Sean Hannity, who is never wrong, has been telling us for weeks that Obama wants gasoline prices to be higher because he is an eco-terrorist. This is obviously true… but there is an even deeper, more insidious plan!
Some liberals will lie to you and say that Liberals are actually paying more for gasoline because they tend to live in more expensive areas. For example, drivers in Wyoming pay $3.21 per gallon and in California they pay as much as $4.34.This would seem to be a bias that gives conservatives a break.
But no! When you look at the amount of money spent on gas as a percentage of household income, and you also take into account that conservatives drive more because they live in less densely populated areas, you can actually see that conservatives are paying more of their total income on gasoline than liberals are.
Now let me ask you this….
Is that a COINCIDENCE?
Or is it more likely to be a LIBERAL BIAS PLOT!?
I’m just asking the question. You decide.
source: AAA, Charlie Cook, Gallup, EIA, Rhodium Group
via: Washington Post
The graph above shows the effects of Obama’s first two years in office on the economic growth of various countries. Some people might be befuddled into thinking that the overall effect has been good, because many of the lines seem to be going up, but do not be fooled!!!
There are a few hidden points of critical importance in these graphs that you need to pay attention to:
- Most of the lines with positive slopes are little European countries that are basically like extra states owned by America anyway: Italy, France, UK, Germany, Japan, and so on. These are all being helped not by Obama’s policies but by the incredible resilience of the American spirit.
- The two lines that are decreasing are small, poor defenseless countries that nobody has ever heard of: Azerbajan and the Kyrgyz Republic. Now I think it is important that someone asks,
WHY ARE YOU DESTROYING THESE COUNTRIES, OMABA?
His policies have obviously been having a detrimental effect since he took office in 2009. Why is nobody in the mainstream media talking about this?
- The two countries that are doing the best are Russia, which has the largest increase from 2009 to 2010, and China, which has the highest growth overall. This is an obvious sign that Obama’s foreign policies are helping communism and preparing us to turn into a communist state.
If you want to make sure that people only see the important data on the above graph, and do not get distracted by irrelevant details, make sure they see only this graph:
That is the only way you can avoid any liberal bias!!!!!
Everyone knows that liberals are obsessed with sex, pornography, deviancy, nakedness, heathen rituals, movies that involve gladiators, and other disgusting non-Christian things. Conservatives, on the other hand, are righteous and rational.
Never has this been more obvious than in the latest set of so-called “graphs” of so-called “data” from the Treasury Department. In a desperate attempt to make people think that the economy is getting better, when obviously it is not, liberals have resorted to playing on the most base of human drives: LUST.
Look at those graphs! LOOK AT THEM!
Do you see it? Do you see how the liberals are trying to make you subliminally feel better about the economy? Do you see how they are playing on disgusting, anti-Christian, anti-social perversion in a desperate ploy to make you feel happy about the way things are going?
OK, if you can’t see it, maybe this will help:
It is obvious that since the economy is not actually improving, the liberals will resort to any means at all to lull people into a false sense of positive feelings.
source: Department of the Treasury
This is a very confusing subject, and in radical ultra-liberal left wing media outlets like the American Institute for Economic Research and Forbes.com you will see people saying that inflation is not worse under Obama than it was under Bush. But they are looking at these numbers in a Liberally Biased way. The correct way to look at these numbers is as follows:
For a very long time, fancy economists used this thing called the “Consumer Price Index” or “CPI” (black line) to measure inflation. As a result, the highest level that inflation ever rose to during Bush’s presidency was around 5%.
Recently, economists have realized that the correct way to measure inflation during a liberal presidency is to use the “Everyday Price Index” or “”EPI” (golden line). As a result, the highest rate of inflation during Obama’s presidency has been around 10%.
It is as simple as that. Numbers do not lie. We have highlighted the two points that you should pay attention to on the above graph (red) that clearly illustrate that the maximum inflation rate has increased under Obama compared to under Bush.
Look only at the red highlighted points.
Do not look at any of the other points on the graph.
Those other points are the ones that lead to liberal bias…..
graph source: American Institute for Economic Research
thanks for the tip: Zachary Pleat
Liberal policies always fail, and Obama is a failed president. These are facts that cannot be denied. Every day I hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, who are never wrong, talk about the utter failure of Obama’s policies and the fact that the economy is being destroyed by the iron fist of oppression, regulation, taxes, and all of the other things that Obama is doing wrong that are never spelled out.
So in light of these clean, upstanding conservative facts, how can it possibly be that economic indicators show that consumers have been increasing their confidence in the economy.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, CONSUMERS? WHY ARE YOU SO CONFIDENT?
If consumers were acting properly, watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh and ignoring absolutely everything else, they would know that having a liberal president has brought us to the brink of destruction and could not possibly improve anything. If consumers are actually becoming more confident while we still have a liberal president, there is only one explanation… consumers have been infected by liberal bias!!!
source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development
via: Talking Points Memo
This graph has appeared on the radical ultra-left wing website “The New York Times” and is a perfect example of facts that are quite simply wrong.
According to this graph, not only do countries that have more wealth inequality have less upward mobility, but America has a super-low amount of mobility, less than other countries!
This is obviously ridiculous. Let me present the actual facts:
1) Rush Limbaugh, who is never wrong, has said, “There’s so many myths. The income gap getting wider — it isn’t. The rich getting richer — they aren’t. You know, people move in and out of all these financial categories constantly. They’re all fluid.” Therefore the idea that we do not have social mobility is just wrong.
2) Shelby Steele, senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said “There must be a Republican message of social exceptionalism. America has more social mobility than any heterogeneous society in history.” I have never heard of this person but it sounds right to me.
3) Dick Morris, Fox News political analyst, has explained that even if there are more poor people now than in the past, they are different poor people because all of the old poor people have moved up! That’s social mobility.
So, obviously this fiction that the United States does not have good upward mobility is just a lie. The above graph is therefore just another example of facts and numbers showing a liberal bias!!!!
Source: Alan Krueger, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
Via: Paul Krugman at the New York Times
References to Conservative Facts can all be verified through: MediaMatters.org
The above graph is a perfect example of liberal bias and liberal lies. The graph implies that the Bush Tax cuts are responsible for the deficit, even though it has been totally proven that tax cuts do not and cannot cause deficits. Obviously the orange segment of the left graph has been mislabeled.
In this second graph, I have changed the label of the orange section of the graph in order to remove the liberal bias and make it more accurate.
Source: CBPP Analysis based on Congressional Budget Office estimates
Via: The Joshua Blog
Those of us who listen to reliable news sources like Fox News and Sean Hannity’s radio program know that the vast majority of the federal debt was caused by Obama, and that he’s racked up more debt than every other president combined.
Yet due to obvious prejudice against these basic facts, numerical measurements of the debt seem to show that President Bush increased federal spending more than 10 times President Obama.
Obviously these numerical measurements have a liberal bias!
Source: Budget of the United States Government, Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2012
Via: The Immoral Minority
There is a sinister plot afoot.
Is it just a coincidence that two of the most major economic indicators, GDP and employment, were higher when Clinton raised taxes and lower when Bush cut them? Despite the fact that everybody knows that raising taxes destroys the economy and cutting taxes is the pathway to prosperity?
This graph makes it pretty clear that there is some partisan shenanigans going on! It’s obvious that these economic indicators are colluding with liberals to create the illusion that tax increases are good for the economy. Hands-down, an obvious sign of liberal bias!!!!
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Via: The Long Goodbye
Looking at the last 8 completed presidential terms, the average annual change in GDP when a Democrat has been in office has been 3%, while the average annual change in GDP when a Republican has been in office has only been 2.5%.
How is this possible, when everybody knows that conservatives are the ones who know how to make the economy work and liberals only know how to make people less free?
This obviously demonstrates that the Gross Domestic Product suffers from a liberal bias!!!
Source: Budget of the United States Government
This graph provides further proof that the stock market is steeped–STEEPED–in liberal bias.
The average annualized return on $10,000 invested in the S&P Market has been 8.9% under Democrats, and 4.7% under Republicans… that’s if you exclude Hoover. With Hoover, the difference is even worse. This suggests that investing under Democrats (who are bad for business) would give you a greater return on your investment than investing under Republicans (who are good for business).
This makes no sense. Obviously, the Liberal Stock Market suffers from liberal bias!!!
Source: Bloomberg Financial Markets
Via: NY Times
Everyone knows that Obama is the worst president ever and that everything his does makes the economy worse. So how is it possible that job growth seems to have been improving ever since he took office?
Obviously, there is a conspiracy. The radically partisan statistic called “job growth” is clearly guilty of liberal bias!!!
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 4/2/2010
Via: The Maddow Blog