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

Australian rock art has liberal bias (+ gay animal butt sex)!

Published on June 21, 2012 by in Liberals

Liberal Rock Art

Radical left-wing communist media organization Fox News has recently reported that some scribbles on some rocks in Australia are 28,000 years old.

It is fine if they present this as a “theory” that some “scientists” have. However, if they were really a fair and balanced news organization, as they claim, they would have also presented the argument that the world is only 6,000 years old and that these rock pictures were drawn by a race of evil demons called the lamia (which are mentioned in the Bible!).  The lamia were the earliest examples of evil and therefore liberals, so it is no surprise that they would be planting fictional evidence to try to make people think that the world is older than it really is.

Gay Animal Butt Sex Rock ArtHow can we tell that these cave drawings were created by liberal demons?  Look at a close-up of this highlighted section to the left!

WHAT IS GOING ON THERE?

I’m not sure, but it sure looks anti-Family to me.

…

This entire rock picture is very suspicious, and it is clear that whenever it was made, it was drawn by liberals. I have added the appropriate speech bubble in the original picture to signify this fact.

original story: FoxNews.com

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

Shared prosperity has a liberal bias!

Published on June 18, 2012 by in Graphs

Unions and Economic Inequality

The bias in this graph is not with the data, but with the title. The actual data here is not biased, in fact: the data is great. It is wonderful. The actual data itself shows that conservatives are right about everything and that if only everyone adopted the conservative view then we would live in a perfect world.

What this graph clearly shows is that when union membership is high, people who work hard and do a good job in business are not rewarded as much as they could be. On the other hand, when union membership decreases, the people who work hard and do a good job in business are rewarded more for the wonderful, fantastic things that they do.

But the title and labels in the graph are horrifically biased, and skewed to somehow make it seem like success is actually bad.

THAT’S RIGHT I SAID IT!  Liberals think that success is bad.

The red line in the graph is labelled “share of income going to the top 10%.”  What it should really say is “the amount that we reward people for doing good deeds.”  Liberals want to use the extremely biased term “top 10%” to cause resentment and class warfare. But think about it: How did they get to be the top 10%?  By being successful, working hard, and being good at their jobs, obviously! Therefore, the label “top 10%” should be replaced with “awesome people who deserve lots of stuff.”

Moreover, the title of the graph uses the term “shared prosperity.” This is a nonsense term.  I suspect it is a  synonym for “communism” and “socialism” and “Hitler” and all of those other words that are essentially interchangeable. Cuba. Hip-hop Barbeque. You get the idea.

When people say “shared prosperity” they are trying to get you to think it is a good thing. Liberals who don’t think very hard about things see the word “share” and it makes them feel good, and they see the word “prosperity” and it makes them feel good, so they think “shared prosperity” is a good thing.

But you and I know better, don’t we? We know that anyone who “shares” their prosperity is just enabling lazy poor people to sit around and do nothing all day at the expense of the successful millionaires who actually deserve to have money.

Anyone who tells you anything else is just spewing liberal bias!!!!

 

Graph Data Source: Jon Melegrito’s analysis of Historical Statistics of the United States, unitedstates.com, Piketty and Saez, 2003, and The World Top Incomes Database
Graph Found Via: AFSCME.org

 

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

Mitt Romney’s birth certificate has a liberal bias!

Published on June 14, 2012 by in Featured

 

Mitt Romney Forged Birth Certificate

Recently, a number of very alarming questions have arisen regarding Mitt Romney’s birth certificate.

The problem IS NOT that we suspect that Mitt Romney might not be born in the United States. That would be ridiculous, since he’s white, has a completely normal American name (“Willard”) and can’t dance. He’s clearly American.

The problem IS NOT that his father was born in Mexico but ran for President of the United States, because first of all who cares? And second of all, that was totally a long time ago.

However, we cannot help but noticing a suspicious pattern: a set of similarities between Mitt Romney’s released birth certificate, and the completely discredited and invalid birth certificate released by Barack Obama.

1) Mitt Romney has only released his “Certificate of Live Birth”.  Many people have pointed out that when Barack Obama released his “Certificate of Live Birth” that this is not the same thing as a long-form birth certificate and that therefore Obama is a foreign spy.  Since that is obviously true, why would Mitt Romney release the same discredited document?

2) Mitt Romney’s birth certificate says that it was issued January 18, 2012. Many people have pointed out that since Barack Obama’s supposed birth certificate was only printed very recently, it is likely to be forged or created after-the-fact, and is therefore invalid. Since that argument is obviously correct, why would Mitt Romney also produce a document that was just printed this year?

3) Mitt Romney’s birth certificate is weirdly cropped and doesn’t have a border that goes all the way around it.  Many people have criticized the copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate that appeared on the web, on the grounds that it looked like it was scanned poorly and therefore absolutely must be a forgery. Since that argument is clearlyl flawless in its reasoning, why would Mitt Romney produce a similarly flawed digital image of his birth certificate?

The conclusion is clear!  This document is NOT MITT ROMNEY’S REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

Instead, it is a forgery created by liberals, with deliberate flaws introduced in order to call Mitt Romney’s eligibility for office into question.

We must start a campaign to demand that Mitt Romney publish his original, printed-in-1947, long-form birth certificate, because the document above is obviously the product of liberal bias!!

image source: Huffington Post

 

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

Suspicious ties between Liberals and children

Published on June 11, 2012 by in Graphs

Liberals and Children

It is time to address the shady and deeply suspicious connections between the radical anti-Amercian liberal movement, and children.

You should find it deeply disturbing that liberals have so consistently tried to push legislation that would specifically help children. Consider the following:

  • Liberals, under the tyrannical leadership of Michelle Obama, have been trying to exert an unholy control over children’s diets in order to reduce obesity and get children to be healthier.
  • Liberals are constantly trying to force reductions in student loan payments down the throats of poor, innocent banks, for no reason other than to make life more affordable for students.
  • President Obama’s proposed 2010 budget included millions of dollars for a “Children’s Savings Account” program, that would give the children of lazy poor people free money just so those children could get a head start in paying to for their educations.
  • And now, in the above graph: Obama’s Socialist Healthcare is obviously designed to specifically benefit children the most.

The pattern is so consistent, one has to ask: what is their real purpose here?

Why would liberals be so focused on helping children?  It’s very counter-intuitive, since children can’t vote. Clearly something dark and under-handed is afoot.

Could it be that liberals are targeting children in order to indoctrinate them early into their godless, communist, anti-freedom ways?

Could it be that it is part of a plot to turn more children homosexual by making their lives easier?  (Don’t laugh! It’s a real connection: making life easier means you have to work less hard, which makes you a sissy and therefore homosexual. Simple logic!)

Could this all just be a preamble to a secret upcoming liberal plot to lower the voting age to 12?

It is frightening to think of all of the possibilities. We must obviously oppose, in every way possible, the Liberal Agenda to help children.

Graph Data Source: Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Tracking Poll
Graph found via: Kaiser Family Foundation Website

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

Campaign finance money has a liberal bias!

Published on June 7, 2012 by in Statistics

Campaign Spending Bias

Ultra-liberal radical communist Lawrence O’Donnell has been trying to spin the total and utter defeat of all liberal thought and beliefs in Wisconsin using the above statistics. He claims that the only reason Scott Walker won is because he spent almost 10 times the amount of money on his campaign and received almost three times as much from outside groups.

This claim is designed to confuse you and hide an important and critical fact.

According to CBS News, the estimated total turnout of this election has been 2.8 million people.  If Scott Walker received 54% of those votes, as projected, then he received 1,512,000 votes. Since the above statistics estimate the total spending in support of Scott Walker’s campaign to be about $45 million, that means each vote cost:

$45,000,000 / 1,512,000 votes   = $29.76 per vote

On the other hand, if the Democrat candidate Tom Barrett received 45% of the votes, then that totals 1,260,000 votes for the democrat.  Since the above statistics estimate the total spending in support of the Barrett campaign at $9 million, that means each vote cost:

$9,000,000 / 1,260,000 votes = $7.14 per vote

This is a dramatic and disturbing conclusion.

WHY DO REPUBLICAN VOTES COST MORE THAN DEMOCRAT VOTES?

In a free and equal society, a vote should cost the same regardless of what your political party is, right? That sounds fair. That seems logical. If our election system were fair, then every vote would cost the same amount, and since Scott Walker spent five times more money he should get five times as many votes!

If poor, downtrodden Republicans are being forced unfairly to pay more for the votes that they get, then it obviously must be the result of liberal bias!!!!!

 

Image Source: MSNBC, “The Last Word” by Chris O’Donnell

 

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

Mitt Romney vs. Lying Liberal Statistics!

Published on June 4, 2012 by in Graphs

Liberal Statistics and Lies

There is a disturbing trend lately: more and more statistics and graphs are ganging up to unfairly contradict Mitt Romney! How dare they! Don’t they know their place?

The place of statistics is to support good, virtuous, conservative ideals. Yet somehow, almost everything that Mitt Romney says seems to be contradicted by far-left radical “numbers”.  For example, consider the above graph:

  1. Mitt Romney says that Obama has gone on a wild spending spree… yet “Annual Federal Spending” is lower today than when Obama took office
  2. Mitt Romney says that Obama has raised your taxes… yet “Annual Federal Revenue” (which comes from taxes) is lower than it was when Obama took office
  3. Mitt Romney says that since Obama was elected the deficit has exploded and spiraled out of control… yet “Annual Budget Deficit” is lower now than when Obama took office.

How is it possible that all of these numbers are ganging up and conspiring to go against Mitt Romney? There is only one explanation: liberal bias!!!

 

graph source: Think Progress
data source: Congressional Budget Office
graph found via: barkbarkwoofwoof.com

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

© LiberalBias.com 2011-2013