1. No, the real number of working, effective nukes pointed at U.S. targets was about 2000. This was still enough to kill the world many times over.
2. To tell the truth, I would have done quite well in Nazi Germany, being a stereotypical "Aryan". However, many of my closest friends would be dead. I cannot see the good parts of Nazi Germany for all the corpses.
3. It was the Weimar Republic until 1933. The persecution started when Hitler was elected Chancellor. Hitler did not represent the Nazis; he was the Nazis. Without him the Nazis would have faded away just like its post-WW1 peers. Hitler, once elected Chancellor, quickly exerted his will to force von Hindenburg, the President of Germany, to do as Hitler said. Hitler had supreme power by the end of 1933.
4. Here's how treatment of Japanese was different from treatment of Jews: We didn't kill them in scores, women and children first. Is that enough of a fucking difference?
mEkImIrMeWhat makes Nazi Germany not so bad- Persecution of Jews only began in 1933, at that point the Nazis finally elected Hitler to FULL power. So we can say that Hitler represents Nazi-Germany now... as George Bush shows what everyone in America thinks and looks like. In comparison. Rome was one of the greatest empire of all times, but some how no one ever outlawed Roman flags because they persecuted anyone that was monotheistic. Explain how treatment of Jews in germany was different then treatment of Japanese in America during WWII...
Yes, but the ideals the nazis were based on were in themselves abhorrent. And not just Hitler representes the nazis, but also goering and himmler and hundreds of abominable murderers. And the treatment of Japanese was different in that we didn't kill 6 million of them.
Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
They say they did it to represent their country; well their in America, going to American schools, living in American homes, America is their country and it's high time these little ingrates had that fact bought home to them.
15th January 2004
Ah yes, America. Land of the free.
They have a right to wear whatever they want, so long as it's something. And it doesn't reveal anything that shouldn't be.
And the Japanese were placed in camps in the middle of a desert, yes. Then they were clothed, fed, and looked out for. Some were even allowed to go to Japan. So, is that enough of a difference?
moofTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733, 21 L.Ed.2d. 731 (1969) In this seminal case considering the First Amendment rights of students who were expelled after they wore black armbands to school in symbolic protest of the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court held that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate" and that the First Amendment protects public school students' rights to express political and social views. This case is still the court's ruling based on the circumstances, as the dress is not part of curriculum, it is not "representing" for destructive elements such as neo-nazis or gangs (as you suggested should not be allowed, Bobo), and is not a reasonable or already applicable part of the dress code. As such, the students have a Constitutional right to their freedom of expression.
[size=-1]The Court ruled that this symbolic speech--"closely akin to pure speech"--could only be prohibited by school administrators if they could show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission.
School administrators have every right to limit the freedom of speech of students if they feel it will interfere with the goal of their educational purpose. The Administrators at Freedom Highschool saw this as a potential problem, and acted accordingly. [/size]