One problem with marrying for love is someone has to fall in love with you first. And of course you have to fall in love with them first too.

Waiting for someone to fall in love with you could take 50 years. and during those years someone may be always trying to get their attention. You gotta be careful about waiting till forever.

Love outside of marriage may be overrated anyway, after all think how many people you have known with broken hearts. Nobody is getting a broken heart if they are not in love. So if you stay out of love until you get married you may be safer overall.

Happiness comes from a lot of different things in life. Sometimes it comes something being absent, like a broken heart. Nobody can ever plan who and when someone will fall in love with you. You could have a lucky guess, but really it is up to the other person to fall or not.

A person has to be careful with their heart, and that means making practical decisions about love.

Not contemplating a mail order bride. However, is there such a thing as an email order bride?

So am I reading that everybody here agrees that it was a government conspiracy rather than an AlQaeda operation as reported?

And the hang-dog picture of Bush is getting a little old.

DaVinci, your convoluted response was not an answer at all. It was an unanswered question followed by a peculiar comment (that the conspiracy was the government's explanation). The conspiracy theories are generally that the gov't did it itself, while the generally accepted theory that it was done by AlQaeda , is the gov't position and usually not referred to as a conspiracy theory.

I'm not interested in a debate about who or what caused it. I'm just trying to get an understanding of what you are saying. As for knowing my position well on the matter, I've never spent a lot of time on here discussing it. I simply take the average position that it most likely was just what it seemed to be. The alternative that some peculiar group of American zealots staged it to promote war is, in my opinion, somewhat unlikely. But that's just because I have a little better view of humanity in its American form, which does not mean my confidence is warranted, just that it is my belief.

I am a little puzzled by the twists of thought I would have to go through to conclude that it was not AlQaeda that staged 911.

I like it that some people are coming through on the practicality side of things here. Seems there may be hope for the big brain between the ears after all. For a while I was thinking that the only brains people were listening to were those somewhere closer to their knees. Girls and guys both have those extra brains don't they?

Did she try putting newspaper on the floor or just rub your nose in it everything you did something wrong?

So DaVinci,
Are you saying that you believe that 911 was a conspiracy of some sort from neocons or some such group?

Your title for the article suggests otherwise, but then your commentary supports the view.

Personally I do not believe it was a neocon conspiracy.

So its ok to criticize someone for being gay suddenly? I thought people were beyond that, particularly democrats.

You seem to think that because someone has conservative values and votes for republican issues they can not be gay? Are you nuts?

If it was a Democrat caught in a theater whacking off or whatever would you be posting this article? I think not, otherwise your first two words would not have been "Ha, conservative"

I should have started this response 'Ha, hypocrite' because you think a republican can not step outside the republican comfort zone, but as a democrat you have no qualms about your intolerance of others. The fundamental democrat argument against republicans is that they intrude on the private lives of others with their intolerance.

Get a life and put on a shirt for Christ's sake.

I feel better already.

I'm for practical, but if there is no spark, its not practical.

I can't give you all my money, you'll go spend it all on Gypsy in Paris. Probably won't even tell her its my money.

You still owe me an answer about books.

No I'm going to Hawaii myself, since you and Gypsy will be in Paris.

Well I'm not waiting till you get back from Paris.

Marry for love or marry because someone is the most practical mate, with the idea that if you choose the most practical you will fall in love anyway.

I know on the surface people all want to say marry for love, but not everyone feels that way. I have a couple friends who are adamant that you have to choose a mate for her character and qualities.

Remember that for hundreds of years, longer even, parents chose a wife and a husband for their children, and they were not choosing for looks and love, they were choosing for practicality with a whole lot of considerations on the best union.

I think I like a little of a mix between the two.

Where do you fit in with this sort of decision?

I don't know about taking you Gypsy, If I try to take you BayAreaGal is going to start thinking about going and next thing she will be taking my place. I think she worked out the strategy already and she has all that charm so who could resist. I'll just have to go and see if anyone shows up. Besides you two are going to be in Paris, so I'll just be all lonely on the island.

No way, people wouldn't do that.

Well that looks horrible. How could anybody enact such a law.

Shakes me haid n rollz me eyez.

Well.

Executive Order 10995
ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS

From what you posted Invisible, it looks reasonable to me. I am wondering why it was included in DaVinci's post as some nefarious activity. If 10990 for the transportation system looks like that I'm going to be close to tossing the entire post as poorly conceived or perhaps conceived as so much smoke up the sss for someone's peculiar purposes and inadvertently passed on by DaVinci.

Perhaps you can shed some more light on this stuff DaVinci?

Am I reading that the topic was not well researched? Any truth to this? If this stuff was created during the Kennedy administration you would think their motivation was the fear of pending nuclear annihilation. There was a huge nuclear threat during the period.

Puzzled.

Sometimes sources like to be alarmist and to do so they dig up arcane historical issues which may no longer be either relevant or applicable. I am wondering if this is such a case. Not trying to to put on blinders here, just to take off the tinted lenses.

Much of the fear and hype about the Federal Reserve falls in this category. And yes I have researched the matter.

Do you suppose the Fed might be persuaded to loan me a few billion, just to make ends meet? The entire economy might collapse if I default, after all. Maybe I should get a DAB, Mike's Mobile Bank and TrustMe