volleyballchick (cowards block)

I am a bookkeeper in a youth sports gym. The teams all have paid coaches, whom are paid hourly for their time in the gym and the time they put in.

My question: how would you pay them for competitions?? In all honesty, they are needed there for the time their team(s) warm up and compete, which is the minimum of an hour, and then needed there for awards ceremonies which are typically later. Max is 4 hours. The owner tries to pay stipends to them but doesn t know exactly what to pay them. How would anyone suggest doing this??

. . . and then don't want to own up to it when people call them out on their stupidity.

I am putting this out for no other reason than I am sick and tired of some on this forum coming on here and being insulting and stupid, and when you respond to their "question" they block you because of it. Maybe I am petty - but I have embraced it by this point in my life. I am not going to change.

Don't people think that if they are going to come on here and ask stupid questions they should be able to "man up" and take the insults to their intelligence for being so stupid? Don't you think that if they put it out there, they should be able to own it and take the shots back?

I came on here about an hour ago and answered 9 questions asked by (as far as I can tell) 8 different individuals on Yahoo! Answers. And I got blocked by 2 of the individuals - "Q" and "Hope and Change Line of Shlt". Why? Well, "Q" asked about gun rights and I challenged him about his stance on the absolute meaning of the second amendment of the US Constitution. Didn't insult him - just challenged the position he took. And he blocked me.

"Hope and Change. . ." guy asked if Obama was going to turn the white middle class into the slums of this nation. I stated that the GOP has done more to achieve that than Obama has (my answer was literally THAT long - one sentence; one line). And I got blocked.

My question: Has it gotten to the point where we are so immature that we can't debate opposing view points? Would we rather have our "ego" stroked than actually try and intelligently defend our opinions to those that have opposite views?

. . . and the GOP constantly bashed the Democrats for focusing on Health Care instead of the economy and jobs. But now all they are talking about is repealing health care, and not talking about how to fix the economy or get jobs out there for people.

Can anyone explain that to the rest of us common folk? Because I don't see how no one can't see all that and then not scream PLAYING POLITICS and HYPOCRITES.

I just saw a few poll responses, where Americans were asked which party they agreed could handle the economy better: When asked about Republicans, 49% said "yes", 51% said "no; Democrats: 41% said "yes", 59% "no". (Notice that neither party got more than half in the positive support)

Also, when asked which party was responsible for the economic crisis, 61% respond "Republicans".

Now, I am not stating that these are based on FACT - this is merely voter's perception. So don't come on here bashing me about not having facts to back this up, yada, yada. . . or to support my opinion, because this is not my opinion. I am merely stating the perspective of what the average voter feels when asked.

To continue this, most voters HATE the current ads that are negatively attacking the opponent because they are merely attacking; not stating anything that they are going to do if elected. So if all this is so, why is it that people are willing to vote back into office the party they perceive responsible for the mess of this nation to FIX the mess? And they are relying on all of the negative stuff that is being said by the Republicans about the Democrats? I am not asking this question to support Democrats, rather to find out how many people really understand that STUPIDITY (yes - I said it!!) of having 2 major parties, and people being unhappy with BOTH of them, putting one party in when the other pisses us off!

Aren't those negative ads comparable to Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th killer) coming out and arguing what a mass killer Michael Meyers (Halloween's killer) is, defending the job that he would do as the protector of the neighborhood??

Doesn't it seem senseless to vote one party out and put in the party that you previously voted out for the same damn reasons?? I am not getting it. I think that too many voters are a bit mentally unbalanced and not thinking very rationally. In the end, the person elected is NOT going to do anything that will help this nation, rather they are going to vote what their party officials/leaders tell them to, and where the money is. And then in the end, we have merely put in another individual that is EXACTLY like the one that we voted out of office for the same damn thing. And the process will repeat over and over again. . .

Definition of insanity is doing the very same actions over and over again and expecting a different result. Aren't the actions of us voters the example of this statement?

I just saw a few poll responses, where Americans were asked which party they agreed could handle the economy better: When asked about Republicans, 49% said "yes", 51% said "no; Democrats: 41% said "yes", 59% "no". (Notice that neither party got more than half in the positive support)

Also, when asked which party was responsible for the economic crisis, 61% respond "Republicans".

Now, I am not stating that these are based on FACT - this is merely voter's perception. So don't come on here bashing me about not having facts to back this up, yada, yada. . . or to support my opinion, because this is not my opinion. I am merely stating the perspective of what the average voter feels when asked.

To continue this, most voters HATE the current ads that are negatively attacking the opponent because they are merely attacking; not stating anything that they are going to do if elected. So if all this is so, why is it that people are willing to vote back into office the party they perceive responsible for the mess of this nation to FIX the mess? And they are relying on all of the negative stuff that is being said by the Republicans about the Democrats? I am not asking this question to support Democrats, rather to find out how many people really understand that STUPIDITY (yes - I said it!!) of having 2 major parties, and people being unhappy with BOTH of them, putting one party in when the other pisses us off!

Aren't those negative ads comparable to Jason Vorhees (Friday the 13th killer) coming out and arguing what a mass killer Michael Meyers (Halloween's killer) is, defending the job that he would do as the protector of the neighborhood??

Doesn't it seem senseless to vote one party out and put in the party that you previously voted out for the same damn reasons?? I am not getting it. I think that too many voters are a bit mentally unbalanced and not thinking very rationally. In the end, the person elected is NOT going to do anything that will help this nation, rather they are going to vote what their party officials/leaders tell them to, and where the money is. And then in the end, we have merely put in another individual that is EXACTLY like the one that we voted out of office for the same damn thing. And the process will repeat over and over again. . .

Definition of insanity is doing the very same actions over and over again and expecting a different result. Aren't the actions of us voters the example of this statement?

In 2008 my husband and I moved into a duplex. We signed a one year lease, and everything was fine. In 2009, our landlord says that he would like for us to sign a new lease, because he finds that if people don't have a lease and go "month to month", they think they can leave without giving notice. We sign the lease, and move on.

Fast forward to July: We notify our landlord that effective on August 1, 2010, we will begin our 90 day notice (as per the lease) of vacating our duplex. We will be paying rent for August, September and October. I took the letter to him personally (the lease stated it had to be in writing) on July 25th, and he was busy. I waited 20 minutes for him before finally giving up and motioning to him that I was setting the letter on the counter (he was on the phone). That was a Sunday. Wednesday my husband and I receive a certified letter (he lives about 100 feet from our door, but felt it necessary to send this certified mail) stating that we were obligated for our place until August 31 2011!! When I went to ask him about this, he would not answer the phone or his door. I had to literally drive the opposite way around the block to catch him trying to leave his house without talking to me. When I asked about that, he stated that we had signed a 2 year lease! I said that we had not, and that he had informed us we were signing a "standard lease". And to boot, he never gave us a copy of this lease.

Questions:

1. If we were not told it was a 2 year lease, are we obligated?

2. If he never gave us a copy of this lease, isn't he in violation of the law?

3. If he never gave us a copy of this lease, does that make the previous lease (which we DID have a copy of) the one in effect, thus making it a one year lease?

I'm just trying to see if I am crazy or not. . . And if it matters, I am in Wisconsin.

I just got notice I won "Best Answer", which is not totally unusual. What is a first for me is that I won "Best Answer" from someone that BLOCKED me! Does anyone else find the humor in this? Has anyone else had this happen to them?

Why is it that so many are up in arms about the fact that it will be mandated that people carry health insurance when 48 of the 50 states require drivers to buy liability insurance to show financial responsibility? The two states that don't are New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Neither of those 2 states are suing the US Government over the mandate of health care coverage. But the states thus far that are -

Virginia

Florida

Alabama

Colorado

Idaho

Louisiana

Michigan

Nebraska

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

Georgia

all require the people driving in their state to carry auto insurance! What is the difference?? Isn't this also forcing people to buy what they don't want? Isn't this socialism as well? Why is this okay, but when the federal government - who ends up covering medical bills when the people can't do so - demands people take "financial responsibility" and purchase health insurance so that they don't have to spend so much covering people when the medical costs go up because of lack of payment, suddenly people come out of the woodwork and start screaming "This is Unconstitutional!". Can someone explain this to me??

And to save many of you the trouble: I HAVE read the bill cover to cover, for I work in a field that is directly effected either way by the bill, and I am a small business owner. So save the rhetoric and just answer the question.

I am asking if you are still in that mindset, when I tell you that FOR THE FIRST TIME ON RECORD, there was no snowfall in North Central Wisconsin. Records go back for over 125 years, and there was ALWAYS snowfall in March. Except for this year.

I find this a bit of an indicator. I have lived in this region of the nation all my life - Michigan, Chicago, and Wisconsin - and NEVER saw a March that had no snowfall. But this year, we had NO snow. We had some rain. We are currently under a ban for burning due to the dry conditions. We are inches below average moisture levels for the year so far. Mind you, this is supposed to be the time of year that Wisconsin gets their most significant snow fall amounts - all the way to the end of April. I remember snow storms in early May, for the love. And today?? I sit here in my house with all the windows open, and shorts on. We hit 81 degrees. This is supposed to be snow season still. You know the old joke - Wisconsin: nine months of snow and three months of bad snowmobiling. If this is true, we will be getting our next snowfall in July.

Please discuss civilly. I am not looking for attacks of anyone, nor am I looking to be attacked. Thanks in advance.

This has been bothering me for some time now, and since the health care vote happened and so many are pissed, I figured that this would be a time to get something.

I watched the debate very closely. I work in the health care field, and I am a small business owner. I will be effected either way on what happened, and I wanted to know what was going to happen. But since the beginning, I heard people saying that the Republicans wouldn't take part in the writing of the bill, and the Republicans saying they weren't asked.

Okay - so IF they weren't asked (which I highly doubt), why didn't they go in with their notes anyways?? They knew it was happening, and they knew that it was going to go through. So why not put your stuff in the bill that you wanted? Doesn't that make you look better, knowing that you put your party thoughts aside and went in to work on this bill to try and make it a little better for your side of the aisle?? Why not participate? Why look like you don't want anything for those that need it??

Just a question - please no insults. I currently don't like either party and think they both should go, so don't try to lump me in anywhere, either. Thanks in advance.

Now, normally I am not a huge fan of entertainers going into politics, but in this case, I would LOVE to see John Mellecamp in the Senate. Why? The man takes no SH*T!! He tells it like it is, and he calls you out if you are spreading crap. He is known for his brutal honesty and his support for the "everyman". I think the man could actually show those Democrats and Republicans what was what, and how to actually support constituents, not to mention call them out when they started fighting about stupid stuff instead of working towards a solution to the problems at hand.

What do others think??

My husband wants to know if you celebrated the Tet Offensive holiday today?

How can it be that the "terrorist detainees", so many conservatives cry, should be tried in a military tribunal as opposed to a federal court of law, and yet it is NOT against the Geneva Convention to torture them because they are not "soldiers"? If you are not a "soldier", then you are not a "military prisoner", am I not right on that one??

Basically, someone, explain the logic. I am not getting it. It sounds like a bunch of tap-dancing double talk to me.

. . . That many of the individuals that are on here screaming about the government trying to run our lives and tell us what to do are also wanting the government to tell me - as a woman - that if I get pregnant, no matter what is involved in things, I HAVE to stay pregnant and have a baby?

(just an observation that came to me as I read many of the questions and rants on here about health care and abortion. . .)

I have some very serious questions, and I am not trying to do anything other than understand you and your "hate" (which is what I see and feel when you respond the way you do). So bear with me, and sorry if this gets wordy.

I am sitting and doing a lot of reading of opinion pieces from when Clinton was in the White House and from the current administration. I am essentially comparing the two administrations and their ideals. Clinton was very liberal for his time. He had an idea of national health care options for those that couldn't afford health care. He had wanted to work with the world on issues such as terrorism, hunger, poverty and the like. He wanted to create programs for individuals that were "needy" and didn't have money for things like education and health. To be perfectly honest, all of it was not that different from what is going on now.

I am not looking for a fight. Honestly, I want to know what is going on, and I want to understand the opposition. And I have on numerous occasions come on here and defended you and your position and your right to believe what you like. But the more I research, the less I believe that the race doesn't have something to do with the anger, rage and hate.

I am not saying that outright you hate African Americans and you are card carrying members of the KKK. And I am not infering that you hate anyone that isn't white. But what I do see (underlying) is that there is a lot of uproar over the very same issues and the very same proposed resolutions - when proposed by a white president from the south with a majority white cabinet, it was upsetting, but nothing compared to what is being said and going on when it comes from a black president with a multi-racial and multi-cultural cabinet.

It is not my intension to insult anyone or call them racist. But what I am wondering is if the race isn't an UNDERLYING issue here - are there some here that feel that they don't like being led by a "minority"? I just can't wrap my brain around such hate and rhetoric being spouted in so many differnt directions. I didn't like George W. Bush as our president. I didn't vote for him either time, and I didn't agree with most of his politics. I did from time to time come on here and spout my dislike and my dissatisfaction in him as our president. But I NEVER wished him to fail as our leader. Where in the hell is it justified to wish failure upon another? If our president fails, don't people realize that we all lose in the end? Am I to understand that you would rather suffer and have those around you suffer than have a man of another race succeed? Isn't that a bit immature in thinking, not to mention very backwards?

Like I said, I am not looking for a fight, rather to understand the thinking. If you can't explain it without personally attacking me or my family (like so many of the e-mails that I have been getting from those that don't agree with me), don't bother wasting your time with this question. But I really want - in HONEST, THOUGHTFUL, AND INSIGHTFUL words (leave the rhetoric, slams and stupidity at the door, please) - why you feel the way you do. I honestly want to know what is behind the thoughts of those on the other side of my viewpoints.

Thank you in advance, and again, I am sorry this is so long.

I just saw a commercial about the "Tea Party Express", and they state that they want to send a message to all of those "liberalists" that "we are going to vote you out of office". Who are they going to elect?

I mean, the GOP did the very same crap in 2000 and 2004, and they ran up a debt as well as the Democrats did in this administration. They have faulted the other way from the Democrats during their time in office, and they were voted out and replaced by Democratic candidates.

Who are these Tea Party Expressers going to replace Democrats with? Republicans? Doesn't this all become a viscous circle, and then in 2/4 years, we again go after those in office and replace them with someone from "the other party"?

Or are they looking to get "third party" candidates into the seats to see how they will do? Aren't we in a situation that there is no way to please everyone, and the squeaky wheel is looking to get greased? I mean, I also know that squeaky wheels don't always get greased - sometimes they also get replaced. That is what the Tea Party Expressers remind me of - they are being loud and voicing their opinions, which is their right to do so. But what do they propose be the "right alternative"? What would they say would be the right people for the government? I mean, I don't want to know generalities as in "someone that listens to the people" or "someone that does right by the country" - that is very vague and is a matter of opinion. I want specifics. What do you, the tea party express, want?

Sorry for the length of this question. I am a wordy person by nature, and I have many questions about all this. I am trying to be serious and not sarcastic, so please try to give me some answers so I can better understand the opposition. . .

Thanks in advance.

Why are Federal Express, UPS, and other shippers/carriers doing so much better than the US Postal Office?

I mean, the argument of the insurance industry and those against government optioned health care is that if the government can offer an option and it is lower in cost, this will be devastating to the private insurers. And yet, Federal Express, UPS and other carriers are more expensive than the US Postal Service, but they continue to profit.

Can someone explain the difference to me??

I understand that the "block" feature on Y!A comes in handy with trolls on here, but why block someone for the sheer fact that they can prove you wrong? I don't think I have come close to the "troll" definition on here, and yet I have been blocked by some on here that choose to ask silly questions and won't allow me to go on and prove them wrong.

So why is it that so many choose to be so petty?

Medical tourism. Nations seem to be able to offer inexpensive medical procedures that have the same - if not better - quality of the United States doctors.

Read the article -

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/26/medical.touri...

Sorry - you may have to type this in, but it will take you right to the story. I think that many may find this interesting - like getting open heart surgery in India for $8,500, compared to paying around $100,000 in the US and $28,000 in the UK for the very same procedure. The doctors performing this are American trained, so they offer no less in the way of skill than a US doctor, and the health care hospital is accredited by JCI, the global arm of the American nonprofit organization that accredits most US hospitals.

So if skill is not the motivating factor for cost of procedures, then what is? Why can one go and get the very same surgery in India by skilled doctors and pay less than a tenth of the cost?

What does that say about our nation and our doctors??