Howard Dean supporters in Munich

Hello everyone. I was excited to come across this busy board!

So I'd like to start by asking, how many Howard Dean supporters do we have here? Or indeed how many of us Democrats in Munich are there? Regardless of whether you're pro-Dean or not.

I've read a little about the anti-American sentiment felt around here. And yes, I've experienced it myself too - more so than ever last year, with the whole Iraq thing of course. But I'm thinking the feeling is not so much anti-American as anti-Bush. Agree with his policies or not, that guy does have a major PR problem throughout the rest of the world. I think the best thing we can do is ensure that, just like his father, he's a one-term president only. And Howard Dean is our best bet for that, as well as him being a solid and trustworth candidate too, of course.

Am I striking a nerve here?

Not wishing to start a big argument or anything, I'm just wondering what the feeling is out here in Munich. I trust that the very least you'll do is make sure you exercise your democratic right and vote! I know it's always more of a hassle from abroad.

Howard Dean? Does he play for Chelsea?

Lottie, I was just home for two weeks in the states and the feeling that I got was that Americans are becoming more pro bush than they were in the past and that he has a good chance at becoming a two term president. Not that I completely agree with that, but that's the sentiment I got when I was home.

OK, I caught something on the news recently, what's this scandal or something with Dean ?

Or heard that he was not really committing to anything, just left everything with wide open answers. Generally, heard that he has no opinion on anything !

I'm certainly not pro-Bush, but I think he'll be back.

Howard Dean's the only candidate who's said anything I can support, but the reason the party's not backing him strongly is that his record is way too conservative to be stomached.

To tell you what I think of the choices, I'd actually vote for McCain over Dean; but he'll never the nomination so my vote is simply one against Bush.

The Democrats would be well advised to get behind one candidate now, most likely Dean with a strong vice-president (Kerry/Clark), and start hammering it out, otherwise I agree with Fusilli that Bush's Polling is looking up as of recent.

Why would you be striking a nerve? Good topic I think (well at least for some I guess ). and I am right there with you on the exercising the vote. Nothing worse than debating with someone only to find out they didn't vote, which of course leaves me with a

I am not necessarily a by the party line person, I believe in doing my homework and considering the person, platform, and history of integrity. Although the latter is not always easily found in politics. It's all in the wording - ie. I did not inhale, or have sexual relations or read my lips or I am not scared of the beaver.

Oooh, a few responses already. How exciting.

Mr Keydeck, sorry, what's the ex-president's daughter got to do with anything? I think I'm missing an in-joke here.

Michnic, Pepper, I kind of agree with you. Bush seems to be gaining speed. And to be brutally honest, I'm not wholy convinced by Dean either. He is definately riding the anti-Bush wave, with no strong policies to back him up. But he does seem like a peace lovin' non-Gung Ho type character. I just don't want to see another war - from a point of view of the expense more than anything else!!! Just think of what could have been done with that 100 billion or whatever the Iraq conflict cost.

So that he can keep looking for the WMD??

Maybe he would perform better in the Chelsea team...

it's obvious how well-known the Chelsea team is...

I don't think Mr. Keydeck was referring to Chelsea Clinton...it's a soccer team.

i'm not a very knowledgable person on political affairs and i'm not american... but here are my observations...

i've read about this dean fellah and i think it is true to say that he has dodged a lot of the sticky issues and left questions unanswered... there is a touch of the governator approach about that, but dean doesn't have the mass market appeal of arnie to swing it...

lottie, i think you are right, it is anti-bush rather than anti-american sentiment... i think it is frightening to see how the 'politicians' can run rough shod over the national opinion... especially in the biggest 'democracy' in the world...

i think it is even more frightening to talk to americans who totally disapprove of what is being done in their name and can't (or can't be arsed to) do anything about it... but i don't think a democrat government will be any different...

a lot of people have read 'stupid white men' and so on... but there are a lot more frightening stories... this noam chomsky guy for example... his stuff scares the hell out of me... automakers, unions and oil companies are the real bosses... any body in the auto industry might like to read High and Mighty:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books

there is something intrinsically wrong with democracy as it is organised in the US... i don't have the answer though... in ireland it is just a miniture version of the same thing...

Like what?

This is kind of on topic: Good Book - Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington (Democrats/Republicans) Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude - Robert Baer.

I was being a smart-arse, and not a very funny one either. Please accept my humble apologies.

I do like the "Mr. Keydeck" reference though. Right you lot, it's Mr. Keydeck from now on!

Hey hey, here's a primer (from a PROPER news organisation) for all of those who are slightly behind the curve on the US elections but are itching to know more
my best observation: havn't they all got lovely hair?

US candiates primer

I am American, Mr. Keydeck, but I like to think I'm not a stereotypical "Dumb American". I know full well that Chelsea are a team in the sport that the Brits mistakingly call "football". I was just playing along with you. Appologies accepted though.

Like what? Asks the webmaster. Well, how about a manned mission to Mars? What can be more worthwhile than sending a bunch of men and women 7 months across empty space to walk around a dustblown lifeless desert of a planet?

OK, I'm shooting myself in the foot with my own sarcasm here. Maybe going to Mars isn't all that important. But I heard someone recently say that with the bill for Iraq a man could be put on Mars within 5 years.
Reference: Iraq war costs could have funded manned mission to Mars

Kinds of puts it into perspective of what mankind could acheive if we didn't fight each other all the time.

What else could you do with 100 Bil? Well, that's off topic slightly I guess.

Whatever you think about the administration's policies, you have to admit that Karl Rove is brilliant when it comes to swaying American opinion. They could give fark all about what the rest of the world thinks.

I read something a few years back about states that depend most on federal aid and they just happen to be those Bush landslid in the last election. These are also the states where people have one or two main issues that take them to the voting booth and so it's easy to distract them from the damage that's being done.

I still can't figure out how any decision maker could say they need more money and cut taxes at the same time . And that's the reason I could back McCain--at least he's interested in making corporations ante up and that would reduce the burden on individuals.

sorry if that came across wrong, was just curious what you thought about it.

LOL, it's not that he is a complete asshole, he has just bad PR.

This interview with Ramsey Clark takes a while to read but it's a good overview of how f*cked up America has always been.

Warning: it will make you sad and angry.

Here's an excerpt:

Our overriding purpose, from the beginning right through to the present day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of our foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources. And insofar as any people or states get in the way of our domination, they must be eliminated - or, at the very least, shown the error of their ways.

I'm not talking about just military domination. U.S. trade policies are driven by the exploitation of poor people the world over. Vietnam is a good example of both the military and the economic inhumanity. We have punished its government and people mercilessly, just because they want freedom. The Vietnamese people had to fight for thirty years to achieve freedom - first against the French, and then against the United States. I used to be criticized for saying that the Vietnamese suffered 2 million casualties, but I've noticed that people now say 3 million without much criticism. Yet that war was nothing compared to the effects of twenty years of sanctions, from 1975 to 1995, which brought the Vietnamese people - a people who had proven to be invincible when threatened by physical force on their own land - down to such dire poverty that they were taking to open boats in stormy seas, and drowning, to get to a refugee camp in Hong Kong, a place no one in his or her right mind would want to be. They went simply because they saw no future in their own country.

I went to North Vietnam in the summer of 1971, when the U.S. was trying to destroy civilian dikes through bombing. Our government figured that if it could destroy Vietnam's capacity for irrigation, it could starve the people into submission.

so not all publicity is good publicity then

Moroz added that it was "realistic" to consider building a new civilization on Mars and adapting the planet for human life, "although this is not a task for today or tomorrow."

This is from your Reference Lottie, but don't you think we should focus on helping to build a civilization on earth before we focus on Mars. Won't that 100 billion dollars be used to help Iraq at all? I know the main purpose is so that the U.S. can build up the infrastructure in Iraq so that they can use it and exploit it, but nevertheless it will still help the country in some way.

A country as wealthy as the US should not have a level of poverty that's running neck and neck with the Third World. I'd like to see some money going to that. And how about throwing some more cash at education if you want people smart enough to explore space?

I agree Michnic, I think the U.S. needs to focus its money on education and try to lessen the gap between rich and poor and decrease poverty. Even putting the money into scientific research. And i'm not talking about a trip to Mars, something more along the lines of cancer research or a cure for AIDS etc..

I have to admit, I don't think any of those candidates really impress though. How is it that out of millions of people that's all that we can come up with? I'd vote for Arnold over those guys.

Space-based technology has already enriched a wide range of human activities—how we communicate with one another, process information, travel, and study our planet's biosphere, to name a few. It has improved our quality of life by showing us new ways to treat our sick and injured, grow our food, and even correct our vision.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/spinoff2002/johnson.html

I believe they do various experiments each Shuttle flight. Space travel captures the imagination, imagination stimulates creativity, which advances our thinking. Gets kids interested in science which leads to future doctors, etc... Space Travel - It's more than just Pink Floyd and a laser show.

Thought a few might enjoy these
www.bushin30seconds.org

I've nothing against space exploration.

And the Space Shuttle tragedy of a year ago is more than sad when I read about the cuts to NASA's budget.

@michnic I think you have some great ideas, can tell they are not lightly considered. In a roundabout way I was agreeing with the take on education. That should be at or near the top of the list; or we will continue to drift farther and farther behind, as more and more jobs such as technical are shipped out of the country to India for example, where labor is cheaper.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it. I am looking forward to getting your take on the Sleeping with the Devil book!

...and gave us Velcro and Teflon. Where would we be without them...?

Not forgetting satellite telly, how else could we watch wolves matches in Murphy's? Oh, and those pens that can write underwater and pastel jumpsuits. no, wait that was star trek.

Actually it is well known Urban Myth that Velcro and Teflon came from the American space program. In reality Velcro was invented by a Swiss Botanist back in 1948 - well before the first Astronaut. http://www.teflon.com/, meanwhile, was first discovered in 1938 and first brought to market by DuPont in 1945.

As for underwater pens, well, it begs the question, why on earth do you need an underwater pen in space?

I think I read on The Straight Dope once that there has actually never been a single technical innovation which came about as a direct result of the Space Program. Apart from actually putting stuff in space itself, of course.

I'm not sure how many of the folks in this discussion are voters, but I personally am about as left on politics as you can get without being a "liberal nut". This is just because I think the main issues should be government investment in society (Republicans term it spending) like social security, welfare reform, education and health care. I've already put you to sleep.

I will probably vote anyone other than Bush, and not because of his foreign policy, although that has been adominable. I only wish all Americans could live in Europe and know what that man does to our image... but I will vote due to his performance with the domestic economy. He has not done a damn thing to help the middle class Americans that make up the majority of the unemployment rate, which has sky rocketed. His tax cut got a lot of press, but I haven't seen any real effect for the people of my small Southern state.

Which brings us to the candidates. I don't really like Howard Dean. He is just too removed from the people he is trying to represent. He is a rich, Northern yankee who tends to say rather insulting and ignorant things (his quote about the South was just too much for me). But I try to keep in mind that John F. Kennedy was also very removed and Catholic to boot. Maybe Dean will end up okay in the end, but I don't think he'll win the country. He's just too radical and won't cross party boundaries. But it's almost too late now. He has Gore's support and unless the Clintons come out and support someone before the primary rounds, Dean will probably be our man.

I'm just waiting for the democratic mud slinging to subside so we can see who's who and about what.

p.s. the scandal about Dean is that he criticizes Bush and his lack of national security pre-Sept 11, but his Vermont nuclear power plant was rated one of the least safe to terrorist attack in the country.

Bee Sting, that's a very intelligent view you have there! What's your take on John Edwards then? He's a Southerner isn't he? North Carolina I believe. He seems just toooo nice to me. And young as well.

Sorry to keep bringing this topic back to the Space program, but it's on the front page of BBC News only this very morning that:


Here's the link if you're interested:
Bush proposal to send man to Mars

I really like John Edwards and have read his views on his election homepage. He really added a new life to NC when the Jesse Helms era ended. I was disappointed a little when he announced the bid for the white house. I think he should stay in the senate at least another term before moving up, especially sense he shares the NC seat with Libby Dole and could probably work on building party bridges, etc... But he's there, and I think he could make a nice VP candidate if the other big names refuse it on pride.

Oh, I also saw a quote from Bush that said he will stay committed to Americans until everyone has food on their table and a job. I wish he would simply say, "I will work hard to get America back to the point it was before I became president." That would be more accurate.

Ouch. I amaze myself with sarcasm.

Here's one site with a lot of coverage on the debates: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debate03/

I nominated Whoopie Goldberg. A black woman with a jewsih last name. hee to the hee hee. On a more serious note, I think most American's feel that "we the people" no longer have a voice. We did not vote G.W. into office, but he's there. I still find it appauling that Jeb gave his brother the state of florida and got away with it. Those little old ladies down south can manage 15 bingo cards simultaneously yet, they can't count votes? I think the sudden rise in popularity for G.W. is due to Saddam being pulled out of the hiding hole. A friend of mine had a valid point. He claims that Saddam had be captured for a long time and it was kept away from the press and public. if you look at the before and after pics, it does make sense. the man was pale and dirt covered when captured, yet after a shower and shave he had a rather nice tan. wouldn't he have been even more pale after washing away the dirt? It was all a ploy to gain popularity. The flying into Bagdad for Thanksgiving caused ratings to soar as well. If all the public relations don't work, he can always get daddy to fix the poles again.

He'll invade Poland? That's how Hitler started.

No Spudboy, the voting poles, although I do see how one could mis-understand that.

Just having a bit of a dig at your spelling, Tornado. You obviously meant "polls", but I couldn't resist making a wise-ass remark about Poland after the earlier comparisons of Bush to Hitler