Even if "you" is a reference to liberals in general, the claim was still false. There have been plenty of criticisms from the left of Obama's killing of American citizens. Here are a few.

Inside America's Dirty Wars (The Nation)

Glenn Greenwald (Salon)

ACLU objects to killing of al Qaeda leader

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki: The Son Barack Obama Never Had (Dailykos)

I can pull up conservative articles about how Donald Trump is a piece of crap, the general consensus on the right is that he's awesome.

Two things:
1. The claim was "you didn't say **** about the droning" and if "you" = "liberals" as you say (it wasn't, it was "you" = the guy whose post you responded to that you now claim you've never seen before) then WN clearly just showed you that liberals did have some **** to say about it, idiot
2. lol why are we even pretending to give this lying moron the benefit of the doubt

in b4 this dumbass posts another confused face

I agree with goofy that this is a non-sequitur. If you had said merely that liberals liked Obama in general, I would have no objection to that claim. Instead, you made the much different claim that liberals said nothing about the killing of American citizens by Obama.

If you want to instead say that Democrats holding political power didn't do anything about it then I'd probably accept that claim as well, fwiw. But that's a smaller group than "liberals".

Anyone can go back and read that I did in fact respond to FlyWf (about a completely different subject), but I was the one who brought up the droning, and I said liberals in the post! How the **** should I know what he said about it when it happened. You're grasping at straws to 'get me' here and you really should let it go. You sound like a complete lunatic.


Seriously we're splitting hairs here. The point is there was very little coverage in the liberal media about the assassination, and few if any hardcore Obama supporters came out and said Obama was a criminal for actually doing blatantly criminal ****, but Trump said he wanted closer ties with Russia and there is an endless media circus over how Russia rigged the election, how Trump was bought by the Russians, etc etc with ZERO EVIDENCE. It's just another show of 'your' hypocrisy (understand when I say your here, I don't necessarily mean you specifically, just like I didn't mean FlyWf specifically, I lump your in to mean liberals in general---thought this was obvious but apparently I have to spell it out for you).

How is it a non-sequitur? We both know that if there was actual evidence of Trumps being bought or whatever by Russia, or any other blatant criminality, that the vast majority of conservatives would sweep it under the rug like it didn't happen and move on, just like the vast majority of liberals completely forgot Obama murdered an American citizen without going through the proper legal channels, or how he bombed countries without congressional approval, or how Bill Clinton actually committed perjury which was an impeachable offense and his wife who enabled the whole thing ran against Donald Trump, while (laughably) being a champion of womens rights. Posting a couple news articles does nothing to change my opinion of how the vast majority of liberals reacted to it. Most were happy about it and agreed with what he did, despite the fact that it was a crime, because I was there when it happened and listened to them talk about it. The keyword here is partisan. Both sides are this way. I know you are smart enough to know this so the least you could do is admit it.

Okay. This being the gender pay gap thread I don't want to go too far off in the weeds. I responded to what you actually wrote. I accept that what you really meant was something else. I'm not too interested in some general discussion about partisan hypocrisy, and certainly not in this thread, so I'll leave it at that.

When your chosen defense is that you were intentionally making a dumb and over-broad generalization, that's the time to realize some mistakes were made along the way.

Also,

The point was specifically about the emoji.

Pretty bold for you to be suggesting bans for trolling, amirite?

See and you can't admit it, but I can, which is a shame. We could actually have an intelligent conversation with regards to partisan hypocrisy about the gender pay gap, which I have tried to touch on. Alas...

Really just that specific type. And it's hyperspecific. The Confused Question Mark Emoji Gambit.

Also, wasn't there a discussion recently about the proper practical usage of "troll/ing" recently?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...-perpetuating/

Article doesn't tell the whole story but the whole story does characterize the state of the left. Totally predictable

I would hope a bunch of Google employees would get together and threaten to quit but the left has everyone so scared for their jobs they probably won't.

Absolutely disgusting.

I think people fleeing their platforms will be enough. Ironically it's not much of a boycott as it is a legitimate fear of being targeted for WrongThink.

It seems there is some fierce debate happening at Google. Good.

I hope Google gets kicked in the teeth for this one. **** them.

Lol, republicans discovering they love strikes and workplace protections.

Saying it was a bad idea for Google to fire him is not the same as strikes and workplace protection. Your false equivalencies suck.

Jiggy and wil gonna be using Ask Jeeves for the rest of the week.

Lol trolly is an idiot

SJW/marxist logic

-disparity in outcomes = oppression and victimization

-oppression and victims are created by the patriarchy, white privilege, sexism, racism, classicism, and teh phobes

- if you deny their assumption then you are somehow now the racist, sexist, phobe they blame for said inequality

- if you don't agree with them then they need to come after you, your job, career, and personal life

its somehow not possible for the SJW's to just think you are wrong or disagree with you. its the movement of anger, bitterness, and resentment. instead of going after his job or villianizing him, how about you provide a counter argument with actual info? his sentiment that the disparity in outcomes is explained through biology isn't radical hate-speech. men and women are actually different. to deny this makes you the radical idiot that needs "re-education". if you have a disagreement over the details of gender differences, go ahead. but be civil about it


the lol predictable sjw/marxist chain of events

-google has disparity in geder outcomes
-sjw's discover said disparity and start warrioring
-lawsuit
-hire professional SJW to get the company in line with SJW agenda
-fire anyone who disagrees with the sjw denial of basic biology with out even providing credible counter evidence

-juank appears

The goverment should step in and not allow google to run their own business, unless they are selling cake.

The U.S. Department of Labor is investigating whether Google has unlawfully paid women less than men. The company has denied the charges.

perhaps the government is having an impact here

Is this what you mean?