I have been married twice. My wedding experiences were both very different, even though I cried at both ceremonies. At my first wedding, I had been doing a lot of manual labor in the day prior to the wedding. Unfortunately, I did not have any gloves, and I ended up getting a lot of blisters on my hands. By the evening of the wedding, these blisters were very painful to touch. My bride was wearing what I thought to be an elaborate wedding dress. It was pretty, and it had a lot of buttons on it. Little, white, cloth covered buttons. These buttons were also a part of her sleeves and gloves. During the ceremony, she was holding my hands very tightly, and it hurt. I mean, it really really hurt! I didn't want to pull my hands away, as the gesture could be misconstrued, and I might hurt her feelings. So, I stood and held hands with her, enduring the pain. Although I managed to remain silent, I couldn't keep the tears from falling down my face. The more I cried, the harder she squeezed and the more painful it was. She always thought that I was crying due to emotion on our wedding day, and I never told her any differently I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Some years after that lengthy incarceration ended, I was fortunate to wed again. I had not done any manual labor before our wedding day. My hands were fine. Also, my bride did not have a lot of intricate buttons on her dress, nor did she wear gloves or even have sleeves. We were wed on a beach, just the two of us. No one else was in attendance. We had written our own vows, in fact, our own ceremony, including our own rituals. And yes, I cried, because I was / am so in love with my bride. I still tear up every morning when I awaken and see her sleeping beside me. Peace Question: Why did he cry at his first wedding? Options: - not enough information - He was in a lot of pain from blisters he got working the day before. - His Bride was holding his hands. - His Bride was wearing a very pretty dress with lots of buttons. === The correct answer is
He was in a lot of pain from blisters he got working the day before.

(Question)
Hummyou don't categorize best as either fun or interesting so maybe I have one of each! Interesting one; while Clinton was still in office he was at a fund raising dinner at a restaurant I managed. I met his personal valet from the white house mess, Oscar, and he casually said, if you are ever in DC. To which I replied, I sure can be! My husband and I made the trip a month or so later, we met up with Oscar for dinner on our first night there. We had just started planning all we wanted to see as it was our first visit there. We had no idea that Oscar would invite us for not one but two private tours of the White House. We saw the oval office, the situation room, the rose garden, the mess, the press room and the OEOB. We even heard Buddy bark! It was a trip I knew I'd never be able to repeat and was very grateful to have had the chance to take. For the fun oneMy friend was turning 50 and she wanted a theme destination celebration. 18 of us went to Belize. She went all out. Two private villas that you could only access by boat, all the swag you can imagine. And plenty of booze. That alone is already a super special vacation but for me it had even more meaning. I'd never been invited to a group event like this before nor had I been to spring break, which this very much turned into. I know many people have plenty of over the top stories. And I've had some even more amazing trips than this. But those two had just enough special twists to make them really stand out. Thanks for asking. I too am a Disney fan! Question: Which vacation happened when Clinton was in office? Options: - Washington DC - Disney - Belize - not enough information === The correct answer is
(Answer)
Washington DC

Ques: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: What is probably true about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Options: - not enough information - She is concerned about a constitutional crisis - She is concerned about the right to vote - She is against gerrymandering === The correct answer is
Ans: She is against gerrymandering

U.S. President Donald Trump has blocked the release of a Democratic rebuttal to a Republican memo alleging FBI abuses of power during an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. In a letter released Friday, White House counsel Don McGahn said Trump had decided not to declassify the Democratic memo "because the memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages." The president himself expounded on that explanation Saturday on Twitter. "The Democrats sent a very political and long response memo which they knew, because of sources and methods (and more), would have to be heavily redacted, whereupon they would blame the White House for lack of transparency. Told them to re-do and send back in proper form!" Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2-ranking Democrat in the House, released a statement late Friday saying, "It is deeply disturbing that President Trump has blocked the release" of the Democrat-written memo. He said that after Trump on Feb. 2 released "a one-sided, misleading memo written by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, it is only appropriate that Americans see all the facts." McGahn's letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes asked for revisions in the document before it could be released. Nunes released a statement late Friday, saying, "I had warned that the Democratic memo contains many sources and methods ... it's no surprise that these agencies recommended against publishing the memo without redactions." McGahn's statement said because of the "public interest in transparency in these unprecedented circumstances, the president has directed that Justice Department personnel be available to give technical assistance to the committee" in its efforts to revise the document. Trump had until the end of Friday to decide whether to declassify the memo, written by Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The president last week authorized the release of the Republican version of the memo, which... Question: After all is said and done Carter Page: Options: - not enough information - Will always be thought of as guilty. - Will be famous for rewriting Facebook policy. - Will be forgotten. === The correct answer is
Will always be thought of as guilty.