User talk:Let Them Eat Cake

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Let Them Eat Cake!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

Тиранесvote harpsichord, insult flan? 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] BNP edits

You're gonna have to provide some cites for those edits please buddy. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DeltaStar. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I accidentally clicked rollback on one of your corrections. Please accept my apologies. Burkean (talk) 06:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

[edit] User Page

please make one, I dislike red-links floating around RC. ТyTalk. 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

As you wish. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Center-right by UK standards(I'm guessing you are form there given your edits) = left wing by US standards. CP is far right even by US standards. ТyTalk. 16:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm British. Still surprised I was blocked on Conservapedia though. I oppose Obama and abortion and support capital punishment and guns. I even like America! --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you are British is likely a reason. No non-US citizen lasted really long, except PJR and in the end even he couldn't take them anymore. ТyTalk. 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Britain = atheist + socialist = LIBERAL = blocked. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 00:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Something like that. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Authoritarianism

We try not to be. You seem like a decent fellow. Also, not everyone here is a Communist/Socialist. Just the majority. And on the social scale, I'd say most of the site is socially liberal.ТyTalk. 16:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Well the traditional sense of the term liberal emphasises individual rights and freedom of speech so by that definition I myself am more Liberal than Conservative. The modern sense of the word Liberalism is borderline Maoism. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I am more of a fiscal moderate and social liberal. ТyTalk. 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Authoritarianism

You are a sysop now. Play nicely. ТyTalk. 16:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wingnuttery vs. Moonbattery

"right-wing" insanity is called wingnuttery, "left-wing" insanity is moonbattery. ТyTalk. 14:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Still new to these American terms. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] "Without his leadership and unfailing optimism, the Nazis would have taken over Europe"

Actually, you're wrong. Without Stalin pouring 25 million dead Russian and other Soviet bodies into it, the Nazis would have taken over Europe. The Soviets won the war. The English and the Americans helped. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 02:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't belittle Churchill's contribution or his personality. That's all I ask. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
25 million? [citation needed] That's one tenth of the population of the entire Soviet Union at its peak. - LucidFox (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The chord is correct on this point, actually; most of the heavy fighting in the European Theater was on the Eastern Front. Hitler did not want to attack the West in the first place (his Lebensraum plans were focused to the east), hence the so-called "Phoney War." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I do agree that it was the Soviet Union that broke the back of the Nazi war machine. I just think the losses figure is exaggerated. - LucidFox (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia says that Stalin reported seven million, Khrushchev acknowledged 20, and then when glasnost came in, new studies were conducted, raising the figure to 26 million. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The Soviets also played an active role in creating some of those those figures without 'enemy' help. Just sayin'. --193.1.172.188 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh of course, forget that racist tyrant Churchill, it's the heroic Stalin we should be praising! In fact, I think he's elligible for sainthood. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You realize Churchill was allied with him? --193.65.150.15 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Giving credit where credit is not due is hubris. Churchill was a hero in that he rallied the U.K. for their proverbial "finest hour," but in terms of defeating Hitler, the Soviets had to do the grunt-work. That Stalin was a record stinker fulfilling his own imperial aims is a secondary consideration, unfortunately. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
The chorded one said something on his page, that keeps bothering me with Cake, the way the Red Necks in the States say soldiers and the army are always right -- and it's this: Why are we "praising" anyone who is a war "hero". war is not glorious or praise worthy - and for what it's worth, many have suggested that WWI could have been avoided, had lordly egos not been involved which *might* have prevented WWII. Cake, I'll criticize anyone, and challenge their "contribution" to a war that was so mismanaged on all sides because leaders were unwilling to watch the mutilation and change tactics. Your idea that saying "Stalin (or the russian by donating 25 million bullet bags) was responsible for the win" somehow praises him, or disses Churchill shows that you are vested into this is a way that isn't very "rational". Which is what it is. but at least on the pages, RW should (and will?) be critical of any leader, even my own (sad to admit how much i like this guy, as im disking what he does) Obama who to me can do no wrong. If you don't like that he (Churchill) being criticized, I'd suggest staying off that particular page and read something less bothersome. (And for what it's worth, i have no idea who did what, cause i have activly chosen not to study wars. I just find your "don't touch that" attitude to be very inconsistent with our goals, and very troll like, since even being a jackass is not really a reason to Concern Troll them.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
People who get all offended at the concept of war heroism always remind me of a person sitting on a tree-branch as he works furiously sawing it off. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I could concede that falling on a live grenade to save your buddies is selfless and could be called "heroic," but, given that wars have killed more civilians than soldiers since 1939, and given that the trope of the "war hero" is really, really important in just about every single nationalist narrative going, I find it hard to get behind the valorization of mass slaughter for any cause. I'm not a pacifist--I understand that Hitler needed to be stopped, though I see that case as exceptional, given the number of meaningless and unnecessary wars that have been fought since then--but I see nothing "heroic" about that, or the conflicts that came before or after. It was simply horrible all around. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 17:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
And here we see an excellent example of what I mean. Before the pinkos got too politically-correct to touch any of those icky tropes used in "nationalist narratives" (the doom of many an evil empire) they had this naïve idea that the "class war" was something to fight in, rather than bawl about. They had their heroes and martyrs and martial trappings and a catchy slogan, "No War but the Class War!" They also had people taking them seriously. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Insert politically incorrect jokes here

  • How many women does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Two, one of them runs around screaming "What do we do?", the other shags the electrician.
  • Meet Sambo. He has no arms or legs yet every day he has to cycle all the way to school. For just two pounds a month, you can watch the video.
  • How do you sink a submarine full of blondes? Knock on the hatch.
  • Why did Hitler commit suicide? Because he saw the gas bill.
  • As the bearded, robed man stood clutching his wand in front of him, Harry began to regret transferring to Catholic school.
  • Do socialists donate their organs to the NHS after they die? If so, someone should take a look at the brain. I'd wager there's some deformity there that would be scientifically significant.
  • Someone should show Jihadists a picture of Susan Boyle. It would put them right off the virgins in the afterlife.
  • A woman got home from work early, walked upstairs to get changed and found her husband in bed with another woman. "WHAT ARE YOU DOING?" she cried, prompting her husband turn to the other woman and say "Didn't I tell you she wasn't very bright?"
  • A judge refused to allow a gay couple to adopt on the grounds that the kids would have a hard time in society. When asked if he was homophobic he answered "No, I have tons of gay friends. I even let them use my bathroom."
  • A man asked his girlfriend "What would you do without me?" to which she responded "I'd buy a dildo."
  • What do you call an honest Arab? Aseef.
  • Have you heard about the Englishman with an inferiority complex? He thought he was the same as everyone else.
  • Do Chinese people throw a set of cutlery down the stairs then name their children after the noises?

--Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Twenty One Economic Models Explained Using Cows

SOCIALISM: You have 2 cows The state takes both and gives you some milk. COMMUNISM: You have 2 cows The State forces you to milk them before giving the milk to everyone else. FASCISM: You have 2 cows The State takes both and sells you some milk. NAZISM: You have 2 cows The State takes both and shoots you. BUREAUCRATISM: You have 2 cows The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away… TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows so that everyone can afford a cow. You sell them and retire on the income. SURREALISM: You have two giraffes The government requires you to take harmonica lessons. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow has dropped dead. ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM: You have two cows You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public then buys your bull. A FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows. A JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called ‘Cowkimon’ and market it worldwide. A GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are You decide to have lunch. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. A SWISS CORPORATION: You have 5000 cows None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them. A CHINESE CORPORATION: You have two cows You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation. AN INDIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows You worship them. A BRITISH CORPORATION: You have two cows Both are mad. AN IRAQI CORPORATION: Everyone thinks you have lots of cows You tell them that you have not one. No-one believes you, so they bomb the shit out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy… AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows Business seems pretty good. You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate. A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION: You have two cows The one on the left looks very attractive… ISLAM: You have two cows You shag one of them and give the meat to your neighbour. AN IRISH CORPORATION: You have two cows Both are drunk. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit] "Center-right"

Are you actually center right or are you just saying that? My father is a center-right Eisenhower republican but you seem to be WAAAAY to his right. Here take this quiz. It has it's flaws but it's the most reliable one I've come across so far. I was just curious if you're actually center-right, that's all. ClothCoat (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Clothcoat

Well I'm not Conservative by any stretch of the imagination and I'm only liberal in the John Locke sense of the word rather than the modern Maoist sense. I used to call myself a libertarian but I think a better label for me would be Randian Objectivist. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok then, that's fine but that would put you beyond a center-right label. Radically libertarian-right would probably be a better label. You should take that test I linked to.ClothCoat (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Clothcoat

Libertarian right was my result. Pretty good website but it was wrong of them to put Thatcher near Stalin and Hitler in terms of authoritarianism. She was much closer to anarchism given her celebration of radical individualism and less reliance on state handouts. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the camps for AIDS victims? Or the repression of Homosexuality? Or the Poll Tax? A Real Libertarian (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. The free market would've done those things anyway, and at a profit. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
"Liberal in the modern Maoist sense." I lolled. TeenageWasteland (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, would you prefer Stalinist, Leninist, Trotskyist, Castroist, Chavezist or Potist? Or maybe all of the above? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She didn't repress homosexuality, she just initially disapproved of it and later recanted on that. I've never heard anything about camps for AIDS victims and the Poll Tax might not have been a good idea, but hey, nobody's perfect. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem.

I'm from the Deep South. If you want to be exact, Hunstville,Alabama. You're too far right for my tastes.--The Madman (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)The Madman

How many times have you been beaten up in your local saloon? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] "Oh come on, it's even in the name!"

I've identified a flaw in your argument, the flaw is that you've based your entire position on the premise that Hitler isn't lying. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Would Honest Abradolf really tell a lie? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well he wasn't a Marxist, I'll give you that as he was against the right to bear arms and was a nationalist which Marx was not but he still practiced socialism, albeit his own personalised brand as he nationalised social security, saying that this was the cornerstone of any totalitarian government which was what he wanted. Allegedly he became disillusioned with socialism in his dotage but the Nazi party was definitely founded on socialist ideas. Hitler claimed to hate Marx and used the Communists as a scapegoat but that was probably only to gain a secure powerbase as a lot of people were quite rightly afraid of Marxist Communism at the time having seen Russia go down the civilisational tubes but most Communists in Germany at the time voted for Hitler because they knew he'd drive out the Capitalists. Enemy of my enemy! In any case, Hitler's hatred of Marx, if indeed he did hate him, was probably because Marx was a Jew, albeit a self-hating one, not unlike Hitler himself ironically. I wonder if Adolf knew old Marx was German. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I say dotage, he was only about forty six when he died. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't know about the Communist Party of Germany and thinks Hitler died in 1935. Obviously we're going to believe you when you claim Hitler was a liberal. --A Real Libertarian (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Fifty six I mean. Never been very good with Mathematics. Yeah and the Communist Party of Germany stood a much greater chance of getting into power than the Nazis didn't they! Oh and I never said Hitler was a liberal, a liberal in the classical sense of the term means someone who believes in individual rights and less government regulation, the term has merely been hijacked by Socialists, Communists and Marxists along with other forms of Fascist. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

[edit] What the fuck was that?

I re-added "left wing activists" to the Jesus article, and you undid my re-adding because Jesus had leftist tendencies? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were removing it, my mistake. Calm your tits! --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support