User talk:Let Them Eat Cake/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 July 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Let Them Eat Cake! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Тиранес^{exterminate pie, feel Nintendo 64?} 16:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BNP edits

You're gonna have to provide some cites for those edits please buddy. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 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)

User Page

please make one, I dislike red-links floating around RC. Тy^Talk. 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. Тy^Talk. 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. Тy^Talk. 00:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Britain = atheist + socialist = LIBERAL = blocked. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Something like that. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if relevant.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's really interesting. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

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.Тy^Talk. 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. Тy^Talk. 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Authoritarianism

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

Wingnuttery vs. Moonbattery

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

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

"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." ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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.En 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 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. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 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)

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)

"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)

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)

FDR and Prohibition?

What? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'M REALLY FUCKING GOOD AT HISTORY! EVERYBODY! MAKES! MISTAKES! I played FDR in a play where he introduced Prohibition and ever since I've thought that it was he who did it. It's not my fault if the script writers were fucking retards. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Orwell wasn't centrist

Just sayin'. FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 20:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

He was compared to Obama and Ayn Rand. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Orwell was pinko commie. Obama is centrist. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Orwell was a socialist in the loosest sense of the word, hence the hatred Communists have for his work. Obama is Stalin-lite but realise he might be a bit right-wing for you as he has yet to bring back the Guillotine for people who earn over 50k a year. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? "Obama is Stalin-lite but realise he might be a bit right-wing for you as he has yet to bring back the Guillotine for people who earn over 50k a year." Not only do you strawman me but you misrepresent Obama. Point to one fucking policy where Obama was Stalinesque, or even more liberal than Orwell.

Relatedly:

• Orwell: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects."
• Obama: "My policies are so "mainstream" I'd be a "Moderate Republican" in 1980s." FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I'll retire that term, "Strawman". Like Ad hominem or Godwin's Law, it's a term pulled by people to shut down arguments when you call them on their bullshit.

Orwell: Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects.

Sounds decidedly anti-Communist to me.

Obama: My policies are so "mainstream" I'd be a "Moderate Republican" in 1980s.

You seem to be basing their assumption on the premise that Obama isn't lying! This was the guy who opposed gay marriage whilst running for office but suddenly made out that he was the biggest gay advocate on the planet when it was politically expedient to do so, who said that he would have the most transparent administration in history before bombing Benghazi, a foreign city that posed no threat to Western interests anymore, with Gaddafi gone and refused to disclose a reason for his doing so even though it was blatantly obvious that he was doing it to steal their oil to compensate for his policies driving America deeper into debt. He tried to take away Americans Second Amendment rights (even Marx would think that that was going too far) and threw a wild tantrum when Congress blessedly stopped him, has enabled the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, has heavily militarized the police force, has bugged the entire nation with the NSA while Nixon only had to bug one hotel to get impeached and has hung Israel out to dry against the Palestinian savages that seek its immolation. Militarisation of the police, disarming of citizens, suppression of political dissidence, redistribution of wealth, support for oppressive regimes, what is all this if not Stalinism? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

You: "I think I'll retire that term, "Strawman". Like Ad hominem or Godwin's Law, it's a term pulled by people to shut down arguments when you call them on their bullshit."

Yet you strawmanned me. You wrote "he might be a bit right-wing for you as he has yet to bring back the Guillotine for people who earn over 50k a year", yet I never mentioned anything like that. And did I shut down debate, or did you, by trying to claim that I did?

You: "Orwell was a socialist in the loosest sense of the word"

Orwell: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written ... for democratic Socialism"

Yep, no.

You: "This was the guy who opposed gay marriage whilst running for office but suddenly made out that he was the biggest gay advocate on the planet when it was politically expedient to do so"

Yep, he's hypocritical. This makes him Stalinist?

You: "who said that he would have the most transparent administration in history before bombing Benghazi, a foreign city that posed no threat to Western interests anymore, with Gaddafi gone and refused to disclose a reason for his doing so even though it was blatantly obvious that he was doing it to steal their oil"

Er. Obama didn't bomb Benghazi. Terrorists attacked the American embassy in Benghazi. There was no oil gone.

You: "to compensate for his policies driving America deeper into debt"

I'm sure he intended the debt. I'm also sure that, while Obama has increased U.S. debt, a significant amount of responsibility goes to Bush Jr., who oversaw a recession, the creation of two wars, and decrease of taxes, all of which has increased debt even into the Obama years.

You: "He tried to take away Americans Second Amendment rights (even Marx would think that that was going too far) and threw a wild tantrum when Congress blessedly stopped him"

When was this?

You: "has enabled the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt"

When was this? And what's your better alternative?

You: "has heavily militarized the police force"

When was this?

You: "has bugged the entire nation with the NSA while Nixon only had to bug one hotel to get impeached"

Perhaps because Nixon violated laws? And perhaps because the NSA's widespread power originated under a different, previous leader?

You: "and has hung Israel out to dry against the Palestinian savages that seek its immolation"

The opposite is true.

You: "suppression of political dissidence"

When?

You: "what is all this if not Stalinism?"

Most of what you bring up didn't actually happen. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 18:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

And I'm back. Right, let me start from the beginning:

What I meant was that people use the term "Strawman" as basically a whine when their opponent uses satire to ridicule their position.

"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written ... for democratic Socialism"

Exactly! He considered himself a Socialist but was a SINO (Socialist In Name Only), the same way Bill O'Reilly considers himself a Republican and Russell Brand considers himself a comedian.

Yep, he's hypocritical. This makes him Stalinist?

We have always supported gay marriage! We have always been at war with Eastasia!

Obama didn't bomb Bengahzi

They must have just imagined those Drone Aircraft then.

a significant amount of responsibility goes to Bush Jr., who oversaw a recession, the creation of two wars, and decrease of taxes, all of which has increased debt even into the Obama years.

Yeah the creation of two wars, one of which was to topple a fascist dictator and other of which was to free Afghanistan from terrorists who had already attacked America. The "decrease of all taxes" helped keep money in your wallet by the way so you should be thanking him for that. Don't try the old "Obama inherited a mass" cannard; what about the mess that he inherited from himself in 2012? What's he done to clean that up? Nothing! As a leader, Bush was worth ten of Obama, though I didn't care for his father, H.W.

When was this?

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/president-obamas-speech-on-gun-control-bill-defeat-transcript/

When was this? And what's your better alternative?

The Obama administration, predictably, sided with the Muslim Brotherhood when the Egyptian Revolution started because they like Islam. In words and deeds, there has never been one bit of doubt about this. A lot of good that $1.5 billion dollars did even the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood position, since the puppet figure elevated by that group didn’t even last a single term in office. By the way, the ousted Muslim Brotherhood-backed Egyptian president Morsi had appealed to the U.N. to help enforce a worldwide ban against criticism of Islam. This is the sort of dictator we’re sending all that money to–and we’re supposed to believe that Edward Snowden is the big traitor? How about starting at the White House?

When was this?

It's a well-known fact that the Obama Administration has provided the police with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, grenade launchers and um, bayonets. He only stopped sending them to the police after that they started using them in violent attacks on blacks as well as whites.

Perhaps because Nixon violated laws?

Oh and Obama hasn't, of course.

And perhaps because the NSA's widespread power originated under a different, previous leader?

It's expanded under Obama! Oh and after rudely barring the heroic President Netanyahu's state visit to Washington D. C. to warn America of the threat posed by Iran whom Obama is helping get NUKES, the White House published Israel's NUCLEAR PROGRAMME on their website, in a declaration of war on Israel.

Sorry, George Orwell might have identified as a socialist but he called Obama on his bullshit from beyond the grave in 1984 and Animal Farm, both of which depict model Communist/Socialist states. He was as centre-left as it's possible to be without falling onto the Right. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that Kenyan Marxist Muslim Atheist crony capitalist! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You: "What I meant was that people use the term "Strawman" as basically a whine when their opponent uses satire to ridicule their position.

I didn't. You strawmanned me. Man up and accept it.

You: "[Orwell] considered himself a Socialist but was a SINO (Socialist In Name Only), the same way Bill O'Reilly considers himself a Republican and Russell Brand considers himself a comedian.

Proof? Because writing numerous books for socialism and fighting for it in Spain seem kinda relevant.

You: "We have always supported gay marriage! We have always been at war with Eastasia!"

Again, lieing =/= Stalinism. (Libertarians lie. Are they Stalinists?)

You: "They must have just imagined those Drone Aircraft then."

WHAT BENGHAZI DRONE AIRCRAFT?

You: "Yeah the creation of two wars, one of which was to topple a fascist dictator and other of which was to free Afghanistan from terrorists who had already attacked America."

Did I say the wars were unjustified? No. What I did say is that they were hella expensive and he didn't raise taxes to pay for them.

You: "The "decrease of all taxes" helped keep money in your wallet by the way so you should be thanking him for that."

It put money in my wallet -- and caused massive government debt, which is what you assert Obama did.

You: "Don't try the old "Obama inherited a mass" cannard;"

Did he not inherit a mess?

You: "what about the mess that he inherited from himself in 2012? What's he done to clean that up? Nothing!"

He's come much closer to balancing the budget than Bush Jr.

You: http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/17/president-obamas-speech-on-gun-control-bill-defeat-transcript/

So universal background checks and limits on assault weapon purchases and clip sizes are trying to remove 2nd Amendment rights? Where, if I may ask, do 2nd Amendment rights end? At bazookas? AA missiles? Nukes?

You: "The Obama administration, predictably, sided with the Muslim Brotherhood when the Egyptian Revolution started because they like Islam. In words and deeds, there has never been one bit of doubt about this. A lot of good that $1.5 billion dollars did even the Obama administration’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood position, since the puppet figure elevated by that group didn’t even last a single term in office. By the way, the ousted Muslim Brotherhood-backed Egyptian president Morsi had appealed to the U.N. to help enforce a worldwide ban against criticism of Islam. This is the sort of dictator we’re sending all that money to–and we’re supposed to believe that Edward Snowden is the big traitor? How about starting at the White House?""

Proof. I'm doubting a bit. Also: What's your better alternative?

You: "It's a well-known fact that the Obama Administration has provided the police with tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, grenade launchers and um, bayonets. He only stopped sending them to the police after that they started using them in violent attacks on blacks as well as whites."

If it's well known, link me to a news article from a respectable publisher that shows that Obama caused it.

You: "Oh and Obama hasn't, of course."

What laws did he violate? Rhetorical questions don't count as evidence.

You: "It's expanded under Obama! Oh and after rudely barring the heroic President Netanyahu's state visit to Washington D. C. to warn America of the threat posed by Iran whom Obama is helping get NUKES, the White House published Israel's NUCLEAR PROGRAMME on their website, in a declaration of war on Israel."

Jesus fucking Christ. You mean the nuclear program that Israel pursued, in violation of international law, just like Iran? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've been putting this off for months because I can't look at your "responses" without my head hurting due to my rational mind being caught like a deer in the headlights of sheer vacuous crap.

It's impossible to strawman you because you ARE a strawman.

YES, Orwell considered himself a Democratic Socialist but he wasn't a very good socialist really was he as he believed in personal freedom.

Obama is a manipulative, hypocritical, totalitarian far-Leftist who thinks that corporations are responsible for every bad thing in the world and the only solution is bigger government whilst he continually tries to strip people of their constitutional rights. A = A, Obama = Stalinist.

THE BENGHAZI! DRONE! AIRCRAFT! HE USED! TO BOMB! BENGHAZI in the biggest controversy of his career! Have you been living under a fucking rock? Do you switch on the television, read the papers, listen to the radio or use to internet for anything other than porn and playing scientist on RationalWiki?

Yes, they were expensive and he didn't raise taxes to pay for them. Well done him.

Who gets to decide how big a gun a person needs? Surely that's a matter for the home owner to decide? Are the government going to decide what size steak knives we need next?

Better alternative? How about not sending assistance to Islamofascists?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/02/ferg-d02.html

Nixon was impeached because he violated laws by bugging a hotel? But Obama hasn't been impeached for doing what Nixon did on a grand scale? So basically when the President does something illegal, it's not illegal.

YES! The nuclear programme that Israel pursued in violation of international laws because those laws were doing nothing to protect them from the threat posed by Palestine!

God I feel better. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There were drone aircraft observing Benghazi, but none bombed it -- at least, not according to any evidence on the public record. You either massively misread this detail of the story, or are outright lying.

"But Obama hasn't been impeached for doing what Nixon did on a grand scale? " -- PRISM was launched in 2007. It has expanded under Obama, sure, but he hardly started it.204.11.142.106 (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You like Bush?!?

*faints* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Ah, shaddup. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Pinko"

Communists are generally atheists, and traditionally antitheists. I'm not sure how an apparent bias towards religion is evidence of socialism.-- Forerunner (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Communists and Socialists have formed an alliance with the Muhammadans. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You should probably....

...refrain from dropping long blocks on non-sysops over internet dick contests. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the annoying edits

Do not keep trying to insert the Guardian as a "Communist" paper in the Morning Star article. You are clearly into the fever swamps of the right, which this site has no patience for. Stop the dumb and tendentious edits, all of them. This isn't your first round. Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "trying", I was succeeding. Lol. Someone who reads The Guardian says I'm in the political fever swamps. Go eat a banker or something. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite my better instinct

Salon is tedious but hardly far-left. A casual glance at this sewer of a talkpage suggests I'm wasting my time pointing this out to you, but at least I tried. Translation into terms you may understand: Stop being a cunt. --MtD^Bogan 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Attention Moral Untermenschen

My misguided view of RationalWiki as a bastion of the intelligent left has been broken by the pure moral degeneracy of the articles I have viewed on this site. As someone who believes in objective morality, civil liberties, anti-authoritarianism, individual rights and general human decency, I can honestly say that I would probably find more objective coverage of political and social matters at the Nuremberg Rallies, or even on Conservapedia. Oh yeah! I went there! I fucking went there! I suggest that you de-sysop and block me as soon as possible because I will not make any more edits to any pages on this website that are not satirical or facetious in nature because to do otherwise, I think would be to lend you credibility which to me would feel like shagging a syphilitic. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

With or without condom?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC) 00:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Without even the benefit of a foreskin. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

-EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

MFW I read through this entire talk page to see what all the fuzz was about. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Skeletor

No thanks. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 19:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You have to admit, it was funny. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

What Skeletor?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 15:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This one. I'm still not sure what was funny about it.--JorisEnter (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

It's funny to the petty because they think it's demeaning people based on their looks alone. Which is incorrect because Skeletor is bonetasically fabulous and everyone should be proud to be associated with him. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You're quite right and I humbly submit my most sincere apologies. Skeletor, whatever his flaws, is a beautiful individual inside and out compared to Nancy Pelosi. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Categories

... are only for articles, right?—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 19:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Those ones are, there are user equivalents for some of them though. Christopher (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be evidence in an article that supports that category. That's why I reverted your edit. Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Your latest edit...

I mean, it would have saved us all the hassle if you just wrote "The left is bad because my favorite talking heads said so." Or even just "Left = bad." ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have many Left-wing friends. One of my best friends even voted for Jeremy Corbyn. Far-Left = Bad or Extremism = Bad would most definitely summarise everything I wrote. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

So the friends argument? — Oxyaena ^Harass 19:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reading your recent edit, uh, why are you here? I don't think it's non-missional to cover the far left (Tumblr), but not in the fashion you're doing it.—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 19:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Define "extremism". Is expecting basic human decency "extreme"? Is it extreme to expect people to get over their social hangups and not treat others like crap? Are these really such big things to ask? Or, are you that fucking weak? So weak and pathetic that mere decency, mere humanity, mere empathy is too much for you to muster? I do wonder, given the views you've espoused. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

crickets Chickenshit. — Oxyaena ^Harass 22:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're defending the SJW movement, you are in about as much a position to call people weak and pathetic as Bill Cosby is to lecture people on women's rights. Basic decency? Starting fires and utilising violence, bullying and censorship to silence people with opinions different to your own? Attacking people on the basis of their inborn nature such as their skin colour, sexuality or what Chromosome they were born with? All because you know fundamentally that your ideas and values are worthless and stand up to no rational scrutiny, hence why you support Safe Spaces on college campuses. I have depression and anxiety. I know what it's like to be "triggered". You know what I do? I either argue with the person who's upset me or I remove myself from their presence. The fact that you've been so "triggered" by my adding of facts to an article in praise of a movement of dangerous extremists shows that you know I'm somewhat right. Obviously the term "social justice warrior" is facetious because "social justice" is the last thing on the mind of these neo-troglodytes, they just wish to exchange vestigial and anaemic forms of oppression such as patriarchy and white supremacy with new, robust, Marxist forms of oppression and the fact that they rely on thuggery to enforce their points doesn't make them warriors, it just makes them ignorant, cowardly, anti-intellectual bullies just like all barbarians throughout history from the Salem Witch Hunters to the National Front. Decency? Humanity? Empathy? Mere words to you. You just want to turn the world into a massive safe space, to make everyone learn of your peaceful ways by FORCE! Well life ain't like that. Suck it up buttercup. All extremists think they're defending something. With gay conversion therapists it's to stop children being corrupted, with anti-abortion legislators it's "the life of the unborn child", with Conservapedia whom RationalWiki has basically become a parody of, it's "family values". In whatever case, the ends always justify the means. The fact of the matter is that you Woke snowflakes are no different from and no better than the Alt-Right. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Rarely do I see someone here so divorced from reality. All that weirdo crap you just spewed has nothing to do with what the mainstream left actually wants or does. Please try leaving your bubble and exposing yourself to genuine opposing viewpoints; you have a wildly distorted view of what other people think and what their goals are. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 18:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Define "triggered". Is it "triggered" to clean up a small child's insecure vomit? Is it? Is it really? "You just want to turn the world into a massive safe space, to make everyone learn of your peaceful ways by FORCE! Well life ain't like that. Suck it up buttercup." You have no idea what I want. None at all. As for "sucking it up", I suggest you do so. Your insecurity about various articles says that it is you who needs to "Suck it up buttercup." "I either argue with the person who's upset me or I remove myself from their presence." Lies. Hypocrisy. Else you would have left this site and never come back. So why do you stay? Your arguments are quite weak, and your worldview quiet fallacious. You have no idea what anyone here wants and are too insecure to simply ask them and debate their goals and worldview on their own merit. You complain when others react to your actions but find no fault in yourself doing likewise. So, with that in mind, why should I take your drivel seriously? If you argue with a strawman version of everyone you meet, why would they even bother engaging with you and your delusions? Why, exactly, are you so insecure? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

"If you're defending the SJW movement": tl;dr --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

CHAZ does not count as a "junta"

Fuck off. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

lol. EK (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a bunch of hippies hanging in a Seattle neighborhood with no cops in order to protest the system is a junta of weed warriors and the occasional guy roaming the premises with a baseball bat. HairlessCat (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the occasional guy roaming the premises with a baseball bat, that's no problem is it, just like "a few fires" were nowhere near as bad as Milo speaking some nasty words to a girl. Yes, CHAZ is a fascist military junta; it's basically the First Order but with dyed armpit hair. I notice Antifa has been removed from the "Moonbat" category and what was previously an article criticising a far-left terror group is now a glowingly sympathetic defense of them that falsely claims that the US President called Nazis "fine people". RationalWiki has officially gone off the deep-end. You're now outright propaganda ministers. What's next? Are you going to rewrite your article on The Huff Post, saying it's more reliable than The WHO? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

As to the article on Huffpo, I assure you they're just as alt-med cranky as they ever were. (Also if your go-to leftwing media boogyman is Huffpo, dear lords do you live in an echo chamber.) As to the rest, I see you're still trapped in the same early to mid 2000s anti-SJW mentality as you ever were. Which means that as a Neo-reactionary, your grasp of politics is probably still as wrong as ever. Meaning it's no wonder that you conflate Neolibs with far-leftists. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If the only thing about Huff Po you complain about is their support of alternative medicine, although that's just as good a reason to oppose them as any, then clearly you're the one in an echo chamber which is basically what RW now is. And yes of course I'm anti-SJW because that's basically the default setting for most people; you may as well say that I'm still stuck in an anti-Nazi or anti-Fascist or anti-Communist mentality so yes my grasp of politics is as "wrong" as ever, ie: not very. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As someone who is constantly harassed and under attack by the communists/anarchists/far-left apologists here and elsewhere, I can tell you: the CHAZ is filled with ridiculous far-left white teenagers, not comparable to the genocidal regimes in Latin America, where my family comes from and have lived under. Antifa is not a terrorist group because it isn't a group, it's an agglomeration of tactics ranging from pacifism to violent intervention. Again, I will fight the commies on this website until I get banned, but you are a neo-reactionary after all. YES, Trump did call Nazis "very fine people" on "both sides" and he employed Sebastian Gorka who is associated with the Hungarian fascist group that deported Jews to Nazi Germany along with Steven Miller who is a neo-Nazi involved with Breitbart. The only thing I will agree with you is that this website is riddled with communists and anarchists, but not for the factors you cited. — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 14:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of the people at the Chaz aren't anarchists, and they're not all "far left white teenagers" either. No, this site isn't riddled with "communists and anarchists," your persecution complex is showing itself again. — Oxyaena ^Harass 15:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you all need to read this. Something ACTUALLY stunning and brave, as opposed to just a bloke in a tutu. https://medium.com/unsafe-space/on-leaving-the-sjw-cult-and-finding-myself-1a6769b2f1ff --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey are you here?

Seems like you are dead, someone correct me if he already said that...--Syncronyzer (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Chicken coop

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

-- Techpriest (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating though unsurprising to see that Stalinist Kangaroo Courts have been opened for individuals who fail to conform to RW's new regime on ideological purity. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You remind me of someone....

UncleKrampus (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

All hail!

Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

??? Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been brought up on All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. LongStylus (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you've been blocked indefinitely, but you may comment here in your talk page instead of the ATIM thread. LongStylus (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The “addresses published online” was CLEARLY a joke as TRAs have called for doxxing of political opponents in the past and actually engaged in it, as shown with JK Rowling. The fact that her home address is already public knowledge is entirely besides the point as it was the intent behind sharing it that was the crux of the matter. So to whoever accused me of “threatening behaviour”, don’t make me laugh; you know I wasn’t being serious, you’re just using this as an excuse to block me. Do you really need one? I mean, RW are just NOW deciding to block me indefinitely? Just for this of all things? I mean, I’m not complaining, I’m just surprised. I really did think that if you couldn’t detect the sarcasm as you seemed to be suggesting then you’d be relieved that I’d finally come around to your worldview. Thanks anyway LongStylus. Happy trails everyone and, I don’t know, stay hydrated. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Kidding/not kidding. Bongolian (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)