2001 Al Gore freaks out on 9/11.
2002 Al Gore visits Camp David, the entire Secret Service spends hours trying to find him amongst the other trees.
2002-2008 Al Gore still freaked out.
2009 Al Gore invents the internet.
More seriously
2001 9/11
2002 9/11 mk 2
2003 Iraq reconquers Kuwait
2004 Russia seizes Georgia
2005 9/11 mk 3 (Democrats blame the newly elected President Bush for the attacks.)
2006 President Bush bombs the heck out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I ever mentioned it, but I got to snub Al Gore in 2000 when he tried to shake my hand here in New Hampshire.
F!%~in' stooge, don't touch me!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2001: Al gore presidential address: I have, after reviewing intelligence collected by the cia, this morning, ordered the invasion of Cuba. Please be assured that this is indeed a measured response equal to their involvment in the incident that took place on 9/11. I am assured that this terrible conspiracy is the work of Fidel Castro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt a Gore presidency would be all good or all bad. Below is my very crude hypothesis of what would happen.
* * *
Point of Divergence: Gore doesn’t distance himself from Clinton during the 2000 Election, nor does he have to with all the PDAs he has with Tipper.
• Gore gets elected, brief news about possible voter fraud in Florida.
• Gore gets CIA Daily Brief telling him about 9/11, but does nothing for realpolitik reasons. Acting preemptively could get him seen as an oil-greedy warmonger, while doing nothing means either nothing happens or he can come in and be a hero.
• 9/11 happens. US focuses on Afganistan and Osama is captured in a few years.
• Election 2004: Gore v McCain. Gore Wins.
• Hurricane Katrina. FEMA helps some but Wal-Mart is true savior.
• Katrina coverage discusses the mishandling that led to the New Orleans disaster, the racism that made it worse, and Hillary Clinton buying up now-cheap real estate.
• On the pretext of WMDs, US invades Iraq to head off scandal.
• US and coalition quickly crush Iraq. US leaves just as quickly and lets experienced peacekeepers handle the mess.
• Republican pundits go on and on about how the US should have done more in Iraq, or attacked earlier, or for different reasons, or… Some Democrats agree given how messy the situation is.
• Election 2008: McCain v Obama. McCain wins due to hawkish rhetoric and low voter turnout.
• McCain dies due to stress. Palin becomes president, focuses on social conservatism and oil drilling.
• Obama acts as constant gadfly to Palin, hitching his career to the Occupy movement.
• Election 2012: Obama v Palin. Palin wins due to her handling of the economy.
• Due to mounting pressure from Occupy movement, Palin signs into law an environmental protection bill. She shifts her focus from oil to social conservatism.
• Election 2016. Obama wins promising “hope” and “change.” High voter turnout among disenfranchised demographics gets him in office.
• Obama turns out to be better at campaigning that administration. His accomplishments amount to little more than a compromise healthcare bill that nobody likes.
* * *
Main differences from our timeline:
• Iraq war happens later. My hypothesis is that Bush was fervent about it due to his father losing the 1992 election because he didn’t park the army in Baghdad. His motives were either “not be seen as a wimp” or “avenge daddy.”
• Occupy Wall Street has both an enemy (Palin) and messiah (Obama) to focus on, thus focusing their goals and making them more successful than in our timeline.
• Real estate collapse still happens, but Palin’s focus on oil drilling alleviates this somewhat due to job creation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just possibly, Gore's team keeps the focus on terrorism that the Clinton administration had and that Bush dropped before 9/11, doesn't ignore the reports about "Al Queda determined to strike inside the US" and prevents the 9/11 attacks from succeeding.
Without getting involved in two occupations we can focus on climate change instead and we're able to take the lead in solar and wind rather than leave that to China.
Probably more likely, 9/11 still happens, but our response remains focused on Afghanistan and without the shift to Iraq, we're able to declare victory and get out by 2005 or so. At which point it falls apart again, like it will do when we leave now.
This would be the same Clinton Administration that passed on several offers to have Osama bin Laden arrested?
Clinton went after the people that committed the terrorist acts, but not the people that ordered the attacks.
It's like going after the mob, you can arrest the hitmen, but if the Mob boss isn't busted nothing is done to stop the crime.
See, that's just far too much extrapolation for me. Once you've got Osama captured and Afghanistan far more under control I can't see anything else playing out anywhere near the same way as they actually did.
Truth to be told, I agree. I still think Iraq would've been used as a distraction but it'd be more like what Clinton did in the late 90's. I totally agree with you about Palin, now that I think about it. My feeling is that she was put on the ticket to appeal to the disgruntled Hilliary voters.
Hmmm...yet another thread sure to be chock full of partisan bile? Pass.
2001: Gore goes on worldwide hunt for "Manbearpig".
2003: In an effort to improve his chances for re-election, Gore proclaims that he is "Super Cereal" about finding "Manbearpig".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is it with the Al Gore-bashing? How can a man with so little personality attract so much hate? Especially from the side that, er, 'won'?
Hypocrisy on Mr. Gore's part. He is against the use of fossil fuels, and then accepts money to give a speech that he flies (burning tons of fossil fuels) to, when he could give the speech via electronic methods.
He sold his TV station to Al Jazeera, a company that has made it's money from oil and then said that it was OK because it's a good station.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is it with the Al Gore-bashing? How can a man with so little personality attract so much hate? Especially from the side that, er, 'won'?Hypocrisy on Mr. Gore's part. He is against the use of fossil fuels, and then accepts money to give a speech that he flies (burning tons of fossil fuels) to, when he could give the speech via electronic methods.
He sold his TV station to Al Jazeera, a company that has made it's money from oil and then said that it was OK because it's a good station.
Um, I guess you really are immune to facts.
I'm for reducing greenhouse emissions, but OMG I still use electricity and occasionally eat dairy. I'm not sure how that makes him a hypocrite, especially given that he buys carbon offsets for such activity.
Al Jazeera made money from oil? What are you even...do you mean to say it is BASED in a COUNTRY, and is funded by people, that make most of their money from the sale of oil? Man, you must really hate the Bush crime family who made their billions between oil and war profiteering.
What is it with the Al Gore-bashing? How can a man with so little personality attract so much hate? Especially from the side that, er, 'won'?Hypocrisy on Mr. Gore's part. He is against the use of fossil fuels, and then accepts money to give a speech that he flies (burning tons of fossil fuels) to, when he could give the speech via electronic methods.
He sold his TV station to Al Jazeera, a company that has made it's money from oil and then said that it was OK because it's a good station.
Um, I guess you really are immune to facts.
I'm for reducing greenhouse emissions, but OMG I still use electricity and occasionally eat dairy. I'm not sure how that makes him a hypocrite, especially given that he buys carbon offsets for such activity.
Al Jazeera made money from oil? What are you even...do you mean to say it is BASED in a COUNTRY, and is funded by people, that make most of their money from the sale of oil? Man, you must really hate the Bush crime family who made their billions between oil and war profiteering.
First off, carbon offsets are a joke. It's like saying I can go out and rape women because I donate to the rape crisis center.
Second, the Bush family is not out vilifying the use of oil or making money off of oil. Al Gore is. He screams about how the use of fossil fuels is horrible, then accepts $500 million in oil money.
Third do you know what hypocrisy is? The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
I have no problems with fossil fuels, they are one of the most efficient fuels around. I do have problems with people say that we need to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and then go out and waste them.
The same thing such as what happened back in 2008 when the "Big 3" auto manufacturers flew executives on private jets to Washington DC to get money from the government. They want to beg for money while they are wasting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
14 years later, I still say: F%$~ Al Gore.
First off, carbon offsets are a joke. It's like saying I can go out and rape women because I donate to the rape crisis center.Second, the Bush family is not out vilifying the use of oil or making money off of oil. Al Gore is. He screams about how the use of fossil fuels is horrible, then accepts $500 million in oil money.
Third do you know what hypocrisy is? The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
I have no problems with fossil fuels, they are one of the most efficient fuels around. I do have problems with people say that we need to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and then go out and waste them.
No, carbon offsets are nothing like rape.
Jesus Harold Christ on a bicycle, what is it with you people and rape?!If you're saying that carbon offsets aren't ENOUGH, and are largely a token gesture, I could agree. However, since you say in basically the next breath that "woo burning oil is kewl!" I'm going to assume you're not arguing against Al Gore from the LEFT.
Yes, I know what hypocrisy is. Saying that we should all cut down on fossil fuel consumption...and then DOING so, is not hypocrisy. If Al Gore had ever said that we should unilaterally desist all fossil fuel consumption, then any consumption of said fossil fuels could be seen as hypocrisy.
I'll say again, by this same measure I am a huge hypocrite because, although I think we need to drastically cut carbon emissions, I continue to use electricity (in part to spread the message). But your insistence on perfection from those to whom you're ideologically opposed, while ignoring war crimes by those you're ideologically aligned, doesn't make you a particularly credible critic.
First off, carbon offsets are a joke. It's like saying I can go out and rape women because I donate to the rape crisis center.Second, the Bush family is not out vilifying the use of oil or making money off of oil. Al Gore is. He screams about how the use of fossil fuels is horrible, then accepts $500 million in oil money.
Third do you know what hypocrisy is? The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
I have no problems with fossil fuels, they are one of the most efficient fuels around. I do have problems with people say that we need to cut down on the use of fossil fuels and then go out and waste them.
No, carbon offsets are nothing like rape.
Jesus Harold Christ on a bicycle, what is it with you people and rape?!
That probably has something to do with the way that environmentalists talk about the "rape of the environment." Is it OK for them to call it raping the environment?
Just a few examples:
Fossil Fuels: Rape of Nature
Oil Industry Not Done Raping The Planet
Sarah Palin's Creationism Will Rape the Environment
So if environmentalists are going to compare it to rape, then using carbon offsets to say that rape of the environment is OK, is like donating to rape crisis center says that raping a person is OK.
If you're saying that carbon offsets aren't ENOUGH, and are largely a token gesture, I could agree. However, since you say in basically the next breath that "woo burning oil is kewl!" I'm going to assume you're not arguing against Al Gore from the LEFT.
Carbon offsets are a big part of the hypocrisy. If you want to cut down on fossil fuel usage, don't fly your plane halfway around the world to tell people to cut back on their fuel usage.
If you want to use carbon offsets to "pay" for your normal usage, hey that is probably a good thing. But to go out and waste tons of fossils fuel and then claim that is OK, because you bought carbon offsets is not OK.
It's not OK for Al Gore, or George Bush (I don't know if Bush does this or not. Or if anyone on the Right does it.)
Yes, I know what hypocrisy is. Saying that we should all cut down on fossil fuel consumption...and then DOING so, is not hypocrisy. If Al Gore had ever said that we should unilaterally desist all fossil fuel consumption, then any consumption of said fossil fuels could be seen as hypocrisy.
No, he says we need to cut the use of fossil fuels, then goes out and wastes fossil fuels by flying everywhere to tell people to use less fossil fuels.
I'll say again, by this same measure I am a huge hypocrite because, although I think we need to drastically cut carbon emissions, I continue to use electricity (in part to spread the message). But your insistence on perfection from those to whom you're ideologically opposed, while ignoring war crimes by those you're ideologically aligned, doesn't make you a particularly credible critic.
I am not insisting upon perfection. I am saying that you can't tell people to stop wasting and then go waste some yourself. If you think that we need to cut carbon emissions and then leave all the lights on in your home, the AC running while you are gone all day, let your car warm up for an hour, or fly a chartered jet to tell people to cut down then you are a hypocrite.
By war crimes would you mean killing people we are not at war with? Or killing US Citizens without a trial? Or conducting military operations without Congressional approval?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Carbon offsets are a big part of the hypocrisy. If you want to cut down on fossil fuel usage, don't fly your plane halfway...
Except that you are expecting perfection. You've decided that Al Gore flying anywhere to speak to raise awareness about environmental issues is a waste. I might tend to agree that it's probably wasteful and there are better ways to do it, but clearly Al Gore thinks the potential upside of elucidating the possibly thousands of people that pay to hear him speak more than offsets the (in the big scheme of things) miniscule amount of pollution he's causing by doing so.
Because you've decided anything he does is already a waste of time doesn't make him a hypocrite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gore cuts U.S. military spending drastically to focus on providing more entitlements in order to more equalize the incomes/benefits of the rich and poor. Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
This is where it devolves into pure fantasy. Iraq had PLENTY of enemies in the gulf region who would have beat Saddam down before it got to this point. The only reason we ever got involved in the first Gulf War is because George Bush Sr. has long-standing personal and business ties to Saudi Arabia who can't be bothered to defend themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, the U.S. has contined to reduce its military strength and the added pressures of increased entitlements only make this more likely, not less. As an example, U.S. military doctrine now no longer commits to being able to fight a two front war ( since we do not have the capacity to do so). The number of ships in the navy has steadily decreased and various weapons systems are in the process of being dismantled, reduced, and/or delayed. Or, are you suggesting that Gore would have sacrificed entitlements for guns? I believe the former is more likely than the latter. One must also note that at the time Iraq invaded Kuwait, it had one of the best and largest land armies in the region, measured both in size and equipment (especially armor). Very importantly, its leadership was willing to commit its forces to a large scale offensive which might involve heavy losses. War is hell; and without a formal declaration of war I would doubt that Gore would have the stomach for a protracted campaign which might have caused a large ammount of U.S. casualties. I also believe he would have dithered indecisively long enough both for Saddam to have consolidated his gains, threaten our allies, and launch further adventures. Historically, the U.S. was partially victorious in the Gulf war because it was decisive, was able to mobilize its resources relatively quickly, had help from european allies in the form of being able to use their bases as staging areas, and had a battle plan which combined maximizing our airpower's effectiveness, superior technology, and good generalship. It was only by repelling the historical invasion of Kuwait that iraq's armed stregth waned.
Or maybe, just maybe, we don't need to be spending as much or more as the next ten countries combined on defense?
And while I agree entitlements need to be reformed (hello, social security age retirement increased to 70, means testing), how about we compromise (boo! hiss!) and also get some extra revenue by returning the capital gains rate to what it was during some of our country's most prosperous decades? Cause guess what? Revenue as a percentage of GDP is actually middling to low right now, despite the Tea Party Rhetoric, and trickle down doesn't work (unless your goal is to gut the middle class...in which case it works really, really well. See also: The last 30+ years).
*sigh*
And here I am beating my head against the wall some more. I swear I don't know why I even bother in these threads...
|
As an example, U.S. military doctrine now no longer commits to being able to fight a two front war ( since we do not have the capacity to do so). The number of ships in the navy has steadily decreased and various weapons systems are in the process of being dismantled, reduced, and/or delayed.
Not 'two-front war', two regional conflicts. There is a difference.
While the USN definitely needs more money spent on maintenance, it's hard to argue they need more ships, what with the whole 'being stronger than the combined navies of the entire rest of the world' thing.
Note that both of these issues are happening now, we didn't need pretend-Gore to start them.
Finally- after Desert Storm, there was zero (0) chance that Iraq would invade Kuwait again. I understand that you want to make fun of Gore, but couldn't you try a bit harder to come up with something plausible?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that you want to make fun of Gore, but couldn't you try a bit harder to come up with something plausible?
Perhaps ripping on hypothetical president Gore provides a much-needed break from ripping on president Obama.
|
|
I understand that you want to make fun of Gore, but couldn't you try a bit harder to come up with something plausible?Perhaps ripping on hypothetical president Gore provides a much-needed break from ripping on president Obama.
Yeah, sadly- but Obama has done real things that happened in the real world that people could complain about. People still make up things to get angry about. :/
He is NOT an atheist-Muslim lizardperson. He is someone who has a questionable amount of respect for the 4th Amendment. Which one do you see people talking about?
Please note that wages and benefits in the U.S. are far higher than in countries such as China; and U.S. weapons systems are more technologically advanced (though this technolgical advantage is lessening). Therefore, in a similar manner to production of other items, products made in the U.S. cost far more: and the dollar ammount spent to produce one fighter aircraft is disproportionate. This applies to manpower costs as well: and I am certain that the cost of maintaining one chinese army conscript is far less than what the U.S. spends for each volunteer army soldier. Moreover, while much of the U.S. budget spent for military purposes is relatively public and open for inspection, military budgets of dictatorships are far more secretive- so we can only estimate what they cost. I believe (and this strays from the original alternate history topic of this thread) that both the rich and the poor will have to make sacrifices in order to maintain a strong military. Neither can have all the benefits or entitlements they desire.
Both wealth and income inequality have been growing for at least thirty years. Many of the poor are at a breaking point -- they literally can't sacrifice any more. The rich, meanwhile, haven't sacrificed anything (unless you count the poor).
Sorry, but a small percentage has been looting for decades, and then using the proceeds to making future looting even easier. The military budget is far from our biggest problem.
Please note that wages and benefits in the U.S. are far higher than in countries such as China
Yeah, you're absolutely right, wages in the US are higher than they are in China where they pay them pennies on the dollar. Bully for us?
Meanwhile most every other first-world industrialized nation has wages and benefits well above our own.
As for your rant about military spending, get over it. The MILITARY doesn't want the money, because the conflicts we're facing are not going to be won by having the most amount of boots on the ground (which we still do) but by other means.
We're still fighting a war on two fronts: the war on terror and an economic cold war with China. These are both conflicts of information more than military.
Yes, we're BAAAAARELY cutting military spending, but only just, and only because it has grown hideously bloated in the past few decades.
Except that you are expecting perfection. You've decided that Al Gore flying anywhere to speak to raise awareness about environmental issues is a waste. I might tend to agree that it's probably wasteful and there are better ways to do it, but clearly Al Gore thinks the potential upside of elucidating the possibly thousands of people that pay to hear him speak more than offsets the (in the big scheme of things) miniscule amount of pollution he's causing by doing so.
Carbon offsets are a big part of the hypocrisy. If you want to cut down on fossil fuel usage, don't fly your plane halfway...
I'm not expecting perfection, I am expecting consistency. If he says we need to cut down on fossil fuel usage, then cut down on it.
Because you've decided anything he does is already a waste of time doesn't make him a hypocrite.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that anything he does is waste of time. In fact his trying to get people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a good thing. Him FLYING A CHARTERED PLANE to tell people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a BAD thing and hypocritical. It is just as hypocritical as Reagan saying he wanted to cut spending while at the same time he was increasing it.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that anything he does is waste of time. In fact his trying to get people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a good thing. Him FLYING A CHARTERED PLANE to tell people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a BAD thing and hypocritical. It is just as hypocritical as Reagan saying he wanted to cut spending while at the same time he was increasing it.
Again, you're expecting perfection, and moreover you're not being rational. If the people he reaches by traveling cut down on carbon emissions, or vote to do so, then in actual fact traveling is a net plus.
How do you, oh great Vod Canockers, think that former Vice President Al Gore should be allowed to travel? Coach? Well he does. Contrary to the Fox News talking point, Gore mostly takes public transportation and flies commercial.
I'm very happy to see the community's conservatives flocking to this thread to discuss this topic in a way that is reasonable and not at all crazy and hyperbolic. I am furthermore delighted to see the droves of responsible conservatives chastising their non-existent brethren for their totally-not-happening crazy and hyperbolic behavior, in a way that makes it clear that they disagree with the representations in question and that they are not an accurate representation of wider conservative beliefs, instead of marking crazy and hyperbolic posts as their favorites.
Absolutely thrilled. I mean, wow, forum conservatives. Now, this is how you earn respect!
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that anything he does is waste of time. In fact his trying to get people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a good thing. Him FLYING A CHARTERED PLANE to tell people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a BAD thing and hypocritical. It is just as hypocritical as Reagan saying he wanted to cut spending while at the same time he was increasing it.
Again, you're expecting perfection, and moreover you're not being rational. If the people he reaches by traveling cut down on carbon emissions, or vote to do so, then in actual fact traveling is a net plus.
How do you, oh great Vod Canockers, think that former Vice President Al Gore should be allowed to travel? Coach? Well he does. Contrary to the Fox News talking point, Gore mostly takes public transportation and flies commercial.
I would prefer that he not fly at all, but if he does, I don't care where he sits on a commercial airline. With the current technology he can give his talks completely remotely. Heck, I play a weekly Pathfinder game with guys in DC, Ohio, NY, Wisconsin and Illinois. We don't fly to play, we use that thing that Al Gore didn't invent called the Internet. If I can do that with free software, I am sure that with his resources Mr. Gore could manage to give live talks and question and answer sessions from the privacy of his home.
And while he does mostly use commercial flights, even he admits that he does use chartered planes.
For transportation, Gore admits to “sometimes” chartering a private jet but he doesn’t own one, claims to be a “regular" on Southwest Airlines (LUV) and flew to NY last week on American Airlines to promote The Climate Reality Project’s 24-hour webcast, The Cost of Carbon. "Every once in a while I charter but I use public transit and commercial airlines,” he says.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Him FLYING A CHARTERED PLANE to tell people to cut down on fossil fuel usage is a BAD thing and hypocritical. It is just as hypocritical as Reagan saying he wanted to cut spending while at the same time he was increasing it.
Gore is a a Democrat, though, so whatever he did was OK. Reagan was a Republican, so what he did was dumb stupid mean and evil!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very happy to see the community's conservatives flocking to this thread to discuss this topic in a way that is reasonable and not at all crazy and hyperbolic. I am furthermore delighted to see the droves of responsible conservatives chastising their non-existent brethren for their totally-not-happening crazy and hyperbolic behavior, in a way that makes it clear that they disagree with the representations in question and that they are not an accurate representation of wider conservative beliefs, instead of marking crazy and hyperbolic posts as their favorites.
Absolutely thrilled. I mean, wow, forum conservatives. Now, this is how you earn respect!
Coming from you, this is even more ridiculous than it would be from some other random poster.
Al Gore...can't even win his own state. F~*@ Al Gore!