The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2013 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul.
General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here


Comment: Insurance won't pay under certain circumstances
Insurance won't pay under certain circumstances
All the insurance I've seen generally has clauses against "act of God" and "act of war". This could laughingly be called the former (if there's a God that created everything and set it in motion then any resulting effects are due to Its behavior, and thus everything that happens is an "act of God"), and justifiably the latter: this action sent the US into a decades-long war, and thus was the "first act" to start it, e.g., an act of war.
It stands to reason then, that if claims for acts of war are null and void, why is this loss even being considered in a courtroom?
I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.