Cultcow Mikemikev / Michael Coombs / Twinkle Toes / Velcro Pants - Pedo Teacher and Neo-Nazi, Advocate of Child Murder, Secret JewMuslim ANTIFA, A-Logs Null Constantly

Who's the most autistic?

  • Mikemikev

    Votes: 401 71.7%
  • Autphag

    Votes: 102 18.2%
  • Luke McKee

    Votes: 6 1.1%
  • Donny Long

    Votes: 50 8.9%

  • Total voters
    559
So what did I get wrong about history?

1) You think that the SS had no muslims or manpower shortages during WW2.

2) You think Goebbels wasn't a stunted cripple (like you).

3) You think mass genocide was faked.

4) You think your dead ideology will return.

He's German, he can't question the Holocaust.

Correction. He's intelligent and sane.
 
You know jack shit about the Constitution.

Proving once again, very transparently, that you're lying about US law.

1) You think that the SS had no muslims or manpower shortages during WW2.

2) You think Goebbels wasn't a stunted cripple (like you).

3) You think mass genocide was faked.

4) You think your dead ideology will return.



Correction. He's intelligent and sane.

Back these up with quotes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Mikemikev do I have to quote Hitler again?

Adolf Hitler said:
The [ @Mikemikev ] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
 
Would you like me to quote every single post where you post alternative history? Would @Alan Pardew even allow me to post a large post?

Simply state one fact I got incorrect.

If you actually bother to read what I posted, you'd see that most of what I said deals with UK law. I highly doubt you've even bothered to read the Constitution, honestly.

You've constantly referenced US law. Now you're misrepresenting the constitution, while accusing me of not having read the constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You've constantly referenced US law. Now you're misrepresenting the constitution, while accusing me of not having read the constitution.

You clearly haven't understood anything @NotAKitty has said. It's okay, there's a lot of things you've proven that you don't understand.

You can't "deny" something somebody made up with no evidence. You just ignore it as meaningless.

"No evidence" Despite the actual evidence that has appeared in History books you refuse to read because they don't conform to your bias.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back