! Respectfully, silk

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 2:53:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Wow, if that qualifies as a "hissy fit" then you've lived a very sheltered life... lol. Check youtube. Boxer is known for throwing fits. This one might have been minor on the 'fit scale' but it was still rude.

thetammyjo -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 2:56:58 PM)
So Loki45, what do you think of other politicians then who do thinks like use cuss words to refer to their fellow senators and representives or even direct vulgar language at them? Is that rude? I don't recall seeing such a fit on these boards when those situations happened in the past. Why is that do you think? quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Wow, if that qualifies as a "hissy fit" then you've lived a very sheltered life... lol. Check youtube. Boxer is known for throwing fits. This one might have been minor on the 'fit scale' but it was still rude.

Theta -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 3:48:22 PM)
In 2006 I was at a candidates election night party I had worked for. In walked Senator Ken Salazar D-Colorado (now Sect. of the Interior) and because of where I was standing was the first to greet him. I had not met him before, but I greeted him as Mr. Salazar. He gave me a somewhat startled look, acknowledged my greeting, and moved on. I wondered about his reaction, and then realized afterward my faux pas of not addressing him as Senator Salazar. Not positive, but I think this is why I got the reaction I did. These people just expect to be addressed by their titles I guess, but Boxer's dressing down was a bit overboard. Let's face it, most of these people are narcissists who have an inflated sense of self worth.

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 6:58:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Theta I wondered about his reaction, and then realized afterward my faux pas of not addressing him as Senator Salazar. Not positive, but I think this is why I got the reaction I did. These people just expect to be addressed by their titles I guess, but Boxer's dressing down was a bit overboard. Exactly. You called him by an incorrect title, but he 'let it go' and moved on. Because right then was not the time of place to give you a lesson in how to address him. The problem with this whole situation is that he didn't call her Miss, Ms, or Mrs, anything. He called her Ma'am in the middle of a sentence. That's NOT incorrect. Even 4-star Generals are called Sir in conversation. It depends on the sentence. They can be "yes Sir" or they can be "General So-and-so, may I ask you a question." It depends on context and situation. The situation in this case made it fine for him to say "Ma'am."

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 7:01:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo So Loki45, what do you think of other politicians then who do thinks like use cuss words to refer to their fellow senators and representives or even direct vulgar language at them? Is that rude? I've never witnessed that first-hand. And that's not really what this topic is about. I know things like that happen on both sides of a conversation. It's called human nature. However, what the General did in this case was not wrong. She just had a bug up her ass about it. Ok, fine. She doesn't want to be called Ma'am. The time to make that known is NOT while interrupting someone to whom she just asked a question. It's NOT on national TV when the topic at hand is anything BUT proper titles and address. That is petty bullshit, plain and simple. She threw her weight around because she knew she could get away with it.

kajirusilk -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/26/2009 10:28:43 PM)
Ms TammyJo, Respectfully, i see Your point, my Lady. However, given the setting and those present, i stand or kneel by my statement. winks, silk

ShaktiSama -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 1:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi That's ok, I have been called an agist on this forum because I have no desire to have a relationship with someone young enough to be my kid. I guess I can deal with it if someone throws a "misogeny" card at me too. No one calls anyone an "ageist" because of who they want to have a relationship with. They are called an "ageist" because of the way they speak about younger people in public as if they were automatically moral and mental inferiors simply because of their age. Kinda the same way that people are not called "racists" not because they don't happen to be dating a person of another race, but because they speak and behave hatefully toward such people. Anti-female rhetoric is no more attractive than ageist or racist rhetoric. People who keep whining about how they are "attacked for their preferences" are just evading the issue of what they are really being called out about, which is how they speak about others in a public forum. So, if you happen to be a bigot on multiple levels and you speak and behave as one? Yeah, don't be surprised if people call you on it, here or anywhere. As for Loki's incredibly childish crap about "MILITARY FORCES" and how commanding them is automatically and always different and better than exercising other types of authority in the world? There is a wealth of ignorance being betrayed that I have neither the time nor the inclination to address. As I said before, turning the entire military into a gigantic sacred cow is not a favor to anyone and it accomplishes nothing positive whatsoever. For one thing, the fact that someone is in uniform does not automatically mean that they have seen a lot of combat, and for another, military authority does not and SHOULD NEVER trump civilian authority, in any way whatsoever. That road is a very, very dark one and there is absolutely nothing good at the end of it, for anyone.

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 3:01:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama As for Loki's incredibly childish crap about "MILITARY FORCES" and how commanding them is automatically and always different and better than exercising other types of authority in the world? If you can show me where I said that exact phrase, I'll give you a cookie. (I know you can't, so my cookies are safe.) However, since you seem to equate my position with that phrase, it would suggest to me that your position is the irrational and polar opposite of that. Not surprised at all, mind you. Just pointing it out. You see, whether or not he's faced combat, he's still been through things she can't possibly imagine. She was cocktail parties and voter drives. He was bootcamp (or west point, same same) STILL doing and seeing things she will never imagine, combat or not. And at the end of the day, whether he's seen combat or not, whether she actually did any real work or not...neither of those points will obfuscate the truth. And that truth is she decided to be petty and INTERRUPT him very rudely, simply because she didn't like "ma'am."

ShaktiSama -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 6:21:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 However, since you seem to equate my position with that phrase, it would suggest to me that your position is the irrational and polar opposite of that. Not surprised at all, mind you. Just pointing it out. You have no idea what my "position" is or what my life experiences have been. Suffice it to say, however, that the lives of military service folk are apparently not nearly as cosmic and mysterious to me as they seem to be to you. For example, if you think West Point is directly equivalent to boot camp? You are grossly and appallingly misinformed. As for the ease and the indolence that you imagine in the lives of those seeking and performing in political office--"cocktail parties" etc--once again, your ignorance is obvious. There is nothing easy about running for any public office, but especially one as high as that of U.S. Senator. Holding that office for years at a time and maintaining the state's record for the largest number of popular votes in any election is also not easy. And you can quadruple the difficulty if you are the wrong gender in a backward, anti-progressive country like the USA. Returning to my original point, however: the use of various phrases in your posts pretty much say it all. When a woman asserts her authority and demands the respect due to her office, it is "petty bullshit", "rude", a "hissy fit", "throwing her weight around just because she can get away with it", etc.. It's also telling that you do not have a single word to say about the fact that former President Bush constantly corrected people around him, on-camera and off, about addressing him correctly as "Mister President" or "President Bush", whether he was interrupting them or not. Why does this not concern you? Perhaps because men are entitled to assert authority whenever and however they wish, in the conservative worldview--but women are not? Regardless of whether they have earned their position through hard work and merit. The accusation of "misandry" is nonsense. I enjoy men and I spend a lot of time in their company. However, I am a completely non-apologetic feminist, and as such I do not think that women are obligated to exercise their authority differently than men do, when they are in the equivalent position of authority. A female doctor can legitimately expect to be called "Doctor"; a female senator can legitimately expect to be called "Senator". A female president could legitimately expect to be called "Madame President", if we were to elect one. quote: And at the end of the day, whether he's seen combat or not, whether she actually did any real work or not...neither of those points will obfuscate the truth. And that truth is she decided to be petty and INTERRUPT him very rudely, simply because she didn't like "ma'am." The "truth" in this situation is highly subjective. The "truth" as I see it is that when a female Democratic and "liberal" senator does once, on the Senate floor, what a male Republican and "conservative" president did nearly every day for eight years in all circumstances, it is somehow an occasion for a huge media blitz and national ecstasies of condemnation and misogynistic loathing, complete with hurling of hateful anti-female names. As to whether she liked "ma'am"? Some women like it, some women do not. To me, it is completely a matter of context. From some men, in some situations, it is perfectly acceptable and can even be sexy. In other situations, it is not ok and I would not be shy about saying so. In a public and professional hearing, if every male colleague of mine was addressed by title and I got nothing but "ma'am"? I would damn sure say something about it, and I would not wait to do it behind the scenes. I don't care if you're a brigadier general, the king of Sweden or the baby-eating bishop of Bath and Wells. You try to publicly undermine my authority in a sexist fashion and I'll have your entrails out on You Tube without a moment's hesitation.

thishereboi -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 6:28:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi That's ok, I have been called an agist on this forum because I have no desire to have a relationship with someone young enough to be my kid. I guess I can deal with it if someone throws a "misogeny" card at me too. No one calls anyone an "ageist" because of who they want to have a relationship with. They are called an "ageist" because of the way they speak about younger people in public as if they were automatically moral and mental inferiors simply because of their age. Kinda the same way that people are not called "racists" not because they don't happen to be dating a person of another race, but because they speak and behave hatefully toward such people. While I agree no one should call someone an ageist because of their preference, it does happen. Anti-female rhetoric is no more attractive than ageist or racist rhetoric. People who keep whining about how they are "attacked for their preferences" are just evading the issue of what they are really being called out about, which is how they speak about others in a public forum. So, if you happen to be a bigot on multiple levels and you speak and behave as one? Yeah, don't be surprised if people call you on it, here or anywhere. Yea and if I had called her a bitch because she was female, then that to me would be wrong. But that isn't why I said that. You obviously are not going to believe that, so there is not point discussing it any more. As for Loki's incredibly childish crap about "MILITARY FORCES" and how commanding them is automatically and always different and better than exercising other types of authority in the world? There is a wealth of ignorance being betrayed that I have neither the time nor the inclination to address. As I said before, turning the entire military into a gigantic sacred cow is not a favor to anyone and it accomplishes nothing positive whatsoever. For one thing, the fact that someone is in uniform does not automatically mean that they have seen a lot of combat, and for another, military authority does not and SHOULD NEVER trump civilian authority, in any way whatsoever. That road is a very, very dark one and there is absolutely nothing good at the end of it, for anyone.

thetammyjo -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 8:10:38 AM)
I'm trying to get folks to think, not convince any one. I think we are reacting to a political ploy being used by certain people in an attempt to detract from bigger issues in this country. I think that's very sad and I wish we'd stop allowing ourselves to be pawns in this political BS and get informed about the laws that our representatives are voting on for example. Honestly which is more important? This brief exchange, rude or not, sexist or not, or what the committee was looking at? If you think it's the brief exchange, I have to say that makes me very very sad about the state of the citizen body today. quote: ORIGINAL: kajirusilk Ms TammyJo, Respectfully, i see Your point, my Lady. However, given the setting and those present, i stand or kneel by my statement. winks, silk

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 9:54:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I'm trying to get folks to think, not convince any one. I think we are reacting to a political ploy being used by certain people in an attempt to detract from bigger issues in this country. I think that's very sad and I wish we'd stop allowing ourselves to be pawns in this political BS and get informed about the laws that our representatives are voting on for example. Honestly which is more important? This brief exchange, rude or not, sexist or not, or what the committee was looking at? If you think it's the brief exchange, I have to say that makes me very very sad about the state of the citizen body today. [sm=goodpost.gif] Even more disturbing, 2 weeks later we're still sitting here kicking this around without a single new perspective to speak on, and yet the arguing continues. shakes my head Dame Calla

PeonForHer -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 11:17:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I'm trying to get folks to think, not convince any one. I think we are reacting to a political ploy being used by certain people in an attempt to detract from bigger issues in this country. I think that's very sad and I wish we'd stop allowing ourselves to be pawns in this political BS and get informed about the laws that our representatives are voting on for example. Honestly which is more important? This brief exchange, rude or not, sexist or not, or what the committee was looking at? If you think it's the brief exchange, I have to say that makes me very very sad about the state of the citizen body today. [sm=goodpost.gif] Even more disturbing, 2 weeks later we're still sitting here kicking this around without a single new perspective to speak on, and yet the arguing continues. shakes my head Dame Calla Hear hear. It's taken me a good half hour to try to find out exactly why the Senator was interviewing the General in the first place. The hearing was an update before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works - which the Senator chairs -on the status of the delayed rebuilding of the levees in New Orleans destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Now, my opinion is firstly, that both the General and the Senator deserve their titles. Neither has 'more experience of life' than the other, just as a dog doesn't have any more experience of life than a cat. Secondly, even if that were to be disputed, the corollary is that someone who's considered to have had very little experience barely deserves his or her title at all. Perhaps people who don't get out much should just be known by their surnames? On the other hand, people who've suffered in New Orleans as a result of the hurricane and subsequent government balls-ups could, arguably, be seen to deserve whatever titles they have a million times more than either the Senator or the General. Those citizens of New Orleans deserve to have the USA's focus directed at the issue of those levees, not on Boxer's and/or Walsh's bad manners. How do the powers that be shape the minds of the people in the way that they want them shaped? There's a vague assumption, that the big cheeses do this by continually throwing out propaganda that counters the arguments of those whose thinking they don't like. But this isn't the main or the most powerful tactic. The best way is to ignore the whole debate in favour of one that's a lot less threatening. Nice work on behalf of a large section of the USA's press, I think. Quite masterful. Hell's bells. What happened in New Orleans during the hurricane - and how that was dealt with afterwards - was utterly astonishing to the rest of the world. I'm afraid the general impression was, roughly, "How can this be? The richest country on the planet and it can't look after its own." Off the top of my head I can't actually think of a shambles more epic in its proportions.

CallaFirestormBW -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 2:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Hear hear. {clipped} Those citizens of New Orleans deserve to have the USA's focus directed at the issue of those levees, not on Boxer's and/or Walsh's bad manners. How do the powers that be shape the minds of the people in the way that they want them shaped? There's a vague assumption, that the big cheeses do this by continually throwing out propaganda that counters the arguments of those whose thinking they don't like. But this isn't the main or the most powerful tactic. The best way is to ignore the whole debate in favour of one that's a lot less threatening. Nice work on behalf of a large section of the USA's press, I think. Quite masterful. Hell's bells. What happened in New Orleans during the hurricane - and how that was dealt with afterwards - was utterly astonishing to the rest of the world. I'm afraid the general impression was, roughly, "How can this be? The richest country on the planet and it can't look after its own." Off the top of my head I can't actually think of a shambles more epic in its proportions. Exactly -- and personally, I would have been more interested in hearing the General's answer to why those levees -still- haven't been repaired, 4 years after Katrina, when we can build a mega-mall complex in less than a YEAR! Unfortunately, with all of the ranting about Boxer and the General, -nobody- has paid any attention to the General's answer about why the Corps of Engineers -still- hasn't figured out a realistic way to fix the levees... and don't tell me it can't be done. Holland has managed to thwart the sea for -centuries-, and we can't even protect one doggone city. Ingenuity my colorful dress bustle! We have thousands of people who need work, and levees that need to be re-built, so why are we all sitting on our tushes and debating who was rude to whom -- That is a conversation for old grannys over tea-- we'll have time to discuss it at length when we have nothing better to do. Dame Calla

Loki45 -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/27/2009 2:27:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama You have no idea what my "position" is or what my life experiences have been. Suffice it to say, however, that the lives of military service folk are apparently not nearly as cosmic and mysterious to me as they seem to be to you. For example, if you think West Point is directly equivalent to boot camp? You are grossly and appallingly misinformed. You're the one who is misinformed. And you CONTINUE to insert words into my mouth. Once again, if you can show me the word-for-word statement where I said West Point is directly equivelent to boot camp, I'll give you a cookie and a pat on the head, darlin'. I said they were similar. But in fact, West Point is MUCH harder. It's not only a college enviroment, it's also a 4-year boot camp-style environment. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama As for the ease and the indolence that you imagine in the lives of those seeking and performing in political office--"cocktail parties" etc--once again, your ignorance is obvious. There is nothing easy about running for any public office, but especially one as high as that of U.S. Senator. Holding that office for years at a time and maintaining the state's record for the largest number of popular votes in any election is also not easy. And you can quadruple the difficulty if you are the wrong gender in a backward, anti-progressive country like the USA. And of course we all know that our senators and congressmen have all gotten to where they are today strictly on the up-and-up and engaging in NOOOO shady business whatsoever, right? quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama And you can quadruple the difficulty if you are the wrong gender in a backward, anti-progressive country like the USA. Yeah we're so backward that we had a woman vs a (half) black man competing for the democratic nomination. We're so "backward" that we had a woman on a ticket as a vp. Yep, we're backward alright. Where's your burka?? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The accusation of "misandry" is nonsense. I enjoy men and I spend a lot of time in their company. However, I am a completely non-apologetic feminist, Surely you jest. That is why you and I will NEVER agree on this or....I'm sure quite a few topics. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama A female doctor can legitimately expect to be called "Doctor"; a female senator can legitimately expect to be called "Senator". A female president could legitimately expect to be called "Madame President", if we were to elect one. And any one of those women should keep their "big girl panties" on when someone says "Well Ma'am" or "yes "Ma'am." Just like a man does when someone calls him Sir. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama As to whether she liked "ma'am"? Some women like it, some women do not. And since no one is a mind-reader, one must weigh the 'benefits' of rudely interrupting to correct a 'title' rather than just focus on the topic at hand. You know what I find 'telling?' Your rabid stance of "see see, the men do it, so she can too!" There was a time when the term "lady" meant something. A lady is not a lady strictly because she's a woman. In the past there were charm schools, actual formalized training to attain and maintain th status of a LADY. So men have done it. It's clear to me that you have a level of misandry that you are unaware of. And because of that, you think it's "ok" for this to have happened because the big bad men do it all the time. That's like a young one telling mom "But johnny did it, why can't I? To which the mom ALWAYS repies "If johnny jumped off a bridge, would you?" We can point to any number of rude individuals in this world, regardless of their job, title, status, etc. But when we use that behavior to justify what we do....we're no better than them. See, in your incessant rants, what I see is that you do, in fact find an aspect of rudeness when the men do it. But rather than hold a fellow woman to a higher standard, you use the men's actions to justify what she did. If people use the widely-known saying "men are pigs" are you now saying it's ok for a woman to be a pig as well? I mean, if that's your position, you're certainly entitled to it. But if by my very gender, I am a pig, I will be damned certain that I will not be attracted to, nor give attention to a woman I deem as "piggish" as me.

aidan -> RE: “Senator” Barbara Boxer (6/28/2009 7:40:51 AM)
Oh crap, you're a guy? Ha! Oh, okay, that makes the last few posts sooo much clearer. You're not deluded, you're just a chauvinist. Okay! That makes this a lot less unsettling. It's a beautiful Sunday here and I'm really too busy with other things to do a line-by-line item check, but suffice to say throwing around things like "Where's your burka?" and suggesting that women only deserve respectful treatment if they are trained and heeled to be docile - to be "ladies", if I may be so bold as to expose the codeword - only serves to detract from any argument you might make. Also, the question of "If it's okay for X to do something, why can't Y?" is a valid question. Why was there absolutely no such foofrah for the former president engaging in this kind of behavior over and over again? And she has no problem with misandry. I have that on fairly good authority.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875