By free it is clearly meant that nobody shall pay directly for education in elementary stages. It will be a service provided universally through the state no matter the financial position of the recipient. It isn't meant to imply that the actual service isn't going to cost in taxes which is what I can see you're getting at.

Ok, so if everyone stops working, how is this right fulfilled?

All the rights I know to be rights, are not violated if everyone stops working. They are only violated if someone does something to you, not if someone stops providing something for you.

The "rights" you listed, in my eyes, are not rights. They are entitlements, and that's not the same thing.

How about Social Security? The US is looking at removing payments to people who don't need them, because we can't afford it. Who choses who needs it? The government. So, the government gets to chose when you have a right, and when you don't. Doesn't sound like a right to me. 

Sorry, but that list is not a list of rights. Just a list of desired quality of life services.

Hmm..Long thread so:What has he failed to do?Why is he so unpopular?

Your discussion is always couched in these subtle giveaways of the slanted input you consume.  "Entitlement" is only a bad word, fundamentally different from a "right" if you are on the right trying to save all the money for the lucky few.  It's like "activist judge", used only by conservatives when they disagree with the ruling.  If the law overturned favors them they are "upholding the Constitution."  You're a toal intellectual fraud.  It's disgusting.

Entitlement :  1 a : the state or condition of being entitled : right b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted.

if you say so? real? real? if you say so?

P.S this debate is nolonger worth my intrust. maybe next time on another debate.

funny how you left the second part of the definition off, and didn't link to the source:

"In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit ^[1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement")."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement

And you call me an intellectual fraud.

You are NOT talking about the word in "a casual sense".  You are talking about law and policy.  And every person in the world can tell that's wikipedia without a link.  If you really care, the first one's from something called a "dictionary."  I think it's Webster's.  As if anyone with a brain couldn't figure it out.

Even your attempts at little "gotcha" responses have no purpose and they don't work.  You aren't responding to the fact that you're flat out wrong.  You're trying to find a loophole in the sub-definition of the word to distract from the point that you indeed have no point.  

Hope you and your superiority complex have fun in another country.  

Wait what?

Let me highlight.

"In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit [1]—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a "sense of entitlement")."

How on earth is that an argument? The technical sense, which I certainly hope you were talking about earlier, was what he posted. He left out detail that was entirely irrelevant.

it's all a matter of how you veiw things and the side of politic's you fall into. i tell people i'm a liberal indapendent central conservative and they look at me funny. i'm not easly swayed oneway or the other, but i do beleive the Republicans are playing politic's with  Americans and the global economies future.

it's sad hearring that Republicans voted against equal pay for women? it lets you know where they stand.

but at the end of the day it's all in how you veiw what you hear when politicians speak.

In a legal sense, it also means to give all the ability. It's a right as in a government program for all. So if the US made it legal for all adults to beat children, that would be an entitlement, and thus a right.

That's not the kind of "rights" I am talking about.

 Again, from the Wiki page:

"As a legal term, entitlement carries no value judgment: it simply denotes a right granted. For example in the United States of America, social security is an entitlement program."

So if the government does something flat out wrong, yet makes it law, it's still a "right".

There are many ways to look at my post, and not consider me an idiot for posting it. Fastyxx seems to want to imply otherwise, as it seems to be the only way he can argue. At least you come with a position other then "You suck".

Then again, your intelligent, so it's not all you have to cling to.