:) agreed.

Watched again. Useful to know but kind of reinforces what I believe to be true. Perhaps the message will help me to choose more concise answers to some of the daft vitriol I run in to on occasions. Thanks again.

Good stuff. Shame the delivery wasn't a bit clearer (dry mouth? nerves?) but the message was good - especially the 2nd video. I'll watch it again as it was quite late & I had to get some sleep.

Well...?

Found the vids. Watching now. Thanks.

Or give me the title of the vid. Might be a server issue.

You Tube says "This video does not exist" :( Got another?

Thanks, I'll check it out now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFE3VH__9......
This is part 1... part 2 pops up afterward.

Agreed.

I can't say I've seen those. Can you send me links?

p.s. When you're making a well reasoned argument, no one can make you look an idiot.

cheeky

yes

Did you watch the Ayn Rand videos about speaking when you have a listener? :)

I'm sure I would've done Again, I apologise for 'hoodwinking' you & KH last night ;] but I wasn't prepared to let that vegetable get away with cheap words in an attempt to make me look an idiot. I had to destroy all validity for his non argument. I expect he'll come back at me again but really, argument over.

You could've had more fun with us. lol

Ad hominem or similar.

Plus 10. notice how they degenerate quickly to name calling. Rand called this "Argument From Intimidation." In this case, even though you cite references, they claim your references lack intellect.
"There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality." AR, Virtue of Selfishness, Lexicon.

Ps. Me to the girl:
Thanks for getting back to me. The definitions I gave you are an explanation of how Europe is run. It's leaders have not been elected by the people & they make decisions without consulting the opinions of the people whom they make decisions for. It is totally undemocratic & is in essence, how Soviet Russia was run. The EU are redistributing money they have not worked for. It amounts to theft. You did ask for 'evidence please'.

I posted a comment on the linked article & ended up in an argument with an idiot. It goes as follows...

Me:
Judging by many of the comments & votes, I see the 'progressives' are out in force. Carry on, dig your own graves. Thirty years from now, the UK will be a Communist state. You'll have voted & lobbied & pressured all your liberties away.

We do not own ourselves, Europe does - which is run by unelected Communist/Fascist bureaucrats. Totally undemocratic. If that's what you want, vote Labour - Tory - LibDem. If not, vote UKIP.

A girl:
what the fukc , communists , fascists .......where do you get that from ? there are no communist , or fascists in the eu parliament , that i know of , the odd one has been accused of being one , evidence please

Me:
Evidence.

thefreedictionary dot com/fascism
Fascism - "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator..."

dictionary.reference​ dot com
Communism - "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."

British money is being redistributed to countries whose governments have failed in their duty to ensure stability of their economies for the benefit of their people. Why should we fund our government's desire to throw good money after bad - against our will?

We are accepting immigrants from such countries because of their governments' incompetences. I don't blame a single immigrant for wanting a chance to improve their quality of life. Their own governments have failed them. It is not our government's 'moral obligation' to look after these people. It IS the 'moral obligation' of their own governments to take responsibility for their actions - which they have no intention of doing. Of course nobody gets a say in aby of this, Europe decides where all our money goes.

Twat:
You're full of shhit Joss. Communism is the common ownership of the means of production by workers/consumers. I have to laugh when people like you try to be intellectual. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Me:
Michael, I suggest you read some history books.

Twat:
I suggest you read the communist manifesto, not the Daily Mail, if you want to describe communism. I'll say again, you are not well read and your attempt to give the impression you are is laughable. Oh and giving yourself the thumbs up is a bit pathetic. lmao!

Me:
Michael, here's one for you. Shakedown Socialism by Oleg Atbashian (a man who has first hand experience of life in Soviet Russia). It's a short book. Buy it, read it, then eat your words.

Here's another. We The Living by Ayn Rand - another Russian with first hand experience of the horrible reality of Communism.

A 70 year old customer of mine told me recently of her suffering in Communist Burma. Her family used to be wealthy property owners. Her family worked hard to raise the money to buy that property - of their own free will. The Burmese Communist Government stole all of their property against her & her family's free will. She escaped to England in 1965 & the Burmese government allowed her to keep £16 of her own money to do so. That is the most vile, greedy & oppressive political system I can think of in the known world. But you think that sounds fair don't you Michael?

A girl:
Joss ; didnt ask for a definition , or opinions re communism , or fascism , i remarked that i was not aware of any in the eu parliament
thanks for the info , and references though ..........onwards and upwards

Twat:
Why do you think googling critics of russia adds voracity to your definition of communism. I simply pointed out that although you are claiming to be an intellectual with a grasp of facts, you in fact don't know what you're talking about. At least one of your ('sources', was a well known right wing crack pot (Ayn Rand).

Me:
Michael, I didn't Google them, I've read them.

"well known right wing crack pot Ayn Rand" did you Google that Michael? Have you taken the time to form an opinion by studying any of her writings? I doubt it very much.

So far you have done nothing to prove your own intellect. You have made several empty statements about how un-intellectual I am, without backing up your claims with any hard facts, whereas I have had an answer for every one of your jibes so far.

You are the one who is full of shhiit Michael & that opinion will stand until you can quote chapter & verse to prove that you have a valid reason for supporting a political 'ideal' which has been proven time & again throughout history, to be a corrupt & oppressive failure.

Use as many ** and as many naughty words as you want, and there should only be the site rules that determine what cuts are made. With friends it is ok and we feel the same way.
However, if you want to change an opinion, based on logic or otherwise, then apply self-discipline. Criticize and condemn ideas after thinking out your approach. Using bad language, like losing your temper, will lose you the argument and fail to persuade.

LOL, I understand. : )

I'll give you a point for using the t word without *'s.