I don't think it's radical to not want extensive development in the Adirondack Park, regardless of whose land it is. We do not have many places like this left, especially here in the northeast.
You acknowledge development and economic success breeds more development and economic success. That can only be a bad thing for the Adirondacks and the Adirondack Park, if not for the people who insist on living there.
Radical is wanting development and economic activity everywhere, even where it may not be appropriate. Radical is nothing is sacred.
Radical is calling people who want a freeze on logging of the remaining 3% of old growth redwoods in California "radical".
Who is really radical?
Sounds like projection to me.
And as far as the hippies and conservatives comment, I think I made a very good point, but you just pushed it aside. Why is it the same group of people criticise people on unemployment and suggest they leave where they call home to go find work, but refuse to do so themselves when the going gets tough for them? It's a serious question not a rhetorical one.
You acknowledge development and economic success breeds more development and economic success. That can only be a bad thing for the Adirondacks and the Adirondack Park, if not for the people who insist on living there.
Radical is wanting development and economic activity everywhere, even where it may not be appropriate. Radical is nothing is sacred.
Radical is calling people who want a freeze on logging of the remaining 3% of old growth redwoods in California "radical".
Who is really radical?
Sounds like projection to me.
And as far as the hippies and conservatives comment, I think I made a very good point, but you just pushed it aside. Why is it the same group of people criticise people on unemployment and suggest they leave where they call home to go find work, but refuse to do so themselves when the going gets tough for them? It's a serious question not a rhetorical one.
Comment