Clinton nobodies still interrupt air traffic

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...linton-wedding

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...linton-wedding

"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

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...linton-wedding

Soros needs to be protected.

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.

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...linton-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 *

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.

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

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.

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?