Angry Passenger Talks About Why Flight Crew Called Cops on Arianna Huffington
- Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:04am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
When news broke that a flight crew called the cops on Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington over her refusal to turn off her BlackBerry while in flight, the story included a buried reference to the fellow passenger who was angry enough to confront her about it. Now, that passenger is speaking up and explaining why he was so upset: he was afraid for his safety.
The story began last weekend when, aboard a United Airlines flight from Washington, D.C. to New York, a passenger became upset after he noticed someone a few rows away using her cell phone after the plane was instructed to turn them off. But the woman, later identified as Huffington, wasn’t just sending a few text messages. According to reports, she was talking on her phone even after the plane took off.
“She wouldn’t turn off her BlackBerry, even when we pushed back from the gate,” one passenger told the website Valleywag.
“We took off, and it became apparent that the phone was still on, which very much upset her neighbor.”
That neighbor was identified as 53-year-old Ellis Belodoff, a small business owner from Long Island, New York. Since the weekend, Beledoff hasn’t spoken to any news outlet. Wednesday that changed. And according to him, he was angry about the callous manner in which Huffington was risking the plane’s safety.
“She was putting the use of her BlackBerry ahead of the safety of the entire plane. It was purely her own self-interest she was concerned with,” Belodoff told the New York Post.
He admitted he didn’t know who Huffington was, but he did know that after repeatedly telling the flight attendant what Huffington was doing, the flight attendant did not address the issue. That’s when Belodoff got more animated:
“I see a hand in front of me with a BlackBerry,” said Belodoff, who owns E&B Floors, a floor installation business, in Plainview, L.I.
Belodoff said when his attempts to notify the flight attendant grew fruitless, he yelled out in frustration.
“So, I yell to him, ‘She’s on her BlackBerry!’” he recounted.
When the plane takes off “she’s still on it and I’m ringing my buzzer [to notify the flight attendant]. And finally, I said, ‘What is wrong with you?’ And I’m getting louder and louder.”
Belodoff said that a flight attendant eventually persuaded Huffington to turn off the device and place it in her pocketbook, which was in an overhead bin, but she had been using it for at least 10 minutes after the plane was airborne.
Angry about what happened, he confronted the flight attendant about his alleged refusal to confront Huffington.
“I told him, ‘There’s probably a reason why they want you to turn it off on take off and upon landing,’ ” he said.
“He says, ‘We’ll take care of it when we land.’
“I told him, ‘You didn’t even reprimand her!’
“’He tells me, ‘Calm down, sir!’ I told him I was calm. If I wasn’t calm, I would have ripped it out of her hand!’ ”
She put the use of the BlackBerry ahead of the safety of the entire plane,” he fumed.
Belodoff talked about the incident on Wednesday’s “Fox and Friends”:
The flight crew eventually notified police, who interviewed the two about the incident once they landed in New York. So far, nothing has become of those interviews.
Mario Ruiz, Huffington’s representative, responded by mocking Belodoff and the incident: “There was a passenger who seemed upset. Arianna thought he didn’t like the snacks. Guess not. Maybe he was an iPhone fan. As you know, the battle between iPhone lovers and BlackBerry users can get pretty heated.”
But the incident begs the question: is it really unsafe to use a phone after the flight crew says not to? According to the FAA, yes.
In a fact sheet posted on its website, the FAA says that “there are still unknowns about the radio signals that portable electronic devices (PEDs) and cell phones give off. These signals, especially in large quantities and emitted over a long time, may unintentionally affect aircraft communications, navigation, flight control and electronic equipment.”
That has been the prevailing sentiment for over 10 years. In a separate advisory dated October 2000, before 9/11, the FAA outlined its reasoning for banning cell phones in flight. The ban was “established because of the potential for portable electronic devices (PED) to interfere with aircraft communications and navigation equipment.” It also explains the ban allows flight attendants to better communicate necessary safety instructions.
Important to note, too, is that the restriction on using cell phones in flight is not just an FAA regulation — it’s also an FCC rule. “Since 1991, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has banned the inflight use of 800 MHz cell phones because of potential interference with ground networks,” the fact sheet says.
Those safety issues and regulations are what prompted Beledoff to protest so loudly. But it was frustration with the flight attendant‘s and Huffington’s responses that led to an exchange with Huffington while walking away from police.
“I told her, ‘Don’t get hit by a bus,’” he admitted to the Post.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 682 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 647 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 314 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 166 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 203 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 166 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (298)
BurntHills
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:25amno doubts the flight attendant was a big fan of hers. it would have been another historic tragedy had she caused the plane to go down, but no big loss if SHE had perished by her own elitism.
Report Post »moosebeeusa
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:59pmEllis Belodoff should have done what the Patriots did in AZ. Grabbed her from her seat, put on the floor and disarmed her.
Report Post »It’s called Homeland Security…….
Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:25amWhile I don’t agree with Arianna on many issues, I have to side with her here. I wondered why planes had what had to be cell phones on board, which you could pay to use; but passengers were forbidden from using their’s. After 9/11 it was disclosed that using cell phones does not interfere with air traffic safety; it was a way for the airlines to increase revenue.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:37amWrong
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:42am@TSUNAMI-22 .. ditto
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:51amTSUNAMI-22;
I’m really impressed with your argument!
Report Post »moriarty70
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:16am@Dale
Not just that, but the passenger refused to trust people who fly all day every day.
I look at this as the same as no cells in hospitals. It’s a remote chance that with old equipment there MIGHT be a problem. So follow the rules and ignore the fact that the doctors are using their blackberry’s a pagers.
Report Post »TEXPATRIOT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:44am@Dale, Weather cell phone use on an airplane is dangerous or not is another issue. The fact of the matter is that if this was you or me using our cell phone after the flight crew told you not to and continued to use it to the point that Police were called; we would have been arrested for not following the orders of the flight crew.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:56amI must remind everyone that the flight attendant didn‘t seem to be too interested in AH’s actions, because there was no threat. If there were, he would have been much more forceful with her. Were I in that situation, I would have put the cell phone away, because I was asked.
Report Post »Ken
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:57am@Dale: So you’re saying that the rules apply to everyone except you and Huff-beyotch?
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:07pmKen;
No, I’m saying it is a meaningless rule. If you choose to obey it fine, but to demonize AH (and I do) for not following an inconsequential rule is wrong.
Report Post »justsaying
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:38pmA meaningless rule? It is still a rule and we have to follow it.
Report Post »TEXPATRIOT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:47pm@Dale, how do you know what actions the flight attendant might or might not have taken? The fact of the matter was that the Police did get called and interviewed people involved. So if it was no big deal then why did the Police get called? I happen to agree with you on the cell phone rules; however, at the present time it is the rule which can be enforced by the rule of law; i.e. police can arrest one for failing to obey the orders of the flight crew.
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:49pmJustsaying;
How many laws are on the books that are not followed? Do you know? But we need to follow a rule. My wife was expecting our second child. It was early morning – no cars were out and I missed a turn to the hospital. I came to a red light and looked behind be before running the light – however, there was a police car behind me (I’m guessing that he followed me because I was speeding). I impatiently waited for it to change and went to the hospital parking lot – he followed. As soon as I turned into the emergency entrance, he went on. My daughter was born about eight minutes later. Now if I followed the rules, I may have acted at midwife – not my area of expertise. Should I have followed the rules?
Report Post »Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:58pmTEXPATRIOT;
My guess, I wasn’t there, is that the police were called because some twit made a big deal because AH chose to break the ‘rule’. Otherwise, I don’t think the police would have been involved. The point here is that using a cell phone on a plane did not endanger anyone. I recall on 9/11 there were many calls made and ‘coincidentally’ the plane stayed in the air, until some brave patriots took matters in to there hands. The twit didn’t know there was no danger – he made his position known. Police were brought in, and as far as I know, no one (AH) was arrested.
Report Post »TEXPATRIOT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:14pmDale,
Report Post »I understand your point; but the story is about Huffington’s elitist attitude. It fits right in with this current regime: the rules apply to the people but not to elites like Huffington.
Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:24pmTEXPATRIOT;
If that is the case, we would have to ASSUME that if the parties were reversed, then the twit would have been arrested. I don’t think we can make that case, certainly not from the information provided. AH broke the rule – she paid a price: police called, detained. If a non-elite used the phone would they have been treated differently; no one can say.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:37pm@ DALE
Sorry, wasn’t trying to impress anyone.
I will qualify my argument by stating that I’m a FAA licensed flight instructor. Your argument states that the rule may be influenced by monetary gain. The F.A.R.’s indicate reasons otherwise.
Therefore, you are wrong in your assertion.
Report Post »TEXPATRIOT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:40pmDale,
Report Post »Who are you referring to as the Twit? If it is the man that complained about AH being on the cell phone after the whole plane was told to turn them off; he is not the person that called the police according to the story. The police were waiting when the plane arrived in NY and the story states in the headline that the crew called the police (which would have been via radio). So someone on the flight crew (in the cockpit) thought it was important enough to make that call. I totally understand the man and I would feel the same way, if I have to turn my cell off then why doesn’t AH or anybody else for that matter.
Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:52pmTSUNAMI-22;
Sorry, I‘m only a brain surgeon and therefore don’t have information regarding FAR’s. What are they? Link to them so anyone interested can verify that you are who you say you are, and that there REALLY is a reasonable prohibition against using cell phones on planes. As a flight instructor, I’m assuming that you teach private pilots, not commercial – and I again assume (I took three lessons and while I love flying – I didn’t like piloting) there is a difference. Oh, and BTW, I’m NOT a brain surgeon.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:17pmYour assumption that instructors only instruct private pilots is incorrect. Who do think instructs commercial pilots or flight instructors? Flight instructors that are qualified to teach. The key phrase is “qualified”. Qualifications fall under different levels depending on different criteria.
The difference in a private vs. a commercial pilot is that a commercial pilot gets compensated. If a private pilot gets paid, that is a violation of the FAR’s (Federal Aviation Rules).
The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter if the (no personal electronics) rule is reasonable or unreasonable. It’s the responsibility of the person asked to stop the usage to follow the request.
Since you’re apparently unable or unwilling to do your own DD (Due Diligence) on this subject, I’ll comply with your request.
I hope this helps.
http://www.faa.gov/
Report Post »http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091.21-1A/$FILE/AC91-21-1A.pdf
Dale
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:32pmTSUNAMI-22;
I didn‘t make the case for FAR’s, you did – I simply asked for your credentials: which I must admit you seem to provide. However, having checked your link:
“c. Telephones, which have been permanently installed in the aircraft, are licensed as air-ground
radiotelephone service frequencies. In addition, they are installed and tested in accordance with the
appropriate certification and airworthiness standards. These devices are not considered PED’s provided they have been installed and tested by an FAA-approved repair station or an air carrier’s-approved maintenance organization and are licensed by the FCC as air-ground units.”
There are rules, I never argued against there being rules – only their efficacy. Knowing how government works, I still maintain that these listed telephones are similar to cell phones, and that cell phone use poses no danger to air traffic.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:56pm@ DALE
Talk to an airline pilot sometime and ask him if they’ve ever had issue with the plane suddenly diverting course for no apparent reason only to be traced to a PED that someone was using in the bathroom. It doesn’t happen with all aircraft, and it doesn’t happen all the time – but it has happened.
The point is moot whether the rule is substantiated to your satisfaction or not. You initially made the assertion that the rule may have been implemented to glean some monetary benefit from unsuspecting passengers. I assert that your initial assertion was wrong.
I stand by my conviction.
Miss Huffington was asked to turn off her PED by a flight attendant. Period. Miss Huffington failed to comply willingly at first. The pilot at that point had the authority to land the plane and remove her at his or her discretion as PIC (pilot in command).
This whole discussion isn’t about the PED rule. It’s about people being irresponsible to the point of possibly placing other people in danger in order to satisfy their own selfish agenda.
I could make the same point about speeding, or gun control, homeland security.
Report Post »KarateDad
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 5:03pmWhether they are safe or not is irrelevent. The rule is in place, and should be followed and enforced. Miss Huffington has the liberal entitlement mentality that is ruining this country.
How much you wanna bet the guy who complained ends up on the No Fly list, and nothing happens to Huff ?
Report Post »tomkaighin
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 8:42pmI have to cut into this, and sorry Dale, but you’re going to be the victim here.
There have been cases (FCC and FAA verifiable) of cell phone interference with flight intruments. Therefore, there was a ban issued on using the offending electronics during certain times in the flight. Since Ms. Huffington was not the only passenger on this flight, she was potentially attempting to harm or kill every other person on the flight.
Since the rule was in place, whether you agree with it or not is irrelevent. It exists. All on the flight are bound by it (I think you will find that in the fine print of your ticket). If you chose not to fly, it doesn’t apply, but since she did, she is bound by it.
Her arrogance at thinking that the rules that were inacted to protect both her and the rest of the passengers, was false does not excuse her actions. She has the contractual duty to abide by them. The authorities (i.e. the flight attendant) are charged with enforcing those rules. As a fellow passenger, who, by her actions, was put in possible danger, he had every right to confront her and DEMAND she comply. She was risking injury to herself, him and all the other people on the aircraft (not to mention possible ground crew or residents in the possible crash trajectory of the plane).
You seem to have the belief that only the rules you agree with should apply. So did the Arizona shooter. You seem to agree with him. Or Timoth McVey, or Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, Mao, Stalin…dictator ad nauseum…
You might want to rethink your premise for siding with The HuffMeister…Just sayin’
Report Post »TEIN
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:24amIt was just her lizzzard brain getting in the way…she has a hard time thinking clearly or for herself…
Report Post »radioguru
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:24am“Rules don’t apply to me” attitude. That man had more patience than me.
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:23amMale flight attendant was obviously a gay man. It’s obviously unrealistic of the rest of us to expect him to impose on a liberal from the media, even if it is in the interest of public safety. Maybe he should have grabbed a couple of beers and jumped out on the slide instead!
Report Post »Ken
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:51amBwahahahahaha!!! That’s funny!
Report Post »Tammy Garner
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:53amWhat difference does that make to the fact that the law was broken? He should be reprimanded for not enforcing the rules and A.H. should receive the same treatment from the authorities that would apply to the rest of us.
Report Post »tomkaighin
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 8:16pmMWAHAHAHAHA, Unleash the Dogs of TSA!
Report Post »Hugh Williams
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:23amShe is one of Soros’s puppets. The rules they impose on the unwashed masses don’t apply to the enlightened ruling elite. We all better get used to being the worker drones of the political elite. They are the rulers and it would be wrong for the stupid masses to question their superior intellect. Slavery is coming.
Report Post »WallyBallou
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:21amIt doesn’t “beg the question”, it invites the question. To “beg the question” is a technical logical term meaning to assume the answer to a question without addressing it. Look it up.
I know – nobody cares, but does anyone care that Huffington is an arrogant pig? Talk about dog bites man news.
Report Post »RIGHTNOTLEFT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:20amI figured she would have a seat on Air force1. Cant believe she flies with the little people!!!!
Report Post »tbtall
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:19amCitizen making a stand that rules apply to everyone. Case closed, and the elite are shown as acting like the rules don’t apply to them. Only those foolish masses who are getting better at catching on to the progressive lies.
Report Post »Country
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:18amI would think she would fly in Soros’ private jet.
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:17amShe probably had to dictate another assault piece on Palin in time for the next deadline.
Report Post »justanamerican
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:17amI know how to fix these idiots once and for all.. Tax ALL wealth above 1 million in net worth and above 200k annual inc…… All else goes to govt…. That will shut them up forever
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:32amYou want to punish a Liberal by passing a Liberal tax plan? I don’t think that her attitude is so much from her money as it is because she is one of the Leaders of the Liberals and therefore she thinks she has certain entitlements because of it.
Report Post »loveoursoldiers
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:39ami assume certain millionaires ( D next to name) get a waiver AKA wink and a nod.. when it comes to their taxes. Do you really think all those millionaire football and baskefball players ( for ex.) are going to pay more taxes? no.. why? because they deserve their money and Obama is not about to take money from those who have promised wealth as long he is in the WH..it is a dirty little secret but you know from what they did with the car dealerships that they first look at what party you belong to and then decide whether to audit you or not ot whether ot enforce the laws or not.. not the American way but the Chicago/Obama corruption way. That’s why we need to get him out in 2012.
Report Post »justanamerican
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:50amNot to punish them…… to shut them up and make the tax question a thing of the past….
Report Post »BriPhi
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:10pmNo it won’t. They they’ll tax anyone making over $1, the air you breathe, the ground you walk on…etc, etc. They aren’t done until they have everything you own, and that you owe them even more.
Report Post »fertlmind
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:16amAdd your comments
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:38am2 comments plus 2 comments = my comments :~)
Report Post »tomkaighin
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 8:12pmThat’s 5 comments, Reagan, I’m waiting with baited breath (just had sardines for lunch)
Report Post »jasonh0099
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:15amA. Hufington is American royalty…. Just ask her, she will tell you….
Report Post »hot22dog
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:15amShe was using her LIZARD BRAIN!!!!
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:14amObviously she is much too important and rich to be controlled by rules and regulations meant for the rabble. Someone needs to tell this malcontent just who she is and remind him just who he is, and he is one of the sheep who just needs to do what he is told and keep his mouth shut.
Report Post »1stzookid
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:14amAbove the Law, thanks to her High level National Socialist, Marxist buddies.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:13amMocked the passenger, I’m shocked! After all, isn’t Arianna above rules, laws, common courtesy and decency? Didn’t like the snacks? What did they do, throw them to the passengers as they boarded the plane? Arrogance at its best!
Report Post »mrclean
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 4:43pmIn her air-head picture here she looks smug, proud, arrogant, egotistical. She’s a useless poser. This episode was SOP for her. She mistakenly believes her fame insulates her from any and all laws.
Report Post »IndyServative
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:12amTypical of the pompous and arrogant Huffington.
Report Post »RIGHTNOTLEFT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:12amDoesnt everyone here understand rules dont apply to Huffy and her comrades!!!!!!!!
Report Post »btbartlett
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:11amto the progressives, laws are just for the small people.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:10amLiberals don’t give a flying frack about anyone but themselves, don’t let anyone convince you otherwise.
Report Post »TX Progressive
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:17pmSwampy, maybe the dumbest thing i have ever heard on this site…I wish I had a prize or something to give you.
Report Post »exdem
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 3:09pm@TX Progressive
Report Post »your right. They only care about themselves and commies and socialist. Swampy stands corrected.
SecretPolice
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:10amRules don’t apply to elitist progressive commie pinko’s don’t ya know – just ask Mario Cuomo. lol
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:45amOr Chucky Shummer.. Didn’t he pull some sort of elitist stunt on an airplane not too long ago ? Then ended up apologizing, but the deed was done and you see the elites for who they really are..
Report Post »SecretPolice
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:52amOh shoot, ( oops, can I say that lol ) yes, that’s who I meant. ( a bit red faced now )
Report Post »pavnvet
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:08amOne set of rules for them and another for everybody else. No news here.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:19amExacily (what they want)
Report Post »mossbrain
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:20amand yet you don’t want to raise taxes on them, amazing.
Report Post »Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:35am@DASHRIPROCK… Death I would chose…lol
Report Post »RdsknsFtbll
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:45amRaise taxes on who MOSSBRAIN? No there isnt any need to raise her taxes… just stop allowing her to be treated as some kind of elite and hold her feet to the same fire she wants to create for everyone else…. I wonder if she likes “Big Gov’t” in the way of the FAA and FCC regulating her use of the Blackberry? Whatcha think?
Report Post »Muslim in Chief
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:19amIt is called the Pelosi Syndrome
Report Post »untameable-kate
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:58amHer lizard brain made her do it.
Report Post »justanamerican
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:06amAnother elitist pig exposed………..
Report Post »TruthTalker
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:08amagreed
Report Post »Shurmus
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:10amHAHAHAHAHAHA…You want these people to have MORE control over your health, guns…your life?
http://www.slugbuddies.com
Report Post »TexasCommonSense
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:12amGo back to Greece, Arianna!
Report Post »The American
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:14amYou got the pig part spot on!
Report Post »Docrow
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:15amrules and laws don’t apply……
Report Post »nothingbuthetruth
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:16amThe flight attendant knew who she was and didnt want to take action. This guy was right to cause a stink. Too many times we as American’s let bad behavior go on. Not this time.
Report Post »decendentof56
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:17amWe all know that Arianna is callous, obnoxious, rude, and, of course, a Progressive. No surprise here. It’s not even newsworthy, other than it does expose another example of the obnoxious nature of these people. Wonder what it would be like being a domestic for her?
Report Post »hkyfan36
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:18amWhen Pigs Fly
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:18amShe’s ABOVE the rules .. DARRRLLLINNGGG.
Report Post »American Capitalist
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:19amDo what I say, not what I do…
Report Post »The Monster
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:19amBUTBUTBUT On Sarah Palin’s Alaska, she uses HER Blackberry on a plane!!!!111111eleventy
Report Post »Hoosier Daddy
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:20amWhat’s your problem, Justanamerican? You actually want rules to apply to the “beautiful people”? How quaint.
Report Post »DashRipRock
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:23amAriana Huff n puff or Hellen thomas
Report Post »who would you rather?
Reagan/DeMint.disciple
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:32am1000 bucks says frED flintShultz will be making snide and rude comments about his man before the day is over.. Any takers ?
Report Post »Pocono Countryboy
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:41amReminds me of Gabor…
“Laws are only for the little people dahh-ling”
Report Post »foolsgold
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:45amUnsafe?? You can use celphones on many airlines — Emirates included. It links normal cellphones via satellite to any number destination.
Report Post »SoonerBorn68
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:57amShe wants my guns. I want her Blackberry!
Report Post »KICKILLEGALSOUT
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:07amMaybe it was about something really important!
Yes, the Stupid Foreign Liberal might want to publish another Plagiarized book!
Report Post »Bob_R_OathKeeper
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:21amI’d love to beat her with her own phone, oops, sound like a liberal POS there for awhile.
Report Post »Tammy Garner
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:44amTo Foolsgold – Arguing the point about safety or not is for a different debate. She broke the law and the flight attendant didn’t do anything about it. We should probably have the discussion about whether there really needs to be a regulation stopping the use of cell phone and other devices, but until we do Arianna Huffington is no different from anyone else and should be held to the same standard. If she wants different rules from everyone else she should go back to her home country and see what special laws and regulations they can set up for her there!
Report Post »Shurmus
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:46amCan you imagine her at 20? Daing…if only she would have fell in love with a God-fearing, conservative, apple pie lovin man that loved his country just as much…but alas…she didn’t…and this is the result. A pi$$y old bag…
These elitists are greatly outnumbered, and that reality is beginning to show itself to them.
http://www.slugbuddies.com
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:02pmShe was probably sexting with Spooky Dude!!!!
Report Post »Curator_JDR
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:05pmThat’s who Huffington is. She’s an elitist who pretends she cares about the “common people” Remember when she accused Glenn Beck of Dadaism when she is the Dadaist.
This video will give you a heads-up on who the Progressive-dadas really are. watch part 2 first.
Report Post »http://www.marcrubin.com/dada2.ivnu
Barry Da Fraud
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:07pmJust like the PR arm of the DNC, major media, they are arrogant elitists. Typical of all sociast progressive Democrats, they all carry the Democrat-******* gene.
Report Post »spendthrift
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:07pmA pig with lipstick…..
Report Post »mrdbcooper
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:24pmSocialism is for us, not the socialist
thanks Wilkow
Report Post »Caniac Steve
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:27pmIf it had been any one of the “usual passengers…they’d been all over them like a rah…go figure…and watch the TSA,the police or feds won’t do athing except possibly send her a strongly worded letter advising her to obey the rules and co-operate…and like we, the peole…leave it hanging…
Report Post »foolsgold
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:28pmIs this story even news because Beck just hired her ex-CEO? Is this article posted for REVENGE?
Report Post »jds7171
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:38pmhuffington is an idiot for not turning off her cell phone. But the guy is also an idiot for thinking that that one phone call will drop a plane. People make phone calls on planes all the time, they even surf internet and have dish.
Report Post »ishka4me
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 12:53pmrules are for little people, not the pigs
Report Post »chazman
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:04pmI would have beat the hell out of her …
Report Post »jttri
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:04pmYou all need to go to the Huffington Post and start an account, the libs will love the banter NOT!! I got kicked off for questioning the Kagen pick for SCOTUS
Report Post »TrishMc
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:06pmEveryone knows that Ariana is a very special person, and like most progressives she does not feel it necessary to do what the rest of us peons have to do.
Report Post »Trance
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:08pmAs I understood, the electronics ban was because of a couple of 737′s crashing because the rudder swung hard to one side while landing. I think this happened in the ’90s, but may have been late ’80s. They never found out what happened, but electronic signal was one possible cause.
Report Post »SAYITAINTSO
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:22pmI second that
Report Post »heavyduty
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 1:53pmI am not above the law, I AM THE LAW!!!!
Report Post »TheLascone
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 2:15pmExactly JUSTANAMERICAN, Just another American witrh an entitlement attitude !
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23630227@N06/5010028866/in/photostream/
Report Post »SlippedThroughAWormHole
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 5:29pmArianna just could be George Soros in drag.
Report Post »proantisocialist
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 6:38pmcant wait for her to slap a cop….
Report Post »DisillusionedDaily
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 8:34pmArianna Huffington is above the rules that us little people have to abide by! After all, she voted for Obama!
Report Post »UMMAH GUMMAH
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:12pm.
Did you see the chin and the hands on that wo-MAN!
.
Report Post »AmericanSoldier
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 10:53pmDoes the cell phone really create a safety risk? And I thought at full cruising altitude, they couldn‘t get proper signal since there’s no towers up there.
Report Post »Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on January 12, 2011 at 11:34pmAs an electronics tech for 20 years, and having an electronics eng. degree, one cell phone may have a small chance on creating interferance. But if it is a 1 in 100 chance, would you roll the dice that you are on that one plane that crashes due to some moron not follow the law? What if it is your wife, child, parents, siblings or friends? At the funeral would you say “well, the odds were against something like this happening, but I guess thats the breaks.”? No, everyone would sue. That is why in this case, you err on the side of safety. If I am on the plane, I tear the damn phone out of your hands and break it, or at least take the battery out. The airline needs to suspend the flight attendents and instruct all their employees of the FCC and FAA rules. Ms Huffington should be fined and that is that. AmericanSoldier, if you want to charter a plane all by yourself and test the theory, knock yourself out bud.
Report Post »HEARDENOUGHCRAP
Posted on January 13, 2011 at 12:24amWayner – You might have something there. (Sexting w/Spooky Dude)
Report Post »