|
|
| Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied (644780) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
|
|
| (644780) | |
Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/landmark_vote_opens_door_to_ground_bglyGZSizoS6TzMo944NRJThe property can now be developed as-of-right, over the objections of those opposing it who simply dithered too long. |
|
|
| (644781) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. I actually agree with Republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio, who supported the Ground Zero mosque on First Amendment grounds. Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of our democracy, and it's one of the reasons Al-Qaeda targeted the WTC over in the first place. I can think of no more fitting tribute to those who died at the WTC on 9/11--including some very dear, close personal friends and colleagues--than for this mosque to be erected near Ground Zero. It would be a very visible sign to the world that we still hold our religious freedom dear, even in the face of extreme evil.My own idea, an interfaith chapel at the 9/11 memorial site, would go even further towards achieving this goal. |
|
|
| (644788) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 3 11:50:40 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010. More proof that Lazio, like you, is an idiot.It appears that the only way to stop this thing is to blow it up. Oh, the irony. |
|
|
| (644795) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:20:23 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 3 11:50:40 2010. And anyone who does so---should be shot and tossed into the Hudson.Why do you hate the Constitution so much? |
|
|
| (644796) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:23:06 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010. I don't seem to agree with anything that you post.I wouldn't stop the mosque because I'm not ready to sacrifice freedom to defeat extremism, but most people around the world will see a completely different symbolism than you. They'll see the one intended. The mosque is being built to show that Islam is making headway in the US as a result of 9/11. That's not true of course, but that's what this mosque is supposed to represent. |
|
|
| (644797) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 3 12:27:49 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:20:23 2010. There is no constitutional right to build anything anywhere. |
|
|
| (644798) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:28:24 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:23:06 2010. The 9/11 families have only themselves to blame; they dithered too long. |
|
|
| (644799) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:29:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 3 12:27:49 2010. The NY State Constitution begs to differ...as well as the Takings Clause.And if you're going to claim Kelo v. New London, the Supreme Court as composed now would probably overturn it. |
|
|
| (644800) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:31:01 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:29:13 2010. AND, if any government official were to try to us eminent domain, I would sue the state |
|
|
| (644801) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 12:36:45 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:23:06 2010. I agree with you. |
|
|
| (644802) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Tue Aug 3 12:37:07 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. EXCELLENT NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (644804) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:41:43 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010. The families should now exercise their FIRST AMENDMENT rights and hold protests in front of the construction site and City Hall daily. |
|
|
| (644806) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:43:32 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:41:43 2010. And Bloomberg should tell them where they can shove it.Furthermore, if the American Center for Law and Justice sues to block it, the mosque should sue them back. |
|
|
| (644808) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:47:54 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:43:32 2010. And Bloomberg should tell them where they can shove it.Bloomberg should have no right to stop peaceful protests. Who needs to sue the mosque? Take this to the court of public opinion nationwide. The families should label the mayor as insensitive and call for a nationwide tourism boycott of NYC. There is more than one way to stop this thing... |
|
|
| (644810) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:50:09 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:47:54 2010. The mayor though had no legal grounds to stop it without running afoul of the state Constitution. The ones who are insensitive are the 9/11 families, who have said: Federal and state Constitutions be damned! |
|
|
| (644811) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:50:58 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:50:09 2010. AND...if protesters try to stop construction vehicles...the vehicles should run right over them. |
|
|
| (644812) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 12:51:33 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Aug 3 11:50:40 2010. Why is everyone forgetting that the Cordoba mosque has been located near Ground Zero since 1970.Nobody is responding to what I said in my earlier post, that I proposed an interfaith chapel at the 9/11 memorial (as did many others), but that idea was shouted down, too. |
|
|
| (644813) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:51:48 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:28:24 2010. This has nothing to do with them. |
|
|
| (644815) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 12:53:11 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 12:51:33 2010. An interfaith chapel should NOT be on the WTC site. |
|
|
| (644816) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:54:30 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:50:58 2010. You are advocating murder? |
|
|
| (644817) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 12:56:59 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:54:30 2010. Aparently, murder is fine so long as it's committed by people upholding Islam. |
|
|
| (644818) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 12:57:37 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:23:06 2010. Exactly how do you divine the "intent" of a mosque at Ground Zero? I think the mosque represents the continuing determination of the United States to show that terrorism has not diminished our cherished freedoms. I think Mayor Bloomberg is right on, in defending the mosque. It is essential that government refrain from any restrictions on religious expression.If we say one religious building is "inappropriate", because of its location today, what will we block tomorrow? |
|
|
| (644820) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:58:20 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:54:30 2010. That's not murder...especially when protesters are committing the crime. |
|
|
| (644821) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:58:57 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:51:48 2010. They're claiming that it will be an insult to them and want that property as a war memorial. |
|
|
| (644822) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:59:08 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:58:20 2010. So in that case I am justified in running over jaywalkers that get in my way since they are the ones committing the "crime"? |
|
|
| (644823) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 13:02:46 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 12:58:57 2010. I know. |
|
|
| (644824) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 13:09:50 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:59:08 2010. Only if they have refused lawful orders from the police and are resisting attempts to move. |
|
|
| (644825) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 13:25:47 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 13:09:50 2010. Riiiight! ROTFLMAO! |
|
|
| (644829) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 14:17:00 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 13:25:47 2010. BTW, that is in response to Chris R16 saying that the mosque should be blown up...anyone who does so should have their house bulldozed. If it's okay in Israel---why not here? |
|
|
| (644833) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:09:59 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010. My own idea, an interfaith chapel at the 9/11 memorial site, would go even further towards achieving this goal.I disagree. There is no need for an interfaith chapel on GOVERNMENT property. |
|
|
| (644834) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:13:54 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 14:17:00 2010. nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. |
|
|
| (644835) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Tue Aug 3 15:15:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by monorail on Tue Aug 3 12:37:07 2010. YUP |
|
|
| (644846) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 15:38:59 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:09:59 2010. Thank you. A religious building has no business there. |
|
|
| (644853) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 15:49:21 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Easy on Tue Aug 3 12:23:06 2010. If Islam was not successful on 09/11/01 would organizers of this mosque want that location in lower Manhattan? Probably not. |
|
|
| (644855) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 15:50:35 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:09:59 2010. Tell that to the City Of New York and the Port Authority, which have jointly maintained an Interfaith Chapel at JFK Airport since the early Sixties. It's in Terminal 4, the International arrivals Building (IAB), and it ministers to the spiritual needs of air travelers from all over the world.Such a statement of religious freedom and comity at Ground Zero, would go a long way towards showing the world our strength in the face of adversity. |
|
|
| (644857) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 15:52:31 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 15:49:21 2010. The "organizers of this mosque" have operated a mosque in lower Manhattan since 1970. |
|
|
| (644860) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 15:54:29 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 10:26:53 2010. What's funny about you is you don't like the Mormon, because of their views on homosexuality, yet, you support the advancement of Islam right in your own backyard. Islam is no friend of the gay community. I guess you figure this pisses off the right-wing, so you support it. |
|
|
| (644861) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:55:01 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 15:50:35 2010. There's a difference there. An interfaith chapel at an airport provides a service to travelers. One at the World Trade Center would be a symbol of government endorsement of religion. |
|
|
| (644863) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 15:56:16 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 15:54:29 2010. Muslims also have negative views of homosexuality. |
|
|
| (644866) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:03:19 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 15:54:29 2010. While it is true that Islam is certainly no friend of the gay community, my concern here is that if we permit the construction of a mosque to be blocked today (because we don't like its proposed location), what will we prohibit tomorrow? A gay/lesbian community center, because it's too close to a mosque, church, or synagogue? A synagogue because it's next door to a mosque? A church because it abuts an atheist meeting hall? |
|
|
| (644868) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 16:06:44 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:03:19 2010. It not that New Yorkers don't want any mosques in NYC.Most simply feel that the multi-story building so close to ground zero, is a victory symbol. If they break ground on 09/11/11, which they have said they plan to do, that should be all the proof anyone needs that this is a victory mosque. |
|
|
| (644869) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:14:22 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 16:06:44 2010. No construction work will be performed at all on the tenth anniversary of 9/11/01. As for the idea of Cordoba House being a "victory mosque", I think you've got it backwards. I see the presence of the mosque as a "victory" for our Constitution and democracy, in that the mosque will be there in spite of rather than because of the terrorist atrocities committed on 9/11. |
|
|
| (644873) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:24:50 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 15:54:29 2010. Any devout muslim has such a bad idea of homosexuality, they wouldn't think twice about killing or mutilating homosexuals, and do in many muslim run country. They are probably the religion the least "friendly" of homosexuals. Yet he wants to defend them. |
|
|
| (644876) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:26:00 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:14:22 2010. The liberal elites think of it that way, but the Muslims in these stone age countries certainly don't. |
|
|
| (644877) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 3 16:26:21 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:24:50 2010. And meanwhile, so many engage in it because women are "unclean." Heh. |
|
|
| (644879) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:27:56 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 3 16:26:21 2010. Yup. Sick group. |
|
|
| (644880) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:29:03 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:14:22 2010. As for the idea of Cordoba House being a "victory mosque", I think you've got it backwards. I see the presence of the mosque as a "victory" for our Constitution and democracy, in that the mosque will be there in spite of rather than because of the terrorist atrocities committed on 9/11How many times do you need to be told of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood? Certainly not "in spite of", and it's a victory for Sharia law instead of the US Constitution. Stop the dhimmitude. |
|
|
| (644881) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:29:40 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:26:00 2010. The US Constitution and Sharia Law are not compatible. Imam Rauf is a champion of the latter. |
|
|
| (644882) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:29:46 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 16:03:19 2010. Many muslims who follow their dogma wouldn't think twice about killing you in cold blood simply because of who you are. |
|
|
| (644884) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:30:31 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:27:56 2010. That's the Pashtuns in particular. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 9 |
|