Salon never claimed that conceding was a legal action. Conceding is, however, an admission by a candidate that he or she lost and does not plan to challenge the results. Hoffman conceded and has subsequently put forth an indication that he may challenge the results.

Hoffman's actions are indicative of someone that has a disdain for the democratic process.

I'm struggling to reconcile these two sets of data.

Why are you struggling? Just because one graph shows a longer time period?

If you look at the GISS from the link you provided and locate 1980, you will see that the value at that time frame was 0.2. This is the same value in the other table for 1980. If you look at the value for 2000, you will see it is just above 0.3. And what do you know--the other graph has the same value for 2000. Finally, if you look at the value for 2009 (last point plotted), you will see it is just below 0.6. This is an estimate and it is slightly higher than what is in the other graph, which is just above 0.5.

What was Al Gore's net worth in 2009? What is it today? Case closed.

Aside from the individual that already pointed out that Al Gore's net worth in 2009 is the same as his net worth in 2009, your comment is nonsensical. Al Gore's net worth has absolutely nothing to do with the science behind climate change. Yes, Al Gore has profited off spreading the message about global warming. Nonetheless, you are confusing capitalizing from a phenomena with the phenomena itself.

Sorry, I failed to paste it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP_oOJiuvW4

@ 1:27, Nixon clearly and unmistakably bows to Mao.

For fuck sakes, IIuLTiMaFoRSaNII, I provided you with THREE fucking pictures of Eisenhower bowing to three different individuals. Not one of them is the President of France, Charles De Gaulle.

One is to the Pope. One is to the wife of the Italian Prime Minister Giovanni Gronchi. And the third one is to Archbishop Iakovos of the Greek Orthodox Church.

And here you go jackass, a VIDEO of Nixon bowing to Mao. See 1:27.

Nixon is clearly leaning in to talk without being heard on a microphone in the one picture, and Eisenhower is simply looking at the ground in the other.

What utter fucking bullshit. Nixon is bowing to the Emperor. In fact, he is leaning in the direction of the microphone, not away from it.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/5c8f4325f5d81345_landing

As for Eisenhower, once again you are full of shit:

Eisenhower, bow number 1:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZEf6TUYdm_0/Sv9Su61hZqI/AAAAAAAAACA/LSberRcyG4g/s400/eisenhower+bow.jpg

Eisenhower, bow number 2:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZEf6TUYdm_0/Sv9S9Q6XDPI/AAAAAAAAACI/nColRqA6KbI/s400/AP5912040168(2).jpg

Eisenhower, bow number 3:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZEf6TUYdm_0/Sv9TthR02mI/AAAAAAAAACY/9uI00JuGyqk/s400/AP590428059.jpg

Of course, then there is W. bow to the Pope:

http://www.positiveliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bush_bow.jpg

No, Susan, W. also bowed to world leaders.

http://www.kmphblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/zz72682359.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20bow%20to%20saudi%20king/perryscave/politics/obama-bow.jpg?o=3

http://www.stolendroids.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/bush_bow.jpg

How fucking quick the morons forget:

http://www.kmphblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/zz72682359.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/bush%20bow%20to%20saudi%20king/2tuff2006/BushPopeRatz-1.jpg

After the initial vote count in Minessota, the difference in votes between Al Franken and Norm Coleman was 215. This triggered a mandatory recount. After the recount and after Coleman tried his damnest to disqualify as many votes for Franken as possible, Franken prevailed.

Al Franken got into the Senate because he, um, won the election.

As for Gore, he also actually won the election, but the Supreme Court handed the victory to Bush. Never mind how well Bush did at managing the country.

The headline casts doubt on Owens' win, while the accompanying article doesn't provide any evidence that there is a question about the winner.

Aren't these things that are done in a socialistic society?

People also eat, breathe, shit, and sleep in socialistic societies. Therefore, the U.S.A. must have been a socialist society since its inception.

The point is, just because you can find (very loose) similarities to a socialistic society, does not make this a socialistic society. Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. Bailing out institutions (which was supported by Bush and many Republicans) and providing health care for individuals still occur under capitalistic systems.

Obama is a supporter of global capitalism. In fact, he is embarking on a major trade mission to Asia today. But don't let little things like facts get in your way.