Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BREAKING NEWS: PRO IMMIGRANTS ACTIVIST READY TO HELP CANNON WITH MAJOR FUNDING

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Antifascist1
    replied
    Whether it was a joke or not is irrelevant...
    No, it's more than relevant, you ****sterhead


    Again, I did reply in my previous posts. If you are too lazy to reread them, that is your perogative, but ill-advised when making an argument.
    No, ****sterhead, this is not how one makes an argument or statement.
    I can't say 'hudson has a donkey head and bull horns growing out of it' and consider my 'argument' done in absence of proof of what I state.

    All you did in your previous posts was just that, arbitrary accusations and idiotic arguments against what was product of your own imagination, while falsely implying that you were arguing against claims I've made before.

    As usual, when I challenge you to back up your ****sterhead statements, all you reply with are more lies , falsely claiming - once again - that you already addressed my question in past.

    Oh really, so that is why you post with multiple ID's and you post something in Russian which was obviously translated from a different languange?
    Idiotic, totally irrelevant question...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    ****sterhead, you totally lack any ability to comprehend what you read.

    The key phrase of the statement you replied to above was that "you kept arguing with me, over one word I used in the context of JOKING reply"

    What a ****sterhead it takes, verily, to seriously argue and contest the meaning of one word used in the context of JOKING REPLY
    Whether it was a joke or not is irrelevant, you spoke on something thst you have no clue about. And what you did post offended my wife to some degee. You did not consider that, did you lassie.

    I repeat:
    Copy-paste specific statements where I claimed, for instance, that the policy was 'WIDELY ACCEPTED'.
    Where did I use those words - "WIDELY ACCEPTED" ? Or where did I specifically state the proportion of the group of people in China subjected to forced sterilization?
    Again, I did reply in my previous posts. If you are too lazy to reread them, that is your perogative, but ill-advised when making an argument.

    People might think , reading my posts, that I get tremendous sense of joy when exposing the stupidity and imbecility of others, but in fact I feel very sad.
    The only thing that is consistent is that you are only a legend in your own dimented mind.

    The shrewd language I use is mostly intended for the benefit of ****sterheads like you, dummy, for it's my last hope that by speaking into your dumb, stupid minds in such ways I may at last be able to AWAKENE your overrusted from laziness and dumbness brains...
    Oh really, so that is why you post with multiple ID's and you post something in Russian which was obviously translated from a different languange?

    Leave a comment:


  • Antifascist1
    replied
    There is a significant difference, both idealistically and contexually, between what is policy and what is law. Id you cannot tell the difference, then you also have no business attempting to describe what is critical analysis.
    ****sterhead, you totally lack any ability to comprehend what you read.

    The key phrase of the statement you replied to above was that "you kept arguing with me, over one word I used in the context of JOKING reply"

    What a ****sterhead it takes, verily, to seriously argue and contest the meaning of one word used in the context of JOKING REPLY !


    First of, brickhead, where did you see me stating WOMEN PER SE are required to be sterilized?
    Does definition of "Chinese" include "FEMALE CHINESE" ONLY???
    And where did I use words "UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED"??????
    We have already been through this before. So to refresh you memory,
    Posted June 24, 2006 09:58 AM
    under the law they are prohibited to have more than one or two children so they are required to get sterilyzed after having max. allowed number of kids , which is one or two.
    There is only one reasonable, logical conclusion from this statement that you were referring to a law in China that does not exist. PERIOD. You have obfuscated the issue by reciting the condoms argument, which were feom previous posts. And yes, I am very aware you used the condomn line as a intro into your line of argument, but you made no attempt to either contradict the condom jokes with the previous statements.
    The problem is you know nothing about Chinese law, customs, or policy, even feom the books you have probably been reading.

    No, d u m b a s s, the question at issue was that I NEVER STATED THAT WOMEN PER SE are required to be streilized, yet you kept arguing and repeating, over and over, that Chinese WOMEN are not required to be sterilized, as if I mentioned WOMEN only.
    So, here is the failure of your ****sterhead perception is exposed: you make assumptions , projections based on what is IN YOUR HEAD and then you argue against whatever is in your head, all the while falsely implying that I was the one who made such claim (i.e. "Chinese WOMEN ONLY required to be sterilized" ).


    You have obfuscated the issue by reciting the condoms argument
    IDIOT ! I NEVER MADE CONDOMS >>>ARGUMENT<<< !
    What a JOKE you are !


    The problem is you know nothing about Chinese law, customs, or policy, even feom the books you have probably been reading.
    Problem is nowhere but is in your head !
    The thing is that you were utterly frustrated with your inability to argue with me on meritts when it came to issues of immediate importance, like current US immigration problems and etc.
    You were also extremely recentful with me, for I have too frequently exposed your stupidity in past.
    Hence, you desperately jumped at this "Chinese condom" statement , seeing here an opportunity to get me into a serious argument about Chinese laws and policies - that you assumed I would know little about, and prove me wrong on merits and then declare me discredited as someone who makes wrong statements in general.

    I , on my behalf, have no problem acknowledging here that I know rather little about current Chinese laws, customs and policy.
    What an idiot you take me for?
    Why would I want to waste my time on it if I am neither Chinese, nor living in China, nor raising my kids there , nor working for a Human Rights or Amnesty Watch to concern myself deeply and in minute detail with such matters?

    However, hespite my little knowledge of Chinese laws, customs and policies, you still failed to prove me wrong on merits, other than pointing out that I used the word 'law' instead of 'policy' in the CONTEXT OF A JOKING REPLY.
    The rest of your 'arguments' is hoax and outright lies where you pretend to argue against statements that I in fact never made.

    What an A S S YOU ARE, Hudson !!!

    As I said before, it is used as a last resort. However, sterilization is mostly used on Chinses governemnt's definition of insane, mentally deranged, or politically hostile toward the government. It is rare for the government to use sterizaton on someone violating a policy loosely enforced, not widely accepted as you claim.
    ****sterhead, do you realize that once again you are arguing with YOUR OWN SHADOW?
    If not, then COPY-PASTE and SHOW WHERE DID I SPECIFICALLY MAKE SUCH CLAIMS AS YOU PRETEND TO ARGUE AGAINST

    I repeat:
    Copy-paste specific statements where I claimed, for instance, that the policy was 'WIDELY ACCEPTED'.
    Where did I use those words - "WIDELY ACCEPTED" ? Or where did I specifically state the proportion of the group of people in China subjected to forced sterilization?

    The FACT IS I NEVER MADE ANY SUCH SPECIFIC CLAIM ('Widely accepted', 'WOMEN sterilized ONLY', 'ONLY those who have more than two kids get sterilized' and etc.) but you idiotically pretend that I did, just for the sake of arguing and proving wrong the statements that IN FACT do not exist anywhere other than in your inflamed with impotence of your intelligence imagination..

    Sad, really sad..

    People might think , reading my posts, that I get tremendous sense of joy when exposing the stupidity and imbecility of others, but in fact I feel very sad.

    The shrewd language I use is mostly intended for the benefit of ****sterheads like you, dummy, for it's my last hope that by speaking into your dumb, stupid minds in such ways I may at last be able to AWAKEN your overrusted from laziness and dumbness brains...


    IE

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    So, your point is that it's policy rather than law
    And that's why you kept arguing with me, over one word I used in the context of joking reply?
    What a brickhead !!!
    There is a significant difference, both idealistically and contexually, between what is policy and what is law. Id you cannot tell the difference, then you also have no business attempting to describe what is critical analysis.

    First of, brickhead, where did you see me stating WOMEN PER SE are required to be sterilized?
    Does definition of "Chinese" include "FEMALE CHINESE" ONLY???
    And where did I use words "UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED"??????
    We have already been through this before. So to refresh you memory,
    Posted June 24, 2006 09:58 AM
    under the law they are prohibited to have more than one or two children so they are required to get sterilyzed after having max. allowed number of kids , which is one or two.
    There is only one reasonable, logical conclusion from this statement that you were referring to a law in China that does not exist. PERIOD. You have obfuscated the issue by reciting the condoms argument, which were feom previous posts. And yes, I am very aware you used the condomn line as a intro into your line of argument, but you made no attempt to either contradict the condom jokes with the previous statements.

    The problem is you know nothing about Chinese law, customs, or policy, even feom the books you have probably been reading.

    WHAT A BRICKHEAD, VERILY !!!

    QUESTION: CAN IN CHINA ONE ALSO BE JAILED IF ONE KEEPS PROCREATING AND AVOIDS STERILIZATION?
    IS IT POSSIBLE, DID IT EVER HAPPEN?
    SURE IT DID!!! SURE IT CAN !!!
    Even few recorded incidents are enough to say "IT CAN HAPPEN".
    NOW WHERE IS THE GENERALIZATION OTHER THAN IN YOUR BRICKHEAD???
    As I said before, it is used as a last resort. However, sterilization is mostly used on Chinses governemnt's definition of insane, mentally deranged, or politically hostile toward the government. It is rare for the government to use sterizaton on someone violating a policy loosely enforced, not widely accepted as you claim. It is very obvious you have not visited China, lived in China, or know anyone who are from the mainland.

    Now, compare your BRICKHEAD statements with comments I made.
    Though, methinks, BRICKHEAD will never get the point !
    Compare what. You do not know what the hell you are talking about here. You do not know the difference between a policy and law, nor do you know anything about Chinese culture, much less anything else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antifascist1
    replied
    Posted June 28, 2006 09:41 PM
    1. BRICKHEAD IS A BRICKHEAD !!!

    Ok, brickhead, you asked for it

    "...under the law they are prohibited to have more than one or two children..." This is where my eyes perked. This is the basis of your entire arguemnt. In China, there is no law that prohibits women having a maximum number of children. It is a policy based on nationalized socialist family planning grogram. The regulations specificy that 1)all births must be approved by the Provincial family planning bureau, 2) generally, the family planning bureau generally targetss the family to have one child, but there are exceptions, and 3) the family planning bureau has a variety of methods which include, but not limited to, sterilization.
    So, your point is that it's policy rather than law
    And that's why you kept arguing with me, over one word I used in the context of joking reply?
    What a brickhead !!!


    "...so they are required to get sterilyzed after having max. allowed number of kids , which is one or two." This has now became totally nonfactual. Chinese women are not required to be sterlized after they have max number of children. The family is required to seek government family practice doctors to make sure the policy is generally enforced. However, and as previously stated, this policy is not universal. There are a variety of methods which include IUD, abortion, preventive, and sterlization. This was demostrated in the links I have provided.
    First of, brickhead, where did you see me stating WOMEN PER SE are required to be sterilized?
    Does definition of "Chinese" include "FEMALE CHINESE" ONLY???
    And where did I use words "UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED"??????

    As I said - brickhead is a brickhead !!!


    "In China one can also be jailed if one keeps procreating illegally and avoids streilization". Again, a gross generalization. Since human rights organizations watch who is being jailed and why, the Chinese government uses this tactic only as a last resort. It normally uses jail to punish either religious or political "rogues" who do not accept or who criticize openly, the official policy.
    WHAT A BRICKHEAD, VERILY !!!

    QUESTION: CAN IN CHINA ONE ALSO BE JAILED IF ONE KEEPS PROCREATING AND AVOIDS STERILIZATION?
    IS IT POSSIBLE, DID IT EVER HAPPEN?
    SURE IT DID!!! SURE IT CAN !!!
    Even few recorded incidents are enough to say "IT CAN HAPPEN".
    NOW WHERE IS THE GENERALIZATION OTHER THAN IN YOUR BRICKHEAD???

    Now, compare your statement with the links I have provided. You will see that this statement was not factual in any way whatsoever.
    Now, compare your BRICKHEAD statements with comments I made.
    Though, methinks, BRICKHEAD will never get the point !

    Leave a comment:


  • Antifascist1
    replied
    John Tanton, founder of www.fairus.org, started as "GREEN"..

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    Iperson,
    Most people do not care about such policies that they deem will not affect them. Some will care for they are the peacemakers. And then there will be a few people who will deny the existence altogether. IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antifascist1
    replied
    Don't you just love those Chinese 'policies' and what FAIRUS.ORG advocates here, iperson !

    Leave a comment:


  • Antifascist1
    replied
    1. BRICKHEAD IS A BRICKHEAD !!!

    Ok, brickhead, you asked for it

    "...under the law they are prohibited to have more than one or two children..." This is where my eyes perked. This is the basis of your entire arguemnt. In China, there is no law that prohibits women having a maximum number of children. It is a policy based on nationalized socialist family planning grogram. The regulations specificy that 1)all births must be approved by the Provincial family planning bureau, 2) generally, the family planning bureau generally targetss the family to have one child, but there are exceptions, and 3) the family planning bureau has a variety of methods which include, but not limited to, sterilization.
    So, your point is that it's policy rather than law
    And that's why you kept arguing with me, over one word I used in the context of joking reply?
    What a brickhead !!!


    "...so they are required to get sterilyzed after having max. allowed number of kids , which is one or two." This has now became totally nonfactual. Chinese women are not required to be sterlized after they have max number of children. The family is required to seek government family practice doctors to make sure the policy is generally enforced. However, and as previously stated, this policy is not universal. There are a variety of methods which include IUD, abortion, preventive, and sterlization. This was demostrated in the links I have provided.
    First of, brickhead, where did you see me stating WOMEN PER SE are required to be sterilized?
    Does definition of "Chinese" include "FEMALE CHINESE" ONLY???
    And where did I use words "UNIVERSALLY ENFORCED"??????

    As I said - brickhead is a brickhead !!!


    "In China one can also be jailed if one keeps procreating illegally and avoids streilization". Again, a gross generalization. Since human rights organizations watch who is being jailed and why, the Chinese government uses this tactic only as a last resort. It normally uses jail to punish either religious or political "rogues" who do not accept or who criticize openly, the official policy.
    WHAT A BRICKHEAD, VERILY !!!

    QUESTION: CAN IN CHINA ONE ALSO BE JAILED IF ONE KEEPS PROCREATING AND AVOIDS STERILIZATION?
    IS IT POSSIBLE, DID IT EVER HAPPEN?
    SURE IT DID!!! SURE IT CAN !!!
    Even few recorded incidents are enough to say "IT CAN HAPPEN".
    NOW WHERE IS THE GENERALIZATION OTHER THAN IN YOUR BRICKHEAD???

    Now, compare your statement with the links I have provided. You will see that this statement was not factual in any way whatsoever.
    Now, compare your BRICKHEAD statements with comments I made.
    Though, methinks, BRICKHEAD will never get the point !

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    So let me ask you guys- how is this possible that the law still exists, if it does?
    What about human rights, doesnt the international forum oppose?
    It's hard to believe the laws are in effect and it is not talked about...
    Iperson,
    The One child Policy is not law, it is a directive which Chairman Mao and Chairman Xiaoping instituted to help control population growth. It was explained to me that the reason was more economical than political. China could not affort to feed an exponential population growth that was ocurring in China, especially the rural areas. Even though I disagree with the policy in general, I can understand the reasoning.

    As for Human Rights, you are looking into an area which can be very subjective. If your political or religious beliefs cannot condone, for whatever reason, a population control policy initiated by the government, then Human Rights would be foremost on your mind. If your political beliefs are that of environmental, then you might be in favor of such a program. This type of issue is somewhat amoral. But the consequences of implementing and enforcing the policy are more profound.

    On a side note, China has given hints that the program might be either eliminated or substantially revised to meet Human Rights concerns. So, there is hope.

    Leave a comment:


  • mpodcsin
    replied
    wow, I am in tears, laughing now, you're good Hudson...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    IE,
    Let us look at your statement, shall we.

    You stated, "Chinese actually need not to use condoms (other than for STD preventiuon)..." I gave this point to you since it dealt specifically with the condom comments. However, what you stated further regressed from the joke into something more altruistic...
    "...under the law they are prohibited to have more than one or two children..." This is where my eyes perked. This is the basis of your entire arguemnt. In China, there is no law that prohibits women having a maximum number of children. It is a policy based on nationalized socialist family planning grogram. The regulations specificy that 1)all births must be approved by the Provincial family planning bureau, 2) generally, the family planning bureau generally targetss the family to have one child, but there are exceptions, and 3) the family planning bureau has a variety of methods which include, but not limited to, sterilization.

    "...so they are required to get sterilyzed after having max. allowed number of kids , which is one or two." This has now became totally nonfactual. Chinese women are not required to be sterlized after they have max number of children. The family is required to seek government family practice doctors to make sure the policy is generally enforced. However, and as previously stated, this policy is not universal. There are a variety of methods which include IUD, abortion, preventive, and sterlization. This was demostrated in the links I have provided.

    "In China one can also be jailed if one keeps procreating illegally and avoids streilization". Again, a gross generalization. Since human rights organizations watch who is being jailed and why, the Chinese government uses this tactic only as a last resort. It normally uses jail to punish either religious or political "rogues" who do not accept or who criticize openly, the official policy.

    Now, compare your statement with the links I have provided. You will see that this statement was not factual in any way whatsoever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Antifascist1
    replied
    equate into mass sterlization on ALL Chinese women. This is what IE has stated.
    If you are not a donkeyhole please quote/copy-paste part of my post where I used phrase "mass sterilization on ALL Chinese women".

    Here is my post that you keep disputing:

    "Chinese actually need not to use condoms (other than for STD preventiuon) - under the law they are prohibited to have more than one or two children so they are required to get sterilyzed after having max. allowed number of kids , which is one or two.
    In China one can also be jailed if one keeps procreating illegally and avoids streilization".

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    if the law is not absolute, or successfully implemented -> doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    Mpod,
    No one is argueing whether the policy exists are not. I have argued that the One Child Policy does not equate into mass sterlization on ALL Chinese women. This is what IE has stated. And all you have posted is the causal effects of such a policy.

    There are three aspects to China's One Child Policy:
    1) Human Rights
    2) Policy implementation: How does China implement the policy. This has been the argument and where IE was dead wrong on the gross generalization that All women are sterlized.
    3) Causal effects of the policy, which you have stated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hudson
    replied
    Now get this ! Do understand ! I don't care about this issue ! I am not interested in disputing it !!

    So take this "Chinese Procreation" issue as a bone from me (assume that I was wrong, if it pleases you) and begone.
    And yet, here you are posting again for the fourth time on a topic you allegedly have no interest in. Methinks you are too prideful when you are given evidence contrary to what you believe or have read.

    Leave a comment:

Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

Home Page

Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Questions/Comments

SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily



Working...
X