[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Female NY state senator charged with assaulting staffer
posted by Matt on 02:26 PM March 24th, 2006
News Return of the King writes State Sen. Ada Smith was accused in a criminal summons Thursday of throwing hot coffee into the eyes of a former staffer. Smith, a Queens Democrat, faces a misdemeanor charge of third-degree assault, according to court records."

"Perfect Mother and Wife" Cops to Murder-One | Couple Directs Young Daughter to Beat Neighbor Boy for No Apparent Reason  >

  
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
So who do we believe? (Score:2)
by Dittohd on 03:24 PM March 24th, 2006 EST (#1)

How is it possible to decide who is telling the truth when the alleged perpetrator and victim are both women?

What a dilemma!

Dittohd


Long record of events... (Score:1)
by JulianDroms on 04:30 PM March 24th, 2006 EST (#2)
Geez, this woman has a pretty long history of showing in the news with allegatins of violence.

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID =463841&category=STATE&newsdate=3/23/2006
Female Bully (Score:1)
by Davidadelong on 07:27 PM March 24th, 2006 EST (#3)
The woman has a history of being out of control, she bit a police officers hand for crying out loud! If it were a man with a history like that the Man would be in prison period. Also she not only threw coffee in the face of the victim, she physically attacked her as well. The violent out of control female should do time......The use of violence to intimidate others needs to stop period. But since our government not only condones this but uses it as well I don't suppose we will see a priveleged female that has sold her humanity to gain favor for herself pay as she should. Just a thought.
VAWA violated! (Score:1)
by Little Lion on 02:16 AM March 25th, 2006 EST (#4)
http://manoppressed.blogspot.com
Doesn't the state senator know that, according to the experts in the field, that any kind of physical aggression against women in any form whatsoever is never juustified under any conceivable circumstances? The absoluteness of that statementt excludes the use of force in self-defense by civilians or by law enforcement personnel, but there's ideology for you. Of course, aggression against a male is always justified as a response to patriarchal oppression--just ask community college gender studies professor Dr. Hugo Schwyzer.
Re:VAWA violated! HugoBoy Apologist Supreme (Score:2)
by Roy on 01:50 PM March 26th, 2006 EST (#5)
HugoBoy is a self-admitted sexual predator who "used to" entrap and screw his naive female community college students.

Now he's "born again" and married to his 4th wife, and he is actively involved in youth counseling of teen-agers.

His website confessions are sometimes worth reading, if you enjoy peering into the mind of a truly diabolical personality-disordered scam artist.

His basic modus operandi is to accuse men of being the root of all evil.

Can you spell p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n?


Re:VAWA violated! HugoBoy Apologist Supreme (Score:1)
by Davidadelong on 05:40 PM March 26th, 2006 EST (#6)
Can you spell smart? He is obviously intelligent with no integrity. A true plague on society, but since he is playing "the game" he is being rewarded. Makes me sick.........
Re:VAWA violated! HugoBoy Apologist Supreme (Score:2)
by Roy on 07:54 PM March 26th, 2006 EST (#7)
I'm not 100% convinced about the "intelligent" allegation. (Though he can write well...)

Most really smart predophiles (intentional mis-spelling) would not have their own website advertising their tendencies.

Hugo likes to think he's part philosopher, part feminist guru, part Christian altar boy, part macho metrosexual.

Whatever he actually is -- it's not good, or ethical, or a model to be emulated.

Even though he's a tenured community college "professor" (LOL!), he could be terminated for moral turpitude if one of his lovely ex-victims came forward.

Re:VAWA violated! HugoBoy Apologist Supreme (Score:1)
by Davidadelong on 10:55 AM March 27th, 2006 EST (#8)
I haven't read his site, from what you have said I don't want to. My point was that as long as someone "goes along" with the current paradigm they are rewarded. He is obviously pandering to the current paradigm, and he is being rewarded, against common sense I might add.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]