How would we be better off or worse off if Al Gore had become President in 2000?

Taxes would have doubled, the economy would be cut in half, there would have been three more 9-11s, Saddam would still be in power, twice as many people would have died from Katrina and Rita, unemployment would be skyrocketing, no action stronger than an angry speech would have been taken against terroists, but at least we wouldn't be in a war, and people would be ready to vote Republican.

I voted for Gore in 00. I believe we would be better off in many, many ways but time and space prohibit me from listing everything so I will cover two or three that I see would be significant.

First the level of corruption would be way down. I am not saying there would be no corruption. These are, after all, politicians.

Second, we would not likely be at war in Iraq but would have concentrated more on eliminating Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Third, I don't believe there would be just talk but action on alternative energy. America could be a leader here with many more jobs for our people as well as be able to tell the Arabs where to stuff their oil.

Personally, I was a Democrat until the 2000 election. When it got down to the nitty-gritty, seeing a " Artificial Environmentalist " in office was just to much for this ole' boy to grasp ! And in 2004, the choice between Mrs. Kerry as !st Lady, and the " Ambulance Chaser " as Vice President , Lordy, Lordy, I is now a stone Republican....Praise God !! And now, The Infamous claims his environment is getting destroyed, but uses $ 2,000.00 a month to have electricity in his home. Rigggggggght !!

3,200 more service members still alive. 54,000 + not wounded. No mess in Iraq. And a better focus on the real terrorists based in Afghanistan.

No federal deficit. And probably a surplus to pay for Social Security.

A president that is not in bed with the oil industry or in debted to the Arabs (realistic market prices for oil products.)

We would not be as hated by Muslims world wide.

And finally we might have had a President that respects the Constitution and the laws of this nation.

In other words it will take decades to fix the economy and generations to fix relations with Muslims that Bush has recklessly destroyed.

while that all may be true, and while Gore may seem a little like a cult-leader, global warming is real. The scientists don't deny it, Ron. The dispute in the scientific community is the mechanism behind it. So let's stop the political horses&$^t and do something about it.

Ha, these first two answers people gave crack me up. 9/11 would have happened no matter what firstly. The Clinton adminstration is better than Bushs but they wouldn't have stopped anything. If Al Gore was president, we would have to put up with his bi#&%ing about global warming, and how we should love our neighbors. Bush might not have been the best republican for the position, but Al Gore is basically a tree huggin' hippie. Democrats aren't very good when it comes to the security of our nation, like we needed post 9/11. Overall, we would have been much worse off.

You have stated a problem that affects politics although you may not have realized it.

Politicans and Americans are always living the what if..

Who cares about the what ifs.. Learn from the mistakes of history and apply the lessons learned to the future

No, he's a fraud:

The idea that there is an imminent impending global disaster resulting from human actions is a complete and utter lie, plain and simple. Either Al Gore is an unbelievably stupid man or he’s laughing all the way to the bank at the stupidity of the general public that’s willing to pay money to see his movie. “An Inconvenient Truth” would be more appropriately titled “A Convenient Lie” – convenient for Al Gore anyway who has now produced the third highest grossing documentary of all time – over $24,000,000 to date ($47 million world-wide). That doesn’t include the additional unjust profits earned from book sales and speaking engagements.

His film would lead you to believe that every single scientist even remotely qualified to study global climate change agrees that disaster is imminent and that humankind is the direct cause. The reality of the situation is quite the opposite – most qualified scientists vehemently disagree with this assertion.

It is unbelievable how many people believe and treat this complete and utter fallacy as fact. Read blogs, newspaper articles, Internet forums – a startling number of people have bought this lie hook line and sinker.

I’m sure most would argue that even if the science is flawed, certainly it’s a good idea for us all to take it a little bit easier on the planet and with that I would most certainly agree. However, not only is Al Gore and company all wrong on the cause of global climate change (or perhaps even the very existence of global climate change) but their proposed solution could potentially be harmful to the environment.

The problem is that Al Gore and others have somehow, absent virtually any credible scientific evidence whatsoever, latched onto the idea that man-made CO2 (carbon dioxide) is the single biggest threat to environment. Credible research actually shows quite the opposite, it may in fact be true that additional carbon dioxide in the environment is beneficial to the Earth’s entire ecosystem stimulating the growth of additional plant and animal life. Carbon dioxide is not a noxious chemical but rather a relatively benign compound that is either used or released through virtually any organic process. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide, plants ingest carbon dioxide and expel oxygen and yes carbon dioxide is a bi-product of burning fossil fuels.

Regardless of the facts stated above, man-made carbon dioxide is actually not even a significant percentage of the carbon dioxide found within the Earth’s atmosphere.

I don’t want to reinvent the wheel and I will link to all the material that supports what I’m saying, as if it’s not bad enough that Al Gore is propagating a complete and total lie, his proposed solution to a non-existent problem is potentially harmful to the environment.

Please don’t misunderstand, I don’t dispute that there aren’t many things humans do that are very detrimental to the Earth’s environment, however there is NO credible scientific data to suggest that excessive release of CO2 into the environment is one of them.

If you want to help the environment focus on doing something that actually helps the environment rather attempting to solve a problem that may or may not exist by doing something that will not help (and might hurt) the situation.

Don’t take my word for it, here’s 17,200+ scientists (and counting) that agree there is no element of truth to Gore's film:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm...

Here is the letter sent on behalf of the petition signers requesting that our government not sign the Kyoto treaty to reduce C02 emissions because it will not help anything and in fact may be detrimental to the environment and to developing nations:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm...

Here is supporting peer-reviewed­ research:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm...

Here are a few articles from the Canada Free Press shooting down all the Global Warming hype:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harr...

Don’t be another jackass out there campaigning for a pointless solution to a problem that has little to no hard scientific evidence suggesting it even exists. If you want to be an activist step one is finding a problem that actually exists and step two is finding a solution that is not only realistic but will actually resolve the problem. Al Gore and friends probably failed at step one and certainly failed at step 2.

Even if reducing CO2 emissions is not detrimental to the environment it is unlikely to do anything beneficial either. Mandating reduction of CO2 emissions will most certainly be harmful economically, especially to developing nations that cannot afford or do not otherwise have access to alternative technologies. How Ironic, Al Gore, liberals and all the other Hollywood idiots riding the global warming bandwagon are usually the same bleeding hearts lecturing us on how we need to help developing nations. Not only that but other dishonest frauds are taking advantage of the general public's belief in this carbon dioxide disaster myth to get rich by selling “carbon-credits.” Check it out. http://www.terrapass.com/

Don’t be a sucker – next time some jerkoff celebrity, former politician or other talking head tries to sell you something demand some hard scientific evidence.

Its silly to predict the future .

What if the first plane had hit the white house and George was home . Would we have nuked Saudi Arabia ?

We would be so much better off. Gore understood how diplomacy and government work. Bush understood idealogues and relied on such for decision making affecting us, and, the world.