I got (rotf) here: "the New York Times is clearly and obvious a pro-communist publication" and tried to stop reading but this bandwidth-waster was just too fucking entertaining to quit.
Ps. You have a 'assignment of culpability' problem. There would have never been a 'pol pot' if the US hadn't attempted to destroy southeast asia. You're just another intentionally myopic 'Merican idiot. Rr On 07/04/2017 04:35 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote: > Muckrock has long been publishing the writings of Michael Best, now > Emma Best. I have previously pointed out that Muckrock is unwilling to > contradict the powerful, who as I pointed out, includes John Young of > Cryptome. > > Now Best has been writing quite a bit about spicy topics regarding the > CIA. But how does a limited hangout work, and when you see it in > action, why is it so effective? It is quite a mystery why no one has > espoused this in plain English. A limited hangout serves to satisfy > people's curiosity in predominant narratives or explanations in what > is going on. It is only by merely being curious that you can succeed > against limited hangouts. > > Sometimes a limited hangout serves multiple ends, it may even operate > as framing > ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#Media > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29#Media> ), > and how something is framed can also display different points with the > same message to different audiences. > > But to go into detail ( see attachment for PDF of article "One of the > CIA’s private press contacts was a suspected Soviet spy" ), this > article presents the best example of limited hangouts. It frames Tad > Szulc's possible communist ties as a surprise. Automatically one > thinks that this was an unfortunate situation, that the agency would > have to disclose classified information to make a case, or to at least > tell the New York Times that he shouldn't be allowed to deal with > certain matters. > > Now I guess Best can't help that some people form those sorts of > initial conclusions. You know how people treat responsibility, how the > law treats responsibility. It's just an unfortunate thing. > > But the New York Times is clearly and obvious a pro-communist > publication. To digress, every liberal publication was repeating the > same story from Pyongyang on Otto Warmbier. But the New York Times has > done worse than defend trumped up charges on a poor kid. The matter of > Walter Duranty is available to anyone over the internet. Defended what > is now known as the Holodomor, which ranks around the Holocaust in > deaths. He defended Stalin's show trials. > > His name was maintained on a list by George Orwell (!) as a person > unsuitable as a possible writer for the Foreign Office's Information > Research Department. And here's Sculc's real scoop > : > https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/12/26/1961-the-c-i-a-readies-a-cuban-invasion-and-the-times-blinks/ > He wrote an article about "Anti-Castro units trained to fight at > Florida bases". Best mumbles about Sculc writing about AMTRUNK, but he > leaked the Bay of Pigs! Who is responsible for the Bay of Pigs > disaster? Well, I googled for what the CIA officially says, and they > don't say anything about Szulc > ( > https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2016-featured-story-archive/the-bay-of-pigs-invasion.html > ). > > > In fact, I googled "new york times communist" I get this > article: > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/29/opinion/sunday/when-communism-inspired-americans.html > Still, more examples can be found > here: http://www.conservapedia.com/The_New_York_Times#Newspaper_of_Record > > Similar cases re-occur by numerous dishonest individuals, even those > not closely associated with the New York Times, Chomsky defends Pol > Pot as not that bad and the news reports on Pol Pot as exaggerated. > > > Although the concept of modifying the limitation of a hangout is some > piece of linguistics. > > I leave this for your to chew on, why is this Best person so > protective of the New York Times' reputation? > There is no easier way to tweak the nose of a commie by defending > conservatives (not fascists) they condemn so harshly, particularly > since conservatives make it so easy to be defended.
