• Announcements

    • SFLUFAN

      D1P 2017 Charity Campaign for The Life You Can Save: $1,565 (as of May 15, 2017)   12/12/2016

      I've decided to extend our charity campaign for The Life You Can Save organizations for the entirety of 2017 so feel free to contribute at any time!  Periodically through the year, I'll have game giveaways for those who have donated to the campaign as a "thank you" for supporting this worthy endeavor!
    • Jason

      Update on the single-device/browser login restriction issue some people are having.   04/04/2017

      4/7/2017 update: Now people who've been affected by this are saying that it went away on its own after about a week. So I dunno, if this would really hugely inconvenience you try to not log in on additional devices/browsers until the 4.2 update that's supposed to hopefully resolve this for good.   original announcement: For a long time now, D1P has been limited to three logins at a time; logging in on a fourth device or browser would log you out everywhere else. Unfortunately, multiple people have been reporting that they've started experiencing being limited to ONE login at a time.   The good news is, Invision Power Services (the company that makes our forum software) is aware of the issue and will be addressing it in version 4.2 of the software, which is the next big update. The bad news is, they announced about a month ago (the beginning of March 2017) that the update will be coming out in "mid 2017", so we probably have at least another couple of months to go before this is resolved.   In the meantime, I apologize to those affected for the inconvenience, and would suggest to everyone else to not log in to additional devices until this is resolved if this is something you don't want to have to have to deal with. I'm still not 100% sure on why it's not affecting everyone and why it didn't hit everyone affected at the same time, but the timing of when the reports of this started here mostly lines up with when I've seen reports of other sites having this issue starting, and I suspect that the problem is trickling in because of people happening to hit a fourth login that logs them out everywhere else, and then proceeding to be limited to one login at a time after that.
    • SFLUFAN

      D1Pcast Episode 26: The Retro Show   04/19/2017

      It's time to have that talk with your kids. No not THAT talk, the talk about retro games and how much better things were back in our days! We have @Reputator join us and talk a bit about the Scorpio and some retro PC cards. [email protected] us about console retro gaming and how he just got his Super Mario USA. While @Jason tells us about the day his parents threw out all his retro consoles. A sad day for any gamer. So listen and give us your feed back about your retro gaming experience!    

heyyoudvd

D1P Designated Kapo
  • Content count

    12,955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

heyyoudvd last won the day on April 23 2016

heyyoudvd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

762

1 Follower

About heyyoudvd

  • Rank
    Chief Infowars Liason
  • Birthday October 5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. This has been my impression as well. He wants free trade, but he also feels that since there isn't a level playing field, he wants to hit back at other countries - partially as a negotiating tactic to put pressure on them and partially to stroke his own ego. The thing that Trump doesn't understand is that even if others are cheating, it's STILL advantageous for the U.S. to eliminate tariffs. The fact that certain nations are making it more difficult for American products to be sold there doesn't negate the fact that the US should still make it as easy as possible for other nations to sell products to America. The end result is more competition and cheaper products for consumers.
  2. I'd assume that when implementing this travel ban, the US would enact pre-clearance at the point of origin. Correct.
  3. We're not talking about people on US soil; we're talking about foreigners who may wish to come to the US. If you are a foreigner in one of the six countries on the travel ban, you have zero constitutional rights.
  4. See, this is just playing a game of gotcha, where you've taken a statement I made out of the context it was in, so you could yell "gotcha!". Here's the full paragraph again: "Irreparable harm" is not for the court to decide. That's for policy makers. That's for the Executive and Legislative branches, and their constituents. The court is there to decide whether the law has been followed. That's it. The second you start bringing in phrases like "irreparable harm" as legal justification, the court has ceased to be a court and is now implementing policy. And if the court has that power, why even bother having a President or Congress? Why not just set up an all powerful judiciary to decide on foreign and domestic policy? The separation of powers exists for a reason. This is a massive judicial power grab. Read that carefully. Saying "courts decide on irreparable harm in cases all the time!" completely sidesteps the point I was making.
  5. We're talking about non-Americans. Non-Americans have no constitutional rights. I'm well aware of what irreparable harm means. The point is that courts can't just apply it to a policy they don't like. If a judge were to argue that the Iraq war did irreparable harm, does that give them the right to veto the war plans? What if a judge thought the Iranian nuclear deal did irreparable harm? What about the ACA? What about the AHCA? Pick any policy - left or right - and a judge could argue that is is doing irreparable harm to certain people. Does that mean that judges can veto any policy they don't like? Of course not. The entire structure of the US government would collapse in on itself if courts had that power. The Legislative and Executive branches would not longer be equal branches of government to the Judicial, but subordinate to it. The point is that Executive policy has consequences. Federal actions can and do commit irreparable harm to certain people. That doesn't mean the courts can negate any policy they don't like. if a government does something blatantly illegal or unconstitutional, then it's the court's job to step in. But arguing "irreparable harm" here creates such a large blanket, that it would effectively allow the Judicial branch to rule the country. That's not how the federal government works. That's why this is a power grab.
  6. If a court can block a President's order on the basis that it believes that it will cause "irreparable harm", then what's to stop a court from saying the same thing about a President's military strikes? Or health care policy? Or trade deals? Or fiscal policies? "Irreparable harm" is not for the court to decide. That's for policy makers. That's for the Executive and Legislative branches, and their constituents. The court is there to decide whether the law has been followed. That's it. The second you start bringing in phrases like "irreparable harm" as legal justification, the court has ceased to be a court and is now implementing policy. And if the court has that power, why even bother having a President or Congress? Why not just set up an all powerful judiciary to decide on foreign and domestic policy? The separation of powers exists for a reason. This is a massive judicial power grab.
  7. Why don't you go back and read my post that already addressed that? You are illiterate.
  8. I should add #4 to my list. 4. Post a string of meaningless words that serve as a red herring and draw attention away from the actual topic at hand.
  9. As far as bezels, it sounds like the iPhone 8 will have less bezel than the S8 on the top and on the bottom, but a little more on the sides because the screen doesn't curve.
  10. 1. "You're Canadian" 2. Appeal to authority fallacy 3. "You're a bigot" Have I covered it all? Does anyone want to take a stab at discussing the actual point or are we just going to continue cycling through those responses?
  11. The problem with that analogy is the end result is the door is closed. The idea is that you're trying to commit murder by closing the door. By contrast, the end result here is even if Trump had his way and the policy was enacted, Muslims are NOT banned. The overwhelming majority of Muslims and Muslim countries are NOT on the list, ergo the entire point is moot. If every Muslim country and no other country was on this list, you might be able to make that argument. But there are only 6 countries on the list, only one of them is event on the top 10 list of largest Muslim countries, and Islam isn't mentioned anywhere in the policy. Plus, this exact list of countries to by wary of was formulated by the previous administration. As such, the ruling is baseless. It's looking at intent without a crime. If there's no crime and no intended crime, there's no intent. Simple as that. This court is greatly overreaching and attempting a power grab based on its own political dislike for Trump. That is absolutely not within its judicial authority.
  12. They are deeming intent relevant when it is not. The court has quite directly stated that the policy is perfectly legal and within the president's authority, but that because they believe he did what he did with ill-intent towards Muslims, then that renders it illegal. That concept is utter nonsense. Their perception of Trump's intentions does not matter. The immigration policy is either legal or illegal. You don't get to psychoanalyse the individual enacting the policy to judge the policy. That's not how it works. What matters is the facts of the policy. And the facts are that the policy itself is 100% legal, as the court itself has acknowledged.
  13. No one knows what the phone will be called (iPhone 8? iPhone Pro? iPhone Edition? iPhone X?), but leaks are starting to come out. We've seen some alleged dummy units and now here's a case, showcasing how the size compares to the 7 and 7 Plus. That will allegedly have a 5.8" edge-to-edge display.
  14. I don't care about meanness; I care about judges not doing their jobs. This is nothing short of judicial tyranny. They are acting as legislators. Any sane person who cares about the US and its founding principles should be infuriated by this decision.