It would have been quite hilarious had they instead hired former slashdot employee Pudge. I would have happily taken bets on how long that appointment would have lasted...

It is hard to reach your level of disconnection, for sure. You're not quite on the same level of conspiracy nuttery as some other people here, but your statements do require a certain amount of "X leads to Y leads to NWO".

That doesn't indicate that Lieberman was gunning for Iraq ahead of time. He was just looking for self-preservation, and knew that being the first to jump up and declare support would be good for that. You seem to be perhaps a little hazy in your memory of what unfolded in that time period, but some of us recall how the GOP used 9/11 as a way to initiate a witch hunt against anyone who didn't support every last foolish quest they asked for.

Lierberman is far from perfect, but what you cited does not support your argument as well as you wish it to, either.

I'm not particularly a fan of Lieberman, but I don't recall hearing anything of him having held a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein either. If you have a reference to show that Lieberman was hankering specifically for a war with Iraq, please share.

On top of that, the Bush Jr. Administration set a new precedent for VP involvement - really more like VP dictation - of policy. Was there a reason to expect that Lieberman would have been driving the ship similarly? By contrast I haven't heard anyone claim that Biden is in control currently at 1600 Pennsylvania.

You wandered away from the Official Narrative, there smitty. We all know it's about marrying a box turtle. I won't tell anyone about your faux pas, but you might end up in a re-education camp regardless.

Though even if you are moving up into warm-blooded vertebrates, you are still placing a homosexual human as being of equal worth to a horse. Perhaps the important question to ask then is whether you see a horse as being worth more or less than 3/5ths of a hetersexual human.

And the kevlar kandidate is not my governor. I believe I told you that before.

You are whitewashing history with that line. The information that was given to Bush was hand-picked to support an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Some of those intelligence advisers were themselves hand-picked by the Bush administration. The Bush administration was furthermore willing to then take the shaky evidence - note that they were not afraid to take advice from someone code-named "curveball" by the CIA - and spin it to support their agenda.

Regardless of how much you hate Gore, he has never given indication of himself being a war-mongerer, nor did he have a personal score to settle with Saddam Hussein.

I can imagine in. We would not have launched an unjustified invasion of a sovereign nation that cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Evidently that would have been a terrible thing?

Wait, which 2000 POTUS candidate are you talking about now?

I understand that he is criticizing the rest of the court, and that he thinks that he is the smartest and most important man in the room. He has projected that arrogance for some time. At this point though he seems to have such disdain for the court that he seems to actually loathe the task assigned to him. Hence my point is that if it is that awful, he could just retire and go live somewhere else.

Maybe the one near me is just specifically selected not to carry them, then. I haven't seen a recent (ie, not refurb) ThinkPad in there in years.

Much better than the odds of you passing a statistics course. Similarly, very high are the odds of a serial liar such as yourself having such documentation around to try to "support" you fact-free argument.

So you are a failure and a liar. But you established that several comments ago. Have a nice weekend, kid. Maybe some day you'll learn enough to realize how foolish you made yourself look here.

So now you are insulting me for taking your seriously? You gave a direct numeric answer to a question. You were then embarrassed to realize the colossal statistical failure that you made and you felt the need to fabricate a pile of lies to cover it up. Insulting me isn't helping your cause any.

Change the subject? No, I have been repeatedly pointing out how far from the subject you have strayed. We were talking about spam filters and you keep going back to lying about yourself instead.

Called out on what, exactly? You have provided far more evidence in support of my claims about your lack of education than you have in opposition to them.

And if we were to dare return to the original topic of discussion, we would find there is plenty of evidence on this very site that supports my original argument. It is not my problem if you can't be bothered to read it.

You claim to have it, yet have not shown it. Considering how large UCLA is, the chance of someone graduating in any given year with the first name Brian - particularly in a CSci program - is very very high.

I called your bluff a long time ago. Your own writing - in particular your logical and statistical failures - supports my claim and not yours.

And again, none of this is related to the topic of this thread. That you keep trying to drag this discussion back to being about you speaks volumes about you and your own insecurities - particularly when coupled to the giant mountains of lies you have created in this thread.

Funny, when you first made that statement you were confident of it. Now after I have pointed out - repeatedly - what a complete statistical failure that statement is, you are trying to pretend it was facetious. Even worse, you are trying to pretend that you actually know something about statistics - in spite of having already demonstrated the contrary.

Seriously, just quit lying and walk away. You should have done that days ago. You are only making yourself look more ridiculous as you keep making this thread about yourself instead of the topic it was actually started on. If you don't want to talk about the problems inherent to spam filters, go pester someone else. You have made it abundantly clear that you are not knowledgeable on the matter, you can either now go for an about-face and try to learn something relevant to this discussion, or you can just take your lying self elsewhere.

Your choice, kid.

I understand that appointments to the SCOTUS are for life, but justices have resigned in the past. However, reading Scalia's dissent makes it sound like we are actually forcing him to sit there until he dies: