Chicago Fanatics Message Board :: View topic

wow, twitter.com just solved it. cancel the investigation.

Caller Bob wrote:

[Tweet]https://twitter

That gets three smilies from you, Nas?

I bet you think Rahimi is a 9.5, too.

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Caller Bob wrote:

[Tweet]https://twitter

Maybe the captain thought the pillar would stop the ship? Nothing short of a mountain was going to stop that kind of mass.

Nas wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Caller Bob wrote:

[Tweet]https://twitter

Maybe the captain thought the pillar would stop the ship? Nothing short of a mountain was going to stop that kind of mass.

You’re a true ass

Tall Midget wrote:

That gets three smilies from you, Nas?

I bet you think Rahimi is a 9.5, too.

Sometimes I'm good for a cheap laugh. The "wife's boyfriend" did it for me.

Did you see our SB head coach on Hoge & Jahns?

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does.

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Hawg Ass wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does.

Is there a question here of who is liable?

Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer.

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Yes there will be insurance. Biden is making points is all. 5 years from now no one will ask if Biden paid for it all.

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Yes there will be insurance. Biden is making points is all. 5 years from now no one will ask if Biden paid for it all.

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel?

The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they?

Tall Midget wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel?

The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they?

But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point.

Seacrest wrote:

Hawg Ass wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does.

Is there a question here of who is liable?

Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer.

Hawg Ass wrote:

Seacrest wrote:

Hawg Ass wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does.

Is there a question here of who is liable?

Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer.

Lloyds of London understands who is liable. And they won't be sitting around waiting to get an invoice from Joe Biden for "services rendered"

Seacrest wrote:

Hawg Ass wrote:

Seacrest wrote:

Hawg Ass wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does.

Is there a question here of who is liable?

Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer.

Lloyds of London understands who is liable. And they won't be sitting around waiting to get an invoice from Joe Biden for "services rendered"

Again, who is liable?

Nardi wrote:

Tall Midget wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel?

The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they?

But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point.

I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash.

Tall Midget wrote:

Nardi wrote:

Tall Midget wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel?

The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they?

But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point.

I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash.

Lloyd's is responsible for paying. It's insurance. Just because I fall asleep at the wheel and drive through a house doesn't mean my insurance has a right to not pay up. maybe they sue me to recoup, I don't know.

Nardi wrote:

Tall Midget wrote:

Nardi wrote:

Tall Midget wrote:

Jaw Breaker wrote:

Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.”

Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel?

The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they?

But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point.

I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash.

But if someone else drives your car through a house, your insurance might not be responsible for paying, depending on other circumstances.

Author:	Caller Bob [ Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
McCareins_Fan wrote: wow, twitter.com just solved it. cancel the investigation. Caller Bob wrote: [Tweet]https://twitter Funny post, faggg...did your wife's boyfriend type that up for you?

Author:	Nas [ Tue Mar 26, 2024 8:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge

Author:	Tall Midget [ Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
That gets three smilies from you, Nas? I bet you think Rahimi is a 9.5, too.

Author:	Nas [ Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Tall Midget wrote: That gets three smilies from you, Nas? I bet you think Rahimi is a 9.5, too. Sometimes I'm good for a cheap laugh. The "wife's boyfriend" did it for me. Did you see our SB head coach on Hoge & Jahns?

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Tue Mar 26, 2024 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Nas wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Caller Bob wrote: [Tweet]https://twitter Maybe the captain thought the pillar would stop the ship? Nothing short of a mountain was going to stop that kind of mass. You’re a true ass

Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/

Cargo Ship v. Bridge http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=131738	Page 3 of 4

Author:	Nas [ Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Hawg Ass wrote: Nas wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Caller Bob wrote: [Tweet]https://twitter Maybe the captain thought the pillar would stop the ship? Nothing short of a mountain was going to stop that kind of mass. You’re a true ass

Author:	good dolphin [ Wed Mar 27, 2024 7:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Nas wrote: Tall Midget wrote: That gets three smilies from you, Nas? I bet you think Rahimi is a 9.5, too. Sometimes I'm good for a cheap laugh. The "wife's boyfriend" did it for me. Did you see our SB head coach on Hoge & Jahns? Did you ever see the short vid of the polyamorous hipster ginger proudly responding to a wife's boyfriend joke about him? I really love how defiant he is in the face of the world laughing at him...like the joke Scorcesee's mom tells about her compare at the family party in Goodfellas

Author:	Jaw Breaker [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it?

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does.

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:54 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Hawg Ass wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does. Is there a question here of who is liable?

Author:	pittmike [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Yes there will be insurance. Biden is making points is all. 5 years from now no one will ask if Biden paid for it all.

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Seacrest wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does. Is there a question here of who is liable? Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer.

Author:	IkeSouth [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
its another example of how fragile our society is. one mistake and the entire port of baltimore is shut down for at least a couple weeks, likely months before full use again. what a massive undertaking too, trying to get that old bridge out of there. we dont have the technology needed to do it quickly. theyre going to have to send divers to rig up cables and torch it out of there piece by piece. 2900ft of steel.

Author:	IkeSouth [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Hawg Ass wrote: Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer. wind blew it over. are you suggesting god didnt do it?

Author:	IkeSouth [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
these ships dont even meet us regulations. we only allow them in if theyre hitting a port directly. they cant cross two ports because of compliance. its not surprising to have this happen. seems crazy this is the first time.

Page 3 of 4	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	a retard [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
pittmike wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Yes there will be insurance. Biden is making points is all. 5 years from now no one will ask if Biden paid for it all. Lloyd's of London, and they say they are ready. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/28/baltimo ... oyds-.html

Author:	Frank Coztansa [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
pittmike wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Yes there will be insurance. Biden is making points is all. 5 years from now no one will ask if Biden paid for it all. Just another example of having insurance being a good thing!

Author:	Tall Midget [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel? The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they?

Author:	veganfan21 [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:21 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
I believe the crew is comprised of foreign nationals.

Author:	Nardi [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Tall Midget wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel? The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they? But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point.

Author:	Caller Bob [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
I guess you are going to have sue the hackers that broke into the ships control system and disabled the power. Good luck

Author:	Tall Midget [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Nardi wrote: Tall Midget wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel? The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they? But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point. I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash.

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Hawg Ass wrote: Seacrest wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does. Is there a question here of who is liable? Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer. Lloyds of London understands who is liable. And they won't be sitting around waiting to get an invoice from Joe Biden for "services rendered"

Author:	Hawg Ass [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Seacrest wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Seacrest wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does. Is there a question here of who is liable? Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer. Lloyds of London understands who is liable. And they won't be sitting around waiting to get an invoice from Joe Biden for "services rendered" Again, who is liable?

Author:	Seacrest [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Hawg Ass wrote: Seacrest wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Seacrest wrote: Hawg Ass wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? He’s saying he isn’t waiting around for that to go thru the courts, fix it and let that take place when it does. Is there a question here of who is liable? Isn’t there always? Hell, there was litigation when the crane collapsed in Milwaukee, we all knew that answer. Lloyds of London understands who is liable. And they won't be sitting around waiting to get an invoice from Joe Biden for "services rendered" Again, who is liable? The ship for sure. https://www.ft.com/content/c44306cc-605 ... 7d096765f6

Author:	Nardi [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Tall Midget wrote: Nardi wrote: Tall Midget wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel? The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they? But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point. I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash. Lloyd's is responsible for paying. It's insurance. Just because I fall asleep at the wheel and drive through a house doesn't mean my insurance has a right to not pay up. maybe they sue me to recoup, I don't know.

Author:	Tall Midget [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Nardi wrote: Tall Midget wrote: Nardi wrote: Tall Midget wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel? The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they? But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point. I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash. Lloyd's is responsible for paying. It's insurance. Just because I fall asleep at the wheel and drive through a house doesn't mean my insurance has a right to not pay up. maybe they sue me to recoup, I don't know. But if someone else drives your car through a house, your insurance might not be responsible for paying, depending on other circumstances.

Author:	Nardi [ Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Tall Midget wrote: Nardi wrote: Tall Midget wrote: Nardi wrote: Tall Midget wrote: Jaw Breaker wrote: Biden is saying “the federal government will ‘pay the entire cost of reconstructing’ the bridge.” Um, shouldn’t the firm that destroyed it (or their insurance company) pay for it? Was the shipping company negligent in maintaining the vessel? The ship pilots are employees of the Baltimore Port Administration, aren't they? But isn't that between the Insurance and the company? That shouldn't affect the payout. I don't have a clue about your second point. I would think it is important to know who and what caused the crash before it can be determined who is responsible for paying for the damage caused by the crash. Lloyd's is responsible for paying. It's insurance. Just because I fall asleep at the wheel and drive through a house doesn't mean my insurance has a right to not pay up. maybe they sue me to recoup, I don't know. But if someone else drives your car through a house, your insurance might not be responsible for paying, depending on other circumstances. Valid point but if industry standards are what they seem to be.....

Author:	Jaw Breaker [ Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Yellen cleaning up Joe's mess. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/janet ... 5504&ei=28

Author:	Nas [ Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Cargo Ship v. Bridge
Jaw Breaker wrote: Yellen cleaning up Joe's mess. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/janet ... 5504&ei=28 I'm pretty sure she's saying the same thing.