Sorry, but I think you should have spent that effort refuting the arguments - instead you just spread some kind of implicit-guilt-by-political-leaning ("look, this a right-wing site - obviously it's not even worth your effort to refute the claims"). That's not productive.

> Sorry you're getting downvoted.

Thanks for that.

But even now what you're arguing against is attribution. His original comment is just attribution, there's no guilt attached. Readers may choose to attach their political opinions to attribution and you may think that's fair or not but it seems ridiculous to me to be calling out someone for posting about the interests behind a story.

So let's cut the crap and be real here, this article is basically propaganda. The entity responsible for producing it will never produce a politically unbiased article examining some critical issue because their raison d'etre is to produce politically biased articles. What you're saying is that it's on us an individuals to line by line refute all the crap propaganda that gets spewed out. There's no way to do that in the 21st century, there's too much information. We need to be able to attribute and write-off when necessary. This article was written by a right-wing think-tank who's explicit mission is to promote free market ideals? Why would I read that? You and I both basically already know what is in it and that the writer is a complete partisan.

I'm not a big fan of labeling things as left and right wing.

In this case, the article is about homelessness, and I found it interesting to know that the institute has for decades held a fixed opinion on individual responsibility.

I have no idea whether the rest of the institute's positions could be neatly categorized.