Question:
Why do liberals compared Bush to Hitler?
Ronald Reagan true hero.
2006-07-11 22:59:55 UTC
Why do you liberals think Bush is like Hitler. If anything Bush should be compared to either Ronald Reagan or Gandhi.
Bush is more like Gandhi than he is to Hitler.
Bush has given freedom and democracy to iraqis and afganis.
Bush has given many donations to many poor black kids who cant read. Bush has an iq of about 191. Liberals are closer to nazi than anything cause Hitler was a left-winger. Gandhi and Bush cares about the betterment of people lives not just in America but around the world.
31 answers:
Nico Pulcher
2006-07-11 23:31:54 UTC
Comparing Bush to Hitler is a great attention getter, does not require intelligence, and cuts off any serious discussion about the Bush administration's foreign policy. It, however, waters down the true evil and horror of Adolf Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the Final Solution. Nothing today can compare with nearly six million Jews that were liquidated by the Nazis and the 50 million people, soldiers and civilians, who died in Europe as a result of Adolf Hitler.

I highly doubt that Bush's IQ is 191 or that he is any way similar to Gandhi; non-violent means. Regarding Ronald Reagan, many conservatives have been complaining that Bush strayed from policies of Reagan with his compassionate conservative rhetoric. I do see the similarity in Reagan's confrontation with communism and the war against radical Islam. I don't think the West will be able to negotiate with al-Qaeda like Reagan did with the Soviets. This current war will take decades to win.
2006-07-12 01:01:05 UTC
You demonstrate your ignorance of European history if you are minded to say that Hitler was a left winger. I won't enlighten you further on this point but just to say that much has been written on the subject and I suggest you start with 'Mein Kampf' which will categorically put you assertion to rest.



On the Hitler thing, well I can see the reason why. If a man acts against a people basically because of their religion and race (as Hitler did) then the comparison is valid. I will just draw you to another fact of History.



During the 60s, 70s, 80s, and early 90s (nearly 40 years), a White, Christian (Catholic) organisation called the IRA, were bombing and killing several thousands (over 5000) of people to death in N. Ireland and mainland UK. (I was working in England during some of the time), and the best efforts of the British army could not deter them. They used to detonante bombs in Malls, schools etc. The Governments of UK and USA did not feel they had to restrict the freedoms of the populus to try and deal with these White terrorists, as they were called. No Patriot Act or Identity Card system as proposed by the UK. The troubles came to an end by the process of negotiation between the UK government and the IRA Terrorists and the enigma of a certain US President Clinton, a Democrat. Do you really believe Bush would have that much influence anywhere in the world.



You see, the actions of the USA and the UK, post 9/11 makes people like me who study history extremely dubious as to the reasons for all the curtailment of our Freedoms. There has to be something else behind it. Bush and Blair's actions are Racist in the extreme and this is the reason they will never get my support.



The IRA by the way, were substantially funded by sympathisers in the USA. Terrorism is not a new thing or idea. Spain have been dealing with their ETA terrorists for several generations. The response to these Spanish terrorists were to haunt them down and kill them, NOT to restrict every Spaniard.



I won't comment on Bush helping Black Kids who can't read because that is too simplistic for comment. I frankly DO NOT believe you when you say he has an IQ of 191. This is another fraudulent claim that the Supreme Court might have to rule over.



In conclusion, White terrorists are no better or worse than Arab terrorists, Black Terrorists, Korean Terrorists, or Conservative terrorists, who achieve the same results by restricting my rights as a Free Honest Tax paying citizen.
nukecat25
2006-07-11 23:13:20 UTC
Putting Bush in the same boat with Hitler is a little rash. I'm an independent, but I am liberal in my philosophies. Bush shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Ghandi though. Ghandi was all about peaceful demonstration against tyranny and government he didn't approve of; while Bush made a preemptive strike to begin a war with a poor basis for beginning. Bush wasn't much like Reagan either; Reagan did a great job by keeping us out of war with his own very personal touch to diplomacy. Bush never deals personally with leaders that he doesn't agree with, that's Condi's job, for that matter he doesn't speak to crowds that might not like him. I can't actually think of one time that Bush has directly interacted with any group of people that might not tell him what he wants to hear, or make him feel negative pressures; he's kinda like a one man pep rally, or a delicate fabrege' egg that cannot be subjected directly to criticism. I don't recall seeing him at the 9/11 commission hearings, the intellegence officer leak probe, or any other bipartisan probes into scandal. The only time he was on his own was during the Presidential candidate debates, and then he had a earpiece telling him what to say.
James F
2006-07-11 23:08:12 UTC
Uhhh, I agree that its stupid but I don't think the Gandhi reference is right on. Bush isn't like Hitler or Gandhi, you could compare him to Reagan but hes not the same.



Hitler was definatly not a left-winger, he was a totalitarian, which would be considered extreme right wing. A perfect communism would be a extreme left wing, if I'm correct.



But liberals compare Bush to Hitler because they are ignorant. They are not stupid, its just they don't look at all the facts. They see that Bush is at war with two countries and he is limiting some rights or freedoms to privacy.



I mean it would be just as bad to glorify Bush, wouldn't it? I'm a Bush supported but I too admit he could have done better, he didn't seem to do the best job he could, and he hasn't communicated well with the American public.



Edit: Just read Parashooter's post and I'm offended. How can someone talk about bigitism and knowing me when they themselves hate a certain political party that much. There was great anger in that awnser and it almost proves my point. Ignorance is the awnser, Para has proven it.
firestarter
2006-07-11 23:28:28 UTC
Is his IQ of 191 on "Hooked on Phonics?" Please if you are going to equate a great leader with a great leader, don't compare apples with oranges. Ghandi was a leader of nonviolent civil disobedience; Bush uses violence to get his democracy spread. Are we to rid the world of all of its bad leaders? That would mean to conquer 90% of the world . I think that doctrine is what is contained in the communist's phylosophies. The Iraqi war has generated more amputees than any other war.A war on terror can never be won. We can't afford this. Osama Bin Laudin is a Saudi;not an Iraqi(oops). Oh that's right, they(the Saudis) own approx 7% of the United States.Darn! Now the ravages of the ugly . A young woman being raped and her immediate family killed by whom? Why it was an American soldier with his buddies. What is the plan? Every war has a plan. Not this one. What do you tell a boy with no arms and legs? Yeah Bush is like Ghandi. How many people did Ghandi kill? Supprt the troops, but not the war. This is tragic.
Doc Watson
2006-07-11 23:38:17 UTC
You sound like a paid political puppet, but not an especially articulate or knowledgeable one. Are they scraping the bottom of the barrow to come up with people like you?



Gandhi was a pure pacifist, refusing to hurt anyone to win freedom for India.



Bush claims to champion Democracy and at the same time has a close family friendship with the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and close business ties with the dictatorship in Angola. At the same time he opposes the freely elected president of Venezuela.



Bush's IQ has been rated at 92 to 95, about the national average but hardly a brain.



Hitler stole from the poor, shut down small businesses and let a few hand-selected make and control all the money in Germany.



Take your lies to some place where someone might actually believe them.
zclifton2
2006-07-12 00:04:06 UTC
Bush may care about the people around the world, but he sure doesn't spend one minute a day worrying about all those American kids that are riding around in Iraq getting blown up.



Proud to be a demonstrator against this Iraq War before it started. But Bush and you didn't care enough to ask any questions before invading the people who invented the ambush.



To bad the ones that came up with this idea aren't the ones dying because of it. I bet the Iraq War would have been over by now if only the neo-cons would do the fighting.



Face it, this war is lost, and you didn't learn anything, again.
2006-07-12 10:02:40 UTC
Both are so close...



Hitler took Swastika sign from Buddhist countries, after his visit to some holly places.

Hitler believed he had given freedom and best rule to countries he occupied.

Hitler cared much of good disadvantaged people too (according to his understanding), poverty diminished in Germany; (IQ if measured by Nazis would be not less 191). LOL. Some Bush things really indicate 191....
2006-07-11 23:11:38 UTC
I have never seen Bush compared to Hitler. Bush is no racist....And Hitler was no left winger.



I guess the main problem I have with Bush is that he and his dad, are globalists. They want to be part of a one world order, which we already see happening in Europe.



I think that is very dangerous, because it will take away our freedoms and our sovereignty....We will lose our place in the world that we have worked so hard accomplish, our ideals and values will change, because we will no longer be independent.



That's what I don't like about Bush....However, I think who ever gets into office will also want to implement this insidious plan...
Golgo-13
2006-07-11 23:08:19 UTC
Because liberals don't know the definition of fascist and are ignorant and enjoy insulting the genocide of millions of people in Europe a little over 60 years ago just so they can show their faint political views. What it boils down to is people don't think and they use terms to lightly for example jokingly comparing someone to a fascist or a Nazi not realizing exactly what they're doing or saying then everyone does it sooner or later they make the same mistakes of the past because they forget because of some individual's ignorance a long time ago.
kincade
2016-10-14 13:28:02 UTC
there should be some who analyze democrates to nazis, yet i have not considered them marching in the streets conserving warning signs proclaiming that. I surely have considered video of anti-warfare protesters comparing Bush to Hitler. i imagine what confuses you is that Conservatives are conscious that fascism(Nazism) continuously comes from the left or socialist leanings(Nazi=nationwide socialist party) . in simple terms because the yank left sees authorities as all effective and able to remedy all issues so did the Nazis believe that authorities became the most suitable decider of any difficulty. The patriot act even as offensive to some does no longer come on the fringe of proscribing freedom as does the political maximum proper law looking for gender equality(sexual harassment codes) or affirmative action (institutional racism, raising some on the fee of others to be determined by non elected bureaucrats) Enviormental regulation(proscribing inner most belongings rights). particularly than sweat the small stuff (Presidential skill vested in Bush) seem on the great photo and shun those who see authorities because the most suitable skill
Wyld Stallyns
2006-07-11 23:47:58 UTC
I'm not a liberal, but I can see some parallels if you look close enough.



Hitler was a Nazi, a Nationalist-Socialist. So it would seem that a socialist would be a leftist, but look at the policies.



Hitler had a problem with Jews --immigrants-- who were influencing the economy. Bush tries to distance himself from anti-immigration, but other republicans are anti-immigration and Bush gets guilt by association.



Hitler had a problem with gays, he rounded them up and gassed them like he did the Jews. Bush and the conservative republicans keep going after gay marriage and making it a big topic of discussion.



Hitler had a cult of the flag, where he would touch his flag to other flags to pass on some mysterious power. Bush and the conservatives keep harping about flag burning.



Hitler also invaded countries and claimed that he was liberating them (Austria and Czechoslovakia). Bush invaded Iraq and claims to be liberating it from Hussein.



Hitler spied on his own countrymen with the SS/Gestapo. Bush spies on his own countrymen with the NSA.



Hitler detained enemies of the state without trial. Bush has detained enemies of the state without trial.



Hitler's prisoners were often tortured and killed. Bush's prisoners are rendered to other countries that torture them for the US.



***

Ways in which Bush is not like Gandhi.

Ghandi resisted tyranny through civil disobedience. Bush wants to eliminate civil disobedience by outlawing forms of speech.



Despite beliving in civil disobedience, Gandhi believed in non-violence. Bush started a war.



Gandhi wanted his country to be self-sufficient and free of foreign domination. Bush wanted to sell strategic interests (like port operations) to Arabs and the Chinese and advocates policies that make us dependent on foreigners.



Gandhi struggled to help the poor. Bush and the republicans want to cut social aid programs in the US.



Gandhi made and wore his own dhoti. Bush wears expensive tailored suits.



Gandhi often fasted as a means of political speech. Bush speaks at expensive thousand-dollar a plate dinners.



Gandhi advodated truth. Bush uses misinformation and negative attack ads, and has someone leak the truth for political advantage if he expects it won't come back to him.



But Gandhi and Bush did both talk about reducing taxation.
ggarsk
2006-07-12 06:55:18 UTC
Just Will and Wyld Stallyns, you two summed it up great saved me alot of righting. One should read Hitlers speech right after the Riechstag fire. Change just a few words and you'd think it was a speech about 9/11. As for Fascism, Vice President Henry Wallace wrote an excellent article on "American Fascism" in 1945 that is just as pertinent today. Fascism is the concept of Corporations and Governments being one. It's like having GM, Exxon. Enron, Pepsi, IBM, etc as our Senators....ooops sorry I forgot they already own most of the senators! If a person just looked up history and studied it, instead of spouting out the talking point of the day we'd be in alot better shape as a country.
lostinromania
2006-07-12 00:00:42 UTC
Comparing Bush to a 1930's Hitler is quite accurate and parallel on several fronts. One might also compare Bush to Nero, Rome's first quasi-emporer.



1) Use of Religion - Without actually doing anything to further the cause of the State's most popular religion, these leaders managed to stir up the religiously minded to support their cause. Hitler's "Mein Kampf" reads like a pro-Christian diatribe, as does Bush's autobiography with the references to being "born-again" and that "God speaks to him."



2) Use of Terror - Nero set a Roman neighborhood on fire and blamed the Christians, Hitler's buddy set the Reichstag on fire and blamed the Communists, Bush's cronies demolished a few buildings and blamed the Muslims. All incidents were used for a massive power grab which suspended democratic principles in their respective countries. These power grabs also allowed additional incidents to be fomented without question as cassus belli for war.



3) Obsession with Torture - On a personal level, each leader was obsessed with some kind of barbarity. Hitler loved humiliating Jews and torturing political opponents. Nero loved the spectacle of throwing Christians to the lions in an arena. Bush, despite testimony from leading experts in every field, still insists on his personal right to order the torture of anyone and insiders say that he sometimes personally presides over the phone while "interrogations" are taking place of high level suspects.



4) Secret Government - Hitler and Bush were both obsessed with the government's right to secrecy in everything it does. Bush suspended executive orders that would allow people to see presidential records, re-wrote a law to make sure scientific studies passed through his political advisors first, and made up several programs to nail whistleblowers and disallow their lawsuits from ever seeing the light of day.



5) Anti-Intellectual - One of Bush's "charms" is that he's nearly retarded when he speaks. He's also made sure that certain endowments for art and culture were suspended for "faith-based initiatives". Hitler likewise saw art and culture as "Jewishness" and loved destroying it at every turn. Real education in both societies was replaced with a sort of "indoctrination" to be a good wage-slave, consumer, and blind follower taught in schools today and back then.



6) Right-wing, Racist, Mock-Christian, Authoritarian - Bush (the nation's "Decider") or Hitler (the nation's "Guide")...both actually.



7) Obsession with Breeding and Homosexuality - Abortion and women's sexual rights were fought against tooth and nail by both societies. The idea being that each nation needed it's worker bees and no white child should be killed. I could write a whole book on the neo-fascist obsession with gays and monitoring what two consenting perverts choose to do in the privacy of their own home.



8) I could go on like this all day, but I gotta work...sorry.
volleyballchick (cowards block)
2006-07-11 23:15:00 UTC
But Gandhi did it peacefully. . .



And Bush believes in the betterment of his agenda - not of people in general. If he believed in the betterment of people, he would give more money to the programs that fund education and assisting those that can't assist themselves (seniors, disabled, etc.) instead of milking our economy dry. I mean, the man is patting himself on the back for "finding" 126 billion dollars in the budget so we're coming out "better than" he "projected". He caused that issue in the first place, and he thinks it's great he "fixed" it?



As to the comparisons to Hitler, I do not agree with them. I think that is a little extreme. But Bush brought them on himself, so deal.
2006-07-12 08:28:13 UTC
Dubya's policies are not new :-



“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Hermann Göring 1946 Nuremberg Trials(Nazi)
The Man of Steel
2006-07-11 23:26:27 UTC
WTF!? It takes some brass balls to compare Bush to Ghandi, as it is a disgrace to Ghandi, and will get you killed in many religious sects. Comparing him to Reagan, on the other hand, is much better, what with Reagan being considered the Devil in Rastafari religion and Bush being a comparison to the Antichrist in Christian religion. None of your examples actually work:

·While Iraqis have freedom, or the ones who aren't dead, we minorities barely have any voting rights over here

·What makes you think that all Bush's works are for "poor, Black kids who can't read". As he is a racist, it is more likely for ignorant, interbreed, rednecks like yourself.

·191, I think you read that wrong. More like 1.91 out of 1600! Have you ever seen him in action. The guys name is almost synonymous with diarrea of the mouth



Liberals are like Hitler? Oh really?! Hitler hated homosexuals, minorities, and any one opposing to his Aryan race (upon further review, Aryans are blue-eyed, blonde, narrow-eyed Caucasians). In all actuality, Ghandi is a moderate Democrat and Hitler is a right-wing extremist (see Ann Coulter).



"Your entire classification of George W. Bush in the image of Mahatma Ghandi and not Heydrich Reinhardt is absolutely ludicrous!"*
Rachel
2006-07-11 23:09:05 UTC
You are awesome!!!



I'm not quite sure why people do that either. You are totally right. Bush is no Hitler. Bush is not the Nazi bas**** that caused the Holocaust. Bush does not slaughter millions of people because of their race or religion. Hitler was evil and power hungry. There is no comparison.
parshooter
2006-07-11 23:03:04 UTC
YOU ARE A SPECIAL PEOPLE CONS



You supported bush, but in time, you will come to

realize how he targeted you for deception.



You were specially picked because of the attributes

you possess: fear, ignorance, arrogance, belligerence,

bigotry, and low self-esteem. Bush's political

strategists calculated that the people most easily

misled and controlled are the ones who fit your

profile, so they crafted their propaganda just for

you.



He got your support by making you feel better about

your personal flaws. He told you to wave the flag

because your bigotry is nothing be ashamed of, and to

thump the bible because your ignorance is a virtue.

You should cherish your hatefulness and

small-mindedness as they are family values. You are

not society's rejects, but rather, you are higher on

the ladder than certain other people. Right-wing radio

points them out so that you know who to hate to feel

better about yourself.



He feeds you crap about "imminent threat",

"patriotism", "spreading freedom", and "flowers and

candy". He's only tossing you a bone because he knows

he's going to be asking you for a hefty sacrifice

soon. He repeats meaningless, mind-numbing platitudes

like "Freedom is not free!" and "We're fighting them

there so we don't have to fight them here!" You fell

for it.



By now, it should be apparent that the invasion of

Iraq was a shameless oil grab. We're there because the

rich, powerful, and greedy of this country, people who

you have nothing to do with, want to control that part

of the world's oil resources for decades to come, and

they're using your tax dollars and your children's

blood to do it. Over a hundred thousand people,

American and Iraqi, are dead because of it, and the

depleted uranium left behind will ensure that tens of

thousands more die afterwards. You call that

liberation? Not even that many people died when Saddam

Hussein tried to grab Kuwait's oil fields years ago.



Yes, you are a special people, cons. You do not

possess patriotism, a love of America, or any of those

high-minded ideals as you would like to believe. You

possess the qualities that allowed bush to hijack your

free will to do his bidding. You were used, and he did

it by playing to the personal shortcomings that most

people try to hide. Like Samuel L. Jackson's character

at the end of the movie Unbreakable, you become aware,

only after the fact, of the disgraceful role that you

were destined to play. You will come to realize that

you are history's bad guy. Like the McCarthyites or

the brownshirts, you will serve both as a symbol of

shame and a warning to future generations. You truly

are a special people.GOD HELP US ALL,AND AMERICA.



----





THE BUSH DOCTRINE







All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction. The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be.



The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:



It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.



The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.



~ Adolph Hitler "Mein Kampf - War Propaganda"



State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part I



"There are those who always say that it cannot happen here. That was also what many were saying in Germany in the 1930s. The Nazi’s crimes were the official legal acts and policies of modern Germany—an educated, civilized Western European nation. Much like the U.S. of today, it was a country renowned throughout the world for its industrial and cultural achievements. In fact, Berlin was the epitome of the modern city. Freedom in everything seemed to be the new clarion call in Germany. However, within a short time, Germany became part and parcel to some of the most barbaric acts ever perpetrated by a people."

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=318



State of the Union: Fascism with a Smile—Part II



It is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

— Nazi Field Marshal Hermann Goering, testimony at Nuremberg



http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=319



Hitler's Enabling Act



http://www.govsux.com/enable.htm
Carl S
2006-07-11 23:13:21 UTC
Because liberals don't know of anyone else to compare against. The don't believe in Christ, so they also don't believe in Satan, and so can't use him. Any comparisons of other people of less than stellar reputations might come back to bite them, people like ... oh, let's see, like ... Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, etc.



It seems the liberals have become so focused on doing something to knock down George Bush that they have forgotten how to some anything constructive for our country.
sijandi04
2006-07-19 14:32:38 UTC
Liberals think that America should be punished for every single past crime that is has ever committed. They hate Bush, because he stands for what is good and decent about this country. They hate him, because if they didn't they would have to stop punishing America for the crimes committed before we were born. Also if they didn't hate them they would have to hate themselves for what they have become. If you look at Liberals they hate Regan to. They call conservatives criminals, and terrorists Saints. According to them it is wrong to feed thousands of hungry people. but its good when a terrorist blows them to pieces. Why don't we leave it off as Main Stream Liberals are insane?
hi
2006-07-19 04:23:16 UTC
BUSH IS LIKE GANDHI? he hasn't given anybody freedom, just blown ppl's heads off and lied about it. he doesn't give a **** about ppl around the world, don't give me that. i'm a liberal and i'm proud. all liberals should be. bush is an idiot.
libertyu9
2006-07-11 23:59:52 UTC
Because they hate him with fierce passion. (sure, he has had his own special share of flops, snafus and screw ups, but the loathing he receives is nothing short of Satanic) And, in liberal circles, if you hate someone, you find a comparison to Hitler, and you either voice it publicly, or, if you don't have the brass for that, you pay someone else to do it for you. And Bush definitely qualifies.
kentuckygrown
2006-07-15 11:15:15 UTC
are you fuc*ing kiding me, i do not know that i would ever compare bush to hitler, not mny people are as evil as hitler. BUT MY GOD bush is deff no where close to being like ghandi
chicagoan86
2006-07-11 23:15:29 UTC
Ignorance is a difineing trait of liberals.
nefariousx
2006-07-11 23:13:32 UTC
I don't call him that.





but there are similitraties to facism arising in our system.



John Dean former Nixon cab. mem.

wrote a book about this...........



called Conservitive without Consciene



He concluded that we are not facistist yet, but in a proto facist......





PS. your comparisons are ridiculous.
2006-07-11 23:04:21 UTC
because he is hitler!! ghandi that makes me laugh. when bush's term is over i'm gonna throw a party.
2006-07-11 23:09:34 UTC
Yes, and you are to be taken seriously. In your mind.

Seek help, you are way too angry.
2006-07-11 23:07:58 UTC
i don't see no different they both hate black people
acopa06
2006-07-11 23:06:20 UTC
because they know nothing about history! poor souls!!!!!
perfect_demise
2006-07-11 23:06:29 UTC
http://www.2flashgames.com/f/f-Earth-vs-Humans-2633.htm

check this out and tell me if it maters!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...