US jobs growth remains sluggish

[Donutboy 0]

The US economy added a lower than expected 57,000 new jobs during November, official figures have shown.

Analysts had been hoping for a higher figure after recent data indicated the economy was gaining strength.

The US unemployment rate fell to 5.9% last month - the lowest rate for eight months - from 6% in October.....

'Jobless recovery' returns?

.... The latest jobs data suggest that, despite a recent surge in growth, the US economy is still struggling to create jobs.

..... And October's jobs growth figure had raised hopes that the so-called "jobless recovery" was a myth.

"It drives the point home that the strong economic growth we're seeing is not accompanied by any respectable employment growth," said Anthony Karydakis, senior financial economist at Banc One Capital Markets.

"It highlights the predicament of the economic recovery in this phase - very strong GDP growth, not much employment growth."

Just a little something to consider; the "unemployed" can still vote (well, in most states) while GDP growth can't!! A recovery without jobs is no help to this administration and this is proving to be a jobless recovery.

US jobs growth remains sluggish

[CarolinaTiger 0]

hey donut...why don't you want president bush to get reelected?

[CCTAU 3,350]

But it is GROWTH. And that is KILLING the libs.......

[big dude 0]

I suppose that's compared to the massive influx of available jobs that the mere presence of Clinton in the Oval Office brought on, right?

[Tiger Al 0]

I suppose that's compared to the massive influx of available jobs that the mere presence of Clinton in the Oval Office brought on, right?

Strangely enough, Clinton's job stimulus policies actually created jobs. Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of the country didn't create jobs. The proof is in the pudding, big dude. Love Bush and hate Clinton if you like, but if where you place the bar is based on Lewinski's alone, take your mediocrity to Canada.

[big dude 0]

I'm fully aware of the job market during Clinton's years in the office.

The spin that was put on that statement made it sound like his mere presence was effecting the job market. Or did he not spin it the right way?

When there's war, there tends to be a surge in layoffs. It happens no matter what your political affiliation when you're President.

I know the proof is there and I'm not afraid to admit the fact that Clinton did good things for the job market.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

...but if where you place the bar is based on Lewinski's alone, take your mediocrity to Canada.

TigerAl gets off another hilarious comment. Oh, the double entendre!!! Dude, post these in the jokes thread where they belong....

[DKW 86 7,447]

Just announced another $5M equipment expenditure at my plant in Decatur. We will begin construction in about a week or so. But you know what Al, we may be on furlough (that means with pay btw.)for about 4-6 weeks after Christmas till construction is done. I guess that will just kill employment figures for Bush huh?

Then about February, we all come back, and hire some more folks to help us raise production. But then that ole jobless recovery will be creating real, high paying, great benefit, jobs here in Alabama.

Dang it. Then the Dems will have to hallucinate another faux crisis to blame on Bush.

You see, jobs always trail recovery capital expenditures. You cannot buy a press one day and plug it in the next. You cannot buy computer equipment for a company and then just voila, it is helping you become more productive. New equipment, training, hiring all take a little while to get going really well.

Buy equipment, Install Equipment, debug equipment, modify equipment, Hire someone to run Equipment. See it is a system that works. BTW, jobs are usually the last thing cut in recession too. It seems hiring people costs money...WHO KNEW!

[Donutboy 0]

hey donut...why don't you want president bush to get reelected?

Well, re-elected isn't a choice of words that I'd have used, considering Gore got 1/2 million votes more than Bush and all of the shenanigans that went on in Florida under the direction of Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court.

1) He's rolling back almost every environmental policy that we have. He's trying to do to America what he did to Texas when Texas became the nation's most polluted state during his term as governor.

2) We had a sound fiscal policy in place under Clinton that had generated a budget surplus and was projected to eliminate the national debt in less than a decade. Under Bush's policy, we went from an annual budget surplus of close to $300 billion to an annual budget deficit nearing $400 billion. It's projected to be closer to 1/2 trillion by next year. Of course, that's not counting the energy bill that will be pushed in Congress in January where we'll be giving multi-billion dollar gifts to the oil and coal companies..... who had record profits in 2003, BTW!!

3) He sent our troops to invade a foreign land under at best poor intelligence and at worst out and out lies. While our attention is diverted to Iraq, we're losing the real war, the one on terrorism. The Taliban is re-grouping and appears ready to retake Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden is till thumbing his nose at us and orchestrating increasingly more and more terrorist attacks in the region than before.

4) His Congress has used every dirty trick in the book from wiretapping, to computer hacking to intimidation of the free press to show only warm, fuzzy stories about his administration. He's used gestapo tactics to try and suppress our right to protest. His Attorney General has waged an all-out war on our basic freedoms. This Congress has spent money like there's no tomorrow. There IS a tomorrow and the bills WILL come due for us, the taxpayers.

Need more? It'd take me about a week to fully answer this one!!

[Donutboy 0]

Just announced another $5M equipment expenditure at my plant in Decatur. We will begin construction in about a week or so. But you know what Al, we may be on furlough (that means with pay btw.)for about 4-6 weeks after Christmas till construction is done. I guess that will just kill employment figures for Bush huh?

Then about February, we all come back, and hire some more folks to help us raise production. But then that ole jobless recovery will be creating real, high paying, great benefit, jobs here in Alabama.

Dang it. Then the Dems will have to hallucinate another faux crisis to blame on Bush.

You see, jobs always trail recovery capital expenditures. You cannot buy a press one day and plug it in the next. You cannot buy computer equipment for a company and then just voila, it is helping you become more productive. New equipment, training, hiring all take a little while to get going really well.

Buy equipment, Install Equipment, debug equipment, modify equipment, Hire someone to run Equipment. See it is a system that works. BTW, jobs are usually the last thing cut in recession too. It seems hiring people costs money...WHO KNEW!

David, I'm glad that your plant is expanding. I'm sure you haven't forgotten all of the workers at the Dunlop plant in Huntsville losing their jobs this month though. Your plants expansion won't begin to hire even a small portion of THOSE newly unemployed!!

[Donutboy 0]

David, a little more rain on your parade. The local Delphi (a GM subsiduary, I think) plant in Decatur is in the middle of downsizing and will have eliminated 800 jobs by the end of 2004. That's just one more in our area alone. I could post you hundreads of links to other impending job losses nationwide but it'd be easier to do it yourself. Just go to Google and use the two search words job and cuts. You'll get 3,960,000 entries to thumb through!!

[DKW 86 7,447]

You are correct oh great one.

These plants have a lot in common with mine.

Locale, Workers education level, Proximity to raw materials.

The one thing my plant doesnt have is a "stuck in a thirty year old mindset union run by over paid and under worked union reps."

You can quote me on that. The strike at Dunlop was ugly and violent several years ago. You do not do that to the Japanese that now own it.

Delphi? Where do I begin on that one. Delphi's QC was horrendous and their work ethic nearly nonexistent. I work with several that left Delphi over the Union backstabbing them. UAW trading one person's greivance to keep a 7 time rehab loser on the payroll. Yes I know what I talk about on this.

I have friends that work there that just laugh at the job they do. No QC, no scheduled rate to go by. Lax work rules. ETC.

A long long time ago I worked at the Bud's station down at the Hudson/Keller Bridge. Many of the guys at Delphi came by every morning, 6am and got beer for that day's shift at the plant. Dozens of them. Some came back at lunch and bought more. Bought even more after work. I have cashed their entire check to buy liquor for the weekend. Every organization has drunks, Delphi could not get rid of them. They were repeat failures at Bradford. They looked at it as a vacation and laughed about it.

Did you know that BOOB JOBS are paid for in their benefits package? Yes, you and I cant afford a new Chevy because of 100s if not 1000s of boob jobs performed in Decatur and Huntsville area. Workers get them, wives get them, second wives get them, etc. Likely 3/4 of the silicone in North AL went thru Delphi.

Summation, GE, Hyundai, Mercedes, Honda, and many others are non-Union and booming and paying high wages and benefits. The Union plants are the ones working under crazy work rules that stop them from reacting quickly enough to keep up with competition. No one cried when Studebaker, American Motors, Etc went out of business. It is a shame that American Unions are driving the vast majority of jobs in the US into foreign owned hands simply because of Union work rules.

My Dad was UAW at Ford in Sheffeild. He told me once of a strike at the Ford-Cleveland plant where one of the strike issues was company supplied jerk-off magazines in the men's rooms. I kid you not!

[aucorner 0]

U.S Department of Labor is reporting that more Americans are employed today than on September 10, 2001.........................

[DKW 86 7,447]

1) He's rolling back almost every environmental policy that we have. He's trying to do to America what he did to Texas when Texas became the nation's most polluted state during his term as governor.

Clinton presided over the most polluted state when he was governor. Must be in good company then in your eyes.

I belong to three, yes three, environmental orgs.

If you think that Bush is any worse than anyone else you are reading the propaganda. The failures many Env. Groups complain about are so ludicrous they would wipe us out economically. Kyoto, basically says we are the cleanest industrial society in the world and we should pay the price for all the third world countries that do not want to do their share. How insane is that.

Gore did more damage to a TN river for a photo op in his campaign than GWB has done in 4 years. They flooded a river in off season for a photo op with Gore and dropped the water table so low the wildlife is just now making a comeback.

Republicans were the first environmentalists BTW. We think with our heads and our hearts.

BTW, Nature Conservancy, WWF, and NPCA.

[rexbo 104]

Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of the country didn't create jobs.

I got a nice tax cut, and I am certainly NOT in the wealthiest 1 percent of the country. So, who is lying now, Bush or TigerAl?????

And how can you say unequivocally , that's Bush's tax cuts did not create jobs? Jobs have been created, so where did they come from? Well, there is one place, the economy recovering from the worst attack on this country ever. Funny how the Democrats blame the downturn in the economy on Bush, which 1) started before he took office, and 2) was made significantly worse by 9-11. Oh wait, TigerAl says 9-11 is Bush's fault too...

[Ranger12 46]

You libs just keep on trying to spin your stories. Bottom line is that the economy is growing and jobs are being created. You can spin it anyway you like it, but those are the cold hard facts and you might as well get used to it.

It is selfish liberals that keep doing stupid things like blocking the voting process of getting a federal judge put in office. Libs are such cowards that they will not let it go to a vote. Wow, that is very "democratic" of them isn't it. They just recently cut Bill Pryor off because he shows a history of being biased. The man just went against his on personal beliefs and prosecuted Roy Moore for crying out loud! Pryor has alwasy held up the intent of the law. What the libs really meant was that he has a history of upholding laws that they did not agree with. Talk about being biased. These men are supposed to represent us, but instead they represent nothing but themselves. They gripe about how Bush "stole" the election. but yet are hypocritical by not letting judge nominees get a chace to be voted on. So don't give me that crap about "stealing" elections Donutboy. You better look at what your own party is doing if you want to point fingers.

[Donutboy 0]

It is selfish liberals that keep doing stupid things like blocking the voting process of getting a federal judge put in office. Libs are such cowards that they will not let it go to a vote. Wow, that is very "democratic" of them isn't it. They just recently cut Bill Pryor off because he shows a history of being biased. The man just went against his on personal beliefs and prosecuted Roy Moore for crying out loud! Pryor has alwasy held up the intent of the law. What the libs really meant was that he has a history of upholding laws that they did not agree with. Talk about being biased. These men are supposed to represent us, but instead they represent nothing but themselves. They gripe about how Bush "stole" the election. but yet are hypocritical by not letting judge nominees get a chace to be voted on. So don't give me that crap about "stealing" elections Donutboy. You better look at what your own party is doing if you want to point fingers.

Under Clinton, Republicans in Congress refused to even bring under consideration 63 of Clinton's judicial nominees, so don't cry over the 3 of Bush's that the Democrats are blocking and call libs selfish. This little ploy was started by YOUR favorites, the selfish conservatives. They were actually acting in the best interest of the nation until the National Right to Life told them to start blocking Clinton's nominees.

The Republican National Coalition for Life in 2000 actually called on Republicans to block Clinton nominees and now Republicans are moaning about Democrats returning the favor!!

Republican Senators Must Stop Confirming Clinton Judicial Appointees! - September 14, 2000

For the record:

The Democrats have confirmed 165 nominees, and held up just three. The score is 165-3. Republicans express outrage that three of Bush's nominees have not received an `up or down' vote on the Senate floor, yet 63 of President Clinton's judicial nominees never even received consideration in the Judiciary Committee...These represent 20 percent of all of President Clinton's judicial nominees.

By contrast, the three nominees stopped by this Senate represent just 2 percent of Bush's nominees.

Judicial nominees....

You should really get your facts in order before you go off on another subject like that. Listen to something other than NPR and watch something other than Fox News. There's a whole world of information out there just awaiting you!!

[Donutboy 0]

Bush's tax cuts to the wealthiest one percent of the country didn't create jobs.

I got a nice tax cut, and I am certainly NOT in the wealthiest 1 percent of the country. So, who is lying now, Bush or TigerAl?????

And how can you say unequivocally , that's Bush's tax cuts did not create jobs? Jobs have been created, so where did they come from? Well, there is one place, the economy recovering from the worst attack on this country ever. Funny how the Democrats blame the downturn in the economy on Bush, which 1) started before he took office, and 2) was made significantly worse by 9-11. Oh wait, TigerAl says 9-11 is Bush's fault too...

Well, Bush was warned that an attack was imminent and that airplanes might be used as missles. He was also left blueprints for increasing security in America by the Clinton-Gore team. Many of the changes to the airline industry since 9-11 were actually proposed during the Clinton-Gore years, after it was assumed that a bomb brought down TWA Flight 800. Unfortunately, the airline industry managed to fight off many of these changes, claiming a financial hardship in implementing them.

The explosion of TWA Flight 800, in 1996, led to another commission headed by Vice President Gore. Even though it eventually turned out that flight 800 was not brought down by a bomb, the Gore Commission report led to full- scale deployment of bomb detection equipment like these CTX X-ray scanners at the San Francisco Airport. They work much like medical cat- scanners, taking "slices" of checked bags, looking for telltale shapes and densities that might be bombs.

But not every airport has such technology yet. The Gore Commission also recommended bag matching on all flights, criminal background checks on airport employees, tighter access to secured areas of the airport, and certification of the security screeners, which would have held them to specific standards.

Gerry Kauvar was the Gore commission's chief of staff. He says the FAA didn't move quickly enough on one key area.

TOM BEARDEN: You wanted certification of screening personnel.

GERRY KAUVAR, Chief of Staff, Gore Commission: Absolutely.

TOM BEARDEN: And how long has it been since you made that recommendation to today?

GERRY KAUVAR: February of '97.

TOM BEARDEN: A long time.

GERRY KAUVAR: Very long time. Much too long.

TOM BEARDEN: What does that say about the FAA?

GERRY KAUVAR: I think what it says is that the FAA Did not feel a sufficient sense of urgency.

TOM BEARDEN: Some senators also decried that perceived lack of urgency. They pointed to repeated reports by the General Accounting Office and the Transportation Department's inspector general, criticizing the slow pace of security reforms.

SECURING THE SKIES

[DKW 86 7,447]

In defense of DB, the Federal Judgeship stuff is all political payback. I am not fussing about it because the Reps did it to Clinton with his appointments.

You can argue over whose were more qualified, but you cant argue who was at this stuff first. The Reps started this fight, no doubt.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

You should really get your facts in order before you go off on another subject like that. Listen to something other than NPR and watch something other than Fox News. There's a whole world of information out there just awaiting you!!

Wow, finally......someone has made kool-aid even stronger than the crimson flavor. I never would have thought I'd hear someone mentioning NPR as being a conservative outlet for information. NPR is to the left what Newsmax is to the right. You should post this one on the democratic underground website ( The Jackass snakepit ). I'm sure you'll be considered a god over there.

To back my point up with FACT, here's:

Nazi Public Radio admits Liberal Bias

I agree with what David said concerning the judicial nominations. The GOP started the fight on this one.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Well, re-elected isn't a choice of words that I'd have used, considering Gore got 1/2 million votes more than Bush and all of the shenanigans that went on in Florida under the direction of Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court.

In truth, George W. Bush won 30 states out of 50 back in 2000. Al Gore won 20 states and the District of Columbia. When anyone tries to point this out you crybabies start to shriek about the popular vote, which you know, on a national level, means nothing. The popular vote only matters at the state level. The democrats know this, hate this and want to change this. It has a nasty habit of coming back and biting their heavily populated states, the states on both left coasts, in the gluteous maximus to remind them they are not the only residents in this country.

Taking this into account, one can reasonably say that the five votes Gore needed to win didn't come from Florida at all. They instead came from Oklahoma and Oklahoma preferred Bush, so Gore lost. Don’t be standing to close to these people when you say that because the spit as they search for a comeback will be flying all over. I find it best to offer them a tissue, be gracious and say, "Well, it could have been Mississippi or South Carolina I suppose, but Florida? Nah, Florida was just one state out of the 30 that Bush won and Al Gore didn’t".

[Donutboy 0]

Well, re-elected isn't a choice of words that I'd have used, considering Gore got 1/2 million votes more than Bush and all of the shenanigans that went on in Florida under the direction of Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush and the Supreme Court.

In truth, George W. Bush won 30 states out of 50 back in 2000. Al Gore won 20 states and the District of Columbia. When anyone tries to point this out you crybabies start to shriek about the popular vote, which you know, on a national level, means nothing. The popular vote only matters at the state level. The democrats know this, hate this and want to change this. It has a nasty habit of coming back and biting their heavily populated states, the states on both left coasts, in the gluteous maximus to remind them they are not the only residents in this country.

Taking this into account, one can reasonably say that the five votes Gore needed to win didn't come from Florida at all. They instead came from Oklahoma and Oklahoma preferred Bush, so Gore lost. Don’t be standing to close to these people when you say that because the spit as they search for a comeback will be flying all over. I find it best to offer them a tissue, be gracious and say, "Well, it could have been Mississippi or South Carolina I suppose, but Florida? Nah, Florida was just one state out of the 30 that Bush won and Al Gore didn’t".

Thanks for pointing out one of the flaws in the electoral college. Yes, Bush did carry 30 states to Gore's 20. Bush carried most of the low population states who enjoy an electoral edge because of the make-up of the electoral college; one electoral vote for each representative, PLUS it's two senators. Thus, a lightly populated state such as Alaska or North Dakota has an electoral advantage over more populated states.

Considering the electoral advantage that the electoral college gives lower populated states, that would have given Bush a 60 to 40 vote edge by having an added vote for each Senator. If the electoral college were based strictly on representatives, without the advantage given to smaller populated states, Gore would not only have won the election, he would have carried the electoral college.

BTW, I understand your inference, that by Bush carrying 30 states to Gore's 20, more "states" preferred Bush. Fortunately or unfortunately, whichever the case, "states" don't have a vote. American citizens do and 1/2 million more American citizens picked Gore over Bush.

Also, I'm glad that you're proud of your Florida win, considering that the Bush team had to purge voting lists to shake off hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, used confusing butterfly ballots in heavily Democratic areas, refused a recount when the ballot was clearly punched but the outdated machines wouldn't count them because of the hanging chads and two Supreme Court justices clearly had a conflict of interest in the decision but didn't remove themselves from the decison; Thomas's wife worked on the Bush campaign and Scalia's sons had been chosen for the Bush inauguration team just before the Supreme Court took up the challenge. Who wouldn't consider that a clean election, right? Sheesh!!

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Fortunately or unfortunately, whichever the case, "states" don't have a vote. American citizens do and 1/2 million more American citizens picked Gore over Bush.

Also, I'm glad that you're proud of your Florida win, considering that the Bush team had to purge voting lists to shake off hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, used confusing butterfly ballots in heavily Democratic areas, refused a recount when the ballot was clearly punched but the outdated machines wouldn't count them because of the hanging chads and two Supreme Court justices clearly had a conflict of interest in the decision but didn't remove themselves from the decison; Thomas's wife worked on the Bush campaign and Scalia's sons had been chosen for the Bush inauguration team just before the Supreme Court took up the challenge. Who wouldn't consider that a clean election, right? Sheesh!!

Oddly enough, this is the same process the US has used to elect the president since we've been electing them, pretty much. Whoever wins the majority of voters in each state, wins that states electoral votes. It’s really quite simple. The losing party has, up until the 2000 election, been able to say, "Hey, we didn't carry enough states this time. Let's look at how to do better next election". Of course, up to the 2000 election, we didn't have such crybabies representing one of the major national parties.

Point #2, those mean ol' confusing ballots that "cost" Gore the election were approved by BOTH parties. Can't lay this one at the door of us evil GOP'ers.

Point #3, I believe it was the democrats (and their 10,000 hired ambulance chasers) that kicked out the military absentee votes, thus eliminating thousands of potential GOP votes.

Point #4, you're absolutely right, it is a vast right wing conspiracy....oops, Hillbillary changed it......right wing apparatus.

Puh-lease!!

[Donutboy 0]

Fortunately or unfortunately, whichever the case, "states" don't have a vote. American citizens do and 1/2 million more American citizens picked Gore over Bush.

Also, I'm glad that you're proud of your Florida win, considering that the Bush team had to purge voting lists to shake off hundreds of thousands of eligible voters, used confusing butterfly ballots in heavily Democratic areas, refused a recount when the ballot was clearly punched but the outdated machines wouldn't count them because of the hanging chads and two Supreme Court justices clearly had a conflict of interest in the decision but didn't remove themselves from the decison; Thomas's wife worked on the Bush campaign and Scalia's sons had been chosen for the Bush inauguration team just before the Supreme Court took up the challenge. Who wouldn't consider that a clean election, right? Sheesh!!

Oddly enough, this is the same process the US has used to elect the president since we've been electing them, pretty much. Whoever wins the majority of voters in each state, wins that states electoral votes. It’s really quite simple. The losing party has, up until the 2000 election, been able to say, "Hey, we didn't carry enough states this time. Let's look at how to do better next election". Of course, up to the 2000 election, we didn't have such crybabies representing one of the major national parties.

Point #2, those mean ol' confusing ballots that "cost" Gore the election were approved by BOTH parties. Can't lay this one at the door of us evil GOP'ers.

Point #3, I believe it was the democrats (and their 10,000 hired ambulance chasers) that kicked out the military absentee votes, thus eliminating thousands of potential GOP votes.

Point #4, you're absolutely right, it is a vast right wing conspiracy....oops, Hillbillary changed it......right wing apparatus.

Puh-lease!!

Well, it hasn't ALWAYS been the majority gets that state's electoral vote. Did you know that at one time the electoral vote of a state was split in proportion to the vote of that state? Say Alabama went 60% for Bush and 40% for Gore. Bush would have got 6 Alabama electors and Gore would have gotten 3. I'm not sure when the law chandged giving ALL of a state's electors to the majority/plurality vote-getter but I think it was in the sixties.

Can I ask you a question? Why do you have so much hatred for Democrats and Liberals? I've noticed that you can't make a single post without the crybabies, selfish libs or some other such reference. Do you really think that helps your argument? Everyone has different politcal views and everyone on this board pretty much is respectful of the other's views except you. I was just thinking how much better everyone has been towards each other until you went off on this rant?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Why do you have so much hatred for Democrats and Liberals? I've noticed that you can't make a single post without the crybabies, selfish libs or some other such reference. Do you really think that helps your argument? Everyone has different politcal views and everyone on this board pretty much is respectful of the other's views except you. I was just thinking how much better everyone has been towards each other until you went off on this rant?

I hate no one. However, my strong resentment of the far left began fairly recently. I am actually more of a middle of the road kind of person, but I lean to the right because of the way I was raised (conservative, christian morals) and in the belief that hard work get a person ahead in this life, not government mandated handouts. I believe my hard earned money should not be spent supporting 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients, be they black or white. I have compassion for my fellow man, but that compassion goes only so far.

It is my belief that the previous administration did more to damage the national security and global reputation of MY country than any of the other administrations combined. I care deeply for this country, and the complete lack of regard and plain disrespect for the nation and the office of the presidency the Clinton administration exhibited is something I will never forgive nor forget.

There are several democrats I have the utmost respect for. They represent what the party used to stand for.....the working man. Although I don't agree with a lot of what the democratic party stands for, I can respect them. Unfortunately, they are a dying breed. With the likes of Daschle, Clinton, Pelosi, and Dean taking over; the party is becoming nothing more than a collection of divisive left wing extremists.

The group I have perhaps the most heartburn with are the Gore sore losers who refuse to let go of events from 3 years ago. They figure that if they continue to b*tch, whine and moan enough, Gore will somehow magically appear in the White House. They bring up skewed facts about the "stolen" election, yet when confronted by fact, they continue to parrot the same tired "forget the electoral college, Gore won the popular vote" line. The fact of the matter is the same process was used to elect Bush as was used to elect every president over the last 200 years.

I have other points of contention but I am kind of rushed for time at the moment.