Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Taki: Beyond belief
The Spectator (UK) ^ | November 8, 2001 | Taki

Posted on 11/08/2001 1:33:23 PM PST by aculeus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
Taki, who has many 'aristo' friends, also has friends who were in the NYFD.

How can you dislike this guy?

1 posted on 11/08/2001 1:33:23 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Maybe Silverstein knows those New York trial lawyers are deep pocket buck chasers, big time.
2 posted on 11/08/2001 1:39:32 PM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
silverstein is a low life PR**K.
3 posted on 11/08/2001 1:39:43 PM PST by ThePoetsRaven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Hope this gets some play in the media ...
4 posted on 11/08/2001 1:41:06 PM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Quite easily. Just because the insurance company SAYS the buildings were insured for only $3,200,000,000 instead of $7,200,000,000 is no guarantee that the insurer is telling the truth. Indeed, underpayment of claims--whether negligent or malicious--is rife in the industry (which is why so many insurance companies get sued on a regular basis). Larry just may be telling the truth here. Also, Swiss Re has tried to say "well, this is an act of war, and we don't pay a DIME if it's an act of war." But Taki seems to root for them without any critical assessment of their claim.

And I fail to see why Larry should be held liable for the buildings collapsing--they were never designed to take an aircraft of that size slamming into them (they were designed to withstand a 727, a much smaller airframe). In general, one cannot really be expected to deal with every possible risk out there--because if that became our criteria, we'd NEVER build another structure of any sort, not even a mud hut.

5 posted on 11/08/2001 1:43:55 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: jimmydean46
Because Congress disagrees with them, as Congress has not declared war on the perpetrators.
7 posted on 11/08/2001 1:48:53 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
And I fail to see why Larry should be held liable for the buildings collapsing--they were never designed to take an aircraft of that size slamming into them (they were designed to withstand a 727, a much smaller airframe ...

It wasn't the 'slam' it was the fire ... which melted the steel columns.

9 posted on 11/08/2001 2:03:01 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Where there's slime, there's Bill Clinton. Where's there's Bill, there's Jack Quinn.

Wonder if Larry also hired the Rodham brothers for associate counsel.

10 posted on 11/08/2001 2:10:09 PM PST by Lizzy W
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmydean46
"I bet you're a lawyer..."

And I'll bet you're not! lol!

Congress did not declare war because of the consequences to policy holders.(Act of War--No Pay Claims)

11 posted on 11/08/2001 2:13:29 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jimmydean46
No, I'm just saying the hypocrisy here is amazing. The insurance company seeks to minimize its economic damage through political influence, and you give them a pass. The developer seeks to minimize his economic damage through political influence, and you say he's pondscum.

I have a problem with words like "war" being thrown around lightly, and I wish Congress would simply declare war on the terrorism-sponsoring nations so that we can settle everyone's hash. Saying that a particular act is an "act of war" instead of a merely criminal act, without Congressional agreement on this point, is the sort of thing a scumbag insurance company would engage in.

12 posted on 11/08/2001 2:14:54 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
True enough. But a 727 collision MIGHT have been survivable, whereas 757/767 collisions were not. (Less fuel, less fire, less kinetic energy to damage the structural integrity of the building with. All of these factors played a part.)
13 posted on 11/08/2001 2:16:43 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
So this bill passed the House to give this greedy reptilian his seven billion!

Last time I noticed, there were more Republicans there then Democrats.

Sad, isn't it, that this Silverstein character is going to get more financial help then any of the real victims of Sept. 11.

14 posted on 11/08/2001 2:25:16 PM PST by bulldog905
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
This issue was covered in WSJ a week or so ago. Taki doesn't have the issues quite right. Swiss Re claims the terrorist attack was a single event. Silverstein claims it was two, that, hence, double insurance ought to apply.

There's apparently a fair amount of precedent to study here. It is, nonetheless, a pretty scummy scene. And Taki is right that the trial lawyers are going to start suing any and everyone they can.

15 posted on 11/08/2001 2:27:49 PM PST by MoralSense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MoralSense
And Taki is right that the trial lawyers are going to start suing any and everyone they can.

I quarantee you the trial lawyers are taking it on a contingentcy basis, and will make more money, with nothing invested, than Silverstien.

16 posted on 11/08/2001 2:48:02 PM PST by biffalobull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: biffalobull
Ah, trial lawyers, the larval form of politicians. ;^)
17 posted on 11/08/2001 3:21:36 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Trial lawyers are America’s cancer, and the cancer will stop at nothing in pursuit of a buck.

How true.  Having had two lawyers in one White House for eight years -- is our nation now in remission?

Gawd, I hope so.

 America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America -- here

 For better viewing download 8Mb file here

18 posted on 11/08/2001 3:26:49 PM PST by JCG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmydean46
Are you serious? Would you buy insurance from a company that reneged on a 9/11 claim?
19 posted on 11/08/2001 3:32:48 PM PST by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Also, Swiss Re has tried to say "well, this is an act of war, and we don't pay a DIME if it's an act of war."

I don't think its an act of war unless Congress so declares. Insurance claims is one reason Congress will not declare.

20 posted on 11/08/2001 3:33:27 PM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson