Insights into what the left thinks f you.

Jump to Last Post 51-71 of 71 discussions (516 posts)

60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Correct 94.5% of which are veterans, working families, elderly, disabled and working families. Yes they desperately depend on people to help them as we vote to do. The wealthier group which pays more in taxes votes do that, out of goodness and care, maybe you should think on that.
  
  Think on why you want those working families, veterans, elderly and disabled to go hungry to save yourself a few cents. Think about how clever you think you are when you criticize them having enough to eat and to feed their children.
  
  You are truly a wonderful person
  reply report
  66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And that's not even including the fact that the total number of people on welfare is a whopping <2% of the population.
  reply report
2. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't have a problem with working hard and am happy that some of the money I earn goes toward helping people through government programs. Now, if we can get a large portion of the money currently being spent on defense re-directed toward helping our citizens, I would be even happier.
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
61
ib radmastersposted 12 years ago
If you use those who are supported by Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)--best described as a federal largess to indigent families with dependent children--as stated by the Dept. of Health the data suggests 1.7% of the total population that derive over 50% of their income from Welfare supports.

The number stated that receive any portion of their support from from welfare assistance--including food stamps--it is 29,900,000 or roughly 8% of the total population in the United States.

This breaks down to:

39% white 11,661,000 of 29,900,000 recipients

38% black 11,362,000 of 29,900,000

17% Hispanic 5,083,000 of 29,900,000

The strictest sense of the term though would be those getting income directly from the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services which is about 8% of the total population that receives some form of assistance and 1.7% that receive most of their income (50% or more) from these programs.
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Such government as existed in the UK at that time was made up of privileged people ruling for the benefit of other privileged people.
  
  Oh, pretty much the same as now, now I come to think of it.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Just what I was thinking!
  reply report
2. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You really do make a habit of being constantly wrong.
  
  loke ye do no husbonde harme
  That tilleth with his ploughe.
  No more ye shall no gode yeman
  That walketh by gren-wode shawe;
  Ne no knyght ne no squyer
  That wol be a gode felawe.
  he was a good outlawe,
  And dyde pore men moch god.
  
  From the original Ballad (hard to read I know since it's 14th century) Robin instructs that you should rob no one who plows the fields (peasants) or Yeomen (effectively the free middle class) but you can rob people of the aristocracy (the wealthy).
  It's true that he apparently opposed King John because (wait for it) his government favored the wealthy over the poor.
  reply report
  58
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, especially the hereditary nobility.
  
  The government class
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes he was a good man.
  
  He didn't put up with tyranny. You know?
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed he had no patience for the tyrany of the rich over the poor.
  
  "Wicked landowner he who makes merry from the labor of his sufferin ploughmen"
  On the other hand no where in any of the founding Robin hood texts is taxation mentioned, EVER.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Permanent taxation was largely a 19th century capitalist invention
  reply report
  58
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Landownership was hereditary or a station awarded by the king - landowners were nobles, members of the government. The Magna Carta was the members of government, the barony, compelling the head of government, the king, to recognize their legal status. Much as the taxpayer now works for the government.
  
  All government is, inevitably, the product of the people's choice, even a dictatorship. When the people choose to eliminate a government they can vote it out or throw it out, both have precedent and merit.
  
  Wealth at the time of King John was, as wealth is now, either accumulated in the hands of the state - now to the tune of $17 trillion in debt - or in the hands of those who are permitted to hold it. It is this latter condition that has changed. The accumulation of property was not, exclusively, at the tolerance of the state. At one time it would have been considered oppressive for the state to assert its "right" to claim a great portion of a man's property, not so today.
  
  Today we consider it greedy to want to retain the bulk of ones property and justice for the state to lay claim to that same property as some "right" of those who have no claim to its ownership. Perhaps the consequence will be a reordering of property either at the expense of freedom, the allocation thereof by government edict(as is occurring) or a reassertion of the rights of free people to accumulate the product of their creation without government intrusion.
  
  I am not hopeful for the latter.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh do some history.
  
  The average man in the 14th century had no vote and no say in the government of the country which was vested (supposedly by god) in the hands of the king. Speak out agin the king and find yourself pretty quickly dead.
  reply report
  58
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Can you show me where in my post I mentioned 14th century voting rights?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Certainly
  
  "Landownership was hereditary or a station awarded by the king - landowners were nobles, members of the government. The Magna Carta was the members of government, the barony, compelling the head of government, the king, to recognize their legal status. Much as the taxpayer now works for the government.
  
  All government is, inevitably, the product of the people's choice, even a dictatorship. When the people choose to eliminate a government they can vote it out or throw it out, both have precedent and merit."
  reply report
  58
  retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hmmm, no vote mentioned in there separated from the other condition, "throw it out." The Russian, American and French Revolutions all products of the people rejecting the legitimacy of the existing state. No voting required but the will of the people is required for all success in maintaining the existing government or in replacing it.
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you don't know but he stole back
  
  the tax money.....tax money......un rightfully taken by an evil ruler.
  Kinda like what we have now.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  He stole tax money... once and yes taxes from a king he did not support because he did not care for the poor. The rest of the time it was not tax money. My guess is you have never read the stories or ballads
  
  He also wanted a country ruled not by kingship but chosen by the people... you know like we have now
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The truth is I heard it all my youth and had the king behaved he wouldn't have done it.
  
  That's pretty well how the rest of us feel when you don't get a break from taxes with out tyranny following.
  Sometimes it's soft tyranny.
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Federal law doesn't protect human life, full stop.
  reply report
2. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sad to say, that's how it is.
  I recently learned that that's partly because of Sandra Day O'connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Supreme Court Justices who sold their souls to the devil of "a woman's right to do what she wants to with her own body". I learned about them while reading Norma McCorvey's (Jane Roe's) books "I Am Roe" and "Won By Love". Very very interesting and informative books about how abortion got legalized, not from compassion for the health of would-be mothers, but because of the ambition of a woman lawyer who didn't want her own child and so aborted it.
  Foolishly wicked liberalism has invaded the Supreme Court slowly but surely.
  The latest was when Justice Roberts stooped so low as to allow Obamacare to be claimed Constitutional.
  If that's the kind of Justices we have, we might as well not have any. It keeps getting worse and worse, what with Sotomayor and that other woman Justice.
  
  I used to think that Supreme Court Justices actually had to have a history of knowing what's legal and what's right.
  I thought wrong. That big bench is not to be trusted anymore.
  reply report
  66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you'd rather the mother risk their lives to give birth to children they don't want? To have those children shoved into some overcrowded orphanage to grow up into a life of crime and neglect?
  
  Sounds great to me.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounded "great" (sarcastically) to Jane Roe too.
  Until she came to the realization of what was going on.
  
  I recommend to everyone---------read "I Am Roe" by Norma McCorvey (formerly known as Jane Roe, the woman whose case brought about the right for women to kill their unborn babies), and then read her second book "Won By Love". There are so many people in this world who don't even know the history of that case nor the history of abortion, and cannot understand how politics took precedence over human life, swayed a Nation to ignore the inhumanity of abortion while hollering for women's rights, how our Supreme Court Justices placed condemnation on all of us by even listening to the nonsense of a liberal lawyer and her husband who didn't want to make time for a baby they had conceived together.
  
  If you think you're for abortion, both those books are for you. If, after reading those, you're still for abortion, then you're just too stubborn.
  reply report
  66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna *EFF* in the first place?" - George Carlin
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I dare you to read the books.
  That would actually challenge you to think and feel something besides the bigoted foolishness that comes outta the mouths of people like George Carlin (who, since you mentioned a line of his that refers to attractiveness, is not very physically attractive himself; so he's actually in effect mocking himself when he says stuff like that). And yet you buy into his rhetoric?! Wow.
  
  And I don't give a whit what the Left thinks of me. I give a whit what they think about human life, and about our laws, because they've become quite effective at twisting right into wrong, and there needs to be some way to reach them before it's too late.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Brenda, there is a prerequisite for the books to have any chance of getting through. A person must first have a heart that outweighs their arrogance and selfishness enough to allow for compassion. Your presumption of the fulfilled prerequisite may be in error.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That may be true.
  But it doesn't mean I won't keep trying.
  There are many people who don't even know what happened during Roe v. Wade; they just parrot what other liberals have told them and what the Supreme Court said is okay.
  They need to know the truth. Then if they don't "get it", that's their responsibility. Not mine. I will have told them the truth. Just like telling a person about Jesus. We must warn them away from the pit of damnation. Then if they don't listen, their blood is not on our hands, but on theirs. And I am an eternal optimist in a way, willing to try to pull them out of the fire, hating even the garment spotted by the flesh (Jude 23).
  
  Norma McCorvey is a powerful witness for this, because her mind worked just like theirs did, until she met people who told her about the Love of God while also telling her she needed to repent. I am compelled to recommend those 2 books. They're not from someone who led an ordinary life; they're from someone who experienced so much bad, who was abused physically and mentally, but was able finally to open her eyes to see the good. I admit that there must've been some willingness inside her to look for the good all along. But indeed, I think that is in many people. I will not assume that someone doesn't have that, or doesn't have access to being able to change their thinking and their heart.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The abortion debate was never about compassion, it's about liberty, the line is drawn on whether you believe the state should have the right to force a woman to give birth against her will or not, whether you believe in basic human freedoms or not.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It was about selfishness and manipulation.
  Read the books.
  reply report
  66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Selfishness and manipulation are the qualities of those who would force women to get their abortions in a back alley with a coat hanger rather than in a clean and sterile hospital setting with actual equipment, simply for the sake of misguided self-righteousness.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Carp.
  Even with today's "abortion pill" and other procedures that seek to sterilize murder, it remains murder.
  And your hero the woman lawyer who got Roe v. Wade approved, HAD the chance to give "Jane Roe" one of those "clean" abortions you think exist (she had already had one herself, since she had the money to do so), yet she didn't do it; she didn't want to help "Jane Roe" have a cleaner procedure, she didn't want to keep her from using a coat hanger! She didn't CARE! Don't you get it? Abortion got approved because of some people's personal ambitions, political greed, selfishness, lies, and manipulations.
  Really, read the books!
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Even if it was so in that instance that proves and demonstrates nothing about the majority of abortions.
  
  The book won't change my mind because it's irrelevant, the question is simply can we as a moral state force women to give birth if pregnant or not. It's very simple and there are only two answers. Mine is a definitive no.
  reply report
  61
  bBereanposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps you could argue that about the outright outlawing of abortion, although we would disagree because I believe there are two people's lives involved and perhaps you only see one. There is another dimension, however, which has always been about compassion. Saying otherwise has been wildly successful at shielding people from the reality of it, at least long enough for them to make a wrong decision which many will regret for the rest of their lives. It is about having the compassion to make sure the decision to end a human life is not made uniformed or casually.
  
  Those few who genuinely lack the compassion to not end a life, when they see the ultrasound, hear the heartbeat, see the little fingers and toes, will probably live their lives with no regrets. All they are out is a little time and they can live their selfish lives in peace, no worse for experiencing what should be protocol.
  
  Most, however, when exposed to this same protocol, will have the compassion to choose against killing the child, and will know this is the right decision for them. For these, by helping them face the reality and weight of the decision they are about to make, they are spared a life of regret because they are the ones who will come to this same conclusion sooner or later. Honestly and properly informing people before it is too late can avoid a life marred or even ruined by the abortion experience.
  
  You can disagree, but if you do I am willing to bet you have never been or known anyone who deals with this regret everyday. Abortion is about ending a life, and certainly that merits, at the very least, full disclosure to provide some certainty that when the dust settles, the person can live with the decision they have made.
  reply report
  69
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  George Carlin was one of the most insightful comedians who ever lived.
  
  I'll listen to his words before some book that is trying to create revisionist history.
  
  Thanks, though.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Revisionist history?
  Surely you jest!
  I mean, seriously, those books are by the woman whose case was the heart of the Roe V. Wade court hearings! She's the one who knows the truth about the whole thing! She's the one whose mind worked like other liberals' minds work! Her third baby was the "Roe" baby! The baby she wanted an abortion for.
  How you can call that "revisionist history" is beyond reason.
  You'd probably be pleasantly surprised at just how "real" and how direct and with how much feeling she tells the story of her life, from a young neglected girl to a grown woman. She pulls no punches, whether about herself or about others. I respect her a lot for that.
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And if she hadn't come to the conclusion she was wrong he would have read those books before you but he isn't going to risk infecting himself with ......dare I say? Christianity!
  reply report
  69
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have no problem with Christianity.
  
  However, it does need to evolve with the times and stop trying to influence the political process so much.
  
  While everyone has the right to worship whatever or whoever they want, that right ends when you start talking about making it the law of the land strictly based on the views of one religion.
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Like Iran and such....
  reply report
  66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And the US, and 17th century Britain, and Iraq!
  reply report
  69
  Cody Hodge5posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just think its funny that you use this as the basis for thinking that the courts should overturn Roe v Wade.
  
  Its not about choice unless Christians are banning gay marriage, telling you that you don't have a right to healthcare and that any and all government programs are evil.
  
  Again, that's why conservatives are more or less relegated to the kiddie table of American politics.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You right wingers are all ways banging on about freedom and liberty - until somebody actually wants freedom and then there is much screaming and rending of shirts.
  
  If I had a uterus I probably would not have an abortion, but that would be my choice, not the choice of some freedom loving right winger who seems to draw the line on the sacredness of life at birth, after birth it's a free for all with the right leaning toward death.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yup, put the women back in the kitchen...
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bare foot and pregnant?
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Is this supposed to be a bad thing? Do you really think it's a bad investment to dine and woo the President of a massive nation that borders ours?
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'd rather be thought of as a liberal than thought of as hard, rigid, strict; doctrinal, dogmatic, bigoted, blinkered, intolerant, narrow-minded; reactionary, unreconstructed, conservative, conventional, hidebound, nonprogressive, old-fashioned, orthodox, stodgy and traditional.
  
  But if that's the way you want to be, go for it, I'm a liberal (so I'm told) and whatever you want to be is all right with me.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  John, you neglected to mention judgmental. Just sayin...
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We got you the first time you said you didn't know anything about socialism, there is no need for you to keep telling us that you don't know anything about socialism.
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Quite a socialist concept there - the people being in control!
  
  Keep it up, we'll make a leftie of you yet
  reply report
  69
  Marquisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually Socialism means no one is on control. That is why Socialism crashes into the ground.
  
  Socialism = failure to launch because it does not work.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong again, socialism doesn't mean no one in control,it means everybody in control.
  
  Name me one truly socialist country, totally untainted by capitalism?
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There isn't one....because people know better.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But without one example how can you be so sure it is so terrible?
  
  That reminds me of
  "I've never tried Marmite"
  "Why not"
  "Because I don't like it"
  "so how do you know you won't like it?"
  "I just know"
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I would think that some of the stellar examples we are always given such as Denmark would take the plunge.
  Consider it like a scientific experiment. people want to see it work on a small scale before they commit world wide.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Denmark is a mixed economy still with a very strong capitalist presence.
  
  The mighty US would not tolerate a successful socialist country even on a small scale.
  
  You know when Thatcher was in power she put the kibosh on an independent Scotland because she said it would be the most successful socialist country in the world!
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You mean with our "forward thinking President" and administration you don't think someone could pull it off?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What has the President got to do with it? Even Bush couldn't control your army.
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The President is the Commander in Chief.
  
  Who do you think is controlling our army?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A figure head, somebody to take the blame when it goes wrong.
  
  The generals run your army.
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well Generals are commanders but the President has final say and of course Congress.
  Are you telling me a General will take an action without consulting his superiors which they do have?
  report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They did it with Bush and the Gulf.
  report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right.
  
  I saw Norman Schwarzkopf speak once. He wanted to go get Saddam after Kuwait and Poppy wouldn't let him. He wasn't happy about it.
  report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You could try making it large enough to read or put a link into the original. As it is it's totally illegible and pointless.
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How Conservatives define "freedom": Oppressing minorities, women, and the poor while empowering only the rich and the affluent.
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Once again.......aren't you glad you have talking points?
  reply report
  66
  Zelkiiroposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Aren't you glad you're using Facebook and its userbase as if it were a research document?
  reply report
  60
  Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Irrelevant....at least I am being creative. You are really well conditioned. If I ring a bell do you salivate?
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And you just don't realise how conditioned you are!
  reply report
  69
  Marquisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You do not know much about U.S. history, do you? Democrats have more of a history with oppressing people, not Conservatives.
  
  There is not an iota of proof that Conservatives oppress any one.
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  <roaring with laughter>
  
  How much proof would you actually require?
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
1. 0
  PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Black & white thinking is a sign of ....
  
  Google it if you'd like to know.
  reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report
60
Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 2

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Insights into what the left thinks f you.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Insights into what the left thinks f you.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies