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."

Comments

but France was right

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ?

Re: but France was right

[Black Parrot]

> 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

[BugMaster ChuckyD]

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.

Headline from the Zoo:

[Eberlin]

Weasels in local zoos began protesting after slanderous survey compared them to the likes of Microsoft, GW-Bush, and the RIAA.

One outraged animal was quoted as saying "enough's enough, man! We've been portrayed negatively throughout history but this is pretty low."

Contradictory

[phorm]

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.

Re:List looks about right to me.

[Sevn]

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?

Re:Weasliest?

[spoco2]

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.

Missing Option

[DaveAtFraud]

I e-mailed Scott with a late nomination of SCO as the weaseliest company and Darl McBride as thw weaseliest induhvidual but apparently nominations were closed for this year.

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:BITCHES.. ALL OF THEM

[akedia]

Well you can either get a handgun and murder them mid-coitus or you can take pictures and post them here.

No, wait, do both!

Re:fattest nation on earth is USA

[Motherfucking Shit]

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.

Re:ACLU is Weasly?

[craw]

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

Re:Wow

[DoraLives]

Holy cow! You're not even there yet and you're already laying a weasly defensive strategy.

You've got the slime all over you so I'm guessing you'll go far in your intended career.

Re:ACLU is Weasly?

[rco3]

For a while, I've really been concerned about the falling quality of trolls here on Slashdot. Then along comes [parent], and restores my faith in trolldom.

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.

Re:France

[Doomdark]

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.

Re:France

[descubes]

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.

Re:I'm sick of those bashing the French!

[misterpies]

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.

Dilbert is a BSA spokesperson

[qwertyatwork]

Stop reading dilbert, he is a spokesperson for the B.S.A. bsa another site