Originally Posted by ITR champion
"Research" wasn't really necessary here. The articles I linked to were all from Reason, a libertarian magazine. That alone ought to be sufficient to alert you that those who wrote the articles probably aren't Democrats. But if you find that going after the people who present the argument against public sector unions in Detroit is a better tactic then actually making an argument to defend those unions, that seems to me a likely indication that the unions are indefensible.
Really? "Considering the source" isn't something you do? So, if I were to quote an article that said, say, black people were more aggressive and had lower IQs and were ten times more likely to rape yer white women than any other race, the fact that it was written by the editor of "KKK Monthly" is something you wouldn't point out as possible evidence against its validity?