Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I've pointed out glaring flaws in IBD editorials on the board before, and you failed to respond.
|
If I don't respond it could be because I didn't read the post or did not see it.
Quote:
|
To tell you the truth, I didn't even read the editorial you posted because it has been my experience that whoever writes the editorials for IBD is either completely ignorant of reality, completely disingenuous or a combination of the two. Either way, it's a waste of my internet time to try and wrap my head around whatever bullshit they're spewing.
|
Occasionally I post traditional editorials from IBD and occasionally they are opinion peices from various authors that appear on IBD editorial pages. IBD regularlly includes liberals on their editorial pages. On the same day they published their California editorial they had an opinion piece on their editorial pages written by Eugene Robinson, here it is FYI:
Quote:
By EUGENE ROBINSONPosted 11/19/2009 07:28 PM ET
Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and four other accused terrorists to New York for trial can't seriously believe the city will have trouble handling the expected "Trial of the Century" hoopla.
The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury — sitting just blocks from ground zero — will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.
Everyone knows that the bloodthirsty blowhard — whom officials often refer to by his initials, KSM — is never going to see the light of day.
The uproar is really about the word "war." Outrage is being voiced by those who worry that Holder and President Obama are abandoning the Bush-era doctrine of a "war on terrorism" that must at all times be conducted by military means.
Those critics are wrong. The problem is that we can vanquish al-Qaida and its affiliated groups without defeating the larger enemy: a militant, fundamentalist perversion of Islam.
We can and should go after Osama bin Laden and his collaborators with relentless determination and, yes, that fight should be led by our armed forces. But to achieve a meaningful victory, we also have to win the war of ideas — and in that philosophical and theological struggle, the concept of justice is a key battlefield.
It's amazing that so many people who insist on the "war on terrorism" framework apparently have such little interest in understanding the enemy, which seems to me the only way to find the enemy's vulnerabilities. The jihadist narrative is largely about justice, or rather what radical imams and their followers perceive as injustice.
In the enemy's version of history, the West — meaning the U.S., Israel, Britain and what used to be called Christendom — has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world.
We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist "warriors" might commit against us.
Protesting that all this is absurd and obscene does not make it go away. And our troops' military success actually helps to further the jihadist narrative about a "crusade" against Islam
|
Investors.com - KSM On Trial: Battlefield For A War Of Ideas
So you could be calling the liberals that appear on the IBD editorial pages completely ignorant or we can say that your view of IBD is based some misconceptions. For the record I generally don't post things here that don't support my views. I am and have been guilty of "cherry picking" and I admit it. But, in my view that is the nature of debate, and I think participants in debate (even passive participants) need to do their own homework. You know, like Reagan said: "trust but verify".
---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by boink
white collar guys can wright off work wardrobe citing the need to look presentable right ? I can't wright off work clothes which I need to buy cause they get destroyed at a metal shop.
|
The tax laws regarding legitimate business expenses are the same for everyone regardless of the color of their collar. In order to take deductions for normal clothing one has to be able to present a strong case to the IRS when they get audited, normally it is not allowed. It is easier to deduct required specialty work related clothing, like safety shoes, uniforms, hard hats, gloves, etc.