lysistrata

Posts by lysistrata


User's Posts | User's Topics


Forum Topic Date Replies
Fitness 30 min workout enough Jun 26 2014
21:55 (UTC)
2
Original Post by ThinFitKitty:

Thanks for the advice! And this workout wasnt towards losing weight. More towards putting me into better shape. My stamina is quite low for running and im wanting to build that

If your goal is to improve running stamina, the best thing you can do is interval training.  Thirty minutes would be plenty, with warmup included.

The Lounge Boomerang Kids -- Or Yet More Evidence that Baby Boomers Ruined America Jun 26 2014
20:27 (UTC)
18
Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by watergirl:

MUZJIKS Noun

1:The best 7 letter word in scrabble, this word racks up 29 points, and receives a bonus of 50 for being 7 letters or longer, that totals to 79 points.

Alan: "What does muzjiks mean?"
Jim:"I don't know but I just owned you in scrabble"  

 

I had to look it up.

Wait, you get 50 extra points for more than 7 letters???!!!

   

Plus you get double points on the opening word, so it's 108 points to start.  :)

Only if you play it correctly. You can still fit a 7 letter word over the star but in between the dw. Don't ask me why, but some people miss that concept.

According to the official scrabble rules, the star acts as a double word score on the opening move.  There are also double letter scores that you'll hit with a 7-letter opening word, but exactly how that affects your score will depend on how you lay it out.  You can get the Z on the double letter score if you put the S on the star.  So now we're up to 118 points.  :D

(I speak fluent boomer.)

It's not the same in words with friends and the dw, dl, tw, tl aren't in exactly the same place as scrabble.

Hmm, all the more reason why this sounds like a deeply polarizing play.

The Lounge Boomerang Kids -- Or Yet More Evidence that Baby Boomers Ruined America Jun 26 2014
20:24 (UTC)
20
Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by watergirl:

MUZJIKS Noun

1:The best 7 letter word in scrabble, this word racks up 29 points, and receives a bonus of 50 for being 7 letters or longer, that totals to 79 points.

Alan: "What does muzjiks mean?"
Jim:"I don't know but I just owned you in scrabble"  

 

I had to look it up.

Wait, you get 50 extra points for more than 7 letters???!!!

   

Plus you get double points on the opening word, so it's 108 points to start.  :)

Only if you play it correctly. You can still fit a 7 letter word over the star but in between the dw. Don't ask me why, but some people miss that concept.

According to the official scrabble rules, the star acts as a double word score on the opening move.  There are also double letter scores that you'll hit with a 7-letter opening word, but exactly how that affects your score will depend on how you lay it out.  You can get the Z on the double letter score if you put the S on the star.  So now we're up to 118 points.  :D

(I speak fluent boomer.)

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
20:16 (UTC)
8
Original Post by kathygator:

I have embraced that thinking, repeatedly, secretly celebrating every GOP complaint when something is deemed 'unconstitutional' or even 'treasonous' because, surely, they'll own it when their guy tries it? The Tea Party has to be good for that, don't they?

The problem is that I think the dems will just roll over, when the pendulum swings back. Or they'll be forced to pull the same crap the GOP has been pulling.

Dems will become the party of 'no', but 'no' one will care. And maybe that's the GOP endgame.

 

I doubt it's thought out well enough to be described as an endgame.  Yes, I think everything else being equal that's exactly what would happen, which is why I like to see the GOP upping the ante with this lawsuit.  A court ruling that limits executive authority will be much harder to ignore when the GOP inevitably, sometime, regains the presidency.

The Lounge Boomerang Kids -- Or Yet More Evidence that Baby Boomers Ruined America Jun 26 2014
20:13 (UTC)
22
Original Post by watergirl:

MUZJIKS Noun

1:The best 7 letter word in scrabble, this word racks up 29 points, and receives a bonus of 50 for being 7 letters or longer, that totals to 79 points.

Alan: "What does muzjiks mean?"
Jim:"I don't know but I just owned you in scrabble"  

 

I had to look it up.

Wait, you get 50 extra points for more than 7 letters???!!!

   

Plus you get double points on the opening word, so it's 108 points to start.  :)

The Lounge Boomerang Kids -- Or Yet More Evidence that Baby Boomers Ruined America Jun 26 2014
19:39 (UTC)
26
Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by watergirl:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by watergirl:

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by watergirl:

Original Post by dnrothx:


Nah, my point is pretty obvious:  Baby Boomers have ruined the world through their selfishness and are a bunch of Luddites that are keeping actual progress from occurring.

Pretty straightforward; the evidence provided herein is overwhelmingly supportive of my statements and it's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Luddites is good for ten points in Scrabble.

 

For the non-boomers: 10 points on words with friends app ;)

 

 

HA!  Well-played.

For doc, that would be 10 points on words with one less friend app.

LMAO

Funny enough, that game really does create enemies.

The only person I ever played it with stopped playing with me as soon as I won.

I've been looking for a new enemy. Sounds promising.

You hear that dnrothx?! You're not polarizing enough!

He'll be plenty polarizing when he opens with muzjiks.

The Lounge Boomerang Kids -- Or Yet More Evidence that Baby Boomers Ruined America Jun 26 2014
19:33 (UTC)
30
Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by watergirl:

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by liseey02:

Original Post by watergirl:

Original Post by dnrothx:


Nah, my point is pretty obvious:  Baby Boomers have ruined the world through their selfishness and are a bunch of Luddites that are keeping actual progress from occurring.

Pretty straightforward; the evidence provided herein is overwhelmingly supportive of my statements and it's not my fault if the truth hurts.

Luddites is good for ten points in Scrabble.

 

For the non-boomers: 10 points on words with friends app ;)

 

 

HA!  Well-played.

For doc, that would be 10 points on words with one less friend app.

LMAO

Funny enough, that game really does create enemies.

The only person I ever played it with stopped playing with me as soon as I won.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
19:09 (UTC)
10

Surely we agree they're all a bunch of stinking hypocrites.  :)

The way I see it is that fighting each other is the only realistic way that any sort of limits will be acknowledged at all.  Nobody's going to do it voluntarily.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
18:28 (UTC)
13
Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by lysistrata:

(2) The link doesn't say whether the penalties were contained in the text of the bill passed by Congress, as the ACA's implementation deadlines and funding allocations are.

Based on a preliminary search/read, yes, the Late Enrollment Penalty (LEP) was actually part of the legislation, but who it applied to was not so much defined by specific dates, but the length of time between medicare enrollment and enacting part D coverage.  So, if GWB was using an executive order to extend this period of time for the benefit of the people for whom it was intended, it does not appear to be all that different from what Obama did with the ACA deadlines.

What I read was making my eyes cross.  You are more diligent than me!

This is really what illustrates the problem of structurally undermining the separation of powers.  GWB got away with it because there was broad bipartisan support for Medicare Part D, so nobody really cared.  If somebody had demanded legislation, it probably could have passed.  ACA is solidly partisan legislation, so now it's an issue.  Once you say it's ok to undermine the basic structure of the branches of government, you're stuck with an undermined system regardless of who is in power at any given time.  This is why I would think that Democrats (like Turley) would be just as interested in limiting the expansion of executive power when their own guy is in office as they were when GWB was in power, because Democrats won't hold the White House forever.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
17:53 (UTC)
19
Original Post by kathygator:

Wait, wasn't the ACA delay ok under the Administration Act?

 

What is the Administration Act?

If you mean the APA, the Administrative Procedures Act, that is the law that governs agency rulemaking and establishes the procedures for adopting or amending regulations.  Administrative rulemaking can be used to "fill in the gaps" in programs adopted by Congress, provided that Congress establishes an articulable principle for the legislation.  (E.g., Congress can't just go say, Hey, EPA, go write some laws about greenhouse gas emissions.  Congress has to establish the overarching standard and then delegate the implementation; so they can say, Hey, EPA, we think emission standards for greenhouse gases should be incorporated into emissions permits issued under the Clean Air Act.  Please go figure out what appropriate standards are and establish a program to do this.)  Administrative rulemaking cannot be used to modify existing legislation - agencies have to do what Congress says until Congress tells them otherwise.  So no, that argument doesn't work for two reasons:  (1) APA procedures weren't used in modifying the ACA timelines, and (2) Even if they were, they would be in conflict with the enabling statute and so, invalid.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
17:46 (UTC)
21
Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by lysistrata:

(1) Really? Because I haven't heard a peep about signing statements since the Democrats were shrieking hysterically about GWB's use of them.  The polemic was as dumb then as it is now.

(2) The link doesn't say whether the penalties were contained in the text of the bill passed by Congress, as the ACA's implementation deadlines and funding allocations are.

(3) The lawsuit is much more broadly focused than the recess appointments clause.  All the SCOTUS decision says is that recess occurs when the Senate says so.  Turley's proposed suit would invalidate unilateral rewriting of express laws such as the extension of the ACA individual mandate, the reallocation of ACA funding and the modification of citizenship requirements by executive order.

1)  Really

2)  That's a good point - will look up later

Additional info much appreciated!

1) Never heard of him.  He sounds like a big loser.

The Lounge Any one else like Game of thrones? **WARNING ** Spoilers inside Jun 26 2014
17:44 (UTC)
2
Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by lysistrata:

LOL.  I got Khal Drogo when I did that one.

Um....I don't think you took the Oatmeal quiz I linked to.

ETA:  On different ones I've gotten Arya and Catelyn.

LOL, busted!  I do have to wonder if he stole the idea from George Martin's twitter.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
16:45 (UTC)
25
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

And what's more, I'm pretty sure that the remedy for a president who breaks doesn't faithfully execute the law is not a BLAG lawsuit, but it is impeachment.

Which action is the high crime or misdemeanor?

Normally, when the problem is the government isn't doing something it is legally required to do, the remedy is to go to court and request what is called a writ of mandamus, which is an order compelling the performance of the action.

 

This doesn't address the implementation of the ACA (how laws become regulations; how regulations are managed or whatever), but it does address the  executive orders and that sort of thing.

And I thought I remembered having a discussion in here when the President announced that because the budget for immigration enforcement forced him to make choices and set priorities (because he doesn't have enough money to do everything) that he was prioritizing deporting criminals (instead of children or law-abiding people) and I must be remembering it wrong, but I thought we all agreed that his choice to handle it that way was rational.

I agree that executive orders prohibiting executive agencies from discriminating against LGBT people are perfectly legal, and actually a great example of what executive orders are for.  There is no law that requires executive agencies to discriminate against LGBT people, so the order does not conflict with any legislative enactment.  It's directed toward how the executive branch conducts its business within the directives it gets from Congress.

Executive orders that conflict with legislative enactments are not valid.  So, for example, creating a new type of naturalization for juveniles who are not legally naturalized under existing law conflicts with legislative enactments and lacks legal validity.  There is definitely a distinction between choosing not to deport, which is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and choosing to grant legal status, which is a matter of legislation.  Where there is lots of confusion is that the so-called DREAM order didn't grant legal status or naturalization to illegal immigrants, it just modified deportation priorities.  So the whole immigration angle is largely a product of what the right is afraid the President will do if his use of unilateral lawmaking is not checked, rather than a live legal dispute existing right now.  The ACA stuff, by contrast, are examples of executive orders being used in ways that directly contradict enacted legislation.

Well, I think I've heard President Obama say on more than one occasion that he can not, does not have the authority to, change the existing law regarding naturalization and legal status. So the fear that he will do that seems somewhat unreasonable.

Someone on this site told me that because the ACA was passed without going to a conference committee, that they added a section to grant extensive authority to issue waivers and make other administrative changes specifically because problems were not going to be fixed during conference. No. I don't think it was on this site. I think it was Jason Lewis, a libertarian guy on the radio. I sure wish I knew if that was true. Because if it is true, then all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about him issuing waivers and changing deadlines under the ACA would be meaningless too.

If only somebody had read it before they passed it.

I'm not volunteering to read it to see if it's in there.

The Lounge Any one else like Game of thrones? **WARNING ** Spoilers inside Jun 26 2014
16:29 (UTC)
5

LOL.  I got Khal Drogo when I did that one.

The Lounge Any one else like Game of thrones? **WARNING ** Spoilers inside Jun 26 2014
16:16 (UTC)
7

Handy flow chart details your likelihood of surviving.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
16:01 (UTC)
27
Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

And what's more, I'm pretty sure that the remedy for a president who breaks doesn't faithfully execute the law is not a BLAG lawsuit, but it is impeachment.

Which action is the high crime or misdemeanor?

Normally, when the problem is the government isn't doing something it is legally required to do, the remedy is to go to court and request what is called a writ of mandamus, which is an order compelling the performance of the action.

 

This doesn't address the implementation of the ACA (how laws become regulations; how regulations are managed or whatever), but it does address the  executive orders and that sort of thing.

And I thought I remembered having a discussion in here when the President announced that because the budget for immigration enforcement forced him to make choices and set priorities (because he doesn't have enough money to do everything) that he was prioritizing deporting criminals (instead of children or law-abiding people) and I must be remembering it wrong, but I thought we all agreed that his choice to handle it that way was rational.

I agree that executive orders prohibiting executive agencies from discriminating against LGBT people are perfectly legal, and actually a great example of what executive orders are for.  There is no law that requires executive agencies to discriminate against LGBT people, so the order does not conflict with any legislative enactment.  It's directed toward how the executive branch conducts its business within the directives it gets from Congress.

Executive orders that conflict with legislative enactments are not valid.  So, for example, creating a new type of naturalization for juveniles who are not legally naturalized under existing law conflicts with legislative enactments and lacks legal validity.  There is definitely a distinction between choosing not to deport, which is a matter of prosecutorial discretion, and choosing to grant legal status, which is a matter of legislation.  Where there is lots of confusion is that the so-called DREAM order didn't grant legal status or naturalization to illegal immigrants, it just modified deportation priorities.  So the whole immigration angle is largely a product of what the right is afraid the President will do if his use of unilateral lawmaking is not checked, rather than a live legal dispute existing right now.  The ACA stuff, by contrast, are examples of executive orders being used in ways that directly contradict enacted legislation.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
15:45 (UTC)
28
Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by santonacci:

No, it's not about "impeachment", and it's most certainly not about "faithfully executing the laws" - because if it were, someone needs to ask him why he or any other member of the house didn't do the exact same thing with (1) W's 108 signing statements, (2) the number of extensions and exceptions he granted for the implementation of Medicare part D, and (3) his 171 recess appointments.

This is about the 2016 election cycle.

And my recollection is that Obama needed to make appointments to necessary positions, with people that the GOP actually endorsed and approved, but still couldn't get through because of anonymous holds and consequence free filibustering.

Translation:  "We've got a country to govern, so let's do it instead of throwing a temper tantrum."

(1) Signing statements have no legal effect at all.  They don't change the law being enacted, they're just a small soapbox for the President.

(2) I don't recall that the act establishing Medicare Plan D specifically detailed how it was to be implemented, or simply delegated it to HHS.  Do you?

(3) Perhaps they should have, since federal courts have since found that President Obama's use of recess appointments violates the appointments clause.

Guess I should have checked the morning headlines first.

1)  Signing statements is one of the egregious things that the GOP has gotten their panties in a twist about (although not necessarily part of the lawsuit) - but only when a Democrat is in office.

2)  I recall this about Medicare part D implementation.

3)  Yes, they should have.

And if that's what the Supreme Court says, fine.  I'm not sure what the lawsuit is supposed to accomplish that the SCOTUS decision doesn't.

(1) Really? Because I haven't heard a peep about signing statements since the Democrats were shrieking hysterically about GWB's use of them.  The polemic was as dumb then as it is now.

(2) The link doesn't say whether the penalties were contained in the text of the bill passed by Congress, as the ACA's implementation deadlines and funding allocations are.

(3) The lawsuit is much more broadly focused than the recess appointments clause.  All the SCOTUS decision says is that recess occurs when the Senate says so.  Turley's proposed suit would invalidate unilateral rewriting of express laws such as the extension of the ACA individual mandate, the reallocation of ACA funding and the modification of citizenship requirements by executive order.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
15:11 (UTC)
34
Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by santonacci:

No, it's not about "impeachment", and it's most certainly not about "faithfully executing the laws" - because if it were, someone needs to ask him why he or any other member of the house didn't do the exact same thing with (1) W's 108 signing statements, (2) the number of extensions and exceptions he granted for the implementation of Medicare part D, and (3) his 171 recess appointments.

This is about the 2016 election cycle.

And my recollection is that Obama needed to make appointments to necessary positions, with people that the GOP actually endorsed and approved, but still couldn't get through because of anonymous holds and consequence free filibustering.

Translation:  "We've got a country to govern, so let's do it instead of throwing a temper tantrum."

(1) Signing statements have no legal effect at all.  They don't change the law being enacted, they're just a small soapbox for the President.

(2) I don't recall that the act establishing Medicare Plan D specifically detailed how it was to be implemented, or simply delegated it to HHS.  Do you?

(3) Perhaps they should have, since federal courts have since found that President Obama's use of recess appointments violates the appointments clause.

Guess I should have checked the morning headlines first.

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
14:29 (UTC)
37

Turley's testimony before Congress, for those interested.  (pdf)

The Lounge It's not about impeachment, or is it? Jun 26 2014
14:25 (UTC)
38
Original Post by dbackerfan:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by nomoreexcuses:

And what's more, I'm pretty sure that the remedy for a president who breaks doesn't faithfully execute the law is not a BLAG lawsuit, but it is impeachment.

Which action is the high crime or misdemeanor?

Normally, when the problem is the government isn't doing something it is legally required to do, the remedy is to go to court and request what is called a writ of mandamus, which is an order compelling the performance of the action.

 

So I think we the American People need to sue Congress for blocking every single bill from even being put up for a vote despite a majority of people of American being for it.  

Our government is dysfunctional and priorities to help war machines and corporations and other countries instead of our own is disgusting.  

 

The law doesn't require Congress to vote on bills.  It permits Congress to do so.

Also, there is a standing problem with suing the government for broad "not doing their job" types of complaints.  The idea is that a plaintiff has to be uniquely injured by the violation and not just the victim of some general harm that lots of people suffer.  This is why, under Turley's analysis, Congress is who has to file the Article II, section 3 suit because Congress is the only entity that can assert standing.

There's also a "political question" doctrine that would probably apply to suing Congress for passing or not passing legislation.  Your remedy for a bad Congress is to vote it out.

Advertisement
Advertisement