SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: koan who wrote (52106)8/29/2013 12:54:13 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
The National Enquirer had better reporting on Syria than the MSM media this past 2 weeks.

Obama looks like the lying warmonger he really is today.

And you were backing him.



To: koan who wrote (52106)8/29/2013 2:06:32 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 85487
 
I haven't read the National Enquirer since they BROKE the John Edwards paternity story that outfits like MSLGBT were covering up. They thought Edwards was going to be another Bill Clinton for them:



To: koan who wrote (52106)8/29/2013 4:05:18 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 85487
 
the national enquirer is intelligent reporting compared to MSLSD



To: koan who wrote (52106)8/29/2013 5:50:02 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 85487
 
Ha! Big Lib Magazine, The New Yorker, Admits Fox News More Fair And Balanced Than MSNBC
Posted by Andrea Ryan on Thursday, August 29, 2013, 12:02 PM



A Fuller Spectrum…only for Liberals.

Ha! Even the big Liberal magazine, The New Yorker, admits that Fox News is more fair and balanced than MSNBC. The former writer for The New York Times analyzed the two networks and MSNBC came away with a big FAIL.

According to Townhall,

According to The New Yorker’s Kelefa Sanneh, who for 8 years was a critic at the New York Times, profiled MSNBC and found that “Conservatives are far less visible on MSNBC than liberals are on Fox News”. And not only is MSNBC less likely to have Conservatives on their shows, but when they do, they tend to be Republicans who talk trash right-wingers.

Sanneh had this to say about Phil Griffin’s show:

Virtually every other show [aside from "Morning Joe"] belongs to hosts who unstintingly support Obama and the Democrats, with only minor points of disagreement. ([Host Chris] Hayes criticizes Obama for his drone killings and surveillance programs, and often conducts friendly interviews with Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who collaborated with Edward Snowden. Melissa Harris-Perry, who appears on weekends at 10 a.m., nearly always defends Obama, and called Glenn Greenwald a “jerk.”)

Conservatives are far less visible on MSNBC than liberals are on Fox News, and the right-leaning guests who do appear are typically critics of the conservative movement: Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist, who says the party is too tolerant of “nuts” and “kooks”; Josh Barro, an advocate for Republican reform who describes himself as “neoliberal”; Abby Huntsman, the daughter of failed presidential candidate Jon, who has described the G.O.P. as a party of “non-inclusion.” The over-all impression is that your average Republican or conservative is simply too fanatical to be part of polite discourse.”

Some have said that the article was too easy on Fox News, saying that the liberals who appear on Fox News are simply too tame. Either way, isn’t the point of media to be unbiased and fair? The fact that MSNBC obviously is not giving equal time to Republicans and Democrats is just unfair to viewers. Give us the information and then let us form our own opinions.



- See more at: thegatewaypundit.com



To: koan who wrote (52106)8/29/2013 6:06:43 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 85487
 
Syrian Tension Rising: Russia Sends Warships to Mediterranean

[ I understand the British Parliament told Cameron "no go." And Cameron called Clinton and said they were out of it.

British lawmakers reject military action in Syria, in setback for Obama administration

Read more: foxnews.com

With Putin rattling his sabers, I'm guessing Obama may back down after having leaked the decision to attack Syria. We'll know later this week. I think, like most things, the decision is really Valerie Jarrett's to make. ]

Posted by Gateway Guest Blogger on Thursday, August 29, 2013, 10:59 AM

By: Rachel Pulaski



Russia, one of Assad’s biggest arms supplier, has deployed two warships to the east Mediterranean. The warships are currently in the North Atlantic and should be in the Mediterranean within a few days. On Monday, Russia made claims that the Syrian rebels were responsible for the recent chemical attacks in Syria.

Via Reuters:

Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria.

Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces’ general staff as saying Russia, Syria’s most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the “coming days”.

Any strengthening of the navy’s presence could fuel tension, especially as the United States has said it is repositioning naval forces in the Mediterranean following an alleged chemical weapons attack which it blames on Syrian government forces.

“The well-known situation now in the eastern Mediterranean required us to make some adjustments to the naval force,” the source said in a reference to the events in Syria.

UK’s Prime Minister David Cameron has backed down from the decision for an immediate military strike on Syria.

As of yesterday, President Obama said he has not yet made a decision on a Syrian military strike.

- See more at: thegatewaypundit.com