Insights into what the left thinks f you.

Jump to Last Post 51-71 of 71 discussions (516 posts)
  1. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7759253_f248.jpg

    1. Josak profile image59
      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 tongue

      1. Zelkiiro profile image66
        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.

    2. profile image0
      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.

  2. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7759383_f248.jpg

  3. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7760113_f248.jpg

  4. ib radmasters profile image61
    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.

  5. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7763130_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      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.

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Just what I was thinking!

    2. Josak profile image59
      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.

      1. profile image58
        retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this

        a class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, especially the hereditary nobility.


        The government class

      2. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Yes he was a good man.


        He didn't put up with tyranny. You know?

        1. Josak profile image59
          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.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Permanent taxation was largely a 19th century capitalist invention

          2. profile image58
            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.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              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.

              1. profile image58
                retief2000posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                Can you show me where in my post I mentioned 14th century voting rights?

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  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."

                  1. profile image58
                    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.

      3. Barefootfae profile image60
        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.

        1. Josak profile image59
          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 tongue

          He also wanted a country ruled not by kingship but chosen by the people... you know like we have now tongue

          1. Barefootfae profile image60
            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.

  6. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7768961_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Federal law doesn't protect human life, full stop.

    2. profile image0
      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.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image66
        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.

        1. profile image0
          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.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image66
            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

            1. profile image0
              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.

              1. bBerean profile image61
                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.

                1. profile image0
                  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.

                2. Josak profile image59
                  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.

                  1. profile image0
                    Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                    It was about selfishness and manipulation.
                    Read the books.

                  2. bBerean profile image61
                    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.

              2. Cody Hodge5 profile image69
                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.

                1. profile image0
                  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.

                  1. Barefootfae profile image60
                    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!

                  2. Cody Hodge5 profile image69
                    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.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        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.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image77
          Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Yup, put the women back in the kitchen...

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Bare foot and pregnant?

  7. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7769577_f248.jpg

  8. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7770923_f248.jpg

  9. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7772276_f248.jpg

    1. Josak profile image59
      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?

  10. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7778681_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      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.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        John, you neglected to mention judgmental. Just sayin...

  11. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7778982_f248.jpg

  12. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7783110_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      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.

  13. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7786322_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      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 smile

      1. Marquis profile image69
        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.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          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?

          1. Barefootfae profile image60
            Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There isn't one....because people know better.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              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"

              1. Barefootfae profile image60
                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.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  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!

                  1. Barefootfae profile image60
                    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?

  14. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7786380_f248.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      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.

  15. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7786781_f248.jpg

    1. Zelkiiro profile image66
      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.

      1. Barefootfae profile image60
        Barefootfaeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

        Once again.......aren't you glad you have talking points?

        1. Zelkiiro profile image66
          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?

          1. Barefootfae profile image60
            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?

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

              And you just don't realise how conditioned you are!

      2. Marquis profile image69
        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.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          <roaring with laughter>

          How much proof would you actually require?

  16. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7789799_f248.jpg

  17. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7792306_f248.jpg

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Black & white thinking is a sign of ....

      Google it if you'd like to know.

  18. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7792838_f248.jpg

  19. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7793022_f248.jpg

  20. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7793025_f248.jpg

  21. Barefootfae profile image60
    Barefootfaeposted 12 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7797837_f248.jpg

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)