Hacker News Reader

Comment by Svip | Hacker News Reader

For the record, Spain and France are denying that they refused the plane entry.[0]

[0] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/03/edward-snowden-a...

As far as France is concerned, this seems to be an incorrect statement by unnamed Foreign Affairs Ministry officials.

Le Monde reports[0] that government spokeswoman Najat Vallaud-Belkacem says that France "eventually allowed the plane to fly through its airspace", implying that they denied it at first. A more detailed official account of the incident is supposedly forthcoming.

[0] http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/article/2013/07/03/une-rumeu...

Lol i wonder if the nsa hacked the radio freq and sent false transmissions

Also for the record, Evo Morales is insane. Here he is saying that eating chicken makes you gay http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT3yCRjEDCI

Bush said God told him to invade iraq and other boatload of stupid shit, didn't stop Americans from electing him twice. What does it say about bush and even worse what does it say about americans?

The point is, what stupid shit the president said has nothing to do with what is being discussed here.

He's making a claim that various countries claim to be untrue (they say his plane wasn't denied). So reminding people that Morales is no stranger to making false claims is relevant IMO. That being said, those other countries could be the ones lying too for all I know. No need to get rude though.

'Two wrongs don't make a right'

I'm sorry, I have no idea where did I imply that "two wrongs made a right". Could you please point it to me? I personally support Snowden but just like I'm suspicious of the US gov, so I am with the Bolivian one.

The plane was searched for Snowden, this is a fact. Do you even need anyone's claims to understand what happened? The president could have said nothing, it would still be crystal clear he was being denied on the purpose of an attempt to get Snowden. Don't argue over meaningless details, look at the big picture.

Anericans did /not/ elect Bush.

That's true about 2000, but the 2004 result was legitimate. And that's after he started a war. So really the point stands.

Afghanistan, 2002; Iraq 2003. What war are you talking about?

I'm going to have to ask you for some evidence of your claim that the 2004 result was legitimate. Do you really know that or is it something you've heard through others? We have programmers under oath stating that electronic polling stations were rigged. But that is totally besides the point. The people's vote, even if it were accurately tabulated and reported, counts for zero percent of the real decision. Have you heard of the electoral college? The will of the people is totally decoupled from who assumes office - and it's happening right in front of our eyes.

Why the downvote?

Because I asked for evidence?

What stupid shit the president said has nothing to do with other things the president said that may or may not be truthful? I think you're mistaken.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com