Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

not all "right-wingers" are for smaller government   --- the NAZIs were primarily supported by the
corporate elites  -- KRUPS ... and similar companies ---

You mean like the "right-wingers" that passed the auto bailout and the stimulus packages?  Purchasing companies (while I admit, this is probably more than the NAZI's did, they probably just sent someone in and said "We're in control now."

Quoted Text

you really can't compare the current definition of "right wing" -- the smaller government folks with the
definition of "right wing" back in the 1920's and 1930's

Yeah, because 90% of the people who currently state that they support the "right wing" are themselves lefties to an extent.

Quoted Text

... along the same lines ... when the term "right wing" was first coined ... was in 1789 in France and it
meant those who supported the Monarchy and the landed nobility in France --- they sat on the right side of the National Assembly in Paris.     The "left wingers" were anti-monarchy but pro middle class and pro industry  (such as industry was in 1789) .. "left wingers" sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

Then this is no longer an acceptable definition.  Currently, it's the other way around with how the seats are set up in the United States in 2010.  It's just a LITTLE more relevant at this time.

Quoted Text

One further example of how terms change ---- in the 1800's --- a Liberal meant someone who believed
in small government and few regulations on business ... today we call them "Classic Liberals" to
distinguish from the modern definition of Liberal.

For once, I agree with you, and it was people such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, et. al. who decided to use the reference of "liberal."  The first true liberals in the United States were actually the founding fathers, wanting to liberate themselves from they tyranny that was placed on them from the mother country.  Now, we have the same, but it happens in Washington, D.C.  To quote The Patriot, "I'd rather be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."

Quoted from Kevin March

You mean like the "right-wingers" that passed the auto bailout and the stimulus packages?  Purchasing companies (while I admit, this is probably more than the NAZI's did, they probably just sent someone in and said "We're in control now."

Yeah, because 90% of the people who currently state that they support the "right wing" are themselves lefties to an extent.

Then this is no longer an acceptable definition.  Currently, it's the other way around with how the seats are set up in the United States in 2010.  It's just a LITTLE more relevant at this time.

For once, I agree with you, and it was people such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, et. al. who decided to use the reference of "liberal."  The first true liberals in the United States were actually the founding fathers, wanting to liberate themselves from they tyranny that was placed on them from the mother country.  Now, we have the same, but it happens in Washington, D.C.  To quote The Patriot, "I'd rather be ruled by one tyrant 3,000 miles away than 3,000 tyrants one mile away."

The NAZIs started out as a "populist nationalistic" party ... Germany was so devastated and humiliated
by the Treaty of Versaille .... that even a funny looking Austrian-Jew with a mustache could whip them
into a frenzy of support.    It should be noted that MANY folks were tricked into thinking the NAZIs were
harmless  --- Joseph Kennedy,  Charles Lindbergh, a whole series of British Prime Ministers  ... they all
thought that Hitler and the NAZIs were harmless  ... some even thought Hitler was charming.   Churchill
to his credit  ... "saw" Hitler for what he really was when he met him in person in the late 1920's and had
actually read Mein Kampf and figured that Hitler actually meant what he had written.   Too bad folks
didn't heed Churchill's warnings about Hitler in 1932 or 1933.

As for when the term "liberal" changed to its modern definition --- that started during the mid 20th
century when Hillary was just a school girl.

Back to the topic of the thread --- Research into a possible Dog Park proposal is moving forward ...
more information to follow soon.

That is going to go like a balloon filled with sh*t on the heels of a 12% tax increase. "Giant middle finger" to the taxpayers again, ehh??

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

That is going to go like a balloon filled with sh*t on the heels of a 12% tax increase. "Giant middle finger" to the taxpayers again, ehh??

If it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything -- I think they will be quite happy to add value to their parks and
recreation system.

yep it will be FREE. Just like the thruway, and eveything else.

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

yep it will be FREE. Just like the thruway, and eveything else.

Quite frankly --- whether you want to believe it or not -- is your problem.  Not mine.

there is no free in government planning.......some where some time the park will need upkeep and the cost will outweigh the value......and then a whole bunch of 'doggie-playdaters' will want to expand
on it...then need more $ for upkeep...hence the cry to the government for upkeep------oh, this sounds like a familiar scenario....oh yeah,,,,,REMS......

You can stay mired in the mud of your negativity  --- I will persevere in working positively to
improve the community that I love.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

You can stay mired in the mud of your negativity  --- I will persevere in working positively to
improve the community that I love.

OK...when your owners take for a play date on your leash and the doggie-park is a mess.....YOU CLEAN IT UP FOR FREE.....oh yeah, that's probably why you dont want
sewers.....why bother we can all crap at the park.....all tethered to our government leashes of REMS tax........

You people want a dog park??????????  Meanwhile the seniors are stuck with no recreation provided by the town.

Quoted from 612

You people want a dog park??????????  Meanwhile the seniors are stuck with no recreation provided by the town.

The town could sponsor a weekly field trip for seniors to the dog park to pick up the dog sh!t.  It would be productive exercise and promote community service.

Quoted from 612

You people want a dog park??????????  Meanwhile the seniors are stuck with no recreation provided by the town.

the town doesn't HAVE to provide anything.......their recreation is their responsibility.....pool your resources together.....fundraisers etc......what ever happened to fund
raisers??? the generations have lost their stomach for it? is it too embarrassing? beneath them? what?.........I hope the boomers are learning what they need to do
to prepare for their future and it's comin' fast just like it is for everyone else........

Quoted from 612

You people want a dog park??????????  Meanwhile the seniors are stuck with no recreation provided by the town.

Wait - Ron says the "defacto town community center" is bustling with activity.  Which is it?

The Senior Center has quite a few activities -- if you'd care to inform yourself.   (But Regressives
don't let a little thing like information and facts get in the way of their delusions.)

The Parks and Recreation Plan envisions our parks serving the needs of ALL our residents.  Dog owners make up a large number of our residents.  We can have great programs for our seniors, our youths,
and even our dog owners.