Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels 1137
colinmc151 writes "Well, Dilbert's Way of the Weasel Poll Results are in, with 35,874 people voting. Weaseliest Organization was won by the Recording Industry Association of America. Weaseliest Company was won by Microsoft. The Weaseliest Individual award was won by George W. Bush. Weaseliest Profession went to Politicians. Weaseliest Country went to France. Weaseliest Behavior was 'Blaming fast food restaurants for making you fat.' Congratulations to all the deserving winners."
but France was right (Score:5, Insightful)
they knew the war was a fake and they stuck to their stance while UK/USA continue to evade and dodge the truth
id say France was far from being the weasalist country, but making it the USA or UK would be un-patriotic right ?
Contradictory (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm assuming that it's a statement apart from current war-related issues, since the french were often bashed before anyhow.
Re:Contradictory (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Funny)
This is because most Americans think "Blaque Jacques Shellac" [makeashorterlink.com] when they hear the French leader's name. Blaque Jacques doesn't have nearly enough web presence. Bugs Bunny rules!
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Funny)
I tend to agree with _all_ of the results.
Re:Contradictory (Score:2, Flamebait)
Simple:
The war is a good idea, but for human rights -- not any threat Saddam may or may not have been to us. And anything Bush made up or got wrong doesn't change that.
The French, taking an annoyingly self-gratifying position, opposed the whole war just because they opposed Bush. Around these parts, that's called asshat.
Re:Contradictory (Score:2)
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)
Namely, they have strong trade links with Iraq (so does Russia) and the middle east, and knew that the US where going to destroy the country and rebuild it with their own corporations and chosen leaders, thus winning trade.
Australia used to have strong trade links, as well ($800mil/year wheat). I think our leader knew that even if he couldn't continue to trade with Iraq, he hoped to get better agricultural trade
Re:Contradictory (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this compromising for the US? NO! Why should it be for the French?
Iraq has WMD. How do we know? (Score:3, Funny)
Because we kept the receipts.
(Credit goes to the Onion for that one, IIRC. No, I don't actually believe Iraq has WMD these days. We know they tried to make/buy/steal them, but they failed.)
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple fact is, the US is pretty much the leader of the world. No so much that what the US states becomes reality, but rather, most anything the US does creates ripples felt around the world. In some countries, the sphere of influence is lessor while others, it's felt like an earthquake. Nonetheless, the influenece is real.
Top that off that no matter what the US does, we will always be flogged in world opinion in some part of the world. Always! Much of
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)
Fun and silly example to lighten the mood:
(robber running f
Re: Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)
> The war is a good idea, but for human rights -- not any threat Saddam may or may not have been to us.
a) are the Iraqis (in general) actually any better off now than they were under Saddam?
b) will they be better off than they were under Saddam a year after the US occupation ends?
c) does the same justification apply to Libera, the Congo, the USA, etc?
I do pity the Iraqis who suffered under Saddam and his cronies, but I fear we've done them a great harm under a false pretext. After they've suffered
Re:Contradictory (Score:2)
'must be that liberal hypocrisy.
Yeah.
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Funny)
However, the recall was direct. And, that truly is sad.
Re:Contradictory (Score:2)
Re:Contradictory (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq money can't be a loan! (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you think the United States would be if it had been required to repay the help that France provided during the Revolutionary War, before the Articles of Co
Re:Iraq money can't be a loan! (Score:3, Insightful)
I always assumed this was part of the "debate" for war; ie - who pays for it? And I also assumed that, if the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed to go to war, they also agreed to foot the bill for it.
Ass
Re:Iraq money can't be a loan! (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever that's worth.
Re:but France was right (Score:2)
This just in:
The polls are based on.. the public! Therefore, it's non scientific and is only valid as a estimate of what the general populous (that goes to dilbert site) think.
So calm down, boy. It's just opinions.
Re:but France was right (Score:2)
Insinuate all you want about Halliburton, but George Bush isn't the one holding on to his presidency to postpone some corruption trials.
Re:but France was right (Score:2, Insightful)
America is becoming a pariah state, bud. Try to find people who will say they appreciate the US in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Iran, and any of the other countries that the US has invaded or abused local power for its procurement of cheap resources. As America slides into bankruptcy and moves towards becoming a police state, it sets an example for countries on how not to behave.
America: the state that could have been good and decent, but
Re:but France was right (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it sounds to me like he loves America, or what it used to stand for. You know, the days when democracy was still around, and it was understood that free speach, differing opinions and even unpopular speach were essential to democracy.
Now it's all heil to the chief. Heil Bush!!
The villification of France in the leadup to this "war" (armed robbery more like) had to be one of the scariest changes in the modern US. It's like you've thrown everything the founding fathers put together all away in a wash of deliberately misdirected patriotism.
Re:but France was right (Score:3, Insightful)
If we can turn Iraq into a friend (and I hope we do), we suddenly have access to vast oil resources. No, I don't mean we take it. We buy it from Iraq at a fair price. They need the money. If we get Iraqi oil, we can tell Saudi Arabia to go fuck themselves. Now there's a country I'd like to see us invade. The Saudi Royal Family is the #1 supporter of terr
Re: but France was right (Score:3, Insightful)
> We don't actually need Iraq's oil. Supplies from other sources are moving along just fine. However, I will not completely discount oil as a reason.
The war wasn't fought so US citizens could have the Iraqi oil.
It was fought so US companies could have the Iraqi oil distribution contracts.
The oil barons running the Bush Administration don't have the slighest interest in the well-being of US citizens. US taxpayers, and the blood of US National Guardsmen and of Iraqi soldiers and citizens, are subsidi
Re:but France was right (Score:4, Insightful)
Saddam supported Osama bin Laden
Total nonsense. Before GW2, Saddam and Osmama hated each other about as much as the americans. Maybe there is cooperation now, but definitely not before the war (they were from rival Islamic sects).
WMD
What about the weapons of mass destruction?
Oh, after that they started saying that he wasn't a nice chap (true), but that didn't stop Rummy from doing business with him in the past. Can you blame people for remind Bush and Blair about the reasons they quoted for going to war?
Re: but France was right (Score:5, Interesting)
> The US went to war for many reasons. Go back and read some of the very early speaches on Iraq. What happened was the media picked up on WMD because it was a buzz word and a new one that hadn't grown stale yet. So the result of all this was whenever the president or someone spoke of the othe reasons, the press did the media equivilent of "Yes yes, but what about the WMDs?"
Those early speeches are what convinced some of us that the war was an evil venture in the first place. The Bush Administration never made a case for the war. They went to the US Congress and tried to shame them into supporting it by saying that the UN would if they didn't. Then they went to the UN and tried to shame them into it by saying the US would if they didn't. They went to the UN to "make the case" and got laughed at. Basically all they ever did was say whatever they thought would push the best buttons in the current context. And whenever anyone actually called them out on it and said, "you didn't make the case", they would reply "we'll make the case when the time is right".
And though much has been made of the fact that all the alarmism has turned out to be false, it was abundantly clear that the alarmism wasn't well supported even before the shooting started. If you got your news anywhere other than FAUX, you heard over an over again "The Bush Administration said today 'xyz'", followed by "our contacts in the intelligence community say that the evidence for 'xyz' is not reliable".
And just a couple of weeks ago, even after the White House had formally acknowledged that there were no terrorist connections with the Hussein regime, Mr. Bush still couldn't resist trying to push that button in his speech to the UN.
> What happened was the media picked up on WMD because it was a buzz word and a new one that hadn't grown stale yet. So the result of all this was whenever the president or someone spoke of the othe reasons, the press did the media equivilent of "Yes yes, but what about the WMDs?"
That is historical revisionism, pure and simple. While the Bush Administration was all over the map trying to find buttons to push, WMD and (the also non-existent) ties to al-Q were the boogeymen that they invoked most often to marshal public support in the USA. We were terrified with WMD before, during, and after the war. Hardly a day went by without the 'discovery' of a lab, factory, or cache, that had to be retracted a week later. The Administration made a big issue of the capture of a stash of chemical warfare suits... and then the news would cut to a scene of US soldiers training on the use of similar suits. The spin control was absolutely sickening.
And they haven't given it up yet; they tried like hell to spin the recent inspection report as a 'win' for the anti-WMD motivation - never mind the fact that the report was mostly empty spin to begin with.
Re:but France was right (Score:5, Insightful)
Now its true that "The Media" just took what ever Bush said at face value and never questioned any of his claims, but this tired old media bashing just won't protect Bush from responisbility for this gargantuan fuck up.
Re:but France was right (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no and no. Bush specifically emphasised WMDs because:
ACLU is Weasly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ACLU is Weasly? (Score:2)
Re:ACLU is Weasly? (Score:5, Funny)
See, kiddies, this is how you troll. Keen. Subtle. I'm especially fond of the way that the AC doesn't explicitly call Fox News unbiased, unclouded - but he implies the hell out of it. He shows you the troll, but doesn't let you touch it. Kinda like MJ in his prime.
To frost this cake, he throws in a couple of mild insults in. Not weak enough to ignore, but he's not abusing the 7 famous wordy-dirds. It bypasses your builtin four-letter discrimination routines and actually feels like he might mean it! You can't ignore it! He means it! Meanwhile, you're so browned off you slide right past the logical flaws and attack the red cape. Ole!
He waves the red cape some more; you lumber around chasing it, eventually tire, and it's over. YHBT.
I salute you, AC. We need more with your skills.
The GOP Vote Was Split (Score:4, Insightful)
Another respondant noted that if you add Fox News and the Republicans together, you'd end up in the #3 spot. However, if you add the votes for the Republican-controlled White House and Congress together with the votes for the GOP, you get an astounding 11190 votes, fully 3240 more votes than the RIAA.
NAMBLA (Score:3, Interesting)
ACLU has unfortunately become a whole den of weasels.
-- Len
ACLU supports Exercise of Religion (Score:3, Informative)
1) Freedom of Religion Bill [aclu.org] supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA [aclu.org] I'm sure you'll never hear about that on FOX news or Christian press. The ACLU helped the Rev. establish a church with all the rights
Re:ACLU is Weasly? (Score:4, Informative)
The ACLU does not care if you are gay, black, white, poor, rich, or a member of the KKK (remember Skokie, IL?). All Americans are equally protected by the Constitution
Re:What about Second Amendment rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
Headline from the Zoo: (Score:5, Funny)
One outraged animal was quoted as saying "enough's enough, man! We've been portrayed negatively throughout history but this is pretty low."
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re:Headline from the Zoo: (Score:2)
That's unfair to the rats.
I thought it was common knowledge that it's the squirrels [deadsquirrel.com] that we have to worry about...
At last... (Score:2, Funny)
List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
Bush's job approval rating is currently 52% [pollingreport.com].
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
Maybe. I'm neutral.
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
35,000 Internet users isn't exactly public opinion. That's 4 orders of magnitude less than the population of the US.
Which I promptly laid waste to. That doesn't change the fact that I'm still actually shocked that Dubya won his category for this silly poll. I didn't actually think people would vote him "weasily" with so many other better choices in my opinion.
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
That was the point made. That was the point I shot down fairly easily. I said nothing about accuracy. Read much?
Re:List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
Freerepublic.Com (Score:2)
It was 'attacked by both/all sides of the issue.
come on, ./ editors. pay attention (Score:2)
Ummmm.....depends on which "public" you're talking about. I think it's probably reasonable to say that readers of Dilbert are a self-selecting sample of the general population.
Congratulations to all the deserving winners.
My question is this: How on earth did that summary get past moderation? If Dilbert readers want to vote Dubya a weasel, that's fine; no way should a summary include this comment.
** Sla
Re:come on, ./ editors. pay attention (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pro-invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. They're better off under military occupation than with the dictators they had. That doesn't mean I have to think Dubya did it for the right reasons. I think they should shoot Osama, but I think Ashcroft is a dangerous McCarthy wanna-be...
You don't have to claim either of them ar
Re:come on, ./ editors. pay attention (Score:3, Informative)
> Now, Iraq: Americans have killed more innocents than Hussein is said to have.
That's almost certainly not true. I haven't heard what you're saying about the Kurds, but even if you are correct I still understand that something over 300,000 thousand Shiites were killed after the Gulf War (though that's hardly the kind of thing the USA should be eager to call attention to, seeing as it was us who stirred them up to rebellion and then sat back to watch them get slaughtered). Also, though people don't us
Re: List looks about right to me. (Score:2)
> I find it interesting that Dubya won his category. I had no idea public opinion of him was so low.
I think PO is actually split approximately evenly (+/-).
Presumably Dilbert readers aren't a cross-section of US political demographics.
Re: A theory on catching Bin Laden (Score:4, Insightful)
> As for Bin Laden, I'm sure that with the billions of taxpayer dollars we give the Military Industrial Complex each year, we are only days from finding a man in a cave, and another one on the run in Iraq.
Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect he's not being caught so that the Bush Administration will have a boogeyman to scare domestic audiences with.
Saddam's probably vacationing in the Bahamas while the US military pretends to look for him.
(Sigh.... Before Bush got appointed I used to laugh at conspiracy theorists.)
What about Rush? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about Rush? (Score:2)
That's a very good point. I must agree.
Plus, Rush is a much more upstanding man than either Clintons.
You had me, but then, right here -- you lost me. Rush doesn't stand a chance against a simple lying cheater.
I can't say I am surprised.... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:I can't say I am surprised.... (Score:2)
And how exactly is that a problem for you?
I mean, If you advocate that countries should have a 40 hours + work week, then do so inside you country. The french can take care of themselfes (mostly ;-)) and if they think that a 35-hour work week is a good thing overall for the country, then let them go for it, and we'll see how long they can keep their economy afloat.
You know; in other countries people tend to choose what's
Re:I can't say I am surprised.... (Score:2)
Re:I can't say I am surprised.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I guess in the US no one can afford health care, so the health problems probably dont' affect your economy at all. At any rate, I'd sooner live free in france then as a slave to the US government and corporations. Hell, if I had a choice, I'd even learn french!
Missing Option (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh well, there's always next year. And at the rate the various cases are dragging out, the year after that, and the year after that,
Re:Missing Option (Score:2)
Besides it being terribly insulting to the weasels to have them in such a poll, SCO and it's CEO would (IMHO) be better classified as asses - as in "having the same countenance as the un-washed behind of a warthog".
HTH. HAND.
Soko
Did you really expect it to win? (Score:3, Interesting)
Everybody's heard of Microsoft, Dubya, France, and politicians. The tactics of the RIAA have been making mainstream press.
SCO and Darl McBride are hardly household words in any country, and certainly not in America.
Definition of a weasel (Score:2)
Re:Definition of a weasel (Score:2)
I find it odd (Score:2)
They dont't call Microsoft winner for nothing (Score:2)
Weasliest? Is that a word? (Score:2)
i.e.
Re-Robsutification
Decisioned
Weasliest behavior? Why, it's the AC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing says "weasel" more than being AC. Unless your name is "Bob Smith" and your slashdot user id is "BobSmith", AC really has no benefit.
I especially love getting a passionate response on some topic from an AC. "I feel so strongly about this topic that I'm not even going to tell you my fake name I use on slashdot."
Yes, for true weaseliness you can't beat AC.
Re:Weasliest behavior? Why, it's the AC! (Score:3, Funny)
Weasel's format (Score:3, Insightful)
What struck me is how the options could help determine the winner. Take the top selections for weaseliest individual, for example. GW Bush won handily over Moore, Arafat, and Chirac.
One could make three separate comparisons. 55% of the people may find Bush more of a weasel than Moore. 47% may find Bush more of a weasel than Arafat. 50% may find Bush more of a weasel than Chirac. In general, it would be the same people calling President Bush the bigger weasel in each of those comparisons; to over generalize, we can call such people liberals. Similarly, people-we-could-overgeneralize-and-call-conservati ves would always tend to defend President Bush.
Because there is only one big name 'conservative' (Bush) drawing all the 'liberal' votes and three big name 'liberals' (Moore, Arafat, and Chirac) drawing the 'conservative' votes, the outcome is preordained: President Bush is called the biggest weasel. Or, the bigger lesson could be that 'liberals' are more focused in their accusations of weaselality.
Granted, I've made some generalizations here. And this is a fun poll, not a national election. But my point remains. I can't get the expression 'lies, damned lies, and statistics' out of my head.
Wow! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sick of those bashing the French! (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess most Americans only ever saw the video of Jacques Chirac shaking hands with Saddam Hussein and never the one of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Iraqi leader.
The French like the Americans have been in bed with Saddam Hussein at some point in time. If the French are weasels because of that, what does that make Americans? Iraq is an important country geopolitically and if any country didn't at one point have ties with it they'd be stupid not to!
The French don't owe the US for freeing them from Nazis just like the US doesn't owe the French for their helping hand during the civil war.
I don't understand why Americans enjoy bashing the French so much! Do you feel threathened by something they have and you don't? 5 weeks of paid vacation perhaps?
Re:I'm sick of those bashing the French! (Score:5, Insightful)
But the real answer to any arguments about the French (or other Europeans) "owing" the US for WWII is this: the war finished almost 60 years ago. Yes, as a European I am grateful to your grandfathers and great-grandfathers for their help. But this is not a debt that is passed down the generations. If YOU want my gratitude, then YOU do something to deserve it.
Another Demo of Pop Media Mind Control (Score:3, Interesting)
Dilbert is a BSA spokesperson (Score:5, Informative)
We are? (Score:2)
Re:Knock off the Bush bashing. (Score:2)
Re:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM (Score:2)
Re:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM (Score:2)
I thought that was just a myth.
Re:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM (Score:4, Funny)
No, wait, do both!
Re:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM (Score:2)
Re:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM (Score:3, Funny)
On the other hand, you could extract revenge. Go out to the 24-hour drugstore right now and buy a big tube of Kwell [yahoo.com]. Open it and leave it on the bathroom counter. For the next few weeks, scratch yourself constantly whenever either one of them is around. For bonus points, scream every time you pee. Exp
Re:Weasliest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geeze, calm down.
Re:Weasliest? (Score:3, Funny)
So can masturbation, which I'm sure many in this crowd are familiar with!
Re:fattest nation on earth is USA (Score:5, Insightful)
If I get a Bacon Double Whopper with king-sized fries for lunch every day, I KNOW I'm going to get fat. It's not Burger King's fault, for god's sake. If I go to the bar and order 5 shots of tequila, I KNOW I'm going to get drunk. When I miss work the following day from being hung over, should the bar be held liable?
Fast food isn't healthy. I knew this when I was, like, 10 years old. How is it that some guy in his 30's just wakes up one day after a lifetime of Big Macs and decides "gee, it must be that evil McDonalds conspiracy to make me gain weight..." Fast food restaurants are in business to do one thing, and that's sell food. If you come inside with money, they're going to give you some food in return. How is this wrong?
I guess I must have missed the fraudulent ad campaigns that White Castle put out about "eat our burgers 3 times a day and you'll look like Kate Moss." [Subway and Jared are getting borderline here, but it's supposedly a true story, and I imagine they'd have been whacked by the FTC if it weren't. I also imagine that Jared did a shitload of exercising that they neglect to mention in their commercials. Whatever; the guy didn't sue Subway.]
People need to take some fucking responsibility for their own actions and their own meals.
500 Internal Server Error.
Jared's story is true (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, a few years ago, Jared wrote something in a college newspaper and it got sent in to MH to tell his story. He said he liked the low fat sandwiches and so he ate them for lunch and dinner every day fo
Re:Habit is not addiction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:fattest nation on earth is USA (Score:2)
I don't doubt that fast food is the proximate cause of obesity. Yes - eating Whoppers will make you fat. But nobody says you have to.
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? If you're overweight, go to the damn grocery store, buy some rice and some vegetables. Some fish and lean chicken. Bake the fish. Bake the chicken. Steam the vegetables and boil the rice. When you're starting to get full, stop eating. How hard is that?
It's not as convenient as fast food, true. But if that's your excu
Re:blaming fast food ? (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:France (Score:2)
France stood up to the UN for many years and continued illegal sales to Iraq, and opposed Gulf 2 lest those sales be exposed.
Re:France (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow it was always implied that there must be some other filthy reason for them not to be gung-ho about letting the super power go vigilante, than their general aversion to war.
And on the other hand, few european leaders that openly supported US attack, such as Silvio Berlusconi, were portrayed as pretty much saints... ironic, considering that:
Re:France (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:France (Score:5, Informative)
The precise time table is:
Sep 1, 1939: Poland invasion
Sep 3, 1939: France declares war to protect its ally
Sep 5, 1939: US proclaim neutrality in the conflict
It's not until the US were attacked themselves that they came to the rescue. Who was the weasel?
See this page [earthlink.net] for more info.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
You've got the slime all over you so I'm guessing you'll go far in your intended career.