Jeff Stahler for December 17, 2014

Just three nightmares, not ghosts.

Well, considering Bill was at least a fair President and W was the absolute worst ever (even allowing for fact Cheney ran country), that is simply not true. Having said that, hope it’ll be President Warren!

Awesome. I love LOLGOP.

Why does everybody have to attack one president or the other? We would be much better off with cooperation and compromise than hate.

Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush…why can’t we get some new talent? Perhaps because when a new face pops up(Carson, Warren, Cruz), the idiot media immediately sets out play whack-a-mole with them. The rich media is obsessed with their own power and money.

I just saw where Dubya’s nephew (George P) is now head of Texas’ environment and agriculture. Asked whether he believed that humans contribute to climate change, he answered that he’s not a scientist, and that the available science isn’t conclusive.

The nut sure doesn’t fall far from the tree. I can’t wait until Texas manages to secede. The US will be far better off.

Clinton actually said “being president is like running a cemetery – you’ve got a lot of people under you and nobody’s listening.”

I have no doubt that Karl Rove has re-calibrated the machinery, and it is gearing up for the inevitable result.

Clinton started zero wars (but did end one waged by Serbia, without a single American casualty) and left Bush 43 with an actual budget excess, not deficit, a healthy economy, yep he was just terrible.

You are quite ill-informed on this point, and your other comments support that conclusion, I’m afraid. What entitles you, pray tell, to say “the science is not conclusive”? Are you a scientist? Because the science IS conclusive, according to actual climate scientists. In fact, it is arguably the most conclusive major finding in the last century, since evolution.And your comment on scientists “receiving government subsidies” is merely slanderous. The purpose of government GRANTS is to fund research. That’s what it does, and that’s where the money is spent — and you must document that you did.Research grants do not go to the scientist, they go to fund the work. But this meretricious assertion keeps going around, as if scientists are getting rich. As for whether the research is conclusive, try looking at this link below, to a study of over two thousand peer-reviewed and published research articles (meaning they reach appropriate standards of quality), in which exactly one (1) out of 9,136 authors deny global warming. http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming