LIBERAL HAZARD LEVEL
351
Enter Contact Information Here

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." 

Facebook Twitter Gplus YouTube Zazzle RSS

This breakfast has a liberal bias!

This breakfast is liberal.

Dennis Prager warns about the social, psychological, and moral dangers of this breakfast. We agree with him, but we also think he does not go far enough with his condemnations….

This appeared as a column on some unknown website a couple of days ago: a person named Dennis Prager explains the true visionary conservative position on schools providing breakfasts for poor children. To sum up, in his own words:

1. “A nutritious breakfast can be had for less than a dollar….” and therefore “it is inconceivable that there are homes in Los Angeles that cannot afford breakfast for their child. ”

2. Giving poor children nutritious breakfasts at schools “both enables and encourages irresponsible, uninterested, and incompetent parenting.”

3. Giving poor children nutritious breakfasts at schools “weaken the parent-child bond.”

4. “The free breakfast profoundly weakens young people’s character.”

To sum up, again in his own words: “These are the ways in which the Left has damaged children and families through free school breakfasts.”

 

These are amazing arguments, but we here at LiberalBias.com have to ask this:

…WHY are you limiting this argument only to school-provided breakfasts?

Consider this:

Textbooks!

Why are our socialist schools providing textbooks for free? A $20 textbook works out to less than 5 cents per day, so it’s inconceivable that anyone would not be able to afford it. If the school provides the textbook, then it just enables bad parents to not buy the books themselves. It also weakens the parent-child bond, because what is more bonding than a parent and child struggling together when they can’t afford textbooks for school?  Finally, giving textbooks to students weakens their character because it makes them assume that they will get free stuff from other people.

Therefore, allowing students to use textbooks without making them pay is destroying the character of our children.

 

Desks!

Why do our socialist schools allow students to sit at desks for free? Why are they not paying a rental fee for the year?  Isn’t this sending the wrong message? Doesn’t this just encourage dependency?  Doesn’t this just enable bad parenting, by letting the parents get away with not paying for the child to rent the desk?

It’s a moral disaster, ladies and gentlemen.

 

…and so on. You get the idea.  You can use this argument to basically demonize anything that schools provide.

So why don’t you, Dennis Prager?  You know you want to.  Go explain to the world that it’s destroying the character of our children that we let them use school desks without paying rent!  Go one: show off your glorious tea-party self!

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

The Benghazi: the OFFICIAL list of charges

What follows is the Official List of CHARGES* against the Obama Administration on the topic of the BENGHAZI CONSPIRACY. These accusations stand as sufficient evidence, in our opinion, for the IMPEACHMENT.

 

ACCUSATION #1: HE DIDN’T JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!!!

Some people thought that the attacks in Benghazi might have been organized terrorist activity right away, while others were not sure. So why is it that Obama somehow refused to immediately yell “DIE FOREIGN SCUM”, put on a Captain America outfit, and denounce all brown people the way that conservatives wanted him to?  Instead, he was cautious and attempted to not yell out accusations of a gigantic organized plot until he had more information. What kind of crap is that? This is what we conservatives call “a shaky edifice of lies“.

ACCUSATION #2STUFF COULD HAVE GONE BETTER!!!!!

Some guys says that he thinks that it’s possible that hypothetically if more air power had been around it could have scared off the attackers! According to a blog on ABC News, this person says:  “A fast‑mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible, might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.” This is concrete proof that Obama is incompetent in every way.  (The “you know” is really the most powerful part of the quote, don’t you think?)

ACCUSATION #3THE WRONG WORDS WERE USED!!!!!

WTF is the difference between “terrorism” and “an act of terror” anyway??  Nobody at Fox News knows, but they are all pretty sure that it is a sign of some kind of sneaky liberal mind-game neurolinguistic programming trickery designed to destroy the American way of life.

ACCUSATION #4: WE HAVE TO STRIKE NOW! KILL! KILL! KILL!

Obama is a wuss.  According to an editorial in the Washington Times, the entire reason that Benghazi is important is to simply highlight the fact that Obama is “weak on foreign policy” and is “leading from behind” and is “appeasing our enemies” and all kinds of other phrases that mean he hasn’t invaded enough countries yet.

 

THIS COMPLETES THE LIST OF CHARGES* AGAINST THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

CLEARLY THESE ARE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

The Benghazi Conspiracy

 


 

* NOTE: when we say “charges”, we mean the charges that LiberalBias.com has brought against the Obama administration by posting them here on this internet page.  It may not have any legal bearing, but it matters a lot because it’s on the internet.

 
Tags:
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

My Rights as a Gun Owner (PSA)

Published on May 6, 2013 by in Videos

Sean Zevran reminds us what is most important in the debate about gun control, in this Public Service Announcement.

 

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1BM0xrJsg

Subscribe to Liberal Bias Video: https://www.youtube.com/LiberalBiasVideo

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

Job recoveries have a liberal bias!

Published on May 3, 2013 by in Graphs

Private Sector Jobs under Bush and Obama

Everyone knows Obama’s job recovery is the most sluggish job recovery in the history of all of humanity, and probably the whole galaxy. So why does this graph show that Bush’s job recovery was even worse?

Some of you might remember that George W. Bush’s first term as president immediately followed a big stock market bust, just as Barack Obama’s first term immediately followed the housing bust.  Although both busts were different, both lead to dramatic job losses that then rebounded.

And according to the above graph, the recovery of private sector jobs during Obama’s presidency was much faster than the recovery under George W. Bush’s presidency!

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU STUPID RECOVERY? HAVEN’T YOU HEARD OBAMA IS DESTROYING EVERYTHING?

We’ve heard repeatedly from our conservative leaders that this economic recovery is worst, most sluggish recovery ever since the beginning of time plus a million.  Why is it that we don’t remember the same comments being made during Bush’s term as president?

Some people might point out that the recovery seemed better under Bush because Republicans under Bush allowed private sector jobs to increase, while under Obama they have slashed government jobs as much as possible.

But do not listen to those people. Everyone knows that “government jobs” don’t count. That would just be liberal bias!!!

 

graph found via: Calculated Risk Blog

an update to: You should believe it’s a non-recovery because I say so
related post: Hannity’s rubber band has a liberal bias!

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

European austerity weirdly contradicts conservative values

Published on May 1, 2013 by in Graphs

Eurozone austerity

“If we tighten our belts it will lead to growth,” Rand Paul has said. “Reducing the deficit always makes economies boom,” Paul Ryan has said. So why is this graph showing otherwise?

Of course we have not just heard this from our conservative hero, Rand Paul Ryan. We have also heard this from great intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  They all tell us the same thing: deep cuts in spending will balance the budget and instantly lead to an enormous explosion in hiring, productivity, GDP, puppies, rainbows, and oral sex.  In other words: it will solve all problems in the world.

Weirdly, the above graph shows that in European countries, there is a negative relationship between the degree of austerity they implemented, and their GDP growth.  More specifically: across Europe, the more dedicated a country was to cuts and austerity, the more their GDP dropped.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, STUPID GRAPH? DIDN’T YOU GET THE MEMO?

When statistics like these dare to contradict the talking points of our great lord and leader, Rand Paul Ryan, there is only one conclusion we can come to:  the statistics must have a liberal bias!!!

 

graph data source: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database
graph found via: Paul Krugman, New York Times

related article: European unemployment weirdly contradicts conservative values

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

The word “loophole” has a liberal bias

Loopholes

People in the liberal media are using the term “loophole” incorrectly. It’s time for us to set the record straight.

You SHOULD NOT use the term “loophole” for these things:

The 1993 CEO Compensation Rule:  When Congress tried to cap the deductibility of executive compensation to no more than $1 million per year, somewhere along the way a special provision was entered in so that the limitation was only applied to performance-based pay. So, CEO’s started getting paid bonuses in the form of stock options instead of cash, and the “limitation” became completely useless.

This loophole feature of the tax code costs the U.S. Treasury saves corporations $8 billion a year.  Honeywell made $5 billion from 2009-2012 and paid only $50 million in federal income taxes – a tax subsidy of $1.7 billion – which they were able to do in part because of this loophole.

Everyone knows that CEO’s should not pay any taxes.  They are delicate and dainty, and if you get them mad then they might hire even fewer people. You wouldn’t want that, would you?

Therefore, this is a “tax feature” not a “tax loophole”.

The Off-Shore Tax Laws:  When companies build stuff in other countries, they do not get taxed by the United States. This was originally set up to encourage American companies to go and build stuff abroad. However, in the last few decades they have also been registering patents and trademarks in low-tax countries, even when the discoveries that those patents represent were really made in the United States, so that the income the company receives for those patents and trademarks does not get taxed.

This loophole feature of the tax code costs the U.S. Treasury saves corporations $90 billion a year. Citigroup had $42.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  ExxonMobil had $43 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  General Electric had $108 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes. Honeywell had $11.6 billion in profits offshore in 2012 on which it paid no U.S. taxes.  Just to take four examples.

This also should not be called a “loophole”, because everyone knows that corporations are over-taxed already. Just look at the four examples given above. They obviously need these tax breaks because they are struggling oh so badly.

You SHOULD use the term “loophole” for these things:

 

Employee benefits:  Employer-paid health insurance are a HUGE loophole.  Also pension plans, plus life insurance, vision and even group legal plans.

These are loopholes because the costs are tax-free unless you pay for them yourself. Plus, they benefit middle class and poor people who obviously don’t need any help with money, those lazy useless creeps.

Home Ownership Exemption: When selling a primary residence (effective 1997) capital gains are totally exempt up to $250,000 ($500,000 if married)  Congress keeps increasing this exemption to include a majority of middle-class voters.  The cap on that exemption targets it to the middle class only — which makes it a loophole for middle-class people.

Who do these people think they are, asking for tax breaks? I mean, it’s not like middle-class people do anything useful or productive the way Exxon Mobile does.

 

When you use the term “loophole” to apply to those poor, put-upon rich people and corporations, it’s really just showing your liberal bias!!!

 

sourcesInstitute for Policy Studies, Liberty Issues

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
1 Comment  comments 

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2013