|
|
| Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied (644780) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
|
| (646218) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:11:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:08:48 2010. Wait. Don't go nowhere. I want you to discuss why O'Reilly and Hannity saw a ratings increase while Maddow and Olbermann didn't.I never go off on Muslims. |
|
|
| (646219) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 5 22:11:34 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:10:21 2010. What absurdity? |
|
|
| (646221) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 5 22:12:12 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:09:13 2010. You equate common sense with hysteria? |
|
|
| (646224) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:14:19 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:01:59 2010. NY TIMES EXCERPT:Terror in the Age of Eisenhower; Recalling the Mad Bomber, Whose Rampage Shook New York By CHARLES DELAFUENTE Published: September 10, 2004 Photos: Police officers put a container holding a bomb into a protected van at Grand Central Terminal in 1956. Right, pieces of letters to the police from the Mad Bomber. (Photo by New York Police Department); (Photo by Neal Boenzi/The New York Times)(pg. B1); George P. Metesky, 53, at the jail in Waterbury, Conn., shortly after his arrest in January 1957. He was later brought to New York for trial. (Photo by Edward Hausner/The New York Times)(pg. B6) There was a bomber on the loose in New York City. On the evening of Dec. 2, 1956, 1,500 people were at the Brooklyn Paramount Theater watching ''War and Peace'' when a pipe bomb beneath a seat exploded at 7:50 p.m. Six people were injured, including Abraham Blumenthal, who was lifted out of his seat by the blast. The next day, Police Commissioner Stephen P. Kennedy ordered what he called the ''greatest manhunt in the history of the Police Department.'' At the time of that bombing, the police had been searching for the man known as the Mad Bomber for years. He first struck in the city in 1940 and 1941, planting two bombs that did not explode. He resurfaced in 1951, planting 22 bombs that did explode and several more that did not. It is one thing to live under a cloud of fear -- the Soviet Union's nuclear warheads threatened Eisenhower-era New Yorkers, and Al Qaeda's suicidal warriors threaten Bush-era New Yorkers. But it is another thing altogether when lightning strikes again and again. As new Qaeda plans to attack specific buildings in New York surfaced last month, some veteran New Yorkers were reminded of the days when the city cowered before the Mad Bomber. Carl J. Pelleck, a reporter who covered the Police Department for The New York Post, said the Mad Bomber ''scared the hell out of people.'' ''He had the city jumping,'' Mr. Pelleck said. ''When the Police Department can't do anything about it, the public always gets scared.'' Bombs were left in crowded public places: train, bus and subway stations, Macy's, movie theaters, office buildings and the New York Public Library. The fact that a place had been bombed before was no assurance that it was subsequently safe. Grand Central Terminal was the site of five bombs; there were three at Pennsylvania Station; two were planted at the Port Authority Bus Terminal; and two at Radio City Music Hall. Fifteen people were injured by the bombs. Though no one was killed, the city's nerves were rubbed raw. ''There was a lot of fear, especially in the subways,'' recalled Arthur Gelb, a former managing editor of The New York Times. ''People thought twice before taking the subway,'' said Mr. Gelb, who was a Times reporter during the series of attacks. ''Many people took buses because they felt the subways were where he would attack.'' There were notes with some bombs, but they did not explain the motives or locations. ''The Mad Bomber never gave a reason,'' Mr. Gelb said. ''That's what made it so scary.'' There have been other bombers in New York, both before and after the Mad Bomber. German saboteurs struck in 1916, during World War I, and attackers believed to be Bolsheviks planted a bomb on Wall Street in 1920. Another serial attacker, known as the Sunday Bomber, left bombs in a subway car, a subway station, the Staten Island Ferry and public buildings in late 1960, killing one person. That bomber was never caught. Members of the Weather Underground, a radical group, committed at least a dozen bombings in New York in 1969 and 1970 to protest the war in Vietnam. The only fatalities were three of the radicals, who were killed when a townhouse in the Village, described by the police as a bomb factory, exploded. And in 1974, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, better known as F.A.L.N., the initials of its Spanish name, began a decade-long bombing campaign in New York that killed five people. But no one person left as many bombs around the city as the Mad Bomber did. Even while the bombs were being discovered, ''there was the feeling that this was the work of one man, not a conspiratorial group,'' said Thomas A. Reppetto, president of the Citizens Crime Commission and author of ''NYPD: A City and Its Police'' (Henry Holt & Company, 2000). There was no discernible rhyme or reason behind the Mad Bomber's targets, and the unusual handwriting on the notes suggested the work of a single man and not a plot. Mr. Reppetto said the public figured that the odds of being a victim ''of one lone individual'' were slim. |
|
|
| (646225) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 5 22:14:58 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:09:37 2010. The reason you never heard of them was because they were dispatched without us having to sacrifice any of the liberties that you find to be the reason al-Qaeda attacked us. |
|
|
| (646226) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Thu Aug 5 22:15:38 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 5 22:10:24 2010. Compare Indonesia and Afghanistan then, then you can eat your BS.Gangs and Terrorists are alike in the fact that arresting or killing a top member of a gang wont change a thing, even if we killed Bin Laden it wouldn't change a thing, all that would do is lead to a change of leader and the new leader might be even worse. In order to kill a tree you don't chop off the branches... you kill it at the roots and the root causes of terrorism are radical clerics that preach to poor, impoverished, illiterate children. Just like the leader of gang becomes the father figure of those in a gang. Imams and their radical schools raise future terrorists, and future conflicts by planting their radical beliefs on a new generation of people. It's either we kill it at the roots, or we keep fighting a fruitless battle... I'd rather first work on their economy, reduce government corruption, improve the education and then watch the nation change. You can make more nations like Indonesia. |
|
|
| (646229) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:18:28 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 5 22:14:58 2010. Those who fail to learn from history ... are afraid of idiots who lock their car keys in with the firecrackers ... :-\ |
|
|
| (646230) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:18:37 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:14:19 2010. Yes, that lunatic did it because of what happened to him in the workplace, and because he was unstable. He did NOT do it in the name of any religion. He did not do it after being trained by religious fanatics in other countries. He was a Timothy McVeigh type of nut, who also did not act in the name of religion, or on behalf of a larger group. |
|
|
| (646231) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:20:06 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 5 22:11:34 2010. Don't ya just love people who get their information from propagandists? :) |
|
|
| (646234) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 5 22:21:05 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:01:59 2010. He's just chomping at the bit to "round 'em up". |
|
|
| (646235) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:22:02 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 22:18:37 2010. Heh. Well ... you're right about one thing ... none of them (aside from only a few of the FALN kids) got any training abroad ... they got it from our OWN military! Semper foo, brah! |
|
|
| (646236) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:26:11 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:22:02 2010. While you may be correct about previous acts of terrorism, I don't think the answer to the string of recent Muslim terrorist plots, is to look at McVeigh, Weather Underground, or whatever else you can dig up on google. |
|
|
| (646238) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:28:03 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 5 22:21:05 2010. Better watch it bro ... Luch almost gave up the location of your secret bat cave ... once we've got coordinates, the bombing begins in five minutes. :) |
|
|
| (646239) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:30:38 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:26:11 2010. Absolutely not ... different modus operendi here, added benefit that most of the participants have actual travel records and numerous other tags that many of the predecessors didn't have. Makes the bad ones a lot easier to spot. No need to do a Pokemon and catch 'em all ... just the ones that are an actual threat. Which is why I can't fathom all this dumping on the Muslims who are innocent of any such thing ... |
|
|
| (646240) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:33:14 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:30:38 2010. No one is dumping on Muslims. My stance is the same. The mosque at THAT location is a victory mosque, and groundbreaking on 9/11/11 will only strengthen that argument. |
|
|
| (646241) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:38:07 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:11:13 2010. Heh. I have no idea as to why ... maybe I was down in the onion cellar when the Russkies dropped the stupid bomb? I dunno ... :) |
|
|
| (646243) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:40:50 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:33:14 2010. Yeah yeah ... like ANY construction work down there gets going on time. :) |
|
|
| (646244) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:41:38 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:38:07 2010. I figured Maddow would see a nice spike since she's such a well-known lesbian, and the left would flock to MSNBC for info.Only the right tuned in to Fox, I guess to commiserate. |
|
|
| (646245) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Aug 5 22:42:00 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 21:59:39 2010. The subway was bombed in 1927. On August 5th of that year bombs exploded at the 28th Street stations of both the BMT and the IRT. The BMT bomb blew the change booth clear across the platform and into the trackbed. The motorman of the oncoming train heard the explosion and stopped within 200 ft...Anarchists supporting Sacco and Vanzetti were blamed |
|
|
| (646246) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:42:41 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:40:50 2010. LOL. |
|
|
| (646250) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:49:20 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:41:38 2010. And then Chinese hackers came in and trashed FOX's voting thingy. Heh. |
|
|
| (646251) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:50:55 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Thu Aug 5 22:42:00 2010. And some Irish Catholic fuck blew up another bomb somewhere around 1989 if I have the year right on the AyeArTee ... injured an entire carload too. :( |
|
|
| (646252) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 5 22:52:14 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:42:41 2010. Another reason why I left the city ... never had a problem getting a permit the very next day. But let's see what happens when they try to find a carpenter or an electrician. :) |
|
|
| (646269) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 6 01:48:14 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 22:33:14 2010. Someone on the web did some "numerology" relating to the address numbers of 45-47 Park Place.4 + 5 = 9Coincidence, or deliberately contrived? |
|
|
| (646270) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 6 02:00:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 6 01:48:14 2010. LOL.I don't know about that, but it was a great 2 weeks for the liberals. SB 1070 Prop 8 1 + 0 + 7 + 0 = 8 |
|
|
| (646271) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 6 02:30:16 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Aug 6 02:00:13 2010. it was a great 2 weeks for the liberalsGiven that their "victories" are self-destructive, it really wasn't. |
|
|
| (646295) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Bjc3914 on Fri Aug 6 08:27:48 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:28:59 2010. Does Adam really want them to do that?that crazy to kill someone for no reason.... |
|
|
| (646301) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 6 09:03:43 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:28:59 2010. No, he never said that. |
|
|
| (646304) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 09:20:33 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 6 09:03:43 2010. Yes he did. He said that if any protesters get in the way of the bulldozers, they should be run over. |
|
|
| (646309) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 6 09:37:22 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 09:20:33 2010. Right. And that's not what BMTLines said. |
|
|
| (646310) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 09:46:15 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Bjc3914 on Fri Aug 6 08:27:48 2010. If they refuse a lawful order to move---and resist arrest... |
|
|
| (646318) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 10:07:02 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 6 09:37:22 2010. What does this have to do with BMTLInes? |
|
|
| (646322) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Fri Aug 6 10:14:43 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Thu Aug 5 19:24:44 2010. Better screening of those who come into this nation, better port security, better ID system, and ensuring that those who Muslims or anyone who gets into this nation got so through legal channels and not through fake passports and IDs or getting their weapons from unchecked ports or sneaking into the country illegally. Hows that sound? |
|
|
| (646323) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Fri Aug 6 10:16:47 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Aug 5 21:26:19 2010. Now you call it Islamic Terrorism... stops specifying Terrorism, Terrorism is many things and comes from Many Places, these have a lot to do with my point that if you're afraid of Muslims so much you must be afraid to step into an office building less you want to be shot by a worker going postal. |
|
|
| (646328) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 10:43:37 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by ClearAspect on Fri Aug 6 10:16:47 2010. This discussion is about ISLAMIC Terrorism. And yes, there are other forms of terrorism, but they have nothing to do with ISLAMIC Terrorism, the topic of this discussion.That's like talking about rape crime, but someone comes up with, "well we also have muggers". Yeah, fine, there are many different types of crime, and there are different types of terrorism. We are discussing ISLAMIC terrorism. Talking about ISLAMIC terrorism, doesn't imply that there isn't other types too. |
|
|
| (646335) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 6 11:21:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 09:46:15 2010. Would you apply that rule to all protests? I guess you support what the National Guard did at Kent State! Do you support what the Chinese government did at Tiananmen Square? |
|
|
| (646350) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 11:49:51 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 6 11:21:13 2010. NG at Kent State---to some extent, yes (although it should have been better handled). Tiananmen Square: No (difference is that access to private property was not being blocked here; these mosque protesters would have to block access to private property). |
|
|
| (646381) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 12:45:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:13:54 2010. The 5th Amendment.BTW, the property was formerly owned by a company to which Mitt Romney was connected. |
|
|
| (646393) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Aug 6 13:13:11 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 10:07:02 2010. This is a linear conversion. If you read up, you are responding to a point made by BMTLines. As it relates to what he said, your comments about what Adam said are incorrect. |
|
|
| (646396) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 13:15:06 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by ntrainride on Thu Aug 5 10:01:29 2010. No, I am serious. They had their chance to buy the property from the PE firm that owned it---and passed. They blew it. |
|
|
| (646400) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 6 13:26:25 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 11:49:51 2010. Interesting... What you are saying is that you support execution without trial for anyone blocking access to private property. |
|
|
| (646405) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 13:43:35 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 6 13:26:25 2010. If all other attempts to remove them fail. |
|
|
| (646454) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 15:56:21 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 13:43:35 2010. Execution? You really are totally berserk. |
|
|
| (646455) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 6 15:59:50 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 15:56:21 2010. I really believe he is "pulling our leg" and can't possibly be serious... |
|
|
| (646500) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Aug 6 17:49:02 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 13:15:06 2010. You are really gone!Not only is it ABSURD to hint that "the families" should be buying every building near the WTC because for some reason they would "know" what people will be using them for prior, if that is not preposterous enough. The notion that they should be run over by bulldozers if they dare protest in front is even more insane. |
|
|
| (646523) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 6 18:31:52 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 13:43:35 2010. Why don't you go live in Putin's Russia then? |
|
|
| (646524) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Aug 6 18:32:31 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 09:46:15 2010. You need to be put in federal prison. |
|
|
| (646586) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 6 22:15:26 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by ClearAspect on Thu Aug 5 22:15:38 2010. And how many of the 9/11 terrorists were from Afghanistan? Afghan terrorists don't strike in the US. |
|
|
| (646592) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Aug 6 22:27:23 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Fri Aug 6 15:59:50 2010. He's super serial. |
|
|
| (646677) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Sat Aug 7 01:11:36 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Aug 6 13:43:35 2010. You're way out on this my good man, though I feel you're just posting these insane remarks cos we know the NYPD would not allow folks to be buldozed out of the way.In this situation the cops would remove the protesters & then give the OK for work to proceed. Jimmymc25 |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||