>regardless of these sources, there seems a tendency here that people are rejecting the sources as credible if they say anyting they refuse to beleive, and are in a counter argument throwing in other non-credible sources. So if you refuse to want to believe those resource, I guess you'll have to do your own research in a manner that is unbiased. But again, if your trying to find resources saying the opposite, you'll find them, but that does not make it unbiased.

Unbiased sources are extremely rare outside of pure scientific data. This seems to be magnified in regards to internet links. It is perfectly reasonable to question the source of a study, article or editorial if the funding, site ownership or editors are known advocates for a certain position. This doesn't mean the positions are incorrect, just that more sources will be needed to make the argument.

If I make a point and cite links from DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and MediaMatters I would hope that it would be questioned just as fast as if I backed up a point with Townhall, RushLimbaugh and Hannity.