LIBERAL HAZARD LEVEL
351

Liberal Bias

Enter Contact Information Here

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." 

Facebook Twitter Gplus YouTube Zazzle RSS

Special Sections:

Featured Bias
Featured Bias
Guest Articles
Guest Articles
Illuminated Truth
Illuminated Truth
Liberal Bias Video
Liberal Bias Video

Did Reagan cut the U.S. murder rate in half?

Published on July 30, 2012 by in Graphs

Reagan Fixes Everything

The original version of this graph was found on some pointless blog as part of an article entitled “America is a violent country.”  Typical liberal nonsense.  It figures that a liberal would look at this graph, and focus only on the fact that America has a teeny, tiny bit more violence than other industrialized nations. Focusing on such a trivial detail is a clear example of liberal bias!!!

What they don’t notice is this: Ever since Ronald Reagan was elected President, deaths due to assault have been steadily decreasing!

Is this because of the benevolent influence of Ronald Reagan’s conservative soul protecting us?

Is this because  God is rewarding us for making the wise decision to make Ronald Reagan our inspiration and leader?

Is this because the echoes of his immense and powerful impact on the American psyche has made us all better people?

And most importantly: Why aren’t Fox News and other members of the Mainstream Media asking these important questions?

graph data source: OECD
graph found via: crookedtimber.org

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

Cumulative CO2 emissions have a liberal bias!

Published on July 26, 2012 by in Graphs

Biased Emissions Graph

This un-American graph is a perfect example of the kind of sick deception that liberals engage in. Found on some lunatic-fringe, unknown liberal website called “ABC News“, which obviously has no credibility, this graph seems to suggest that when you look at the cumulative CO2 emissions over the last quarter century, the United States is responsible for the largest part of these emissions!

Now, everyone knows that global warming is a myth and that CO2 is a very natural and good substance that God loves. But let’s get one thing straight…

Even if….

Now, remember: global warming is 100% FALSE.

But…. EVEN IF, through some weird freakish impossible turn of events, it turned out that global warming IS happening….

In other words….

EVEN IF, hypothetically, global warming turned out, somehow, against all odds, to be true…

…

…then it certainty wasn’t AMERICA’S FAULT!  Duh!

In fact, our in-depth research and flawless instincts allow us, here at LiberalBias.com, to make the following prediction:

If, at some point in the future, Global Warming starts to happen, it will because of all of the communism going on in China, and will not be because of the virtuous liberty and freedom that is emitted in carbon form from U.S. coal plants.

For evidence, we have this chart:

America Rules!

This chart clearly shows that recently, China has been producing emissions at the highest rate in the world.  Therefore, in much the same way that Obama is responsible for the ENTIRE national debt now that he is president, it is only logical that right now China is responsible for ALL emissions-related global warming problems.

I mean… if they existed.

Which they don’t.

Anyway, the point is that you should only pay attention to the second graph, above, because the first one is just filled with liberal bias!!!!!

 

 Graphs found via: ABCNews Technology Blog

 
Tags: , , ,
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

What did Obama really spend? The shocking truth.

Published on July 23, 2012 by in Graphs

Liberal Obama Spends Liberal Money

This has been the single most debated political graph on the web in the last month. Originally appearing on Market Watch and then picked up by Forbes, the graph soon was spread like the angry spores of a liberal biological weapon across the entire internet. According to irrational and easily-fooled liberals, this graph shows that government spending has increased less under Obama than under any previous president going all the way back to Eisenhower.

It would just be too exhausting and boring to go through every single argument that has been made about this graph. So just to give a few examples:

Newsbusters points out: Obama’s low number is based partly on the CBO’s so-called “baseline projection” which assumes that Obama will unfairly break the backs of small-business owners by allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to expire.

Newbusters also points out that Obama voted for the Bush Stimulus Program when he was a Senator and therefore the entire 2009 budget should be considered Obama’s fault.

A blog at heritage.org makes the same points that the Newsbusters article makes. In fact, many of the actual sentences are identical in both articles. I’m sure this isn’t because one site plagiarized the other, but is simply because great conservative minds think alike.  Exactly. Alike.

You also have blogs and other sites pointing out that the graph is misleading because it clearly says that it is showing you the “growth in spending” but some people might believe that it represents “total spending.” Even though there isn’t really any evidence that anyone misunderstood the graph this way, it could be misunderstood that way and is therefore obviously a big fat lie.

All of these are excellent arguments, of course, and are in no way refuted by any of the detailed statistical analyses that can be found on radically biased websites like Politifact.

But since all of this has been written about already, what additional insight could we possibly have to offer?

The one thing that has been missing from this entire discussion is: THE TRUTH.

Namely: what should this graph look like, when all of the lies are corrected and accounted for?

To make sure that we cover every possible conservative argument that has been made, we would have to attribute all of 2009 spending to Obama.  We also should really add an extra $200 billion on to the expected spending in 2013 because we know that Obama will not cut any spending and plus he will do other sneaky things.

Thus, Obama’s column should show an increase from $2.98 trillion in 2009 to $3.83 trillion in 2013, which is an increase of 28.5% over 5 years, totally an annual increase of 5.7%.

So we now offer you, exclusively from LiberalBias.com, the correct conservative re-analysis of the data and the unbiased version of the graph.

Unbiased Federal Spending Growth

Isn’t that SHOCKING????

When you give Obama the blame for all of the spending that happened during the entire year of 2009, and also give him all of the blame for all of the spending that might happen after his term is over in 2013, his total spending increase skyrockets to……  5.7%!

I mean, it’s still a tiny bit weird that it is still lower than Bush’s or Reagan’s…..

But pay no attention to that! 

The point is: it’s very, very different from the first graph, which was clearly infected with liberal bias!!!

 

Graph Data Source:  OMB, CBO and Havar Analytics
Graph Found Via: Market Watch

 
Tags: , , ,
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
4 Comments  comments 

CBO debt projections have liberal bias!

Published on July 19, 2012 by in Graphs

Biased Debt Projections

The above graph has been produced by the radical socialist, anti-family left-wing organization called the “Communist Budget Office” (CBO), and is very clearly steeped in liberal bias. Luckily, we here at LiberalBias.com are here to correct this lie and present to you the correct, unbiased version of the graph (below).

First, look at the sneaky biased way that they present the data in the above graph.  They label the scenario “Bush tax cuts expire and budget cuts are made” as the “baseline scenario.” Then, they label the scenario “Bush tax cuts extended and budget cuts are NOT made” as the “alternative scenario.” They then conclude that the scenario that has the Bush Tax cuts continuing cause an explosion of debt when compared to their “baseline scenario.”

These labels, however, are very misleading. Neither of these lines are a real “baseline.” In fact, neither of these two scenarios represent what real, true, honest, God-loving Americans want. What real Americans want–and by “real Americans” we obviously mean “conservatives”–is for the Bush tax cuts to be extended and for the spending cuts to be enacted.

On the other hand, what communist America-hating liberals want is for there to be no spending cuts, and for the tax cuts to expire.

So both of the lines in the above graph actually represent compromises between the liberal and conservative positions: in one case, we give up the Bush Tax cuts in order to get our spending cuts; in the other case, we give up the spending cuts in order to get the Bush Tax cuts.

NEITHER OF THESE SCENARIOS IS ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE COMPROMISE IS FOR SISSIES.

That’s right, I said it!

Obviously, any situation where conservatives compromise with liberals will lead to out of control debt, famine and plague, dogs and cats living together in homosexual sin, and other things not even worth mentioning.

WE MUST NOT COMPROMISE.

Instead, a graph that was presented without liberal bias would show the Conservative Principles plan, in which conservatives stand their ground and get everything they want:

Unbiased Debt Projections

Look at this beautiful graph. When the data are presented this way, your choice is clear.

Do you want evil, out of control destructive compromise?

Or do you want Conservative Principles that will lower the debt to nothing?

The choice is yours.

Will you choose Conservative Principles?

Or will you choose liberal bias?????

 

Original Graph Data Source: CBO Report
Original Graph Found Via: An Economic Sense

 
Tags: , , , ,
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

Reagan tax cuts had a liberal bias!

Published on July 16, 2012 by in Graphs

Reagan was a liberal.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 is one of Reagan’s crowning achievements. Widely known as one of his two biggest tax cuts, every good conservative knows that this heroic act of Ronald Reagan simplified the tax code, lowered taxes, and therefore lead to prosperity, success, wealth, sunshine, unicorns, and basically has been the root cause of every single good thing that happened in the 1990′s.  Some people say that Clinton is responsible for the budget surplus during Bill Clinton’s term as President… but we know better! It was the 1986 Reagan Tax Cuts!

Yet somehow… something seems very wrong with this graph.

According to this graph, in the years following the enactment of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, the effective tax rate (that is, the percentage of income actually paid by people, after all loopholes, breaks, deductions, and other fancy stuff has been applied) of the bottom 80% of income earners (red, green, blue, and yellow lines) went down… but the effective tax rate of the top 20% of income earners actually went up!

How is this possible? Could it be that somehow, in some unknown sinister way, Reagan actually increased taxes on the rich??

It turns out that sneaky little things like an increase in the Capital Gains tax, a strengthening of the Alternative Minimum tax, and the closing of loopholes and deductions are responsible for this “effective tax rate” increase.  The end result was that although the official tax rates for the richest people in the country went down, the wealthiest people in the country ended up actually paying a higher percentage of their income as tax.

This kind of graph can lead to all kinds of trouble.

For example, an evil liberal might look at this graph and say: “Obama has proposed closing loopholes so that the wealthy pay more in taxes. If Reagan did it, then why don’t conservatives want Obama to do it?”

Or, an anti family, anti-values liberal might look at this graph and say: “Obviously, the wealth of the Reagan years didn’t trickle down, but was actually taken from rich people through increased taxes!”

Or, a nature-worshipping, un-American liberal might look at this graph and say: “This shows that Reagan actually never decreased taxes on the wealthy, as is usually claimed. His policies were exactly the same types of tax changes that Republicans are now calling class warfare… now that Obama wants to do it.”

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, REAGAN TAX CUTS? WHY ARE YOU SO MESSED UP?

Clearly, this graph cannot represent reality.  Instead, it is another example of statistics that have been infected with liberal bias!!!

 

Graph Data Source: Econ Data Us
Graph Found Via: US Budget Blog

 
Tags: , , , ,
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
No Comments  comments 

Mark Levin proves that unemployment is really 50%

Published on July 12, 2012 by in Statistics

Real Unemployment

Radical left-wing media organizations all over the country reported last week that unemployment in June 2012 was 8.2%.  This is a liberal lie, designed to make people think that the entire world isn’t about to collapse under the evil dictatorship that is the Obama presidency. Well, we are here to tell you that they are wrong, and the world is about to collapse, and it is all Obama’s fault.

More specifically, on Mark Levin’s radio show this past Friday, he outlined two very strong and rational arguments that prove that the 8.2% unemployment number is a lie:

First, Mark Levin very wisely said this: You don’t need a government agency to tell you how well the economy is doing. You can just look around you. Use your own eyes. Does everything look perfect to you? Is everyone happy? Obviously not! Therefore, there is no recovery. (These were not his exact words but that was the gist of his argument, and it makes sense to me.)

Second, Mark Levin sagely pointed out that the 8.2% number is a fiction that was invented by Democrats, and that it excludes people who are under employed, or part-time employed, or who have given up looking for work because they feel discouraged.  If you include people who are employed part time but wish they were employed full time, and you include people feel so unhappy that they have given up looking for work, then the number is actually 14.5%, and that is practically 15%.

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT! 15 PERCENT!

But wait! There’s more.

Not only do we  agree with this line of reasoning, we do not think Mark Levin has gone far enough.

Using exactly the same logic that Mark Levin uses, we believe it is reasonable to include yet more people who have been irrationally excluded from the unemployment statistic.

After all, if it makes sense to include people who are working part time who could be working full time, then why not also include people who are working one job but could be working two jobs?

If you include people who feel discouraged about looking for work, why not also include people who are unhappy at the jobs that they have?

If you dig deeply enough, there are all kinds of groups that we can add to the “unemployment” statistic to make it higher more realistic!

Our team of researchers at LiberalBias.com has done an in-depth analysis using the “Mark Levin line of reasoning,” and have determined that if you include ALL unemployed people, under-employed people, part-time employed people, unhappily-employed people, people who could be working 2 jobs but actually are working only 1 job, and people who are employed but spend most of their time playing golf, and so on, then the REAL unemployment rate is more like 46.8%…. and that is nearly 50%!!!

Although Mark Levin has not actually made this specific argument, he is a smart man and we are sure he would agree with this line reasoning. We know what is in his heart.

So, why aren’t other media outlets reporting this disgraceful Obama unemployment rate of 50%?

Clearly, it must be because they have liberal bias!!!!!

 

Graph Data Source: this graph has been created for illustrative purposes only. Liberal “actual” data was not used.

Related Story: Mark Levin proves the debt is really 1 Quadrillion Dollars!!

 
Tags: , , , ,
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2013