I'm right there with you.

Ive been thinking about exactly that for some time now, and I believe a crowd-sourced site could do it.

Perhaps the user would cut & paste the offending URL into the site's search box, and--if the corrections for that page had been done--up it would pop. There might be several different takes on the "correct" info.

Like Wikipedia, trusted sources would emerge over time.

Thoughts on starting a political non-profit(?)site, Mr. Marshall?

Lead, Al! Lead on this, and you will be setting a desperately needed example every day.

There is a growing consensus among psychiatrists that when an individual is thinking of, or considering heinous behavior - the simple fact of seeing that he is not alone greatly affirms these thoughts, and significantly enhances the likelihood of those thoughts becoming behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYulgba5BPE

tiller wasnt murdered you people....... he was just very late-term aborted, justifiable in his case-human garbage.

Just think, all those souls that were not allowed to exercise their right to life can now confront their "terminator" and in front of God, find out why he chose to kill them and witness the judgement God has for him.

I am so happy that this baby killer was killed. and now maybe all of the innocent babies that this bastard killed can rest in peace.

that's for sure. I'm glad he was shot. let him go to hell early

Wow, evil, evil people on this thread. It's okay to be a terrorist in the cause of Jesus? No thanks American terrorists. As for O'Reilly, there are no words to describe his irrationality, fear mongering and flat out lies. You can't debate with religious extremists and terrorists.

Whats the big deal?? Tiller became the victim of a REALLY late term abortion today! Whats wrong with it? LOL!

Burn in hell Tiller!

Karma finally gotcha!

If the Coleman camp gets a federal judge to issue a stay on granting the election certificate - what would they base that on? What federal court action would the stay call for - the SCOTUS only, or some lesser appellate court?

Eric (or anyone), what are your thoughts about the likelihood of this going to the federal courts? That is the possibility which truly concerns me, in terms of delay.

I can grudgingly understand why senators in certain states feel that they must vote in their state's narrow financial interests on cap & trade. Beyond that though, it is naive to believe that there will be any real difference in the opposition's behavior whether we play nice or we play rough.

I have watched as these people sink to ever lower lows of outright lying, complete fabrication, and character assassination in order to get their way. And the reason they keep going lower?

It works.

Regrettably, it is past time to concern ourselves with perception. It is time to win. Budget reconciliation is an entirely legal and ethical way to pass legislation when that legislation is crucial to the success of our country, and will otherwise fail to be enacted.

Come election time, the American people will remember only that it got passed, and it works. The Republicans are going to employ the same strategy, tactics and rhetoric anyway - so let them employ it in a losing cause.

I'm concerned that if the government steps in it will eventually push out a private health care plan that mills of Americans enjoy today. this could cause your employer to simply stop offering coverage, hoping the government will pick up the slack.

So, what Blount is saying is that if the Feds drive the private plans out of existence, your employer might consider not offering that NON-EXISTENT coverage.

Sheesh. What's insulting--among so many other things--is that they don't even make the effort to come up with a logical argument. And the truly sad thing is that you will hear the Rush, Hannity, Coulter, O'Really spout this line, followed by millions of Dittos dittering.

Both ideas are very interesting; I'll have more to say after thinking about them some more.

Erica, can you comment further as to why you think that the banks would be so resistant to the new mortgages? It seems to me that they are getting off the hook rather than giving up something solid.

Do the Feds fear that a proposal which might actually benefit individual homeowners would result in overwhelming participation?

That is the only reason I can imagine for this incomprehensible approach.