Here is a question for the left wing college elite

Well, again you choose to advertise that you are completely wrong by taking my words out of context and by refusing to address my specific questions to which I requested an answer from you. I said "let's settle this" and provided the means, which you ignored. This indicates that you don't want to settle it because it would show you have been wrong. So if you're going to just acknowledge you are wrong by playing such word games and hiding, I say thanks for admitting you're wrong and I won't be replying to you again until you redo my last post without playing those games.

 

That may be. But it seems like the OPs contention was that someone with a college education is worthless for these kinds of repairs, not that college educated folks don't have time to do them.

 

Unlike you, I provided "reliable links" to sources that absolutely and unequivocally prove each and every one of my claims.
You have provided nothing but your unsupportable opinion, even in the face of those sources.
You choose to be wrong..

 

This is what you always do. We've all seen it before. You take a few words out of context, comment contrarily, and then declare that you "won".

This is the end! You either answer the questions I posed or you're the loser.

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?​

 

No, what is being said is that a college education is a waste for someone who takes a job as a painter!

Go back and reread the thread!

 

I have proven each of my claims to be correct, and used the "reliable links" you asked for to do it.
You choose to be wrong.

 

Yup, this is what you do. You repeat your trick over and over and over and over until your opponent just gives up and walks away.

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

 

That's right.
-I- make statements and back them with "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove each and every one of them.
-You- choose to be wrong..

 

I replied to that.

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

 

As noted innumerable times now, I cited 2 "reliable links" from the federal government that absolutely and unequivocally provide the definition.
I also provided "reliable links" form the federal government that absolutely and unequivocally disprove your claim, and, just as absolutely and unequivocally, prove mine.
You chose to be wrong.

 

That doesn't answer anything. I said

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

 

Why do you say this?

I am very happy that he is doing this and have long thought that we should put a lot more effort into this sort of initiatives

So here is my question
Since history and culture are worthless, why not eradicate them? Sell off all the museums, auction off the Grand Canyon. And for heavens sake, quite bragging about our European cultural heritage

 

It does.
The fact you do not like the answers, and know you cannot argue around them, is immaterial.
-I- made statements and backed them with "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove each and every one of them.
-You- choose to be correct..

 

I don't think so. It was a comment on your expression, not on you personally.... -I didn't say "you're a liar". Can I say I never told a lie? HA!

Irrelevant. You never answered my questions...

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

 

You are not investing in bills if you are simultaneously the issuer of that same bill.

 

Your opinion here is irrelevant.

Your unsupportable opinions do not meaningfully counter statements backed by "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove each and every one of them.
You choose to be wrong..

 

That has nothing to do with taxpayers' money being investing in government Treasuries. And yet, your comment makes no logical sense at all. Try again.

 

Exactly so much as yours big guy.

Have you noticed that I haven't expressed any opinions on the meaning or definition of "entitlements" for quite some time yet you keep harping on it because you think you have a club to beat me with.

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

 

Because you know your definition is unsupportable, nonsensical opinion.
Mine, on the other hand, has been absolutely and unequivocally proven correct with authoritative "reliable links".

Your unsupportable opinions do not meaningfully counter statements backed by "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove each and every one of them.
You choose to be wrong.

 

Well, since you agree that your persistent claim about entitlements is no longer relevant, answer my questions...

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

 

Straw, man.
The definitive definition of entitlement was, long ago, presented and backed up with "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove its veracity.
-You- choose to be wrong.

 

Nothing here changes these facts:
The definitive definition of entitlement was, long ago, presented and backed up with "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove its veracity.
-You- choose to be wrong. << Note that this says "wrong"
So long as you continue to choose to be wrong, the conversation can proceed no further.

 

You always claim victory and usually based on irrelevant facts.

The reason the conversation has stalled for probably a dozen posting cycles is because you do something else you always do: you refuse to answer questions.

How do you define "entitlement"?

Is your life insurance an "entitlement"? How about your pension and 401k?

What is the current value of the S.S. Trust Fund?

And BTW, what someone chooses to identify as an "entitlement" doesn't change the fact that the S.S. Trust fund is paid for and S.S. has never added a cent to the debt. That's why I referred to that issue as "irrelevant".

So on this you choose to be -wrong-.

 

The definition of entitlement is central to your position that I did not prove wrong your claim , and that I did not prove my claim to be correct.
The definitive definition of entitlement was, long ago, presented and backed up with "reliable links" that absolutely and unequivocally prove its veracity.

... is because you choose to be wrong. << Note that this says "wrong"
As soon as you admit this, we can move on.

 

Yeah right, you'll reply to him again, if only just to hear yourself talk