Anyone Else Think We Might Be Better Off If Gore Had Won?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bush has kept my family safe from terrorism, ran up the stock market and made me a bunch of money, appointed two solid conservative judges, and cut my taxes. I'm happy as a clam...
Click to expand...

I've seen no significant tax cuts, made no money off the stock market, seen my financial aid cut, and lost a year and a half of my life to Iraq for what appears at this point to be no good reason except that it somehow makes you feel safer.

Bush can go die in a fire. I'm not particularly fond of those happy to benefit from his policies at the expense of those getting the raw end with no reacharound, either.

Meanwhile Gore has predicted that I might get my feet wet from a melting iceberg. Has he done anything else I missed?
Click to expand...

Oh haha, those silly scientists with their silly science. What morons. We all know global warming is just a tool of the commie liberal leftists so they'll have an excuse to grab our guns...or tax us...or something.
 
Musketeer said:
We would still be waiting for a clear resolution from the UN authorizing us to pursue AlQada in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
Really? How do we know 9/11 would have even happened under Gore? Perhaps America's foreign policy - namely that of the GOP - had a little something to do with it.

Or are we still deluding ourselved into thinking it was a completely unprovoked attack because they "hate freedom"?


Camp David said:
This war we are in, this War on Terror, is very hard to win and very hard to gauge progress since no president has ever fought this particular type of war. Therefore the only real way of measuring success (and whether he has been better than if Al Gore was president) is ask whether we have been successfully attacked since 09.11.01 by terrorists, since that is the main reason we went to war. On that basis George Bush has been a complete success in his War on Terror. Now you can skowl at that fact, criticize it, condemn it, cry about it, castigate it, even reject it, but you can't deny it...
Click to expand...
Sure I can.


Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away!
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: (Looks around) Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
 
Global warming comes from......................THE SUN!!!:eek:
That is why the icecaps on Mars are melting as well.
Enough of that.
The fact that Alito is good friends with GW and that GW tried to nominate Harriet Meirs, should make you suspect anyone nominated by this president.
 
Really? How do we know 9/11 would have even happened under Gore? Perhaps America's foreign policy - namely that of the GOP - had a little something to do with it?
Click to expand...

Okay, even I won't go that route. We don't know that it would have happened, but there is very little evidence that our foreign policy decisions between January 2001 and September 2001 somehow precipitated the attacks. Those wheels were in motion before Bush ever took office, and they tried to bomb the WTC under Clinton. It's safe to say that that morning would probably not have gone down any differently under Gore.

But that was a fantastic Simpsons bit on specious reasoning, though! Apparently that passes for logic around here.

Global warming comes from......................THE SUN!!!
That is why the icecaps on Mars are melting as well.
Enough of that.
Click to expand...

Who here has a degree somehow related to the environmental science field? Anybody? I'm guessing nobody. Me neither. So yeah, I'm going to believe scientists who specialize in such things over some guy on a gun board (or an oilman from Texas) when it comes to the idea that our carbon emissions might be somehow linked to climate change. I can't recall seeing any peer-reviewed research contradicting the claim, either. Maybe somebody has a link?

It's funny too, because that seems to be the #1 complaint against Gore (his being an "environmental nut").
 
Okay, even I won't go that route. We don't know that it would have happened, but there is very little evidence that our foreign policy decisions between January 2001 and September 2001 somehow precipitated the attacks. Those wheels were in motion before Bush ever took office, and they tried to bomb the WTC under Clinton. It's safe to say that that morning would probably not have gone down any differently under Gore.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that our foreign policy in those months were the cause, just that American foriegn policy in general - which, under conservative rule, tends to be a bit more "if it's good for America, frak the rest of the world" than it would under liberal control - is what caused it.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,845725,00.html

From the horse's mouth. Yeah, the wheels were in motion long before but there is no telling what difference Gore would have made in those few months that would have altered the course of events. Maybe the plan would have been scrapped for a bigger one or a later one, maybe the plan would have been changed to focus solely on the government because the people had decided to put a Democrat in charge, maybe more attention would have been paid to the signs, maybe maybe maybe.

You're right, we don't know. That's my point. There's no telling what differences Gore would have made. Maybe a lot, maybe none but I'm not sure that the events of that morning were set in stone.
 
9/11 probably would have happened.

Iraq probably would not have happened.

Afghanistan might have been better handled without Rumsfeld's personal take on using force.

Who knows?

We do know that Bush is a flop on almost all counts. Would Gore have banned all the guns and now you would be living in the woods waiting for Hillary to parachute out of a Black Heliocopter and emasculate you - check the next alternate universe.
 
Let me say this again,
Gore would not have had the clout to get any of his GC passed through Delay and Lott, it is a non issue.
 
Don't ask me about Mr. Gore.

I voted for Libertarian cadidate Roger MacBride for President in 1976. Shows you how smart I am. I think he finished ahead of the socialists and fascists that year.

John
 
I voted for the lesser of two evils...
And I still think I was right...

I cannot entertain the idea that there is ANYTHING of substance in GORE. :(
 
Might be worse off in my pocketbook,
Gore would have stopped global warming like he started the internet and my heating bill would be higher.

Ya think?
 
Might be worse off in my pocketbook,
Gore would have stopped global warming like he started the internet and my heating bill would be higher.

Ya think?
Click to expand...


You're misunderestimating him. Fool him once, shame on him. Fool him twice...c...c...can't get fooled again!
 
Bush can go die in a fire.
Click to expand...

And there you have it, folks. A poster so consumed by hatred that he hopes that the President of the United States "dies in a fire." Nice. There's a well-reasoned argument. :rolleyes:

So far I've had the pleasure today of reading one Thread wherein a member stated that he hoped that an ill United States Senator will die, and now this.

Mods, this forum needs a good Spring cleaning, and quick. The absurd hatred that is being spewed in the legal and political forum is getting out of hand.
 
Must be nice in that upper bracket.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the upper bracket yet have more money saved than I have ever had in my entire life. My vehicles are paid for and I buy what I want within reason. It's called budgeting.

I've seen no significant tax cuts, made no money off the stock market, seen my financial aid cut, and lost a year and a half of my life to Iraq for what appears at this point to be no good reason except that it somehow makes you feel safer.
Click to expand...

Same here with the tax cuts and stock market................but you have to put money in to get money out. Nobody drafted you, you made a choice that didn't turn out the way you wanted it to turn out. You still have the G.I bill unless you declined it, if you did once again a personal choice. Financial Aid is not a right, I've put my wife and one kid through college without financial aid or grants. It's called budgeting and hard work. So far, this isn't a socialist state. How about getting back you the American value system of a days work for a days wage. Meaning, you can afford college if you want to work for it and don't expect a handout in the way of aid. It means not getting things you want(a new gun, a new baby, a new car) for things you need (a college education).

I didn't mean that our foreign policy in those months were the cause, just that American foriegn policy in general - which, under conservative rule, tends to be a bit more "if it's good for America, frak the rest of the world" than it would under liberal control - is what caused it.
Click to expand...

I just want to make sure I understand this statement. Clinton was not responsible for eight years of foreign policy when he was president, but Bush is responsible for those eight years plus his nine months prior to 9/11?


Now for the original question. No, IMO they would have been worse.
I wouldn't have voted for Gore to be the president of my grandmother's garden club. I voted for Bush twice and stand behind my vote.
 
I just want to make sure I understand this statement. Clinton was not responsible for eight years of foreign policy when he was president, but Bush is responsible for those eight years plus his nine months prior to 9/11?
Click to expand...
and where the hell did I suggest that? what part of "american foreign policy in general" did you take to mean "clinton was innocent and the only thing keeping us safe!"?

Where did I limit it to eight years?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top