Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Lies About Hitler

Recommended Posts

Timmay = Hitler truther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so tim, are you defending him, vilifying him or is there another agenda here? serious question. i have no notebook

Defending him? No. I am just trying to set the record straight as Hitler is used in all these arguments in order to push agendas that had nothing to do with him- gun rights being one example.
What's the point? Why does it matter to you? Do also care that JFK or reagan is misrepresented or misinterpreted ? What about Stalin? Khaddafi? Amin? Hirohito?

Hirohito started the whole 'black socks with sandals' thing. True story.

Hitler made brown a wearable color again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why conservatives won't own him. Just say something like Hitler is an example of taking our ideology too far. Instead I have personally seen they try to call him a liberal.I have no problem saying far left is bad and people like Stalin took it too far.

None of these fiends - Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao - belong in a conversation about American politics. Stalin took "what" too far? Liberalism? Socialism? And conservatives own Hitler because he was a fascist? Let's be clear about something; these anti-humanist movements use the state to contort, distort and destroy individual rights and the ideals and institutions that support them. If a guy like Hitler used public works projects to justify his power then he did it, if a guy like Stalin found use in conservative themes like "defending the motherland" than he did it. These guys are equal opportunity mass slaughterers, if you have an ideological weapon they would use it, right, left, up, down whatever.
That is some damn fine posting right there.
Yes, but there will be 10 more pages of bickering over what Hitler was when we all know he was a big leftie in his heart. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why conservatives won't own him. Just say something like Hitler is an example of taking our ideology too far. Instead I have personally seen they try to call him a liberal.I have no problem saying far left is bad and people like Stalin took it too far.

None of these fiends - Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao - belong in a conversation about American politics. Stalin took "what" too far? Liberalism? Socialism? And conservatives own Hitler because he was a fascist? Let's be clear about something; these anti-humanist movements use the state to contort, distort and destroy individual rights and the ideals and institutions that support them. If a guy like Hitler used public works projects to justify his power then he did it, if a guy like Stalin found use in conservative themes like "defending the motherland" than he did it. These guys are equal opportunity mass slaughterers, if you have an ideological weapon they would use it, right, left, up, down whatever.
That is some damn fine posting right there.
Yes, but there will be 10 more pages of bickering over what Hitler was when we all know he was a big leftie in his heart. :wink:

Still not over "it" eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who takes custody of him? Will he go through the court system? Will there be a trial or does go to Guantanamo?

Your trying too hard.
My what is trying too hard?
Who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why conservatives won't own him. Just say something like Hitler is an example of taking our ideology too far. Instead I have personally seen they try to call him a liberal.I have no problem saying far left is bad and people like Stalin took it too far.

None of these fiends - Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao - belong in a conversation about American politics. Stalin took "what" too far? Liberalism? Socialism? And conservatives own Hitler because he was a fascist? Let's be clear about something; these anti-humanist movements use the state to contort, distort and destroy individual rights and the ideals and institutions that support them. If a guy like Hitler used public works projects to justify his power then he did it, if a guy like Stalin found use in conservative themes like "defending the motherland" than he did it. These guys are equal opportunity mass slaughterers, if you have an ideological weapon they would use it, right, left, up, down whatever.
That is some damn fine posting right there.
Yes, but there will be 10 more pages of bickering over what Hitler was when we all know he was a big leftie in his heart. :wink:
Still not over "it" eh?
Me? I am not the one with Hitler underwear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why conservatives won't own him. Just say something like Hitler is an example of taking our ideology too far. Instead I have personally seen they try to call him a liberal.I have no problem saying far left is bad and people like Stalin took it too far.

None of these fiends - Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao - belong in a conversation about American politics. Stalin took "what" too far? Liberalism? Socialism? And conservatives own Hitler because he was a fascist? Let's be clear about something; these anti-humanist movements use the state to contort, distort and destroy individual rights and the ideals and institutions that support them. If a guy like Hitler used public works projects to justify his power then he did it, if a guy like Stalin found use in conservative themes like "defending the motherland" than he did it. These guys are equal opportunity mass slaughterers, if you have an ideological weapon they would use it, right, left, up, down whatever.
That is some damn fine posting right there.
Yes, but there will be 10 more pages of bickering over what Hitler was when we all know he was a big leftie in his heart. :wink:
Still not over "it" eh?
Me? I am not the one with Hitler underwear.

Of course. You wear Limbaugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So who takes custody of him? Will he go through the court system? Will there be a trial or does go to Guantanamo?

Your trying too hard.
My what is trying too hard?
Who?

*You're. Andy isn't the only one making typos. I blame Hitler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why conservatives won't own him. Just say something like Hitler is an example of taking our ideology too far. Instead I have personally seen they try to call him a liberal.I have no problem saying far left is bad and people like Stalin took it too far.

None of these fiends - Hitler, Stalin, Hirohito, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao - belong in a conversation about American politics. Stalin took "what" too far? Liberalism? Socialism? And conservatives own Hitler because he was a fascist? Let's be clear about something; these anti-humanist movements use the state to contort, distort and destroy individual rights and the ideals and institutions that support them. If a guy like Hitler used public works projects to justify his power then he did it, if a guy like Stalin found use in conservative themes like "defending the motherland" than he did it. These guys are equal opportunity mass slaughterers, if you have an ideological weapon they would use it, right, left, up, down whatever.
That is some damn fine posting right there.
Yes, but there will be 10 more pages of bickering over what Hitler was when we all know he was a big leftie in his heart. :wink:
Still not over "it" eh?
Me? I am not the one with Hitler underwear.
Of course. You wear Limbaugh.
Only on weekends. :hot:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

More because it's simply silly. "Well, the only people he REALLY kept guns from was the Jews."But you can go with the "competing worldview" thing if you like.

Why is that silly? If gun ownership among the rest of the German people increased, it's relevant.

Gun ownership increased among those he wasn't killing. Among those that were lightly armed in the first place.

Are you saying your username isn't an exercise in irony?

I'm confused. It sounds like you're calling him a genius, but disagreeing with him.

You got that right.

Maybe they changed the definition of irony. Last time I looked, it was that the literal meaning is the opposite of the intended meaning.

Explain to me why you think his username is an exercise in irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

timschochet, on 29 Apr 2013 - 13:11, said:3. Hitler did not seize guns. (This is argued by the NRA and its supporters.) In fact, private gun ownership actually increased during the Third Reich as restrictions were lifted which had been placed on gun owners during the Weimar regime. It is true that Jews were restricted from owning guns, but this did not occur until several years after the Nuremberg laws (expelling Jews from German social life) were already in place, and it was largely for show, since extremely few of Germany's Jews were armed in the first place.

So he didn't seize guns (or restrict gun ownership)...until he did?On a side note, I think Hitler would have loved internet cat videos just like the rest of us.

He did not seize guns from people who weren't Jewish. it wasn't about gun control or keeping guns from anyone but Jews. The way it is portrayed by the gun sycophants in this country is historically wrong. Germans owned plenty of guns and never used them to try to stop Hitler. So much for that whole stopping tyranny thing.

I'm still shaking my head over this post. :sadbanana:

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

I think (and I'm just guessing here) that it's because Tim goes out of his way to "set the facts straight" and one of his six facts is prima facie completely false. Whether or not it occurred at a time where it would have made a huge difference, Hitler did in fact seize guns.

So kinda flies in the face of setting the record straight when one of 6 "facts" is not a fact.

You are flat wrong. Hitler did not seize guns. It did not happen.

A law was declared denying gun ownership to Jews. But Jews didn't own guns. And the Gestapo didn't go around seizing guns from Jews, because any Jew caught by this time was deported anyhow. There were no gun seizures in Germany.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to me that people like Clifford come in here and spout their ignorance, and then insult others. The irony is stunning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been limiting myself mainly to making fun of you and that does not come from ignorance. Lighten up Francis.

You start a thread answering questions no one asked and then end it with "Hope that helps."

Explain that last comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

More because it's simply silly. "Well, the only people he REALLY kept guns from was the Jews."But you can go with the "competing worldview" thing if you like.
Why is that silly? If gun ownership among the rest of the German people increased, it's relevant.
Gun ownership increased among those he wasn't killing. Among those that were lightly armed in the first place. Are you saying your username isn't an exercise in irony?
I'm confused. It sounds like you're calling him a genius, but disagreeing with him.
You got that right.
Maybe they changed the definition of irony. Last time I looked, it was that the literal meaning is the opposite of the intended meaning. Explain to me why you think his username is an exercise in irony.
Perhaps it is ironic because the user picked the username to be ironic, but it fact it was not ironic. Would that not be ironic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

timschochet, on 29 Apr 2013 - 13:11, said:3. Hitler did not seize guns. (This is argued by the NRA and its supporters.) In fact, private gun ownership actually increased during the Third Reich as restrictions were lifted which had been placed on gun owners during the Weimar regime. It is true that Jews were restricted from owning guns, but this did not occur until several years after the Nuremberg laws (expelling Jews from German social life) were already in place, and it was largely for show, since extremely few of Germany's Jews were armed in the first place.

So he didn't seize guns (or restrict gun ownership)...until he did?On a side note, I think Hitler would have loved internet cat videos just like the rest of us.

He did not seize guns from people who weren't Jewish. it wasn't about gun control or keeping guns from anyone but Jews. The way it is portrayed by the gun sycophants in this country is historically wrong. Germans owned plenty of guns and never used them to try to stop Hitler. So much for that whole stopping tyranny thing.

I'm still shaking my head over this post. :sadbanana:

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

I think (and I'm just guessing here) that it's because Tim goes out of his way to "set the facts straight" and one of his six facts is prima facie completely false. Whether or not it occurred at a time where it would have made a huge difference, Hitler did in fact seize guns.

So kinda flies in the face of setting the record straight when one of 6 "facts" is not a fact.

You are flat wrong. Hitler did not seize guns. It did not happen.

A law was declared denying gun ownership to Jews. But Jews didn't own guns. And the Gestapo didn't go around seizing guns from Jews, because any Jew caught by this time was deported anyhow. There were no gun seizures in Germany.

It is a documented fact that not one single Jew of the millions in Germany owned a gun. Timmy said so, and he personally inspected the houses and closets of every Jew in Germany.

So there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the #### is the point of this thead now?

Pretty much the same point as that of every FFA thread which goes multi-page the first day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

More because it's simply silly. "Well, the only people he REALLY kept guns from was the Jews."But you can go with the "competing worldview" thing if you like.

Why is that silly? If gun ownership among the rest of the German people increased, it's relevant.

Gun ownership increased among those he wasn't killing. Among those that were lightly armed in the first place.

Are you saying your username isn't an exercise in irony?

I'm confused. It sounds like you're calling him a genius, but disagreeing with him.

You got that right.

Maybe they changed the definition of irony. Last time I looked, it was that the literal meaning is the opposite of the intended meaning.

Explain to me why you think his username is an exercise in irony.

If he was truly intelligent then his username would be ironic. But if he's not, then his username wouldn't be.

Hope that helps. Grammar-Hitler.

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

More because it's simply silly. "Well, the only people he REALLY kept guns from was the Jews."But you can go with the "competing worldview" thing if you like.

Why is that silly? If gun ownership among the rest of the German people increased, it's relevant.

Gun ownership increased among those he wasn't killing. Among those that were lightly armed in the first place.

Are you saying your username isn't an exercise in irony?

I'm confused. It sounds like you're calling him a genius, but disagreeing with him.

You got that right.

Maybe they changed the definition of irony. Last time I looked, it was that the literal meaning is the opposite of the intended meaning.

Explain to me why you think his username is an exercise in irony.

If he was truly intelligent then his username would be ironic. But if he's not, then his username wouldn't be.

Hope that helps. Grammar-Hitler.

Yes, in real life I'm Soccergenious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people think Hitler was some sort of evil genius. The guy was almost literally mentally deficient.

This is false as well. Hitler was certainly evil IMO, and he was a political genius; one of the most extraordinary men who ever lived. He was also the most effective public speaker in history.

He failed getting into an art college. Twice. The guy who painted the Virgin Mary with dung got into art school.

There were many plots to kill him and put someone in who wasn't a moron, but the Russians decided to put a stop to all those shenanigans.

Is this is a serious post? Many geniuses fail at tests. Einstein, Churchill, Edison, Henry Ford all had grave academic failures in their lives.

Adolf Hitler was a political genius bar none. He rose from nothing; no money, no background, no political history, formed his own political party and took over a major country and then took over half the world, mainly solely on the force of his personality.

Hitler's political party succeeded in spite of himself. The Nazi party won in 1933 with just over 43 percent of the popular vote. He was a charismatic speaker, but let's not make him out to be some type of intelligent person. The guy was not smart, but he was extremely lucky.

Many people think Hitler was some sort of evil genius. The guy was almost literally mentally deficient.

This is false as well. Hitler was certainly evil IMO, and he was a political genius; one of the most extraordinary men who ever lived. He was also the most effective public speaker in history.

He failed getting into an art college. Twice. The guy who painted the Virgin Mary with dung got into art school.

There were many plots to kill him and put someone in who wasn't a moron, but the Russians decided to put a stop to all those shenanigans.

Is this is a serious post? Many geniuses fail at tests. Einstein, Churchill, Edison, Henry Ford all had grave academic failures in their lives.

Adolf Hitler was a political genius bar none. He rose from nothing; no money, no background, no political history, formed his own political party and took over a major country and then took over half the world, mainly solely on the force of his personality.

Hitler's political party succeeded in spite of himself. The Nazi party won in 1933 with just over 43 percent of the popular vote. He was a charismatic speaker, but let's not make him out to be some type of intelligent person. The guy was not smart, but he was extremely lucky.

Couldnt agree more. Hilter came to power at just the right time for his special kind of crazy. The sanctions placed on Germany at the end of World War I were horrific and hindered the nations economic revitalization. The Weimar Republic was an abject failure and the German people were looking for someone to give them hope. Unfortunately what they got was a lunatic, a holocaust and another World War.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

Many people think Hitler was some sort of evil genius. The guy was almost literally mentally deficient.

This is false as well. Hitler was certainly evil IMO, and he was a political genius; one of the most extraordinary men who ever lived. He was also the most effective public speaker in history.
He failed getting into an art college. Twice. The guy who painted the Virgin Mary with dung got into art school.

There were many plots to kill him and put someone in who wasn't a moron, but the Russians decided to put a stop to all those shenanigans.

Is this is a serious post? Many geniuses fail at tests. Einstein, Churchill, Edison, Henry Ford all had grave academic failures in their lives.

Adolf Hitler was a political genius bar none. He rose from nothing; no money, no background, no political history, formed his own political party and took over a major country and then took over half the world, mainly solely on the force of his personality.

Hitler's political party succeeded in spite of himself. The Nazi party won in 1933 with just over 43 percent of the popular vote. He was a charismatic speaker, but let's not make him out to be some type of intelligent person. The guy was not smart, but he was extremely lucky.
Couldnt agree more. Hilter came to power at just the right time for his special kind of crazy. The sanctions placed on Germany at the end of World War I were horrific and hindered the nations economic revitalization. The Weimar Republic was an abject failure and the German people were looking for someone to give them hope. Unfortunately what they got was a lunatic, a holocaust and another World War.

This is a note for Tim as well, but about that 43 percent figure:

There were several elections involving the nazis.

The one where the nazis first came to prominence was July 1932:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

The Nazis had been a medium sized party for some time, but this was the first election where they took the most votes. They did this with 37.27% pf the vote.

The next big vote 4 months later they had 33.09% of the vote, so their share actually went down. But this is the election that counts because it was the one whereby the nazis and Hitler took power as Chancellor in January 1933. This made the rest of everything that happened possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932

It was the March 1933 vote that was influenced by the Reichstag fire (nazi) conspiracy and the nazis vote went up then to the 43% figure, but that was largely their main opposing candidate (communist) had been arrested, the party had been effectively outlawed and the country had been told via the media it was a communist plot.

It's just important to remember the whole German nation wasn't falling all over in line behind this guy. The nazis moved quickly and fear, intimidation (and worse) and mass media propaganda, along with arrests and banning of political parties, greatly created the illusion of "no opposition."

If the point of all this is about whether a dictatorship needs to take guns before oppressing its own people and depriving them of rights, well, the answer is no. Good fair minded, decent people by and large just don't see dictatorship coming. Opportunism and tough times can conspire to leave them with few choices but to try and survive within an increasingly horrible system.

To Tim's point though, look no further than the Warsaw ghetto. That was made part of the Reich, it was basically a German run city, and guns most definitely were outlawed. And the conclusion there was that the uprising would not have been possible without guns. I think we would all agree that it was far, far, far better - and even good - that the uprising took place.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to me that people like Clifford come in here and spout their ignorance, and then insult others. The irony is stunning.

Thankfully you are here and able to set all of us on the straight and narrow with your wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

Many people think Hitler was some sort of evil genius. The guy was almost literally mentally deficient.

This is false as well. Hitler was certainly evil IMO, and he was a political genius; one of the most extraordinary men who ever lived. He was also the most effective public speaker in history.
He failed getting into an art college. Twice. The guy who painted the Virgin Mary with dung got into art school.

There were many plots to kill him and put someone in who wasn't a moron, but the Russians decided to put a stop to all those shenanigans.

Is this is a serious post? Many geniuses fail at tests. Einstein, Churchill, Edison, Henry Ford all had grave academic failures in their lives.

Adolf Hitler was a political genius bar none. He rose from nothing; no money, no background, no political history, formed his own political party and took over a major country and then took over half the world, mainly solely on the force of his personality.

Hitler's political party succeeded in spite of himself. The Nazi party won in 1933 with just over 43 percent of the popular vote. He was a charismatic speaker, but let's not make him out to be some type of intelligent person. The guy was not smart, but he was extremely lucky.
Couldnt agree more. Hilter came to power at just the right time for his special kind of crazy. The sanctions placed on Germany at the end of World War I were horrific and hindered the nations economic revitalization. The Weimar Republic was an abject failure and the German people were looking for someone to give them hope. Unfortunately what they got was a lunatic, a holocaust and another World War.

This is a note for Tim as well, but about that 43 percent figure:

There were several elections involving the nazis.

The one where the nazis first came to prominence was July 1932:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

The Nazis had been a medium sized party for some time, but this was the first election where they took the most votes. They did this with 37.27% pf the vote.

The next big vote 4 months later they had 33.09% of the vote, so their share actually went down. But this is the election that counts because it was the one whereby the nazis and Hitler took power as Chancellor in January 1933. This made the rest of everything that happened possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932

It was the March 1933 vote that was influenced by the Reichstag fire (nazi) conspiracy and the nazis vote went up then to the 43% figure, but that was largely their main opposing candidate (communist) had been arrested, the party had been effectively outlawed and the country had been told via the media it was a communist plot.

It's just important to remember the whole German nation wasn't falling all over in line behind this guy. The nazis moved quickly and fear, intimidation (and worse) and mass media propaganda, along with arrests and banning of political parties, greatly created the illusion of "no opposition."

If the point of all this is about whether a dictatorship needs to take guns before oppressing its own people and depriving them of rights, well, the answer is no. Good fair minded, decent people by and large just don't see dictatorship coming. Opportunism and tough times can conspire to leave them with few choices but to try and survive within an increasingly horrible system.

To Tim's point though, look no further than the Warsaw ghetto. That was made part of the Reich, it was basically a German run city, and guns most definitely were outlawed. And the conclusion there was that the uprising would not have been possible without guns. I think we would all agree that it was far, far, far better - and even good - that the uprising took place.

Guns are necessary for resistance in an occupied war zone? Color me shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion is a great story, a triumph of human beings fighting to survive against desperate odds. But it had no chance of succeeding, which only goes to show how useless rifles and home made grenades are against better technology.

The whole Polish experience is a demonstration as to just how foolish the NRA argument is. In 1939, Poland was the most well-armed country in Europe, with the largest army outside of Russia. The Germans were somehow undeterred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because it doesn't agree with your world view?

More because it's simply silly. "Well, the only people he REALLY kept guns from was the Jews."But you can go with the "competing worldview" thing if you like.
Why is that silly? If gun ownership among the rest of the German people increased, it's relevant.
Gun ownership increased among those he wasn't killing. Among those that were lightly armed in the first place. Are you saying your username isn't an exercise in irony?
I'm confused. It sounds like you're calling him a genius, but disagreeing with him.
You got that right.
Maybe they changed the definition of irony. Last time I looked, it was that the literal meaning is the opposite of the intended meaning. Explain to me why you think his username is an exercise in irony.
If he was truly intelligent then his username would be ironic. But if he's not, then his username wouldn't be. Hope that helps. Grammar-Hitler.
You're mighty haughty for someone who's being caught with bad grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion is a great story

You should copy and paste it here.

I wrote it up in the World War II thread. I did it from memory, without cutting and pasting. I've read 3 books on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion is a great story

You should copy and paste it here.

I wrote it up in the World War II thread. I did it from memory, without cutting and pasting. I've read 3 books on the subject.

I read Mila 18. Good book, but really long. Of course, all of Uris's books were really long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're mighty haughty for someone who's being caught with bad grammar.

I WAS IN THE POOL!!! :angry:

(I'm still right. Although I regret taking the cheap shot in the first place.)

Edited by Andy Dufresne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion is a great story

You should copy and paste it here.

I wrote it up in the World War II thread. I did it from memory, without cutting and pasting. I've read 3 books on the subject.

I read Mila 18. Good book, but really long. Of course, all of Uris's books were really long.

That was fiction. John Hersey's The Wall is also fiction, but really good as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler only ate cheese sandwiches for breakfast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler had a pet hamster named zippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler at the age of 10 once sniffed his older cousin's used panties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler once fit 500 peas in his mouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lmao:

As a child, when Hitler would play Hungry Hungry Hippos with his older cousins, they would always stick him with the Hippo with it's head missing.

Edited by Reginald Cornsilks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler didn't like the beach because sand between his toes felt "icky"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Warsaw Ghetto Rebellion is a great story

You should copy and paste it here.

I wrote it up in the World War II thread. I did it from memory, without cutting and pasting. I've read 3 books on the subject.

I read Mila 18. Good book, but really long. Of course, all of Uris's books were really long.

That was fiction. John Hersey's The Wall is also fiction, but really good as well.

Well, yeah, but based on real events. It captured the situation pretty well. Why do you hate Jewish authors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler's belt buckle was shaped like a trout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler's pet monkey Bobo actually LOVED Jews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler's real first name was Rudolph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler's favorite episode of Growing Pains was the one where Boner runs away from home

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.