I don't care that much. But if you're interested, right off your picture you posted of your car, we could look at any information stored on it, unless you cleared it out, which I expect any half-way knowledgeable person would. But we can also tell that you live in a state that requires a front plate, since you intentionally took a picture that hid it. We can also tell that you do not live in an HOA community, and likely live outside of town since you store your Fiero in a metal shed like structure on top of a concrete pad. We could even look at the moss growing on it, and determine that you likely live somewhere in the mid-west, or the east coast, but above Georgia. Possibly even the Pacific North West... but that at least limits a search criteria. I mean, I'm not even trying here... but that's just a start... and off one picture you've posted.
All of that assumes that it is actually his car. He could have easily called one of the people who invited him here and asked for a picture. I am a member of a motorcycle forum that has very specific membership requirements and a foolproof way of providing proof of eligibility. If you try to fake it, these guys will call you out. It is not a public forum.
Then the answer to that is... because you make this place miserable for everyone involved. You intentionally bring out the worst in almost everyone you interact with. You don't really so much have a debate or conversation, so much as you seem to be trying to prove something, not to anyone here, but to yourself. In short, you bring your problems to everyone else. This is why you have been banned from multiple, multiple websites.
I can't help it if people get upset when I prove them wrong. If you all just want this forum to be a rigth-wing bubble with no dissent then you will probably ban me. But i don't do anything to antagonize anyone except prove they are wrong.
I don't obsess over who any of you are in real life.
I don't make long posts that are nothing but personal attacks on you.
I don't claim to be omniscient and attack people for what I "KNOW" they are thinking instead of what they actually say.
And I am still amazed that you think it is a bad thing for me to want to fight disinformation? You talk about me brining my "problems" here, but I have no idea what problems you are talking about. There is no "problem" with promoting the truth. The only people with any problems here are the snowflakes who can not handle the truth.
If you ban me then you ban me. There is not shame in that. MLK Jr. and Nelson Mandela had no shame over being placed in jail for standing up for the truth. And I will have no shame over being the victim of cancel culture from people who can not handle anyone disagreeing with them
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-06-2024).]
Originally posted by BingB: If you ban me then you ban me. There is not shame in that. MLK Jr. and Nelson Mandela had no shame over being placed in jail for standing up for the truth. And I will have no shame over being the victim of cancel culture from people who can not handle anyone disagreeing with them
Dude, there are like 5 people in this forum, and you're comparing yourself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Dude, there are like 5 people in this forum, and you're comparing yourself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
Interesting test. Lets look at it. Here are some symptoms of a Narcissitic Disorder.
grandiosity and self-importance. . . fantasies of perfection, or power. . . Which one of us claims to be omniscient? Who claims to be able to read the thoughts of others and attack them for "what they are really thinking" instead of what they actually say?
a strong conviction of being special and unique. . . Who claims to be so connected in the Republican Party that he is privy to even their most secret policy decisions? Who claims to know more about the laws on Presidential papers than the criminal court system?
arrogance, haughtiness, and scorn. . . Which one of us loses his mind when someone disagrees with him and makes long posts that are nothing but personal insults? Who claims that anyone who disagrees with him is mentally ill?
entitlement. . . Which one of us claims that anyone who disagrees with him should be removed from this forum just for "wanting to be correct".
Originally posted by BingB: Interesting test. Lets look at it. Here are some symptoms of a Narcissitic Disorder. [i]grandiosity and self-importance. . . fantasies of perfection, ...
Do some introspection.
quote
[B]Originally posted by BingB: Who claims to be able to read the thoughts of others and attack them for "what they are really thinking" instead of what they actually say?
You and FredToast come immediately to mind. Ask me why.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: arrogance, haughtiness, and scorn. . . Which one of us loses his mind when someone disagrees with him and makes long posts that are nothing but personal insults? Who claims that anyone who disagrees with him is mentally ill?
You lose your mind when anybody disagrees with you. Don't believe me ? Ask your friends.
I did not suggest to that you are mentally ill. Show me your proof Mr. Evidence.
I was trying to help you. I see you did no introspection.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Dude, there are like 5 people in this forum, and you're comparing yourself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
What I did was use a rhetorical tool called a "simile". A comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic. For a simile to be effective the subject matter has to be well known.
Maybe you would have understood better if I used Matt Walsh. Do you think Matt Walsh should be embarrassed by having his speech blocked in some places? Should he be "introspective" to find out what he has to do to be accepted by everyone? Does that fact that he has been cancelled by some institutions mean he is single and lonely with no friends? Does it mean he is menatlly ill?
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-08-2024).]
What I did was use a rhetorical tool called a "simile". A comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic. For a simile to be effective the subject matter has to be well known.
Maybe you would have understood better if I used Matt Walsh. Do you think Matt Walsh should be embarrassed by having his speech blocked in some places? Should he be "introspective" to find out what he has to do to be accepted by everyone? Does that fact that he has been cancelled by some institutions mean he is single and lonely with no friends? Does it mean he is menatlly ill?
I have no idea know who Matt Walsh is, sorry.
But since we're giving each other English lessons, perhaps I can help you overcome your issue with understanding the difference between American and British English.
You see, when you quote something, and that quote comes at the end of a sentence. Without question, the quote always, always, goes after the punctuation in American English. In British English, which most Europeans and Canadians here will use, there is a determination of placement. In British English, there are a series of rules that determine whether or not the period goes before the end-quote. On the other hand, in American English, it's explicitly defined that without exception, the period goes before the end quote. So, in this sentence for example,
quote
What I did was use a rhetorical tool called a "simile".
It should instead be written like this,
quote
What I did was use a rhetorical tool called a "simile."
As you remember, I got on you about this in your last account, "Fredtoast," but I also just assume that as an accomplished lawyer, legal scholar, and history teacher, that you would have learned this at some point through your various degrees.
Interesting test. Lets look at it. Here are some symptoms of a Narcissitic Disorder.
grandiosity and self-importance. . . fantasies of perfection, or power. . . Which one of us claims to be omniscient? Who claims to be able to read the thoughts of others and attack them for "what they are really thinking" instead of what they actually say?
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
No I didn't. You just think I did.
You can add a total lack of self-awareness to yourself.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-08-2024).]
You can add a total lack of self-awareness to yourself.
I just noticed this... he's only upset because he knows it's true. Otherwise it wouldn't bother him, but he seems to keep emphasizing / harping on the fact that his real thoughts is not super-secret, and that anyone who is even remotely perceptive can figure it out.
Originally posted by BingB: But now the policy he used to reduce immigration has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the pandemic is over.
You lie. SCOTUS ruled Title 42 unconstitutional , ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: They have already dismissed the case because the pandemic is over and the Title 42 emergency powers are no longer valid.
You lie. Title 42 powers still exist.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: I have not posted one thing that was wrong. But there is no dispute that what I said about title 42 was correct.
WRONG !
quote
Originally posted by BingB: BTW this post is pretty comical considering that you were unable to do your own research on Arizona v Myorkas and had to depend on me to educate you. In that case you disputed what I was saying so I was happy to do my own research to show how clueless you were.
You do shallow research. Otherwise you would have been educated.
You lie. SCOTUS ruled Title 42 unconstitutional , ?
I did not use the term properly.
Just because the Supreme Court blocked its use does not mean the statute is "unconstitutional", but that does not change the fact that Biden cannot invoke the emergency powers under Title 42 because there is no longer a health emergency. Biden cannot use Title 42 the way Trump did because there is no longer a pandemic.
Arizona and several other States tried to bring a case in federal court to stop the Biden Administration from halting the immigration regulations put in place under the authority of Title 21. The authority granted by Title only applies during health emergencies. In May of 2023 the SCOTUS dismissed the case as "moot" because there was no longer a pandemic.
Pretty simple really. Surprised you were not able to research it and figure it out yourself.
Originally posted by BingB: Just because the Supreme Court blocked its use does not mean the statute is "unconstitutional", but that does not change the fact that Biden cannot invoke the emergency powers under Title 42 because there is no longer a health emergency. Biden cannot use Title 42 the way Trump did because there is no longer a pandemic.
Wrong.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Tell us about that case.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Arizona and several other States tried to bring a case in federal court to stop the Biden Administration from halting the immigration regulations put in place under the authority of Title 21. The authority granted by Title only applies during health emergencies. In May of 2023 the SCOTUS dismissed the case as "moot" because there was no longer a pandemic.
Pretty simple really. Surprised you were not able to research it and figure it out yourself.
It really is simple, if you would do the research to study which subsection of Title 42 applies.
Did you know that when SCOTUS took the case of it's docket, it left in place the lower court's ruling. You don't even know what that was !
Originally posted by cliffw: Did you know that when SCOTUS took the case of it's docket, it left in place the lower court's ruling. You don't even know what that was !
Of course I know, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
Biden can't use the authority that Trump did under Title 42. That is all I am trying to get you to understand.
Originally posted by cliffw: It really is simple, if you would do the research to study which subsection of Title 42 applies.
Did you know that when SCOTUS took the case of it's docket, it left in place the lower court's ruling. You don't even know what that was !
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Of course I know, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
Biden can't use the authority that Trump did under Title 42. That is all I am trying to get you to understand.
Actually, that case is relevant to the discussion, if you claim SCOTUS used that case to prevent Boy Biden from using Title 42, section ***. Your points of discussion "paint" that you don't know what the lower court's ruling was.
Tell us BingBoy. Why can't Boy Biden use Title 42 sec *** to prohibit illegal immigration. It should be easy for you since you do not need to know the law, to know how law works.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-13-2024).]
"The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would formally remove a case concerning the controversial Trump-era immigration policy known as Title 42 from its calendar, likely because the Covid-19 public health emergency that serves as the legal underpinning of the program has expired."
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
It was titled Arizona v. Mayorkas, but there were several states included in the case.
https://cronkitenews.azpbs....o-preserve-title-42/ The Supreme Court has formally dismissed an Arizona-led effort to preserve Title 42, the pandemic-era immigration restriction that was officially ended by the Biden administration last week.
The court on Thursday dismissed Arizona v. Mayorkas as moot – with two justices saying the court should never have agreed to hear the case in the first place.
The dismissal was widely expected after the court removed the case from its argument calendar in February, when it became clear that the end of the pandemic would mean the end of the controversial border policy.
You are welcome for the education. Glad to help you out.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Biden cannot invoke the emergency powers under Title 42 because there is no longer a health emergency. Biden cannot use Title 42 the way Trump did because there is no longer a pandemic.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-13-2024).]
"The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it would formally remove a case concerning the controversial Trump-era immigration policy known as Title 42 from its calendar, likely because the Covid-19 public health emergency that serves as the legal underpinning of the program has expired."
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
It was titled Arizona v. Mayorkas, but there were several states included in the case.
https://cronkitenews.azpbs....o-preserve-title-42/ The Supreme Court has formally dismissed an Arizona-led effort to preserve Title 42, the pandemic-era immigration restriction that was officially ended by the Biden administration last week.
The court on Thursday dismissed Arizona v. Mayorkas as moot – with two justices saying the court should never have agreed to hear the case in the first place.
The dismissal was widely expected after the court removed the case from its argument calendar in February, when it became clear that the end of the pandemic would mean the end of the controversial border policy.
You are welcome for the education. Glad to help you out.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: Biden cannot invoke the emergency powers under Title 42 because there is no longer a health emergency. Biden cannot use Title 42 the way Trump did because there is no longer a pandemic.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: WTF? Can't you read?
WTF ? Do you have ANY common sense ? How bad is your reading comprehension ?
quote
Originally posted by BingB: SCOTUS has ruled that we can't go back to Title 42 now that covid pandemic is over.
No, they did not ! Prove it Mr Evidence. You did not educate me on anything.
I am not gong to educate you. You are too lazy to do research.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-14-2024).]
Here is my version. Federal District Court in Washington DC ruled that the immigration rules under Title 42 were illegal and ordered Biden to end them. Republican States filed request to join the case to defend the policy. Once pandemic was over the immigration rules under title 42 became moot. Case was then dismissed. Republican who were trying to defend the rules and keep them in place lost. Biden can not use Title 42 immigration rules because he no longer has authoruty. And even if Trump becomes President he will not be able to use those rules again unless there is another health emergency.
Now you tell me what you believe happened. And don't just say that I am wrong. tell me specifically what I am wrong about.
Here is my version. Federal District Court in Washington DC ruled that the immigration rules under Title 42 were illegal and ordered Biden to end them. Republican States filed request to join the case to defend the policy. Once pandemic was over the immigration rules under title 42 became moot. Case was then dismissed. Republican who were trying to defend the rules and keep them in place lost. Biden can not use Title 42 immigration rules because he no longer has authoruty. And even if Trump becomes President he will not be able to use those rules again unless there is another health emergency.
Now you tell me what you believe happened. And don't just say that I am wrong. tell me specifically what I am wrong about.
Hi Bing, can you tell me specifically what part of Title 42 SCOTUS said Biden could no longer use?
My God! It's like trying to discuss Pre Columbian mythology with a five year old.
There has been no change to section 265 in 80 years. The Supreme Court made no decision. The case was simply dismissed because the COVID emergency declaration expired.
As he does everywhere. All of his questions in the tech section are the same... and what's crazy, they're just a distraction / ruse to get people to think that he actually has an interest in doing something. Fred... your attitude will affect your ability to get support on your Fiero if / when you actually need it. People are very finicky here. A conversation is a two-way thing.
You've been banned from multiple forums (someone did the search and posted the links earlier), and you've even been banned from here, and created two accounts (three if you count the second one you made and abandoned after a month). The issue isn't us... I've never been banned from a forum. I think you need to reflect on WHY you think you're being banned. And no, it's not the canned response about posting facts (blah blah). There's a personality issue here.
There has been no change to section 265 in 80 years. The Supreme Court made no decision. The case was simply dismissed because the COVID emergency declaration expired.
Gee I wonder where Willie learned this?
quote
Originally posted by BingB:SCOTUS has ruled that we can't go back to Title 42 now that covid pandemic is over. That is what Trump used to address the problem.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
They have already dismissed the case because the pandemic is over and the Title 42 emergency powers are no longer valid.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
https://cronkitenews.azpbs....o-preserve-title-42/ The Supreme Court has formally dismissed an Arizona-led effort to preserve Title 42, the pandemic-era immigration restriction that was officially ended by the Biden administration last week.
The court on Thursday dismissed Arizona v. Mayorkas as moot
The dismissal was widely expected after the court removed the case from its argument calendar in February, when it became clear that the end of the pandemic would mean the end of the controversial border policy.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Biden cannot invoke the emergency powers under Title 42 because there is no longer a health emergency. Biden cannot use Title 42 the way Trump did because there is no longer a pandemic.
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Arizona and several other States tried to bring a case in federal court to stop the Biden Administration from halting the immigration regulations put in place under the authority of Title 21. The authority granted by Title only applies during health emergencies. In May of 2023 the SCOTUS dismissed the case as "moot" because there was no longer a pandemic.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There's a personality issue here.
The only personality issue is with a few right-wing extremists around here that can not deal with having their beliefs questioned.
I challenge you to quote a single post I have made on this site that would justify my getting banned. I don't post insults and I don't post misinformation. I do get a bit testy when I am responding to direct personal attacks, but anything bad you claim I have done I can find an example of you doing the same or worse.
Originally posted by BingB: The only personality issue is with a few right-wing extremists around here that can not deal with having their beliefs questioned.
I challenge you to quote a single post I have made on this site that would justify my getting banned. I don't post insults and I don't post misinformation. I do get a bit testy when I am responding to direct personal attacks, but anything bad you claim I have done I can find an example of you doing the same or worse.
Fred, there is no one on Pennock's right now that is a "Right Wing Extremist." We've already banned them. One of them was Sourmash, Uhlanstan, etc...
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Fred, there is no one on Pennock's right now that is a "Right Wing Extremist." We've already banned them. One of them was Sourmash, Uhlanstan, etc...
Really?
there is one guy on here who swears that Democrats are solely responsible for every bad thing that ever happened in this country and that all the current democrats are mentally ill or criminals. A normal person would recognize those as "extremist positions" but an extremist would be completely BLIND to this fact.
there is one guy on here who swears that Democrats are solely responsible for every bad thing that ever happened in this country and that all the current democrats are mentally ill or criminals. A normal person would recognize those as "extremist positions" but an extremist would be completely BLIND to this fact.
You're not going to find too many people who would consider me an extremist, Fred. Again though... I realize the deflection and transference here, but I again remind you that you've been banned from multiple sites, have been banned here, and have now three accounts on Pennock's... all for the sole purpose of arguing politics with like ~5 people. If that isn't "mentally ill," then I clearly don't know what is... but I'm pretty sure I'm not the problem.
Goldwater defined "liberty" as "the freedom to enforce Jim Crowe laws".
There is a certain portion of our population who will fall for anything a person says if it contains the word "freedom" even if the speaker actually objects to actions that would increase individual freedoms.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: If that isn't "mentally ill," then I clearly don't know what is... but I'm pretty sure I'm not the problem.
Who says there is a "problem"? I am not doing anything wrong to cause any problem.
Your level of obsession with me is the only mental illness I see. Why don't you just drop it before this thread gets locked like the others you devote to me.
No one here is using their real name. No one cares.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 04-15-2024).]
?
