Gore would have had the same information Bush, Senator Clinton and 99.9% of the house did - and voted to do it.
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.
Could you imaging if that dumbass won?
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?
No special skills, knowledge or anything else remarkable
Wait, which 2000 POTUS candidate are you talking about now?
Microcenter is currently offering 13 Thinkpad models at its retail outlets.
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.
But seriously what are the odds that I am friends with that hypothetical person, and they let me use their transcript for this completely ridiculous purpose?
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.
And this conversation is now over.
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.
I don't have to pretend what I said was facetious in retrospect. It should be pretty apparent to anyone who is not retarded.
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.
More importantly you seem to be trying desperately to change the subject away
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.
You made some statements thinking they were pretty safe, but now you've been called out, and you want to just pretend you weren't.
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.
Despite producing a transcript, showing my major and degree, from the correct university, in the correct year month and year (June 2004), and with the same name as first name as my screen name, your position is that it must be fake, and you are so sure it's fake you don't even want to see 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.
But this is exactly what I am saying. You took one comment I made (facetiously) , and extrapolated it out to mean that it is impossible I could have graduated from a particular school with a particular degree.
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.
If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity," I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.
You have a real knack for grasping onto some small detail, making a non-sensical deduction from it, and then sticking to it regardless of any subsequent evidence.
This is not a small detail. There is nothing minor about false positive rates in statistics. You didn't make a minor error in it either, you completely and utterly screwed up in a way that anyone with even the most basic knowledge of statistics would be embarrassed by. People who drop out of statistics after two weeks of instruction would know more about statistics than you have demonstrated.
You have no useful knowledge of statistics. If you did, you would not have made such a massive error. If by some fluke you made it but did know even a little about statistics, you would have long ago said something along the lines of "oops, I completely miscalculated FP because XYZ". Instead you tried to lie your way out of it. Eventually you were piling lies on top of lies in the hope of making your situation better.
you no doubt inappropriately infer to be a formal statistical claim
I asked you what your FP rate was. You gave me a number and said "FP is
You also demonstrated repeated failures in logic. Pretending that you could somehow complete a CSci degree without understanding statistics or logic is laughable.
Seriously, kid. Just quit lying, and walk away. You admitted defeat when you resorted to lying heavily and abandoned the topic of discussion completely. I don't want to talk about you, but you made the discussion about yourself entirely. Do you remember we were talking about spam and why spam filters won't ever solve the spam problem?
Though if they can make a new X300 and put it in ultrabook pricing, I would rush to their website to make it mine.
A system of government that makes the people to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy
Being as he was one of the unelected lawyers who selected our president in 2000, he apparently has no sense of irony.
If the democrats had any better ideas, they SHOULD have put those into the bill and passed it.
I agree with you on that one. I have championed single payer for decades and was sorely disappointed with this giant corporate handout sold to us as "health care reform".
IF you think they bent to republican pressure and passed something they didn't like, then take it up with the democrats for not doing what they should have.
The democrats were indeed weak on this. They couldn't gather up the courage to write up something that actually resembled any kind of reform, let alone a liberal attempt at reform. They were told by republicans than they would get support from their side if it retained certain features from Romney's signature bill in MA; so they did that. Then the republicans realized that this bill was going to become Obama's signature accomplishment and did everything they could to undermine it.
No republicans where involved in writing it, they where not allowed to offer amendments to it or even debate it before it was passed on 100% partisan votes.
Except of course for the republicans who wrote the bill it was based on, or the republicans who said they would vote on it if it contained the same actions as that bill. Excluding also the republicans who wrote the Heritage Foundation piece saying that they wanted an individual mandate as well.
Also important to my previous comment is the contents of every single proposed "Obamacare alternative" that has been shown by an elected official. Every single one of those "alternative" proposals has taken the vast majority of its content directly from this bill. Some of them hardly do anything but change the name.
So you are saying I logged into UCLA's system and got some else's transcript?
No, I would not accuse you of being that clever.
A transcript that shows someone else who graduated from UCLA with a BS in computer science on June 18, 2014?
You certainly have not presented a convincing case for you being a CSci graduate from UCLA.
Not only that, but access to a ucla.edu email account?
Considering how much you were willing to openly lie earlier in this discussion, I don't see any reason to see that statement as credible either.
Even if the transcript you claim to have does exist, there would be no way to verify it to be from you - aside from the fact that if it has passing statistics grades it most certainly is not yours. It could very likely be from someone else you know who actually holds such a degree. Even angry liars such as yourself manage to make friends at some points in their life.