It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

HLN blurs out Trump Supporter T-shirt

page: 2
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Which they do, AND have admitted too, its been on the radio for weeks.

Trump just has more talent than Hillary, he manages the media adroitly where Hillary just takes kickbacks to provide favors later to the moguls that run said media.




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Slanter

HLN admitted they made an error, so it would appear thete is no such issue.


Ah yes !!

It's an old tactical trick isn't it.

Make the point clear, and then *claim* it was an error.

Very old and effective propaganda trick.




posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Isn't HLN the same network which just cancelled Dr Drew's show for expressing concern about Hillary's health?

Liberal media is out of control. Fascists to the core.
edit on 1-9-2016 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Sillyolme

Which they do, AND have admitted too, its been on the radio for weeks.

Trump just has more talent than Hillary, he manages the media adroitly where Hillary just takes kickbacks to provide favors later to the moguls that run said media.


I seemed to have missed any admission of media favoring the DNC.

I ESPECIALLY missed any trace of Trump having more talent, than say, my cat in regard to being President.




Moxie is NOT impressed by Trump.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rockintitz

What happened to the "the media is in it for Hillary" part? You opened with it. They said it was an error now what?

Guess they're not in it for her.


Yes, of course, nothing about it was intentional at all.. they said so.


edit on 1-9-2016 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

And you, with a straight face, can post this along with anything about Trump's medical letter?



Oh...you edited your post. Seems you could not do that with a straight face.
edit on 1-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Let me guess. . . .

You saw it, was triggered, called in and reported it.

So they blurred it.



(on topic)


Yay free expression! Yay censorship!



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sillyolme

Let me guess. . . .

You saw it, was triggered, called in and reported it.

So they blurred it.



(on topic)


Yay free expression! Yay censorship!



You think she reported the blurring of a trump logo???
edit on 1-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Finding a better source, that one was worded weird.

In a continuing effort to cast doubt on his presidential opponent's health, Trump called on Clinton to release her full medical records in a tweet Sunday night.

But when CNN reported the tweet on "CNN Newsroom" with anchor Jim Sciutto, a graphic of the tweet omitted the GOP nominee's use of "Crooked" proceeding "Hillary."

A CNN.com story that updated Monday morning does include Trump's tweet in its entirety.

A CNN spokesperson told The Hill that "the tweet should have been shown in its entirety."



Again, more backtracking and admitting "errors"

So is it intentional or incompetent?

LINK
edit on 1-9-2016 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

She may have seen the original broadcast before it was blurred.

hence. . . The Triggering!



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I do have high regard for Moxie, so I will refrain from retort.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

Not sure. Here we aren't supposed to change politician's names. I am not sure about 'crooked Hillary' being against the rules here. I see it a lot. But since I am not sure, I don't refer to Trump as 'idiot Trump'. Someone at that news station made the call to edit 'crooked' out. Then it was put back in.
edit on 1-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: reldra

I do have high regard for Moxie, so I will refrain from retort.


Well, ty
She like you too.


eta: Moxie says she likes your attitude better than mine. Ohh man....
edit on 1-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2016 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

I think you do you just don't want to say it.

Two "errors" in four days.
Both from the liberal media. Both seeming to favor hillary over Trump.

At some point things can't be taken to be coincidence. That's why I said "blatantly obvious" in my OP.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Silly butt hurt CNN and Soros censors.

We see anti-Hillary twitter accounts banned.
We see anti-Hillary YouTube videos suddenly demonetized.
We see anti-Hillary Wash Post articles removed.
We see Trump doing Press conferences, answering questions, engaging with the public.
We see Hillary being protected by MSM, no press conferences, very controlled and fragile 'TV' appearances.

Silly butt hurt CNN and Soros censors are wasting their time, the cats out of the bag - crooked Clinton is crooked.



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz




I thought this was kind of funny in how blatantly obvious it is the media is in it for hillary. 


What did this have to do with Hillary again? You made this bizarre statement directly above the quote where your source says this:



"We blurred the logo and shouldn’t have; it was done in error,” an HLN spokesperson tells The Hill. 


Can you point to where, in your source material, any evidence might be of the first statement made by you, in your OP? The one where you said it's blatantly obvious that the media is in it for Hillary? Or was that just a really complex typo? If so, please disregard.

Thanks!




top topics



 
19
<< 1   >>

log in

join