|
|
| Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) (644780) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
|
| (645036) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 22:54:46 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 22:44:32 2010. they should find another locationDo you think that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to find another location? |
|
|
| (645042) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 22:59:03 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 22:54:46 2010. Do you think that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to find another location?Yes. A location even closer than the current one :) |
|
|
| (645043) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 23:00:52 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 22:59:03 2010. Exactly. |
|
|
| (645053) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 23:23:57 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 22:54:46 2010. I doubt it---this isn't Press Your Luck. At least this is on an out-of-the-way street. |
|
|
| (645057) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 00:42:24 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 23:00:52 2010. This thread sucks with streetcarman1. |
|
|
| (645059) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 01:13:12 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:31:24 2010. ?????????????You are insane. This is the United States, not Gaza. |
|
|
| (645061) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 01:15:07 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:32:38 2010. Me three. |
|
|
| (645062) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 01:18:23 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 22:54:12 2010. Not to mention running over peaceful protesters in the street with bulldozers. |
|
|
| (645064) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 01:47:28 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 01:18:23 2010. If they're refusing lawful orders to stop a blockade, they are not peaceful, but rather criminals. |
|
|
| (645065) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Aug 4 01:48:21 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 01:47:28 2010. And guilty of a capital offense in your view. |
|
|
| (645103) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:51:05 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Dan Lawrence on Tue Aug 3 20:42:27 2010. Archie Bunker was a fictional character, played by a liberal BTW. Unfortunately, ChrisR16 is all too real. |
|
|
| (645108) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:52:51 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 12:57:37 2010. >>>>If we say one religious building is "inappropriate", because of its location today, what will we block tomorrow? <<<<Catholic churches because all priests are pedophiles. 8-) |
|
|
| (645109) | |
Re: Land-marking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:54:55 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 3 16:34:43 2010. Roman Catholicism is a political system, not just a religion. |
|
|
| (645111) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:57:16 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by BMTLines on Tue Aug 3 12:41:43 2010. That is their right. |
|
|
| (645115) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:59:30 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 21:31:24 2010. NYC is not Israel. |
|
|
| (645116) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 05:01:06 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 01:13:12 2010. iawtp |
|
|
| (645124) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 05:16:47 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue Aug 3 20:07:11 2010. >>>>...muzzie kills somewhere, which is daily....<<<<Ummm, A Catholic kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Jew kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Prysbetirian kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Buddist kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Methodist kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Unitarian kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Baptist kills some one, somewhere, daily. A Fundamentalist Christian kills some one, somewhere, daily. BTW, what's a "muzzie"? |
|
|
| (645125) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 05:17:50 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 12:56:59 2010. oh...stop it |
|
|
| (645133) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 05:47:32 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 18:30:10 2010. There's a mirror sale at Target this week. |
|
|
| (645134) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 05:49:15 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 16:55:44 2010. No, it's just more bigotry. Oh great deluded one |
|
|
| (645141) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Aug 4 06:06:12 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 00:42:24 2010. This thread sucks with streetcarman1.However you always suck with or without streetcarman1 |
|
|
| (645145) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 06:14:39 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SMAZ on Tue Aug 3 21:32:38 2010. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Once if digital running on "military" time. |
|
|
| (645148) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 06:26:47 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by SMAZ on Wed Aug 4 06:06:12 2010. You're a fucking loser. A dirtbag who should have walked on a landmine in Iraq. It's a shame that you came home.SMAZ the dirtbag with no hopes, interests or prospects did what so many dirtbag dead-end losers do. He joined the ARMY. The only Italians who took ESL were the lowest dirtbag types. Garbage. You made an ass of yourself saying that people should be forced to interbreed. You did it again saying that the Governor of NJ has no impact on the salaries of PA workers. Did it again pointing out the R-10 at E. 180. The only interest you have in mass transit is vandalizing trains. Sorry if I come off as abrasive, but did start with your unwarranted personal attack. |
|
|
| (645150) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Aug 4 06:30:16 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 06:26:47 2010. SMAZ the dirtbag with no hopes, interests or prospects did what so many dirtbag dead-end losers do. He joined the ARMY.Great to know what you think of the people who give you that minimum guarantee to live free, even in the vermin-like form that you inhabit. Our soldiers and Marines training for Afghanistan should use you as target practice, you fucking terrorist. |
|
|
| (645151) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 06:31:58 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by SMAZ on Wed Aug 4 06:30:16 2010. You're still a fucking dirtbag. Now go practice your tag name.Sorry, but you did start this. |
|
|
| (645179) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:14:42 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 01:47:28 2010. And this is the United States. We don't kill people for exercising their Constitutional rights of protest, and we also don't kill people for being disruptive. We have a court and law system to handle that, and one of their powers is NOT running them over in the street.Insane. |
|
|
| (645187) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:25:05 2010, in response to Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Aug 3 10:16:21 2010. The President seems to think 911 is a "local issue". |
|
|
| (645189) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:27:08 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:52:51 2010. Unlike the lunatics who flew planes into buildings based on their RELIGIOUS beliefs, the Catholic priests who did that did not do that because of "religion".The Muslim terrorists that flew planes into buildings did it because they WERE Muslims, not because they "happened" to be muslim The priests who did their horror did NOT do it because they were Catholic, or in the name of religion, they were sick puppies who just happened to be Catholic. |
|
|
| (645190) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:28:59 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Aug 4 04:57:16 2010. According to Amoriera, they should be run over in cold blood if they do that. |
|
|
| (645196) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Aug 4 08:35:40 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 3 22:26:17 2010. No, Adam is right. |
|
|
| (645198) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Aug 4 08:37:02 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Tue Aug 3 22:44:32 2010. Why? Freedom to practice any religion should not be restricted to where and when you can pray. |
|
|
| (645200) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:38:02 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Aug 4 08:35:40 2010. ??????????????????????????Adam is right, that people exercising their constitutional right to protest this project should be "run over buy the bulldozers (in cold blood) in the street? |
|
|
| (645205) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 08:40:48 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Aug 4 08:37:02 2010. Freedom to practice any religion should not be restricted to where and when you can pray.I agree. Now, let me ask you a question. If 9/11 had never happened, would this Imam be building this structure so close to the WTC? Probably not. |
|
|
| (645210) | |
Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 08:57:35 2010, in response to Re: Lawsuit planned (Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Aug 4 08:40:48 2010. I think even so...or a different group that lost its lease on a prior mosque site would seek to build a mosque there. |
|
|
| (645211) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 08:59:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 08:25:05 2010. He's correct, which is why I have said for a while that the rest of the country should "butt out". More specifically, it's an issue over only which those living in CB1 should have a say.Harsh indeed, but they need a reality check. |
|
|
| (645214) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 09:05:29 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 08:59:13 2010. No, The attack on the World Trade Center was NO MORE a "local NY issue" than the attack on Pearl Harbor was a "local Hawaii issue". |
|
|
| (645215) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:11:06 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 09:05:29 2010. I completely disagree. The attack on the WTC was indeed a local issue, and decisions on it are made by local officials.Therefore, what happens here is of no concern to anyone outside of NYC or NY State even, and conservatives claiming otherwise are absolutely incorrect. Obama does not have to take a position on this. Furthermore, Pearl Harbor led to a formal declaration of war. Show me the formal declaration of war here. |
|
|
| (645222) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:24:37 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by JayZeeBMT on Tue Aug 3 15:50:35 2010. Each of the terminals is individually managed, and the private manager decides what goes there. Schipol International is free to put whatever it wants there pursuant to its master lease on Terminal 4. |
|
|
| (645223) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:25:36 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Aug 3 16:58:53 2010. The 9/11 families had their chance to buy the property and they blew it. Therefore, they brought it on themselves. |
|
|
| (645242) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:28:29 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:11:06 2010. The attack on the WTC was indeed a local issue, and decisions on it are made by local officials.The WTC attacks was a local issue, are you f'in nuts? That was attack on the UNITED STATES, it was "not" an attack on New York City, or even NY State, it was an attack on America. Therefore, what happens here is of no concern to anyone outside of NYC or NY State even, and conservatives claiming otherwise are absolutely incorrect. Obama does not have to take a position on this. Have you lost your mind? The WTC attack was just as much a national issue as the attack on Pearl Harbor. There would be rightfully outrage if the Japanese decided to put a Japanese Heritage center near the USS Arizona. |
|
|
| (645243) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:30:19 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:24:37 2010. The main International terminal where the chapel is is NOT managed by individual airlines. |
|
|
| (645244) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:30:30 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:25:36 2010. LOL. |
|
|
| (645246) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 10:32:19 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:28:29 2010. Difference: That area is public property; this is private property. Therefore, the USS Arizona is not a valid example. |
|
|
| (645249) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 10:42:13 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:30:19 2010. It's managed by a Dutch outfit (albeit a Dutch company majority-owned by that country's government)---the same one that owns Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam. |
|
|
| (645254) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:55:39 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 10:32:19 2010. The WTC is owned by the Port Authority, but even if it was private property, it was attacked on a NATIONAL scale, not a local one. I don't literally mean ON TOP of the USS Arizona, I mean near it. |
|
|
| (645260) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Aug 4 10:59:56 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 10:28:29 2010. actually it would be the equal to putting a Japanese Shinto shrine by the USS Arizona...Actually it would be putting a Shinto shrine near the USS Arizona but where no one from the USS Arizona would actually see it unless they intentionally walked there. That's the CORRECT comparison... not the horridly flawed one you and many others have so incorrectly said. |
|
|
| (645263) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 11:05:24 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by ClearAspect on Wed Aug 4 10:59:56 2010. No, the JAPANESE attacked us on Dec 7, 1941 (who happened to be Shintos), not the "Shintos", and it wasn't done in the name of the Shinto religion.On 9/11/01, MUSLIM terrorists attacked us. They weren't terrorists who happened to be Muslim, they were MUSLIM extremists who attacked us, and IN THE NAME of Islam. THAT is the correct comparison, not the shaded one you proposed. |
|
|
| (645269) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Aug 4 11:15:36 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 11:05:24 2010. You're wrong again, because the Muslim / Recreational Center isn't being built by Extremists... and they (the 9/11 attackers) died on 9/11 so they couldn't be the ones possibly building the mosque... they actually killed us because of so called "atrocities in the middle east" and our support of Israel. They used Islam to justify their actions, if you've watched any of their martyrdom videos, you'd see they constantly talk about American Occupancy and Zionists, and that by committing Jihad etc etc their attacks are Justified.The fact is they were extremists who took the meaning of the religion for deadly purposes. The people who will be using this facility are those who practice their religion peacefully. So cut the crap by painting every Muslim with the same brush, it's shallow and only makes Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations right when they say "Americans are fighting a war against Islam" But if you insist on proving them right please go on ahead with your misguided and ignorant comparisons. |
|
|
| (645270) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Wed Aug 4 11:19:46 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Aug 4 09:24:37 2010. Yes, but when the present IAB was erected (with its Interfaith chapel), its owner was the city, and the PA was the lessee. IIRC, PA employees operated and maintained the chapel until it and the IAB were leased to private concerns. |
|
|
| (645271) | |
Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Aug 4 11:23:06 2010, in response to Re: Landmarking of 45-47 Park Place denied, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Aug 4 11:05:24 2010. Also further more while the attack was in the name of Islam, the attack itself was organized, and funded, and carried out by Al Qaeda. So if your comparison was right then they would building a shrine or memorial to Al Qaeda fighters or to Osama himself. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||