When ranting for links supporting political questions / answers, why?

Why do MOST liberals post links supplied by extreme leftist organizations?





If a conservative posts a noted, non-biased site - the liberals cry no contest and claim it's fake.





Do you think they're trying to learn a way to sniff carbon footprints since sniffing glue is illegal?





All joking aside, what gives?When ranting for links supporting political questions / answers, why?
When you have so little to base an opinion on, you have to grasp for those far, far left wing straws.When ranting for links supporting political questions / answers, why?
Unless the site is MichaelMoore.com, wikipedia, or some crap like that, I look at the site.


Then I take what the site says and do my own search on it.


To b*tch about the source instead of the information is just an excuse to NOT have to debate the issue.


I've noticed it is a highly used technique.
There was a con that claimed a link to a Snopes article was biased and not true. Imagine that!
Yea, sources like WND, InsightMag, NewsMax, NewsBusters, Fox News, Drudge, etc.





Oh, you said NON-biased lol
Good question. Just keep it up - keep posting Census Bureau data and let them keep posting the same tired old made-up arguments - - - - - people do take notice.





Lefties make up their own reality, and then a good source is whatever confirms it - - - - rather than going to the raw data and forming a conclusion based on it, which is how I do it.





Mercerdevil ';how do you know'; is a cop-out. Treasury Dept. chart showing revenue at its highest level ever (yes, adjusted for inflation) is what it is. Census Bureau data is what it is. BLS explaining how the BLS calculates unemployment (i.e., pointing out that it has nothing to do with unemployment benefits) is what it is. And blanket, baseless statements that ';only the rich are benefiting'; are what they are.
How do you know it's a ';noted, non-biased site?'; Every news outlet in the country is accused of being liberal or conservative or (ususally) both. Since these sites are made by people, how do you those people haven't infused their own biases into the site? What standard can you compare a supposed ';unbiased'; site to when everything has been accused of being biased?
It goes back to their inability to face the truth, they can't handle the truth!~!
I see both sides doing this...
anyone can have an opinion...i guess even a bad or biased source is better than no source at all...





so wheres yours?
Why does it matter if the link is factual. If the link is based on lies, then that's another thing. Like I've said to people before, you can't pick and chose where evidence comes from as long as it's correct.