Obama is a fool.
The man has absolutely no leadership ability, he is in way over his head, ISIS is cleaning his clock, Putin is treating him like a bitch, the Iranians are ripping him off, he didn't even have the common sense to come down hard on the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore, he allowed his wife to give the stupid commencement speech that she delivered at Tuskegee, he's putting a stop to the feds providing local police departments with military-style equipment to use in protecting their communities against today's heavily-armed criminals and any terrorist outfits that may show up on the scene, like a little punk he's whining and complaining about how the Fox News Channel is getting on his case, he's dumb enough to be seen in public with Al Sharpton, and I could go on.
Ok, I'll bite.
"ISIS is cleaning his clock"
The situation in the Middle-East represents a number of complex geopolitical issues with a bewildering array of socio-economic, cultural, and historical variables. Charging into that complex situation on the grounds that ISIS is 'cleaning [the President's] clock' would be unhelpful and foolish in the extreme. It's that type of thinking that partly caused the problems in the Middle East in the first place.
"Putin is treating him like a bitch"
If you are using the word "bitch" to mean woman, then this language is highly offensive. You were the one who posted a thread called "HP should have a 0-tolerance policy when it comes to racist remarks". I suggest you apply the same thinking to sexist remarks too.
As far as your point goes, you haven't really got one. International politics does not require macho men who can only think as far as their own egos. There is too much at stake. It requires objectivity, rationality and an ability to influence behaviour in ways other than brute force.
"the Iranians are ripping him off"
In what way?
"he didn't even have the common sense to come down hard on the rioters in Ferguson and Baltimore"
Part of the President's job is to condemn behaviour that goes against the rule of law. He did.
"he allowed his wife to give the stupid commencement speech that she delivered at Tuskegee"
Do you mean the comments where Michelle Obama told graduates not to let issues like racism and poverty hold them back from their dreams? Which part of that do you object to exactly?
"he's putting a stop to the feds providing local police departments with military-style equipment to use in protecting their communities against today's heavily-armed criminals and any terrorist outfits that may show up on the scene"
Tyranny (real tyranny, not the tin foil hat kind) starts with a police state. A police state starts with paramilitary police. Arming the police with military equipment to be used against civilians is the beginnings of a police state. Terrorism is a real issue that needs to be addressed, but it should not be used as an excuse to diminish the rights of citizens. People have a constitutional right to protest and should not be confronted by paramilitary police officers when they do so.
"like a little punk he's whining and complaining about how the Fox News Channel is getting on his case"
Who do you think is more of a "little punk", the person who got off his behind, got an education, became a community organiser, then senator, then President, overcoming racial bias at every step of the way. Or the person who post comments on an internet forum using distasteful language, complaining about who the President is seen in public with? I suggest it could be the latter.
The truth is, bitch is the proper name for a female dog -- and I was merely expressing that Putin is presently treating Obama like some people treat dogs; with no respect at all. Now, if in your mind the word bitch is only applied to female humans; you either have some kind of a problem or your need to brush off your Webster's and look up the multiple ways in which the word is used.
And so far as the rise of ISIS and the fact that the organization is on the march, Obama is totally to blame for that situation. By pulling all US military forces out of Iraq, he left the door wide open for that outfit to grow to the levels it is today -- and he also left the door wide open for the Iranians to stick their noses into everything that is currently happening in northern Iraq and for there to be a raging civil war in Syria.
Michelle Obama's speech at Tuskegee: Much of it was about telling the young black people in attendance that they are destined to be the "victims" of discrimination, profiling and other forms of racism.
I could go on but that would be futile, because it is quite obvious that when it comes to evaluating Obama's performance as president, there is a vast, deep-blue sea between us.
If you are referring to a dog, and the gender of the dog is unimportant as is the case here, then perhaps just using the word 'dog' would be a better alternative. I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think you are the sort of person who refers to women disrespectfully. I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying "IF" you are using the word in that way. Others might not be so charitable. Just a heads up.
1) In 2008 President Bush signed a Status of Forces Agreement, which stated that "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from Iraqi territory" by 31 December 2011.
2) In 2008 President Bush reduced US troops in Iraq from 168,000 to 146,000.
3) 2008 - 2010, under the Obama administration, the number of US troops was gradually reduced to around 50,000 acting as a 'transition force'.
4) In 2011, all remaining US forces were withdrawn as per the agreement between President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
5) It is unreasonable to expect US troops to be permanently stationed in every country where there is risk of civil war.
6) The situation in the Middles East is so volatile it's likely that sectarian conflict would have erupted regardless of the presence of US troops.
7) It is more likely that the power vacuum and instability caused by regime change as part of the Arab Spring, and the civil war in Syria were the catalyst of the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalist groups, not the withdrawal of US troops.
She didn't tell students they were destined to be victims. She outlined some of the challenges overcome by former students who went on to do great things; outlined the challenges she and her husband faced; talked about how the fear of profiling and other discrimination can be a burden, but only if they let it:
"But, graduates, today, I want to be very clear that those feelings are not an excuse to just throw up our hands and give up. Not an excuse. They are not an excuse to lose hope. To succumb to feelings of despair and anger only means that in the end, we lose. But here’s the thing -- our history provides us with a better story, a better blueprint for how we can win. It teaches us that when we pull ourselves out of those lowest emotional depths, and we channel our frustrations into studying and organizing and banding together -- then we can build ourselves and our communities up. We can take on those deep-rooted problems, and together -- together -- we can overcome anything that stands in our way."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of … nt-address
You are deliberately misrepresenting what she said. My question is, why? What purpose does it serve?
More of an ocean I'd say.
If you're going to criticise the President, at least do it properly. Don't just regurgitate right-wing, point-scoring nonsense. What about the fact the President, and Congress are unduly influenced by corporations, both foreign and domestic. The President promised campaign finance reform. It didn't happen. Doesn't that bother you? What about the fact that banking institutions caused billions of dollars of damage through fraud and greed which affected the lives of millions, yet none of the senior executives have faced criminal prosecution. In contrast an ordinary citizen who doesn't pay a parking ticket can be thrown in jail. The President promised Wall Street reforms. Didn't happen. Doesn't that bother you? What about the slow undermining of constitutional rights that's taking place in many states across the country. Doesn't that bother you?
Instead you choose to criticise the President for an historical situation that is not of his making, and then misrepresent a perfectly reasonable speech by the First Lady. In what way are either of those things helpful? This is the problem with politics today. People act like it's a soap Opera. Political comment has become no more inciteful than gossiping about the latest reality TV show. Dissapointing.
What we have here is a case of you like Barack Obama and I do not.
I just can't into a president who walks with a "ghetto strut" and who often uses "ebonics" words and phrases when he is delivering speeches and other official communications.
No, what we have here is a case of factually correct vs. factually incorrect. Obama did not agree the deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Bush did. Michelle Obama expressed the opposite message to the one you said she did. Both are a matter of public record. It's not a difference of opinion. You are factually wrong. You may well dislike the Obama's, but that's no excuse for misrepresenting facts about them. And if you are deliberately doing so, then you are effectively engaging in political propaganda. I don't like propaganda.
A black President walks confidently and it's perceived as arrogance (a "ghetto strut"). A white President walks confidently and it's just perceived as someone walking confidently. I assume you have no issue with the way any other president has walked. Who decided that there is only one way to walk confidently?
Every President of the modern era has used colloquialisms in their speech patterns. It's a political device employed to get ordinary people to relate to them. Why should Obama not employ the same political device that all other modern era Presidents have?
Wow, Don W, you are madly in love with Barack Obama, aren't you.
And I must say that people like you are dangerous, because you are the very types that cause a society to end up being under the full control of a ruler. You're in the same league as the large number of Germans who fell in love with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s.
Nope. I'm madly in love with being factual. You are misrepresenting the truth to fit your own agenda. You criticized Obama for the timing of withdrawing troops from Iraq, yet failed to mention that George Bush agreed the deadline for the withdrawal of troops before Obama was in office. That's a biased and misleading misrepresentation of the truth, also known as, propaganda.
You stated that much of Michelle Obama's commencement speech was about telling black students they will be victims, but if you actually listen to the speech or read the transcript, that's demonstrably false. That's a biased and misleading misrepresentation of the truth, also known as, propaganda.
And his walk?! Really? What's next, the way he does his hair? That's downright idiocy, and there's no excuse for it. Politics has been dumbed down enough. No need to make it worse.
Now you're comparing the President to the leader of the Nazi party, an archetype of white supremacy, responsible for killing 6 million people. There is no rational justification for such a crass and distasteful comparison.
The irony is that one of your 'criticisms' was about Obama preventing law enforcement from receiving military equipment, to stop local police departments turning into paramilitary organizations. You do know the Sturmabteilung started as a paramilitary organization in Germany, and later morphed into the Schutzstaffel (commonly known as the 'SS'). Paramilitarization (which Obama is opposing and you are supporting) is more akin to what happened in Nazi Germany, yet you imply that Obama is the Nazi. Again, you are misrepresenting the truth to fit your own agenda in a way that can be described as propaganda.
If your misrepresentation of the truth is due to a lack of knowledge, then it's ignorance. If it's deliberate, then it's plain lying. I don't like either. And nope, that doesn't mean I like everything Obama has said and done, it just means I like ignorance and lies even less.
Your comment is brimming over with ignorance and excuse-making for the incompetent Barack Obama.
As an example, if Obama were a strong leader with foresight, he would have taken action to reverse the arrangement with Iraq made by his predecessor. And if that would not have been unacceptable to the Iraqi regime, he would have let them know, in no uncertain terms, that the US is maintaining a strong military presence in Iraq, regardless of how they feel about it.
It is all about the security of the US, and Obama does not have a handle on how that is supposed to work.
Just look at what man has done and is doing: He merely stood by while the Russians took over the Crimea region of Ukraine; he is allowing Russian spy ships to dock in Cuba (while he is moving to "normalize ties" with Cuba); he is allowing the Red Chinese Navy to make provocative moves in proximity to Japan; he's trying to hammer out a "nuclear deal" with Iran when it is obviously impossible to keep the Iranians from developing the "bomb"; under his watch, various major US urban areas have reached the threshold of being in states of anarchy, and the list goes on.
Today, and largely because of Obama's ineptness, the country is more troubled and dysfunctional than it was during the mid-1960s-to-mid-1970s. The already wide gap between whites and blacks is rapidly becoming even broader; an ever-growing number of young black people are becoming even more anti-social than they already were and are feeling even more disconnected from the remainder of society; a very sizeable number of US residents have the attitude that no one is in charge of the country, and once again, I could go on.
So, no matter how any one tries to slice and dice it and serve it up, Barack Obama is a very sorry excuse for a president of the USA as well as a Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
Feenix people like you who only spout mis and dis information are more an enemy to all Americans Dems and Repub, than is isis. Because of the hate and total disrespect the Teaparty Republicans in the House and Senate coupled with the yellow and blue dog Democrats's fear of appearing to be liberals or liberal lovers, your fake hate and disrespect to gain approval of your haters is pitiful and shameful. Why did you feel it right to disrespect The President's wife? Is his girls off limit, his mother-in law, his mother?
You seem to have a phobia of actual facts, so let me help you out:
1) In 2009, in agreement with the Iraqi government, the Obama administration amended the Status of Forces Agreement (SoFA) signed by Bush to keep troops in Iraqi cities beyond the initial deadline of 2009.
2) In 2011 the administration was willing to amend the SoFA to keep troops inside Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline, but the Iraqi government would not agree any further amendments, and refused to allow US bases in Iraq.
3) There is no such thing as "reversing the arrangement". Iraq is a sovereign nation and without the consent or support of the Iraqi government, the US military would have become an illegal occupying force, and faced the hostility and resistance of the Iraqi people which was already growing. As we have seen throughout history, such a situation is politically and militarily unsustainable.
4) The SoFA also provided US troops legal immunity while in-country. The Iraqi government refused to offer legal immunity to any troops beyond the 2011 deadline. So US troops would have been subject to arrest, and imprisonment under Iraqi law.
5) Prime Minister Maliki wanted US troops to remain, but Iraq is a parliamentary democracy and he was unable get enough support from his coalition government to extend the deadline.
In short, your suggestion that Obama is "totally to blame" for that situation is demonstrably false. So why do you keep repeating it?
In terms of Russia, I'll let the President explain in his own words:
"Typically the criticism of our foreign policy has been the failure to use military force, and the question I think I would have is why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force, after we've just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? . . .
My job as Commander in Chief is to employ military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wiseley. And frankly most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies, would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people have no interest in participating in, and would not advance our core security interests. . .
In the Ukraine, what we've done is mobilize the international community. Russia's never been more isolated. [Ukraine] is looking much more towards Europe and the west, because they've seen that the arrangements that have existed for the last 20 years weren't working for them. And Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly across the world.
What else should we be doing? "We should not be putting troops in" the critics will say. Well ok then what are you saying? "Well we should be arming Ukrainians more". Do people actually think that somehow us sending additional arms to Ukraine could deter the Russian army, or are we more likely to deter them by applying the sort of international pressure: diplomatic pressure, and economic pressure that we're applying?
The point is that, for some reason, many who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq, haven't really learnt the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again. Why, I don't know. But my job as Commander in Chief is to look at what is going to advance our security interest in the long term; to keep our military in reserve for when we absolutely need it . . .
That may not always be sexy, it may not always attract attention and it doesn't always make for good argument on Sunday morning shows . . . but we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnerships with folks around the world."
I'd be happy to translate any of that for you if the 'Ebonics' you criticized Obama for earlier makes it too difficult for you to understand.
"The point is that, for some reason, many who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq, haven't really learnt the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again."
This is still the salient issue with those who think the US military is the worlds police. This has been an ongoing issue since before the Korean war and Vietnam.
Personally, I could not care less that you believe that the US military should not have gone into Iraq. You do not strike me as being a highly-qualified tactician and statesperson.
it doesn't take a genius to read and learn that bush lied us into iraq and we never belonged there.
Which Bush? And, btw, lying is the mainstay of American politicians.
And Hilary was deceived by that idiot Bush, that should more than disqualify her for the Presidency.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/pet … t-iraq-war
She was not deceived. She went along with him because it was politically expedient at the time. Much worse.
Did he write a check to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for her support, apparently that is all the rage these days. The smartest woman in the world and yet she was duped, corrupted or bent to popular will so that TRILLIONS of dollars and Half a MILLION lives could be sacrificed to the Bush family thirst for vengeance . Perhaps it is time to disregard the Constitution and retain Obama as President for a 3rd term or better yet, indefinitely.
You might be right if there were no other candidates more qualified than Obama. And there may not be, just yet, but I'm helping my dog fill out the paperwork to declare his candidacy right now.
You would be better off registering your dog to vote, and any other house pets, dead or alive. A Democrat victory in 2016 will require maximum shenanigans.
Perhaps not but I do know repeating the same mistakes as the past is insanity.
rhamson, I have a very bad temper and I am real quick on the trigger; thus, I should bow out of here -- because listening to a whole lot of bullshit from some soft, well-fed dude like you who has never even been in a good street fight is something I cannot stomach.
Just as well, there was not much else to discuss with this topic anyway. Most of the points were made. When it reverts to name calling it has successfully come to an end.
Okay if name calling is your best effort in ending the conversation. Next time why don't you start off with the name calling. It will avoid the unnecessary stuff in between.
What's up with you? Since when is the term "right on" an example of name-calling. I know what you're up to, man, and I could not care less about it.
Please, stop trying to defend Obama to me. You aren't doing anything but wasting your time and keystrokes -- because I despise the man.
In fact, because the Obama administration has about a year and a half remaining, and a Hillary Clinton administration just might follow the one in place now, I am very glad that I do not have very many years left in this realm.
I'm not defending Obama, I'm defending facts. You are distorting facts. If you can't think of any fact-based criticism of Obama, I'd be happy to give you some. Instead, unfortunately, you have opted to take the simple and lazy route of making claims that are demonstrably false. You call it 'criticism', but that isn't criticism, it's just falsehood. You despise Obama, I despise falsehood.
So far all you've said is: ISIS is totally Obama's fault; Obama should be doing something in the Ukraine (but who knows what); Michelle Obama told some graduates not to let the challenges they face hold them down; Obama is stopping the country from becoming a police state; Obama walks funny; Obama talks funny. Not exactly an example of well-honed political analysis and intellectual rigour is it.
You clearly have an aversion to Obama for reasons only you are fully aware of. I think you referring to him as having a "ghetto strut" and using "ebonics" speaks volumes. It's very personal, and it suggests you have a problem with who he is. Whatever that personal dislike is based on it seems to be causing serious lapses in your critical thinking, as I and others have pointed out to you.
Obama is a fool but needs to be Superman is basically the gist of this post. You do give the office of President quite a bit of power. He needs to control the world with what? The military? Trade sanctions? Mean words? What would you have him do? Vanquish all with his power and authority?
The desire to make the statement that he is the worst President ever is based on what? We did not get our way? Or that he was not hard on segments of our society? How do you control a corrupt Congress, a runaway Supreme Court that is sponsored by previous bad choices and three hundred million people that want their way? I won't even bring up a certain President who had his way and drove the country into monumental debt with two unfunded wars and left us with a monstrous recession bordering on a bigger depression. There you made me do it.anyway
I will be straight up and get right to the point: I simply do not like Obama and I do not like his style.
In my opinion, he is one of the worst things that ever happened to the United States of America. Citing one specific, under Obama's watch, the nation has deteriorated in a wide range of areas that would have been avoided if effective leadership had been in the Oval Office.
I cannot argue with your reasoning. You like what you like and you don't what you don't. Unfortunately feelings do not a great debate make.
rhamson, you are certainly right about that. I have my opinions and you have yours -- and I am very sure that nothing will stop either one of us from standing our ground.
However, I must say that I remember every president since Dwight Eisenhower, and I also remember almost every detail of the turbulent times of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s -- and I have never seen the nation as divided and as dysfunctional as it is today. I mean, like, the US is in far more disarray than it was during the Civil Rights Movement, the urban riots of the mid-to-late 1960s, and the massive protests against the Vietnam War.
And the primary reason why that is the case, Barack Obama comes nowhere close to being a strong national leader like Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were. Those four presidents effectively guided the nation through times that the nation was on the brink of self-destruction; while, on the other hand, Obama became the chief executive during a time when things were not nearly as troublesome as they were in 50s, 60s and 70s.
Obama was handed a set of circumstances in which there were no gigantic public demonstrations, no blacks being hunted down by white lynch mobs, no domestic terrorists blowing up government and other buildings, no blacks being shut out from nearly every aspect of society there is, and no huge urban riots like the ones that took place in the past, in such cities as Los Angeles, Detroit, and Newark, NJ.
However, six years into his term in office, things are quite similar to the way things were way back in the day. Because of his lack of leadership skills, the divide between blacks and whites is returning to being as wide as it was 50 years ago and before, various areas around the country are on the threshold of anarchy, many of the poor believe their situation is hopeless and they have no worthy places to go, and the country's foreign affairs is in a state of shambles.
And let me tell you, the only reason why I am not the president is I have never had the desire to be a politician. In other words, if I had ever been elected president, I would have assumed that office fully equipped to effectively oversee the nation's domestic and foreign affairs. In the area of leadership, I have a whole lot more going for me than Obama does. He can't touch me.
And for your information, I am retired after serving as commissioned officer in the US Army for five years (I advanced to the rank of Captain) and also after being a high-ranking executive in the insurance industry for more than 40 years.
I too remember Eisenhower on forward. I was a child of the fifties. But as far as strong leaders and comparing them to angels I would beg to differ. Eisenhower with the CIA orchestrated a coup d' etat in Iran overthrowing the democratically elected Prime Minister and installing the Shah. Those feelings were never placated and in 1979 they came to fruition with the overthrow of the Shah by militants that we are still dealing with today. Kennedy led us into the Bay of Pigs trying to take out Castro further cementing Soviet Cuban relations that resulted in coming very close to a nuclear Armageddon. Johnson led us into Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was proven a hoax years later resulting in countless lives and money spent. And then we have Richard Nixon by his own admission was not a crook. Maybe not but he was certainly a liar that disgraced the Presidency by being the only President to resign. I think I would have picked guys like Washington and Lincoln myself to refer to as great leaders.
Wow, I could write a whole book countering what you wrote.
About the only thing I agree with you is Kennedy really did screw up with the Bay of Pigs incident. That was nothing but amateur hour.
So far as the Vietnam War, that was the most important war the US ever fought, even more important than the Civil War and World War II. And I can back up what I say; it is just that this forum is not the place to do it.
And regardless of "Watergate" and all that followed, Nixon made a bold and decisive move that broke the Soviet Union's back. He went to China and brought them over to the US's side in our nation's ongoing conflict against the Soviets. All of a sudden, there were about one-million Chinese troops massed on the Soviet border, ready to rush in on call.
Finally, keeping our nation secure is not a pretty thing. A whole lot of lowdown and dirty stuff has to be carried out, in order to keep us safe and sound (e.g. the US installing the staunchly anti-Soviet Shah of Iran for the purpose of denying the Soviets access to the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean).
You say potato....I say...
We will have to agree to disagree. It is funny how you extend leeway to some and not others. Perhaps you should write a book on these things as you seem to have a different take on history.
rhamson, it is not that I have a different take on recent history. It is I know exactly what happened in the past because I wuz there.
You must be a lot older than you lead us to believe. Being able to make the distinction that the Civil War and WWII were something less important than Vietnam by being there is pretty bold.
Have a great Memorial Day my friend.
Oh, okay, I see where you're coming from.
I will say it one more time: The Vietnam War was the most important war the US ever fought; even more important than the Civil War and World War II.
And I am not going to attempt to "educate" everyone on what made the Vietnam War the US's most important war in this forum.
However, I will say the following:
If not for the US's long presence in Vietnam, things would have rapidly reached the point where there would have been gigantic Soviet aircraft-carrier fleets positioned just off the coasts of Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles -- and the Soviets would have ruled the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.
If what you say is true why was it they never did that anyway when we left? Maybe it could be that they had it covered by that time by their submarine fleet that took care of it anyway. Detent is what keeps them in line.
rhamson, by the time the Vietnam War ended in 1975, it was way too late for the Soviets to carry out what they had planned to do on the long coastline of Vietnam. By that time, technology had advanced to a point where having large numbers of US ground forces in Vietnam was unnecessary.
Specifically, by 1975, the US had numerous surveillance satellites in the "heavens"; thereby, providing the country with the ability to keep a very close eye on whatever the Soviets attempted to do in Vietnam as well as in much of the remainder of the world.
As an example, if, following the US's 1975 departure from Vietnam the Soviets would have started building some large shipyards on the Vietnamese coast, that activity would have been detected from the sky and action would have been taken -- mostly through espionage -- to take them out.
And because the Soviets were well aware that the foregoing was the case, they abandoned all of their plans for using the Vietnam coast as a place for the warm-water ports that they so desperately needed.
The soviets realized maintaining a a plethora ofaircraft carrier fleets was ridiculously expensive and not very effective. Nuclear submarine fleets would keep the US in check just as well.
The Vietnam War was a colossal failure for the US and was only important in that it proved that a war could be won with a guerilla army with a long enough will and Chinese support.
I am sorry but you can have your own opinion. but not your own facts.
rhamson, I don't know where you got your information concerning the Soviets not having the desire to have huge aircraft-carrier fleets like the US had, and continues to have.
I am a graduate of the US Army War College; thus, I have broad knowledge of military tactics and strategies.
That said, one of the most important elements of winning a war (whether it is hot one or cold one) is having a vast and highly-effective propaganda machine.
And more than anything else, gigantic aircraft-carrier fleets serve as a the perfect propaganda tool.
As an example, when a massive US carrier fleet positions itself right off the coast of some Asian, African or Latin American country, the locals are wowed by that show of power and the hugeness of the armada; thereby, convincing the locals that the US is the greatest and most powerful nation on the planet.
Well, beginning in the late 1940s, the Soviets hungered for having its own big carrier fleets so it could compete with the US in the propaganda war. But the problem was, the Soviets did not have even one warm-water port in which to construct and launch carrier fleets. And as a result, they made attempts to obtain that access by doing such things as trying to set up a pro-Soviet regime in Iran and huddling with Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh for the purpose of his "renting" the Vietnam coastline to the Soviet Union.
And so far as the Soviet's very large number of monstrous nuclear submarines, that was a very good asset to have for fighting a hot war, but those subs meant nothing when it came to fighting a cold war. And that is because those vessels are not effective propaganda tools like carrier fleets are -- and similar to what I said before, one of the most important weapons in a cold war is a large and highly-effective propaganda machine.
rhamson, I served two tours of duty in Vietnam as an infantry commander and staff officer for the Commanding General of the 9th Infantry Division.
When it comes to discussing what went down in Vietnam, what are your credentials, other than what you were taught in school and learned from such things as books and internet postings?
Just because you where there makes you an expert on the politics and actions? While I never served I grew up with that war and had friends and family serve in that war. One of my friends who served as a colonel who was there working in intelligence told me it was a waste of American lives and a total failure. He has been back and said the country is turning itself around after we left.
As I said if the Soviets wanted it that bad what stopped them. Oh yeah the Chinese.
Your opinion is just as valid as anybody else's but not your facts.
rhamson, you're the one who brought up that you have friend who worked in intelligence in the Vietnam War, so due to the fact you made that statement, you're going to have to validate a few things. You need to answer the following questions:
First, was your friend in the Army, Air Force or Marines?
Second, was he a "Full-Bird Colonel" or a Lieutenant Colonel?
Third: Did he serve in the intelligence section of a battalion, regiment, brigade or division? Or did he serve in the intelligence section of the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV), or in the US Army Vietnam (USARV) or a similar organization?
Fourth, what level of security clearance did your friend have, Crypto, Top Secret or Secret?
If you fail to answer the foregoing questions, I will not give any credibility at all to what you claim some friend of yours said.
Furthermore, yesterday (March 25, 2015) I marched in New York City's Memorial Day Parade with hundreds, maybe even thousands, of other veterans of the Vietnam War and a number of them still showed the wounds that they received in that conflict, such as being sightless, paralyzed and confined to wheel chairs, missing limbs, being badly scarred from serious burns, and "not having all of their mental faculties."
And following the parade, I went on to spend the remainder of the day and much of the evening with a number of my fellow vets -- and if someone like your friend had shown up on the scene and talked the smack you claim he said, a bunch of us would have banded together and "straightened him out;" or else we would have "blocked his hat" and told him "what time it is."
Finally, if you do, in fact, have a friend who was a colonel and who said what you claim he said, the man said something that is very foolish and he stopped just short of committing treason.
Obviously, this colonel friend of yours is completely ignorant of the fact that the US constructed a vast new infra-structure for South Vietnam that included a huge network of paved roads and very long highways, extensive irrigation systems and sizeable dams, advanced sewage systems, top-notch hospitals and clinics, well-organized housing projects, and I could go on.
And we left it to the communist when we left. Who did that help? You really don't know what you are talking about do you when you speak of how much we improved their infrastructure do you? How many people did we kill? How many villages did we blow up? How many families did we destroy? You want to talk about the good when you talk about roads? Really!
Hey, man, you've watched way too many Oliver Stone movies and other Hollywood productions about Vietnam.
If you had spent a lot of time in the Vietnam boondocks like I did, you would have witnessed numerous situations in which the US Armed Forces provided massive amounts of aid and assistance to the South Vietnamese people. In fact, every time my unit set up a base camp somewhere, thousands of Vietnamese flocked to the area, in order to receive such things as food, medical care, clean water, candy and ice cream for the children, ice to cool their drinks, and 24/7 protection from communist forces.
You are the one who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about -- very definitely.
And I would appreciate it very much if you would stop talking about something that you obviously have no knowledge of. You are insulting my intelligence and the memories of all the US military personnel who fought and died in Vietnam, and who did a whole lot of good and benevolent things for the Vietnamese people.
Do NOT come at me again with a point of view that is driven by what was shown in "Apocalypse Now," "The Deer Hunter," "Platoon," etc.
Why haven't you answered the questions I asked about the colonel who is a friend of yours?
Does such a person really exist? Or were you just blowing smoke?
What question? I have gone back and all I see is a bunch of chest thumping and propoganda.
Naw, man. It is what is called being proud of putting my life on the line for my country, and being courageous and unselfish enough to do just that.
Furthermore, it is not my fault that you don't have anything to "thump your chest" about.
Now, please answer the questions that I asked about that colonel friend of yours (e.g. was he in the Army, Air Force of Marines; was he a "Full-Bird Colonel" or a Lieutenant Colonel; did he work in the intelligence section of a battalion, regiment, brigade or division -- or in the intelligence section of the Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) or the US Army Vietnam (USARV) or some similar organization; and what level of security clearance did he hold, Crypto, Top Secret or Secret?
If you do not provide answers to those questions, my conclusion will be that you weren't doing anything but blowing smoke when you wrote that your colonel friend essentially said that the Vietnam War was a "bad war."
He was a "full bird Army colonel" as you say. As far as division or regiment I don't know. But he was there as well as a few friends. One of my friends was a ranger and I know a few marines as well. I never heard one story or opinion from any of them did not end without what a waste it was. Now some of them said it was a rewarding experience for them on a personal basis and the comroderie they enjoyed. But it was a colossal waste of human life and resources especially how it ended. I won't stoop to your demeaning comments about thumping my chest about serving my country because I don't believe you have to risk your life to do that. But I will express my gratitude to those who did. Vietnam was a lost experience with a phony cause. Domino effect my a $$.
First, do you know what the difference is between a "Full-Bird Colonel" and a Lieutenant Colonel?
Second, there were no Ranger units in Vietnam; only Ranger-qualified Army personnel who mostly served in regular infantry units.
The closest thing to a Ranger unit in Vietnam was the Fifth Special Forces Group, or the "Green Berets."
Second, if what you stated your Ranger friend and Marine friends said is true, it is mostly because they were low-ranking enlisted personnel who were "out of the loop." They were nowhere close to being in the position I was in as a commissioned officer.
In other words, the majority of enlisted personnel in every war the US has ever fought -- spanning the Revolutionary War to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars -- knew relatively little about what they were fighting for -- and that is because -- "Theirs is not to reason why. Theirs is but to do and die."
I suggest that you quit right now, because you are digging a deeper-and-deeper hole for yourself.
Sorry buddy but I trust those who I know a lot more than you. If you want to be Mr. Army man go right ahead I am not impressed but it is amusing. I feel sorry that you must delude you self with your visions of glory but there was no glory in that dirty war and the waste of humanity it provided. If it is any solace for you I thank you for your service to your country. I am sorry it had to be that war or any other war.
rhamson, I smell the distinct odor of defeat and desperation.
Man, you and your "alleged" friends are nowhere close to being in my league.
Or, I should say, due to the fact that I have been around the block more times than I remember, I can easily detect lies and exaggerations from 10-miles away.
Okay Mr Army know what nobody else can Commissioned Officer. Here are some facts you refuted. Who or what were you in charge of again? Once again I will trust my friends and their insights and not some wanna be.
US Army Rangers in Vietnam. http://www.suasponte.com/vietnam.htm
US failure in Vietnam
http://socyberty.com/history/american-f … -analysis/
Robert McNamara your boss said it was a civil war and not a key to South East Asia and the communist threat.
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0 … s&fp=1
As I said you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Do you know where you went wrong in this conversation? When you criticize the messenger and not the content.
One more thing, the depressed economy that began to come into being under G. W. Bush's watch was the hangover from Bill Clinton's "it's the economy stupid" game plan. The recession that began around 2008 was largely engendered by all of the sub-prime mortgages that began to be handed out during the Clinton administration. In other words, G. W. Bush inherited a "bad economy in waiting" from the Clinton administration.
And so far as Bush's two "unfunded wars," every war the US has ever fought was "unfunded," spanning the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, to World War II, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to Desert Storm. So Bush's expeditions in Afghanistan and Iraq were merely following suit, when it came to "funding" them.
I think Obama is like what I believe past, recent Presidents have been to some extent, just a spokesman for other powers, groups or factions.
Some American history has to come into play here. That said, his majesty is the worst possible president for the times. But then when we look back, we find his rise to prominence is due to the folks that brought you the SDS and weather underground. The psychology and ideology that was prevalent in that group of dissident, USA-hating and baiting folks of the 60's and 70's, has been nurtured and brought into play. This same group, not just a mind set but the actual folks that formed these groups, nurtured his majesty with their ideology. It and he has won acceptability and directing influence among the "I want, I deserve, gimme, gimme" youngsters. And we, of course, have to add Gus Hall's communist party group of the 80's who swung toward the Democrats with some interesting comments.
As far as Putin is concerned, he says (in so many words in his davos speech) about his majesty as interpreted by PA Pundits, "Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history,” said Putin. “President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.” February 23, 2009. He may not have said these exact words, but the meaning is there, along with his agenda in the Ukraine. Folks don't hear what they don't want to hear or see what they don't want to see. Putin knows this. The burgeoning young populace of the USA does not want to see or hear, as long as they got their starbucks in the right hand and ipod in their left.
All in all, the biggest difference between Putin and his majesty is "Putin is much smarter, and much more manly."
Harry Truman, now that was a president. Korea seems to be one of his few mistakes, but it was a doosy. In defense of this, it would appear he moved away from his personal stance and got embroiled in the politics of the moment. Until then, his thought processes were apparently geared to "What is good for the people, not the party and not my personal ambitions."
We'll never know about Kennedy. Reagan was pure American. And Clinton, we probably cannot imagine the possibilities wasted by this man's inability to control his "appetites."
But his majesty, supported by his court jesters . . . . hhmmm ... feenix, you may be painting with a broad brush here ... but you may be right!
That ridiculous Putin "quote" came from a satirical website and has been debunked by Politifacts:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … -barack-o/
What's the purpose of such misrepresentation other than propaganda. Has the level of political discussion really stooped this low?
Possibly you did not read my words correctly. I gave credit where credit was due. PA Pundits is satisfied the "words" were there for interpretation. And the comment continued to pop up several years after. Whether a direct statement or interpretation, it is delightful. And the basic thought is correct.
However, quite possibly you did not read the davos speech, if that is where the comment is centered. (I doubt it is.) At any rate, Mr. Putin (and he deserves a title of respect) was quite clear about the new Soviet Lebensraum. Yet it seems to be a big surprise that he moved into the Ukraine. Why is that? Possibly his cryptic manner of speech is understood by the "wishing and hoping" crowd to be pleasantries. Yet those in clear minded folks recognized the comments and threats.
There are at least two types of respect addressed in the political arena; a person that has a proper morality and a person that is a "man of his word." Putin fulfills the second. His majesty does neither.
But I understand the limited, narrow sightedness of today's liberals. Possibly you should use caps for all your replies, which is the other weapon used to try and dominate a conversation.
BTW .... Front page in Reuters today ...
ARLINGTON, Va. - President Barack Obama heralded the first U.S. Memorial Day in 14 years without a major ground war in an annual ceremony of remembrance for fallen American forces.
President Obama , reminds me of the banker , corporate reformers, and selfish profiteers who move into the city , buy large factories , Strip them down to the bare buildings , sell out the employee's , strip out the valuable resources , and then tear down the buildings .
And yet , it's not an old factory that he's parting out , It's our country !
He's not even a leader but simply a left leaning left -over sixties activist .
ahorseback, you hit the nail squarely on the head. Barack Obama and his crew are nothing but a bunch of wannabe socialists who are attempting to revive and carry out "programs" that faded away with bell-bottom pants and tie-dyed T-shirts.
And either we all live in a nation which , one , could afford the cost of socialism and choses not to OR two , realizes as always that no nation CAN afford to pay the price of the mass socialization or it's many-multi entitlement wishes . No my friend , no nation has ever shown that it can afford to simply afford to coddle it's all wanting, population .
This president's social reforming ideals are far outdated , they went the way of the Chicago Seven , and pot smoking professors , his and his peoples ideals are from another world . Now, I know we have to even reform the system that we have , but his way ........sucks !
ahorseback, you just about took all of the words out of my mouth.
I must also say, eight years of Bill Clinton and six years of Barack Obama has served to bring this great republic of ours to its knees. And if four-to-eight years of Hillary Clinton is what is in store for the nation, it will take a very long time for us to dig ourselves out of the damage.
1939 was such an anticlimactic year. It was peace before the storm of World War II.
The only Western leader who saw the storm gather was Winston Churchill and he was ridiculed at the time.
Is Barack Obama one of the worst presidents ever?
Question is feenix. Can you do better? Are you electable? Do you have a platform? Lets start with how you will deal with isis. Putin and China.
aware, the answer is YES to each of your questions. But as I stated before, I have no desire to be a politician; thus, I will not be running for president.
And when you get right down to it, there are thousands of people like me in the US. They are well qualified to be president, they would be electable, they would stand for what many would consider to be strong platforms, and they would be able to effectively deal with Iran, ISIS, Russia, Red China and all of the nation's other "foreign enemies." But, just like me, they have no desire to be politicians.
What one must keep in mind is, the USA did not become the powerful and wealthy nation it is because of politicians. It became the powerful and wealthy nation it is because of the brains of its "everyday citizens," along with their wide array of skills.
Ok William Henry Harrison . Long winded dead within a month
he has to be the worst
So your the worst president ever. The one that could but didnt. Due to the simple lack of desire . Obama at least took the bat. My answer to the forum question is no. Obama isnt the worst. There are many worse. Leading aint easy. You cant please anyone these days. . America still stands. Jeb Bush 2016
Furthermore your inquiry should read. Worst president within the past 50 years.
Ben Carson and Barack Obama do not have anything in common, except for one thing: Neither is qualified to be the President of the United States of America and the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
Well one thing i think. Is two brown Americans being elected back to back ain't gonna happen. Especially with many unhappy with Obama. Ben is a smart man . Obamas no dummy either . But Ben s run is uphill. Up mountain lol,
Obama's no dummy. Well, there's a matter of opinion if I ever saw one.
You go to Harvard. You have a political science degree or a law degree? You attain a doctorates degree?
No I didn't go to an Ivy League school and I do not have a degree in law.
However, I did graduate from UCLA with a Bachelor's in Business Administration and a minor in Political Science. Additionally, I graduated from Infantry Officer Candidate School (OCS) and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the US Army -- and I went on to advance to the rank of Captain.
Furthermore, and as I stated before, I worked in the insurance industry for over 40 years, mostly in the area of healthcare coverage. And because of that background, I could have come up with a "healthcare plan for the USA" that would have been far superior to the one that Obama and his crew came up with.
As far as health care. Non profit ins is my idea. The profit is insurances bottom line. They want to post billions ,trillions in profit. Then we need to address the fair true cost of care. Over billing just to insure a smaller profit bilks everyone. Its fantasy land
Obviously, you do not have very much, if any, knowledge of the healthcare-insurance industry.
The truth is, private companies that provide and administer healthcare-insurance programs have one of the lowest profit margins in the US world of business. Most of them are only in the business to develop long mailing lists for seeking sales of their other products.
Fennix, we got a letter in the mail. Yesterday.. . It is stamped signed by Obama. A gold eagals stamp at the top. It reads The United States of America. Honors the memory of Floyd S Dunn. This certificate is awarded by a grateful nation in recognition of devoted and selfless consecration to service of our country in the armed services of the United states. This weekend i remember my dad air force Vietnam vet. He died the day before Thanksgiving. His fave holiday. He would roll in the grave to see Obama signed it. Sighs
Any profit from the sickness of others is the most agregious thing on earth.in my opinion
aware, it is not about insurance companies profiting from the sickness of others -- and that is because the insurance companies are not the culprit. That is a lie that politicians and much of the major media are spreading, because they're getting a lot of mileage out of it.
If you want to lay the blame for the high cost of medical care somewhere, blame all of the multi-millionaire physicians there are today, the gigantic hospital and extended-care corporations, and all of the hospital workers whose labor unions have "negotiated" very expensive contracts and benefits for them.
In fact, if it were not for physicians, clinics, hospitals and extended-care facilities jacking up the bills they send to Medicare and Medicaid, and to private-insurance providers, the cost of medical services would decrease significantly.
For many years, I saw doctors, hospitals, etc. ripping off, and attempting to rip off, insurance providers from here to high heaven.
Any profit from the sickness of others has led to a vast medical system that treats people from all around the world in ways unavailable anywhere else. Damn them!
the most efficient insurance in the US is medicare, with only 1% overhead. i say, medicare for all. feenix, what is your plan and can it beat that?
Cathylynn, you are very, very wise.
Yes, Medicare is, in fact, the most efficient healthcare-coverage plan in the US.
In fact, instead of coming up with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), Obama and his team should have worked with Congress and such groups as AARP to expand Medicare to cover people whose incomes disqualified them from being covered by Medicaid.
In other words, individuals who were not covered by employer plans or who were "independent contractors" could have bought into Medicare. And that would have been a very practical thing to do because the mechanisms for Medicare are already in place; there just would have been a requirement to expand the system, in order to administer the large number of additional enrollees.
And if that had been done, it would not have been a precedent because Medicare has been expanded before, to cover dialysis patients and people under 65 on Social Security Disability.
But the problem was, Obama and his crew let their egos get in the way. They were driven to come up with a plan that would be "all theirs and only theirs." They were pursuing bragging rights and, as things turn out, their quest for "notoriety" blew up in their faces.
i don't think it was for bragging rights. it was because existing insurance companies would have poured tons of money and boat loads of advertisements into fighting medicare for all.
Cathylynn, you may have noticed that in some of my previous comments, I stated that I retired from the healthcare insurance industry after working in that field for over forty years. In fact, I was employed by one of the largest life-and-health-insurance companies in the US.
Well, please allow me to let you in on something:
All of the large carriers such as Aetna, Blue-Cross Blue-Shield and United Healthcare are absolutely in love with Medicare. The plan is relatively easy for the big insurance outfits to administer and the federal government has their backs when it comes to keeping "over-billing" physicians, hospitals, clinics and extended-care facilities in line.
And believe me, the private companies that are currently contracted by the feds to administer Medicare are doing just fine so far as profits go -- and if the day ever comes when a huge number of young and healthy people can enroll into the plan, the private carriers' profits would soar, even though they would have very low profit margins.
Insurance companies poured tons of money into supporting Obamacare, the Medicare/Medicaid replacement system, so you have a point.
There is a rapid decline in the number of doctors for many reasons, not least of which is the absurd and complexity of regulations from the federal government through Medicare and its intrusions into the insurance industry. Doctors could not survive on the pittance paid them through Medicare, without the income from privately insured and self insured patients.
retief, the world is rapidly changing and if one fails to stay well informed, he/she will be left behind.
The truth is, the need for physicians, especially those who are not specialists, is rapidly declining. And that is because much of the "doctors' work" of the future will be performed by practical nurses aided by highly-advanced technology.
This is not solely because of technology, though the point is well taken. Litigation, malpractice insurance, insurance regulations and paper work and the absurdities of government inserting itself into medicine have all contributed to the declining number of doctors.
according to the docs i know (and i know quite a few, having been one), it's mostly the hoops insurance companies make docs jump through to provide decent care. for-profit hospitals don't exactly cater to doctors, either. from what i saw, litigation is rare, even when there are serious mistakes. most patients are loath to get a doctor they like in trouble. i know of half a dozen times i encouraged patients to sue other docs (main reason they kicked me out) and the patients refused. i personally accepted an $8000 refund rather than sue for a serious misdiagnosis. medicare is not intrusive. medicaid is somewhat.
cathylynn, due to the fact that I worked as a healthcare-insurance claim examiner and underwriter for more than three decades, I am well aware that one of the primary reasons why the insurance companies are making many healthcare providers (including physicians) "jump through hoops" is over the years doctors and other providers have been guilty on numerous occasions of over-billing, of over-utilization of services, and of downright dishonesty when it comes to submitting claims for benefits.
And just as there is NO such thing as perfect physicians and other healthcare providers, there is NO such thing as prefect healthcare-insurance carriers.
That is an indisputable law of The Universe.
Additionally, one should never base his/her "world view" of a particular situation only on what has occurred in "his/her very tiny little corner of life."
Catylynn, I have been on Medicare for nearly five years and I do not have even one complaint about the coverage I have. And because I have a very serious illness, I am really running up the bills; yet I have only had to pay a relatively small amount out of pocket.
The death toll. 1.5 million plus. To 58 g. May our lost 58+ rest in peace.
I cannot say for certain if he's the worst. Different times have different standards however in my 40 years, he has definitely been the most divisive president, seemingly doing everything he can to perpetuate one group's victim-status against another. Women vs. men, blacks vs. whites, (funny how nobody mentions the influx of illegals coming into this country and how they don't like blacks), working class vs. rich/wealthy/middle class, police vs. citizens, homosexuals vs. heterosexuals, etc.
Yes, I realize this country is far from "perfection" and of course we have had great wrongs done in our name but, we (unlike many other countries), actually have worked hard to right our wrongs and better ourselves making us more tolerant and quite frankly I shouldn't have to point out that we are the most benevolent empire this world has ever seen. Obama gives us NO credit. It's like having that parent who is NEVER satisfied with anything you've done, no matter how well you did. He may very well be a nice guy to hang out with; he may even be a good friend. I don't know but his leadership skills can only be described as foolish.
The only president I felt safe under and really proud to be an American was under Reagan. That man knew how to bring people together.
"The situation in the Middle-East represents a number of complex geopolitical issues with a bewildering array of socio-economic, cultural, and historical variables." Don W. - well said. Those who have followed the Middle East for at least the last 20 years knew that when Sadaam Hussein was removed all Hell would break loose, and the factions would start killing each other. The U.S. would have to keep many boots on the ground for 50 years to maintain a semblance of stability, losing how many American lives? For 4,000 lives, we gave those people a chance. This is what they are doing with it.
As for the other issues mentioned, I'm on a vacation from arguing in an effort to unstress my life right now. Peace.
What are you talking about, leadership? You're telling me that the US president is not a puppet? Cite me one who wasn't and that didn't end up dead?
Pierce, Harding, Hoover, Bush II, Buchanan, Tyler, van Buren....these are just a handful of presidents who are worse than Obama. I don't understand where you get your information from, but it couldn't be more off.
Just a little side issue here , But I find it very ,very interesting that those who decry this attitude of dislike,, distrust , dis-respect for Pres. Obama , who claim a lack of true respect for the leader of our country are more than likely the SAME ones who so disrespected Pres. G.W Bush , BIG TIME !
Yes, President Obama is an abysmal president. When democrats deny this, ask them to identify a worse democrat who was president. Typically, they refuse to do so; from this, we can at least agree that he's the worst president who was/is a democrat.
by Deforest 10 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. The US administration just gave them the...
by Allen Donald 10 years ago
I was thinking about this from a historian's perspective (I have an M.A. in History). My first caveat about this question is that, as a historian, I think it's misguided to try to evaluate president's while they're still in their presidency. It takes perspective and time to provide a proper...
by OLYHOOCH 12 years ago
Here is the full text of John L. Perry's column on Newsmax which suggests that a military coup to "resolve the Obama problem" is becoming more possible and is not "unrealistic." Perry also writes that a coup, while not "ideal," may be preferable to "Obama's...
by Bobby Isenhower 11 years ago
Which one do you think will lead the country better?
by Christin Sander 11 years ago
How many people complaining about the healthcare bill actually know what's in it?I see a lot of people complaining and crying about how it will destroy America etc. What I don't see are logical arguments against it or any evidence that said people are making educated and informed opinions - and not...
by Flightkeeper 11 years ago
Who do you think will become known as the worst president, Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|