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."

18 of 1,137 comments (clear)

  1. but France was right by Anonymous Coward · · 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 ?

    1. Re:but France was right by hughk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The reasons I heard were:

      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?

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:but France was right by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Insightful
      id say France was far from being the weasalist country, but making it the USA or UK would be un-patriotic right ?

      Why do you hate America?

      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.

    3. Re:but France was right by BugMaster+ChuckyD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? Its "The Media's" fault for emphasising the WMD issue. Sorry but it was the Bush Administration who emphasised WMDs time and time again. As it turns out they didn't know what they were talking about.

      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.

  2. Contradictory by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Indeed, how can they label Bush as a known weasel, thus indicating his "war on terrorism" is at least in great part a sham, and still bash the french?

    I'm assuming that it's a statement apart from current war-related issues, since the french were often bashed before anyhow.

    1. Re:Contradictory by xutopia · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Namely, they (the French)have strong trade links with Iraq". Who didn't? Certainly not the US! I'll recall that outside of the US we have seen video recordings of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein before sitting down to discuss "business".

      Is this compromising for the US? NO! Why should it be for the French?

    2. Re:Contradictory by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, according to what I could find on Google (on an admittedly non-intensive search), Bush asked for 399 billion for 2004's federal budget. If you are right (and I have no reason to doubt you) and our budget is currently nearing 2.2 trillion dollars, we're still looking at spending almost 1/4 of our budget on new bombs, planes and all sorts of neato stuff (which probably have no chance of helping us during a terrorist attack, which is the sore point - at least to me). And all of this isn't even counting the cost of the war in Iraq.

      I'm not really trying to say anyone is right or wrong, here. If I knew "the answer", I wouldn't be wasting my time posting on Slashdot - I'd be trying to fix it. But the truth is, I don't know and neither does anyone else, for that matter. But it does strike me as odd that we're currently "at war" against "terrorism" (and who knows what that even means anymore? It seems to be changed to fit anything we don't like anymore...) and we're spending next-to-nothing on defending ourselves. Everyone claims that "this isn't like a normal war" - and I agree - but if that's so, why are we trying to fight it as if it were one? I don't think a new and improved bunker buster is going to kill fanatical ideas anymore than I think I have a chance of becoming president someday.

      Source of my Defense Budget Figure: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0203/020303cd2.htm

  3. Re:List looks about right to me. by Sevn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well lets see, if 35,000 internet users isn't significant, then I guess the 921 likely voters with the Zogby International America Poll that gave him a 49 percent approval rating, or the 900 registered voters in the Fox poll that gave him a 52 percent approval rating, or the 1000 people in the ABC News and Washington Post polls that gave him a 53 percent approval rating matter even less? Funny you should pick the Fox numbers. That's very telling. Feel stupid yet?

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  4. Re:Weasliest? by spoco2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or... considering it's a HUMOUR(yes, that's how we spell it in Australia) site... maybe it's just a bit of FUN?

    Geeze, calm down.

  5. Re:fattest nation on earth is USA by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    but OH NO fast food has NOTHING to do with it, right ?
    Nobody's saying that fast food has nothing to do with it.

    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.
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  6. The GOP Vote Was Split by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 3, 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.

  7. Re:France by Manko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup, that anit-French propaganda works a treat there in the States, don't it? Luckily the rest of us in the free world can still form an opinion...

  8. Re: A theory on catching Bin Laden by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, 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.)

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  9. Re:France by Doomdark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Hear, hear. Even if one disagrees with France's assesment of threat, it's weird that values that are so dear to most americans (integrity, standing up to what one believe's, not being pushed by bullies) are suddenly repulsive, when displayed by other nations. :-/

    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:

    • Berlusconi has long been claimed/suspected as being corrupt (although investigated, he hasn't been convicted), even using Italy's political standards.
    • Italy in general was (and is) very vocal against death penalty, and considers US practice barbaric... which used to strain countries' relationship prior to war.
    But I guess those leaders just knew how to play the game, and count on short memory (and lack of interest?) of US politicians, to gain some brownie points. I mean, they didn't really send much any soldiers, or do funding; words are cheap.
    --
    I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  10. Weasel's format by Tomorrowist · · 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.

    --
    Trolling for karma since 2003.
  11. I'm sick of those bashing the French! by xutopia · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Whenever someone bashes the French for being arrogant I wonder who's the real culprit.

    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?

    1. Re:I'm sick of those bashing the French! by misterpies · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Paltry help? France declaring war on England prevented England from throwing all its resources into the war. Without the French navy's victory in the Chesapeake, Cornwallis would have been safe and cosy in Yorktown and would have never surrendered. Given that the population of the 13 colonies were more or less evenly split between revolutionaries and loyalists, for all we know the USA would just be part of southern Canada, with low crime and free healthcare for all. Hmmm, you're right. The Americans really should hate the French.

      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.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  12. Re:Iraq money can't be a loan! by Skye16 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I question the morality of making someone pay for something they didn't expressly ~ask~ for. Everyone says "hey, we shouldn't have to pay for reconstruction" but the truth is, an overwhelming amount of damage was directly caused by our actions. If it isn't our responsibility, whose is it, then?

    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.

    Assuming tends to be a major pain in the ass, doesn't it?