Rob Graham wrote: When are we going to stop tolerating nonsense like this and insist that the candidates actually address the problems we face? This was the point underlying my post. The 400 dollar haircut was supposed to look ridiculous when contrasted with 150,000 on a wardrobe. Really, 400 out of millions is not something that should cause such an issue. Especially when the wardrobe is defensible. I don't have a problem with either expenditure. What I take issue with is people choosing to focus on red herrings instead of the real issues. So, when people choose to focus on Edwards haircut instead of his policies I call it crap. Doesn't matter the reasons. The reasons stated was that he's fighting for common people and the haircut causes a divide and reflects how out of touch he is, but when Palin does the same thing its acceptable, even when she's running a front of fighting for the common people and somehow isn't out of touch with a 150,000 dollar wardrobe. Not common at all. The donation is irrelevant. Both the haircut and the clothes are irrelevant. What's relevant is that both sides are choosing to focus on this crap. I'm sure that if I dig through the archives I'll find the same people who are saying the wardrobe is acceptable, are saying that the haircut wasn't acceptable. That's my point. And this isn't a troll. It was meant to stir discussion on how people focus on this petty meaningless crap when its the other side doing it but turn around and defend their own people when they do it. Double standards. I've heard more said about less.

Stan Shannon wrote: http://mises.org/story/2963\[^\] Dear me. You called Gorden's article a 'weak defense'. Your rebuttal article is plain pathetic. I have yet to see any evidence that banks were compelled to make bad loans. I have yet to see an explanation of how CRA was able to exist for over a quarter century and then, in the last few years suddenly destroy the finacial markets. The rebuttal does not address the fact that most sub-prime loans were made outside of the CRA's perview. Or why the bankrupt lenders aren't pointing their collective fingers at the CRA. Stan Shannon wrote: One required banks to engage in non-profitable activities An assertion you have yet to support. Stan Shannon wrote: FM and FM Private corporations - so what's your point? Stan Shannon wrote: Directly because of government An assertion you have yet to support. Stan Shannon wrote: No, it is precisely what the man who invented fascism had in mind - corporatism - the state coercing the institutions of a society to achieve its collectivist goals. Sorry, but that is not the definition of fascism.

Thanks! I'll take a look. Enjoy your conference. :) I've heard more said about less.