Comment: Actually, you have made the

Actually, you have made the point very clearly, by more than mere implication, that payday lending should be banned, that it is, in your view a form of legalized loan sharking. Have you not? That is not an accusation merely taking your argument to the logical conclusion. Therefore, if we are to make a conclusion based on your words we naturally arrive at the fact that, by implication of your words, you are favorable toward government control over matters which require none. Just look at your comments, they are void of actual argument for your assertions and consist of nothing more that tactics, you have a real tendency to rely of accusation rather than any structural construction of your position's argument. What's up with that?

You seem to like to accuse everyone that rebuts your positions as making a strawman argument however, again, as with your other accusations toward others here on the DP, they are flaccid. Rather than providing an adequate argument to support your position or actually rebut my position, you now turn to saying that a rebuttal to your position is, as you put it, "only the concoctions of a deviant mind", that is hardly either a responsible defense of your position or, I might add, one that presents your argument as being remotely valid.

The most amusing fact about your comment is not only the tone, but the nature of it, it definitely shows a weakness not only in your argument, but in your ability to adequately formulate your argument. You have yet to provide a substantial reasoning for your position, only that you don't agree with payday lending.

You have yet to actually make a case that is substantial, rather you fall back to a position that relies essentially upon the strength of saying "get bent"...now that force of argument is what is truly pitiful, flaccid and impotent.

The really funny thing about your comment is that your analogy of me "channeling the spirit of Elsworth Toohey" falls flat, it doesn't really work does it, but at least you gave it your best shot...LOL

Like many of your assertions, your facts are skewed, like the assertion that BoA owns VISA, VISA is a publically owned and traded company, while BoA does, in fact own stock in VISA, (as do other banks, pension funds and individual investors), it is not the majority holder. Would you like for me to go into the other "facts" your present. BTW...the largest holder, i.e. owner, of VISA stock is Fildelity Contrafund. So, if you are going to attempt to wow people with "facts", please try to get the in the same ballpark as reality.