Some of the things people said about him were nuttier than that. This guy called him "a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program." So that is supposed to have some sort of effect on his analysis?

All he did was take polls that already existed--lots of them--and do statistical analysis on them. Just ran the numbers, and didn't speculate. Contrast that with sites like this one, which, although quite pompous, was stuck in its own alternate reality and ended up being quite wrong.

When falcon5768 says, "He's a republican..." he's referring to the AC that started this thread (the AC that made the parent post to CanHasDIY's).

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

I was making the point that it is appropriate to use the word "many" whether it's 100,000 requests, 640,000, or whatever.

I also said, "It may be way way too few, but that's beside the point." You seemed to ignore that entirely in your last sentence. I wasn't arguing what should or should not be the case, but how to use the word "many."

Or maybe you were replying to another post--the sibling post above yours, for example? If that's true, then I apologize.

Most means more than 50%.

You could have 660,000 requests of the 1.3 million not backed by court orders, and that would be just over 50%, so it would be "most."

The rest, 640,000 or so, would still certainly qualify as "many." Even if there were only 100,000 requests backed by court orders, that would still be "many." It may be way way too few, but that's beside the point.

I don't know what the real numbers are in this case, but technically, you are incorrect.

Our foreign invaders? You mean like . . . Osama bin Laden?

Oh, no, wait, Obama had bin Laden killed. The Republicans were incapable of that, or didn't want to.

On Slashdot, saying that pretty much guarantees you'll be modded up to +5, no matter what else you said.

Your "history" stops at the 1960s. You are aware, aren't you, that huge numbers of conservative Democrats moved to the Republican party in the '60s? Look up "Solid South."

So you are basically claiming that a significant part of today's Republican party is racist.

Brilliant.

Because News Corp. already has an extensive background in surveillance.

And a long, successful background in indoctrination, for that matter.

I know it's not politically fashionable to say this around here, but the government should put its boot heel on the throat of any business that has killed eleven employees through negligence and destroyed the livelihoods of many small businesses on the shoreline. And at the time Rand Paul said what he said, many of the facts were already known in any case.

Wasn't he the one who said it was "Un-American" to criticize BP?

It is, however, allowable to (inversely) correlate intelligence with someone's inclination towards setting up straw men.

No no NO! What are you talking about? Slashdot has the best armchair lawyers on earth.

Haven't you figured it out?

Mentioning iAnything causes Nerd Rage.

Nerd Rage brings page views. Lots and lots of them.

Page views bring profit!

Who cares if the summaries are misleading or don't tell the whole story?

Fascist communist/socialist?

You don't have the slightest fucking clue what any of these terms mean, do you? You're just stringing together a bunch of terms that Fox News tells you vaguely to hate.

Since when is Roy Blunt not conservative?

Or do you just make things up to support your political agenda? Not surprising.

According to this article, the full list of senators who introduced the bill is: Enzi (R-WY), Durbin (D-IL), Alexander (R-TN), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Boozman (R-AR), Reed (D-RI), Blunt (R-MO), Whitehouse (D-RI), Corker (R-TN), and Pryor (R-AR). Six Republicans and four Democrats.