shakran

I don't think any reasonable person is going to ask you to cite sources for your opinions. However, if you claim "Bush did A and then he did B and that's why I think he's a bad president" you should have something to back up the notion that he did those things.

I've seen so much crap on here about both parties with wild accusations of things they absolutely did not do (Bush engineered 9/11, Kerry didn't do the heroic things he's credited with when he was on the swiftboat, etc), and it could all be alleviated if people would bother to check their facts before forming an opinion on them.

But instead they see some bizarre email forward that has some inane bullshit that wouldn't even fly on the paranoia board, they take it as gospel, presumably because it's on the internet and therefore must be 100% true, and then come in here and post opinions based on those lies. What's worse is that they're spreading those lies, and others who are just as lazy as they are about fact checking might (and often do) start believing them as well.

Opine all you want, but if you claim something as fact, back it up.

And while we're on the subject, let's all learn what a good source is shall we? If it's a known-biased source, like Bill O'Reilly, it's not a valid source. In my opinion, Al Franken is right on the money with many of the points and facts in his books, but you don't see me citing him because he's left biased.

Another good hint is that if it appears only in one place, especially if that place is not a recognized, respected media outlet, there's a good chance it's bullshit. If you cite the Washington Post as a source, it's probably valid. If you cite the Washington Times as a source, it's probably a load of crap.