Slashdot Mirror
Dilbert Readers Rat Out Some Weasels
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."
Um, the ACLU does have an agenda, the protection of individual rights and liberties granted to Americans by the Constitution. These are not conservative nor liberal protection or a political agenda. They are just Constitution rights.
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
France stood up to the Nazis when Poland was invaded.
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 for more info.
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
agreed. Probably the most controversial (controversial insofar as it perpetrates the myth that the ACLU is 'Weasly') point brought up is that the ACLU doesn't protect the free exercise of religion. Luckily, it is also the easiest to disspell.
1) Freedom of Religion Bill supported by the ACLU to protect the exercise of religion by individuals.
2) ACLU helps Falwell in VA 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 of normal corporations, ending that form or religious discrimination.
3) The infamous veiled photo for driver's license case The most pressed argument is of course national security. But as is easily seen if anyone bothers to RTFA, 800,000 ID's have been given without a photo, so why worry about this one with an 'incomplete' photo.
4) The ACLU's efforts to keep government influence out of churches and in the hands of the peoples of the respective faiths
5) Keeping religious discrimination out of Head start
I found this in 30 seconds of searching. This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of cases where individual's religious preferences have been protected by the ACLU. If you were to go to each state's press archives, you'd find dozens of cases where the ACLU has helped to force schools to allow students to pray. The confusion comes in because most people (and apparently alot of people on Slashdot and school administrators) are entirely incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an individual actor. When you've learned 4th grade civics, maybe you can speech more intelligibly about civic issues.
France was right. There was nothing in it for them. I mean aside from *ahem* managing the 40 billion dollars that was stolen from the Iraqi people, and their vastly below market value deals for Iraqi oil that they made with Hussein, known butcher.
s /iz.html):
Yeah, right:
CIA World Factbook about Iraq (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geo
Exports - commodities:
crude oil
Exports - partners:
US 60.6%, France 8.5%, Netherlands 7.4%, Italy 5.8% (2001)
Nice to see that at least the US didn't make any deals with Hussein, known butcher.
Asshat, France and Germany could have stopped the war. Know how? Call the US's bluff. Give in to a hard line for invasive UN inspections backed up by military ultimatum.
There were inspections. And just because they didn't find any evidence doesn't mean they were not invasive enough. I might remind you that a more than 1000 people strong inspection team by the US didn't find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq in the last months. And inspections couldn't possibly become more invasive than they are now.
But meanwhile, of course, it's not about WMDs any more, we could have saved us all the trouble with inspections anyway. Because know the US government found out that the fact that Hussein was an evil dictator was actually reason enough.
49,52 and 53 seems about right.
Sample size means nothing.
on slashdot his approval rating is low, in the democratic party too, but these organisations aren't representative.
remember Gallup?
in his day the poll'ers would ask as much middle-class white people on who they would vote on election day, but the polls were always way off.
Gallup then asked a much smaller amount of people for their preferred candidate, but he tried to let his sample reflect the voters.
So not just middle-class white people, but also poor white people, minorities, women and so on.
And his poll was much more accurate, with a smaller sample size.
now then, modern media like Fox, Washington post and so on use this method.
Dilbert doesn't.
Who do you think more accurately reflects public opinion?
> 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 usually think of soldiers as 'innocents', I would have to say that about a million 'innocent' soldiers died as a result of Saddam's unprovoked war with Iraq. So it looks like he has at least 1.3 million inexcusable deaths on his hands, and as much misery as we've caused with our invasion, I don't think it's even within an order of magnitude of that yet. Likely not even within two orders of magnitude. (Though we should count again after the US pulls out and they're plunged into civil war.)
OTOH, his hands have been fairly tied since the Shiite affair, and though his prison guards were surely kept busy with ill deeds, it would be interesting to know the average montly rate of death and misery he caused over the past ~10 years vs. the average montly rate since the 'end' of the US invasion.
> Now, gas costs as much as it does in the US...
I read somewhere a week or so ago that US taxpayers are subsidizing the sale of gasoline in Iraq to the tune of $1.75 in addition to what the Iraqis themselves are paying. (Chew on that next time you're filling up your tank or looking at how much tax was taken out of your paycheck.)
> Kuait should be next...
Yeah, part of the pathetic humor of the Bush claim that we were going to invade Iraq to establish democracy was that we already had Kuwait packed full of US troops, and didn't have the least inclination to bring those people the blessings of liberty.
> I would accept that Iraq posed a danger due to powerful WMD, only they had none. They also did not have the means to deploy them if they DID have any, and they had no DESIRE to do so.
I suspect that there was a genuine concern that Saddam would eventually obtain WMD that he could deploy against Israel, though of course the Administration could hardly come out and say they were sending US troops to die in order to make the world safe for Israel. But see the rather strange 'logic' in this interview with John McCain, where the interviewer didn't stick to the "right" questions and McCain was left groping for an explanation that justified his position without saying that. (He failed.) [Notice also the prophetic content of the first few paragraphs of that page, before it gets to the interview.]
BTW, I suspect your post has some other substantial factual errors mixed in with the good stuff. No need to overplay the case; to those not blinded by ideology or hypnotized by FAUX News, the whole thing stinks plainly enough on the simple facts.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
(b) Yes. See above.
(c) Yes. But it's not practical from the US' point of view to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to remove some crackpot dictator unless the US feels threatened. So people in the Congo etc. will continue to suffer just because their leader hasn't managed to piss off/scare Bush and the US DoD as much as Saddam did. Just because it's not practical to implement the same solution in all similar cases, does not imply that Saddam didn't deserve what he got, nor that Iraq won't be a better place.
Most people speaking loudly about the war have never been to Iraq, or known or listened to anyone who actually lived through Saddam's regime.
So what's done is done, and if you don't agree with the "official" justification, that's fine. But don't spread mistruths about how the US is making Iraq a worse place than it once was. The number of people dying from violence or poor infrastructure at the moment dwarfs the death toll from Saddam's regime by a factor of thousands. The US could do a better job, but it's not as bad as it was.
Some numbers speak for themselves.
The whole thing about Jared losing all that weight eating Subway is true. I subscribe to Men's Health magazine and every month they have a feature where people write in and tell how they lost weight. Then the editors analyze the program, what's good and bad about it, and tell you how it can work for you.
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 for a year. He didn't exercise much except for walking regularly.
Long story short, he lost a bunch of weight, someone at Subway read the article and their PR department picked up on it and now he's famous. There's a history thingy here
Find me in ~/.sig
Stop reading dilbert, he is a spokesperson for the B.S.A. bsa another site
I am willing to sacrifice things like welfare, social security . . .
It's not exactly sacrifice on your part if you aren't currently using either of those two programs (which I assume you aren't, since you're willing to see them cut).
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.