Clinton nobodies still interrupt air traffic

[Mxsmanic]

Even thought Chelsea and Bill Clinton are of no importance to national
security and Hilary is too unimportant to matter, the FAA is still restricting
flights over the wedding site of what's-her-name:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/air-traffic-restricted-for-chelsea-clinton-wedding

[Runge 124]

Where's the problem you're not over there

"Mxsmanic" > a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : ...
> Even thought Chelsea and Bill Clinton are of no importance to national
> security and Hilary is too unimportant to matter, the FAA is still
> restricting
> flights over the wedding site of what's-her-name:
>
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/air-traffic-restricted-for-chelsea-clinton-wedding

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Even thought Chelsea and Bill Clinton are of no importance to national
> security and Hilary is too unimportant to matter, the FAA is still
> restricting
> flights over the wedding site of what's-her-name:
>

I assume that, as you are a long-time resident of France, it is French
national security to which you refer. The relative importance of the various
Clintons is another matter about which you are totally uninformed.
--
JohnT

[Brian[_4_]]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:56:13 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Even thought Chelsea and Bill Clinton are of no importance to national
>security and Hilary is too unimportant to matter, the FAA is still restricting
>flights over the wedding site of what's-her-name:
>
>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/air-traffic-restricted-for-chelsea-clinton-wedding

Soros needs to be protected.

[george]

On Jul 30, 8:05*am, "Runge 124" > wrote:
> Where's the problem you're not over there
>
Careful.

Dudley Henriques is protecting Mixedup (a nonpilot posting in a pilot
forum/group) for no discernible reason.

[Hatunen]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:44 -0400, Brian
> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:56:13 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>wrote:
>
>>Even thought Chelsea and Bill Clinton are of no importance to national
>>security and Hilary is too unimportant to matter, the FAA is still restricting
>>flights over the wedding site of what's-her-name:
>>
>>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/air-traffic-restricted-for-chelsea-clinton-wedding
>
>Soros needs to be protected.

I suspect it's more to protect the planes and to protect the
guests from falling airplanes. Otherwise the sky will be filled
with paparazzi getting in each other's way.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[Jim Logajan]

george > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:05*am, "Runge 124" > wrote:
>> Where's the problem you're not over there
>>
> Careful.
>
> Dudley Henriques is protecting Mixedup (a nonpilot posting in a pilot
> forum/group) for no discernible reason.

I believe you are misreading or misunderstanding Dudley's posts to this
thread.

Also note that the thread is cross-posted to two groups, only one of which
references piloting.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On Jul 29, 10:23*pm, george > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:05*am, "Runge 124" > wrote:> Where's the problem you're not over there
>
> Careful.
>
> Dudley Henriques is protecting Mixedup (a nonpilot posting in a pilot
> forum/group) for no discernible reason.

Hardly. Simply pointing out BOTH sides of the Mx issue as being
predictable as always; a useless gesture I freely admit.

BTW, just FYI; this is Usenet. MX aside, I don't believe one has to
actually BE a pilot to post to a pilot's forum, and I'm fairly certain
people deciding to post don't need a "discernible reason" for so
doing. It does help to be on topic however. In this case, Mx's initial
post, although possibly and most likely his usual troll bait, was on
topic for this forum. He posted a pilot's article on a pilot's forum
which was and is in correct context whether a troll or not. If people
CHOOSE to answer him as you did that opens a door as I'm sure you are
well aware for what invariably follows......................such as a
post like yours again above trying to gender up more vitriol against
someone who disagrees with your position.
In the end, all you get from these threads are people taking sides one
way or the other either for or against someone else. It's a useless
waste of a good forum and the main reason I for one spend most of my
net time elsewhere. I won't pretend to speak for others. Just my
preference :-)
DH

[Mxsmanic]

JohnT writes:

> I assume that, as you are a long-time resident of France, it is French
> national security to which you refer.

Your assumption is incorrect.

[Mxsmanic]

Hatunen writes:

> I suspect it's more to protect the planes and to protect the
> guests from falling airplanes. Otherwise the sky will be filled
> with paparazzi getting in each other's way.

Do paparazzi really care about Chelsea Clinton? Have you seen what she looks
like these days?

[Kurt Ullman]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Hatunen writes:
>
> > I suspect it's more to protect the planes and to protect the
> > guests from falling airplanes. Otherwise the sky will be filled
> > with paparazzi getting in each other's way.
>
> Do paparazzi really care about Chelsea Clinton? Have you seen what she looks
> like these days?

You obviously haven't seen the US news shows gushing over "The
closest we come to American Royalty" (and you though the British had a
low threshold for Royalty) and a couple have actually called this the
equivalent of Charles and Diana (with your comment above, I am assuming
that Chelsea in this case is playing the part of Charles- grin).
Besides it isn't about Chelsea, it is about Bill and Hill. THAT,
along with the likely guest list, would bring the paparazzi out in
force.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

[Mxsmanic]

Kurt Ullman writes:

> You obviously haven't seen the US news shows gushing over "The
> closest we come to American Royalty" (and you though the British had a
> low threshold for Royalty) and a couple have actually called this the
> equivalent of Charles and Diana (with your comment above, I am assuming
> that Chelsea in this case is playing the part of Charles- grin).

I only look at Web pages, but at least on the Web, CNN, USA Today, and Fox
News don't seem to be saying much, which is just as well.

Chelsea Clinton is proof that, if you're famous, many people will
automatically call you beautiful, no matter what you actually look like. I'm
not sure where she got the ugly genes from, but even at 2000 feet AGL she'd
crack a lens.

> Besides it isn't about Chelsea, it is about Bill and Hill. THAT,
> along with the likely guest list, would bring the paparazzi out in
> force.

Times must be hard for paparazzi these days. How much does a photo of Hilary
bring?

Anyway, it's really hard to see why a TFR is required. Chelsea is not part of
the government. Neither is Bill. And Hilary is only in a minor Cabinet post.
If every Cabinet member needs a TFR whenever she attends a party ...

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> And Hilary is only in a minor Cabinet post.

Wikipedia: "The Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the
highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order
of precedence. "

Hardly a minor post....

Ron Wanttaja

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Wanttaja writes:

> Hardly a minor post....

Hardly a major one. Not enough to justify bringing traffic to a halt overhead
for a garden party.

However, if keeping a few photographers away from Hilary's social gatherings
is more important to you than the freedom to fly where you wish, that's your
prerogative. Don't cry when that freedom is gone, though.

[HankC]

On Jul 30, 10:08*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ron Wanttaja writes:
> > Hardly a minor post....
>
> Hardly a major one.

In your mind, what are the major cabinet posts other than Secretary of
State?


HankC

[a[_3_]]

On Jul 29, 10:43*pm, Hatunen > wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:20:44 -0400, Brian
>
> > wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:56:13 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> >wrote:
>
> >>Even thought Chelsea and Bill Clinton are of no importance to national
> >>security and Hilary is too unimportant to matter, the FAA is still restricting
> >>flights over the wedding site of what's-her-name:
>
> >>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/air-traffic-restricte....
>
> >Soros needs to be protected.
>
> I suspect it's more to protect the planes and to protect the
> guests from falling airplanes. Otherwise the sky will be filled
> with paparazzi getting in each other's way.
>
> --
> * ************** DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
> * ** * * * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * * * *
> * ** My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

I tend to agree that the FAA has recognized the airspace above this
wedding without the restrictions is apt to be congested. It would be
as appropriate to restrict airspace where ever there may a dangerous
condition.

The bad news is probably Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome will be closed down
-- are those wonderful airshows still there?

[JohnT[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Chelsea Clinton is proof that, if you're famous, many people will
> automatically call you beautiful, no matter what you actually look like.
> I'm
> not sure where she got the ugly genes from, but even at 2000 feet AGL
> she'd
> crack a lens.

I am not at all sure why you are making that statement as it has absolutely
no relevance to the thread which you started.
--
JohnT

[Mxsmanic]

HankC writes:

> In your mind, what are the major cabinet posts other than Secretary of
> State?

There are no major Cabinet posts.

In fact, only the loss of the President really has much of an effect on
continuity of government, and even then, the country does not collapse into
chaos. The importance of individual government officials is sometimes
dramatically exaggerated (especially for the President).

In any case, there's no reason here to establish a TFR. Nobody is conspiring
to photograph Hilary from the air, given that she's easy to photograph under
so many other conditions (and given that there is so little demand for
photographs of her). And besides, taking pictures doesn't hurt anyone. If the
party participants want privacy, they can go indoors.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> HankC writes:
>
>> In your mind, what are the major cabinet posts other than Secretary of
>> State?
>
> There are no major Cabinet posts.

The resto of the world seems to disagree with you; what a surprise.

> In fact, only the loss of the President really has much of an effect on
> continuity of government

Point totally missed as usual as you wander off to things totally unrelated.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Brian[_4_]]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:41:07 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>Times must be hard for paparazzi these days. How much does a photo of Hilary
>bring?
>
>Anyway, it's really hard to see why a TFR is required. Chelsea is not part of
>the government. Neither is Bill. And Hilary is only in a minor Cabinet post.
>If every Cabinet member needs a TFR whenever she attends a party ...

Pretty major cabinet post. And now there is speculation that Hillary
and Biden could switch jobs or that Hillary might even run against
Obama.

[Peter Dohm]

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:41:07 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Times must be hard for paparazzi these days. How much does a photo of
>>Hilary
>>bring?
>>
>>Anyway, it's really hard to see why a TFR is required. Chelsea is not
>>part of
>>the government. Neither is Bill. And Hilary is only in a minor Cabinet
>>post.
>>If every Cabinet member needs a TFR whenever she attends a party ...
>
> Pretty major cabinet post. And now there is speculation that Hillary
> and Biden could switch jobs or that Hillary might even run against
> Obama.

Well, she did once before--and would hardly be the first perenial candidate.

[Brian[_4_]]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:17:23 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:


>Well, she did once before--and would hardly be the first perenial candidate.
>

No, but usually they aren't in the cabinet of the person they run
against.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> Well, she did once before--and would hardly be the first perenial candidate.

"Hiliary Stassen" (g).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

[Brian[_4_]]

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:18:18 -0400, Kurt Ullman >
wrote:

>In article >,
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>
>> Well, she did once before--and would hardly be the first perenial candidate.
>
> "Hiliary Stassen" (g).

She has many more runs before that. <G>

[Richard[_11_]]

On Jul 30, 4:13*pm, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > HankC writes:
>
> >> In your mind, what are the major cabinet posts other than Secretary of
> >> State?
>
> > There are no major Cabinet posts.
>
> The resto of the world seems to disagree with you; what a surprise.
>
> > In fact, only the loss of the President really has much of an effect on
> > continuity of government
>
> Point totally missed as usual as you wander off to things totally unrelated.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The rest of the world is irrelevant...or do you seriously think we
should give flip what Iran thinks of our government and structure
things accordingly?