We have over 6 million people directly and/or indirectly employed to "defend" this country. Does the administration need those militant people over seas or just plain busy to make the "change" nobody wants. These troops would not lay idle while america's rug is pulled from under her feet- is that why he won't bring them home? He wants a civilian army as strong if not stronger than the military, why? Gun rights are continually opposed each year, but we want a civilian army? What is going on here? He works just as Bush did, acts just like Bush did, says the same things Bush said. I didn't vote for the guy because there wasn't a single pertinant bill that he ever voted on and I see enough theatrical mannerisms of actors in movies to vote for a great digitally assisted public speaker. This country is getting stiffed on more than 2 sides and only the most diehard cronies are too stupid to see the pain train coming.
He wants a civilian army how exactly? Will they get military training? Weapons?
yes. He stated that it would be a manditory service to this nation for men and women under a certain age and that it needs to be as strong if not stronger than our current military.
A draft implies the inability for choice, so no in this case he is going to recruit people who want to serve but not in the capacity of the military and the guidelines will be less strict, in otherwords those psychos that should never get guns will have them, criminals who have been released will be inducted, and the military wanna be's will but those who join will be used not for protecting the sovereignty of the country but used to help enslave the population over the years to come in a coup that will never see the history books... If you look at the direction the World is heading then you will see this is just another step towards the New World order. In other words the start of Fema Concentration Camps being used to confine the individuals that are a risk to the new regieme, Depopulation and a Weakening of the masses, and the RFID Chipping of all civilians and military personel to provide the final stage of complete control of our civil liberties, with the intent of truly eliminating our freedom, and giving us a choice of follow or die!
From Senator to President to Nobel Peace Prize winner in just 4 years.
If you haven't figured out that Obama is just a puppet by now then there really is no hope of ever figuring it out.
No conspiracy theories needed.
I agree that Big Business has the candidate of their choice as they supported both candidates.
The American Government is bought and paid for by Big Business all the way from the Federal Reserve Bank down to the Big Oil who lobbys hard to continue wars that are unending.
The gut factor of patriotism is forwarded as the rallying cry while the business of it is profits raked in by the businessmen.
No conspiracy is needed as it is plain to see and out in the open to those who have eyes to see it.
Well, like all newly elected governments, legislation from the previous term still has to be implemented. This is how policies are built... they evolve and change.
Its like this, if you inherit a house, you are left with all the repairs and renewals. It takes time to get the house into your desired expectation.
The Bush house, therefore, has been inherited. It takes time to put that house in order - rome wasnt built in a day x
repairs. haha. well if I am going to "inherit a house" that needs repaired, why would I tear it down some more and let the rain in the roof. I'm not praising Bush by any great stretch. I'm challenging the cronies to identify the similarities and then some.
A very bad analogy, and I hate tats.
Awake and aware is not paronoid and does not mean conspiracy. I pretty much agree with you. Bad things are in the air in America.
Ok, so you didn't get it what I said earlier. A lot of times there is information that the public is completely unaware of. Don't think I am disagreeing with you, as I'm not on some levels.
Back in the 1980's we DID have the opportunities to act on nipping this situation in the bud. It totally failed and was swept very quickly under the carpet. (Read about the Reagan administration, etc.) From what I recall, there WAS a special ops mission back then, but it failed and was quickly whisked out of the media.
I am not saying our current presence in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East is correct, nor handled correctly. I do NOT have the answers to that--I wish I did. However, I do not believe that how we are dealing with an issue that is so old, is being handled in the best manner.
I do not want to see more lives lost over an effort to resolve something that today cannot be resolved. Until the world leaders can recognize this, then perhaps we can all find some peace.
Reply: From Ima Freeman:
"If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...talks like a duck...then, we have the obvious.
I concur 100% that we just have cookie-cut leaders who use deception, outright lies, and all kinds of 'slight of hand,' to get people in a position to where the elitists (Illuminatti) can slip the rug out from all of us. They must remove all our basic freedoms (which are supposed to be inalienable, or God given), in order to accomplish this. They will attempt to use our State Militias to enforce their Satanic objectives, but, will run into trouble there, however because these troops, by and large, won't go cross grain of the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights; however, the U.N. 'peace
keeping' forces (what an oxymoron!) WILL by-pass our Constitution, and they are doing maneuvers, allready, as I understand, here in the United States.
Does this ring true?
What a rant! Are you suggesting Obama will use the armed forces to implement health insurance reform? That's cuckoo for cocoa puffs!
And you are suprised? I was telling anyone that would listen a year ago that that would be the case! He is as transparent as one can be. The problem is too many people don't want to look! He is just another politician looking to line his own pocket and those of his backers.
It may sound good for a "B" movie, but he can't pay an army, and the National Guards would oppose him.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." Stated in Colorado Springs. July 09
So why do you assume he would use it against the citizens? He was elected in a democratic republic, just because he is doing things people who voted for him agreed with and you don't like does not mean he is planning to make the US a dictatorship.
I didn't say he would use them against our citizens. But lets just assume for a moment that constitutional rights like the right to bear arms is revoked, wouldn't a civilian army do one of two things;
1. help sheep feel secure like, "our government has guns and will protect us who don't." Oh by the way- wouldn't terrorist attacks seem less likely? ahhhh
2. help police those who won't give guns up.
this is just one example of how it could be used, but who knows.
In addition to which, if this force comes from your own households, what are the chances, seriously, of them turning against your own populace (their own family and friends?). I'd be much more afraid of for-profit private armies like Blackwater...
"Democratic Republic — Tends to be used by countries who have a particular desire to emphasize their claim to be democratic; these are typically Communist states and/or ex-colonies. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (no longer in existence) and the Democratic Republic of the Congo."
pretty sure we are supposed to be a constitutional republic? anyways
did YOU agree to send our troops to afghanistan?
did YOU agree to bailing out corporate america while the average american is left to fend for themselves?
here are just two things that i find VERY wrong and VERY unwarranted in this administrations power, and no one seemed to have a choice BUT obama...i understand that presidents are not all powerful, it is neither their job OR their privelige. however, i thought obama expressed not wanting to have so many in iraq, how does he justify going to afghanistan?!?
i don't think that obama is going to start a youth military force, but i do remember him saying this is what he would LIKE. there are many troubling things this president has said in passing, but apparently for americans they only believe things repeated or said VERY loud and clear. usually the important things will not be said like this.
wake up people
barack may not be the anti-christ.
but he is no christ, either.
double_frick I hold congress responsible for the bailouts the stimulus package and the Two TARP's they passed. Obama is signing the legislation but it is the congress that is out of control. Nazi Pelosi and Scary Reid are the puppets deigned to pass such destructive legislation against the will of their constituents. If I am wrong then the same robotrons should have no problem getting reelected in 2010. We will see.
none are to more or less to blame than the others.
and to be honest, the real responsibility lies in the american people's hands.
we can only be taken advantage of as much as we allow, and we are bending over repeating, "thank you sir, may i have another!"
Exactly it is now time for us to take the power back.
if you read through this thread alone, you will see that this is impossible right now.
it IS time, and if we don't take advantage of the time we have before TSHTF then i fear even mentioning what may become of us. though, as i said, i don't believe this will happen. i just had no idea that so many people still seem to think obama is anything but a liar and quite toxic for our country. neither the hope NOR the change i was looking for, but apparently the rest of america wasn't looking for change, just hope...and pretty words.
I don't hold that the President has as much power to influence the economy or anybody that is not already open to it. The real danger is the apathetic electorate that votes for whatever catch phrase or crisis the politicians hand them. Hell when you question a great deal of people about who people are that are elected they can't recall any.
Our country is owned and the politcians the puppets to inflict the policies Big Business puts in place. It's really not rocket science. The politicians deflect the reality with patriotism and bravada to keep us off the truth trail. The media is in cahoots with them. We only see what they want us to see.
To blame it on one person is really a diservice and takes it away from the people to blame which is us for allowing it to get this way.
An informed electorate is far more powerful than any gun toting militia fighter could possibly be.
Are you sure your information is correct? He made a speech about national service in Colorado Springs in July 2008 (not 2009), but the above quote isn't in it.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 … mas-speech
Keep looking Pretty. Not CNN sources either.
It was the transcript of a speech that she linked to...
Well, silly me, I was thinking that since you provided the quote, and I'm obviously not bright enough to find it on my own, that you would go ahead and supply the source.
The link I provided was the actual transcript of a speech he gave in Colorado Springs in July 2008, and it didn't include your quote.
I'm simply asking for enlightenment. :-)
But this doesn't answer my original question - will they have guns and military training?
National security could entail a wide range of activities - road building, donating blood, disaster relief, reconstruction after natural disasters - the national guard currently does many of these things. Creating a new corp of citizen volunteers to do these things would ease some of the burden that is currently on the National Guard. It would also create jobs, provide job skills and experience to young people, etc. etc.
We already have similar programs in place - Americorps is the main one.
I don't hear, from Obama's speech so far, any mention that these civilians will perform military functions.
Acorn already has the people, and the uniforms!
what did he mean by that? maybe I'm just reading it wrong. Please help me.
I seen an interview, I'll have to find it, but yes he wants a 1 million person strong Civilian army. His chief of staff is calling for conscription for 18 - 24 y/o for a minimum of 3 months training (makes no sense to me) and anyone up to the age of 64 can be called upon for "duty" they "owe" this country.
"just as well-funded."
$450 Billion annually? that well funded. Correct me if I'm wrong Dems- but would you have praised this pre-election?
Well he wouldn't have said it pre-election for one, thats why he didn't. but i'm sure many of you would have fainted no matter what he said. He is an excelent speaker so long as the screen works.
Its obvious your are a consistent viewer of Fox News. I still have a problem with the Bush Administration putting both the cost of the two wars they left and Medicare D off the books, and then speaking of some fiscal discipline. O.Hatch makes the statement this week than back then is was normal not to pay for things. Good Grief. Even the best of the fear mongers should have a tough time swallowing this.
No one knew the true state of the economy before the election...
really. His election speach suggested otherwise. I wouldn't doubt that you didn't see it though.
You are mistaken. A lot of people did, including Mark Knowles, Hal Licino, and myself - just to name a few people whom you know.
Here's the 20 second video after watching it, I have to ask, why? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
What did he say before and after? You can't base a whole theory on 20 seconds...
Here is the full video. I think that even though his speech is uplifting and gives a sense of altruism, I can't agree with a civilian national security force where the Federal Government will set the agenda. He's asking for more people than ever in US history to be dependent on the Government. Dependence on the federal government can never have a good outcome.
Yes...I'm so stupid I don't know how I even to type my name sometimes.
I'm not saying that, I just don't know why you don't challenge your sight to see some writing on the wall. I will not aim to insult any further, but please ask yourself why he might have said this. Along with other things.
I am...Not everyone sees a dictatorship in the making...
I think the civilian security force and the national service idea are two different things. Like I said, I can't tell after hearing 20 seconds of a speech what he meant. Possibly he was thinking similar to Homeland Security, not as a way of controlling those who are against the government. I sincerely doubt all guns will ever be banned in the US.
If you go into it believing something is evil you will not be opening your mind to the possibilities either.
One world order will be a dictatorship, and that's what Obama and Bush both share in common. They talk about it, they promote it and we don't know anything about it. It is not so difficult to associated the two as mere pieces of a much larger agenda.
What are the benefits of a world order? It doesn't mean fighting will stop.
The Bush house, therefore, has been inherited. It takes time to put that house in order - rome wasnt built in a day x
I am not saying I know about American politics - I dont! What I do know is that change can not be rushed, it has to evolve at a pace that world economies do - as Uninvited Writer says, no one knew the extent of the economy and that revolves around THE WORLD!
I think anyone trying to take guns away from some of the good ol' boys down here will truly have a fight.
Right, so why not make them feel all warm and fuzzy and let them swear loyalty to a citizen army controlled by the Gov? it will be like cub scouts for grown ups!!! yay.
Yeah, right... every great nation builds their empire through slavery!
No, seriously, just see a bit of sense and dont be so negative. I suspect you are licking your wounds.. whats up? Did the one you want in power not get there?
Lets face it.... they are all a bunch of hypocrits. Surely, we can agree on that?
No, I didn't like any of my options. That's not my point. Licking wounds? Again, no. The cuts are being made right now. I'm sure the licking will come down the road.
You don't live here I gathered? Maybe this is no place for you to make a comprehendable statement of understanding.
When my ex was a cop, all people assumed was the only thing he really did was write traffic tickets.
Never mind that he entered burning buildings that the FIRE DEPARTMENT refused to enter, to try and save lives, never mind the times he found some old person neglected by family and got her help. Never mind that after spending over $5000 out of our own pockets to buy a K-9, then spend countless hours to train him, we found a lost child with that dog.
Did any of it make the news? No. Did anyone care...just the people it affected and to me and my ex, who knew deep down that that is all that matters.
What I see here in this discussion is much blame on the military, and undeservedly so. There is much they do that neither you nor I are privy to.
Does it mean our government is perfect? Absolutely not-- these men and women serving are sworn to follow the orders given them. These young people are following orders.
The disrespect for what they do is appalling, from what I see here. Just wait until it's on your own turf, then you decide. It's all too easy to pass judgments now.
As far as where I stand on political issues, do I feel it's being handled well? No. Do I have a suggestion for making it better? No. I sure wish I did.
I love our troops and again that is not my point. I suppose the inability to communicate a point is why so many people still praise the Nater.
Ignorance is such bliss. Sounds perhaps strange, but in many ways, I yearn for that once again. Maybe then I can sleep.
Being a hero is being a hero. Being someone you are not so that you can confuse masses into getting you elected is being scandalis. That, plus the many SCARY words spoken by the man should raise some red flags or at least put a hand on the lightswitch. The military deployment is a part of the controversy. Not our military personel. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to get back on track.
are these people worthy of respect, or just those who support the military agenda?
I did say that I knew nothing of your countries politics. Please dont twist my words...
Let me remind you... you started by mocking my original statement. This was common sense and didnt take too much understanding. My comment was about inheriting a new administration, I made a comparison to it being like inheriting a house. Remember?
I shall leave your thread and wish you well x
Ok. This is a lie.
I've listened to the complete speech, on the youtube link provided right here on this forum, and not once does he say:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He does not say it.
Watch the video for yourself.
The speech matches the transcript provided here:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2 … as-speech/
That 20 second video where he supposedly says this is, most likely, a voiceover of Obama's recorded voice, spliced together and then synched with part of the video.
Funny, I was not allowed a reply at all on my last post. Hummm.....
For those of you who doubt that audio can be seamlessly spliced:
I didn't take the time to comb through the whole speech to find the hand movements that were used, but if you look at the video here:
at around 10:48 you can see the first part of the video that was taken for the faked 20 second segment. I don't know where the rest of the video came from but I'm sure if you took the time you'd find it.
No doubt the audio can be altered. What I'm amazed by is that you seem so up to date on current events, yet you don't remember this quote. It was quite a big deal when he said it. It was all over the mainstream news. It was brought to the forefront with the National Service Act in March of 2009......
I already watched the entire speech, and read the transcript along with it.
He did not say this.
Major news? From where? Point me to something other than the 20 second video clip that was already linked here.
In case you missed it, here is my earlier response:
Fact check and Snopes agrees he said exactly those words. Of course they have a different take on the issue. Thats fine. My point is that the quote is accurate. He did in fact utter those words. While there is an argument regarding context it looks weak when you compare the terms he chose such as "STRONG" "POWERFULL" and comparing this force to the military. To some subtext is everything.
Can you get me links, just to make things easier for me?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/i … ional.html
Note there is quite a bit of spin there. The subject is framed in the context of some GOP guy who is spinning the issue himself.....
I found the factcheck site already but I haven't found Snopes' take on it.
This is interesting, because the transcript provided earlier in the thread doesn't have that part in it at all, neither does the video.
I'm still looking into it.
Ok, it took some looking but you are right and I was wrong. He does say it. It's not in the transcript but it is actually in the video, I'm kicking myself for spending 30 minutes watching it last night and still missing that part.
It's at roughly 16.50.
again though, i don't solely blame obama.
in fact, i blame the people.
however, to ignore that obama has any pull is just silly.
if he felt the way that he tried to make people believe he did (about the war in iraq) we would not be IN afghantistan right now. period.
i understand that congress AND the president made the decision to bail out the big companies, i just don't believe that the president had to make that decision after all the things he had said about hope and caring for the average american. actions speak louder than words.
i would be willing to bet those same people defending obama swearing he is not the end all of these decisions recently made were the same ones willing to lynch george w. for the decisions he made as president.
and did the electoral college vote for these bailouts? afghanistan?
pretty sure the only one who got a vote on that was congress. they aren't gems either. just look at the cap and trade bill. recycle CONGRESS first, i believe. the president will fall in line.
Absolutely! I think the whole "slime on the hill" gang need to be cycled out of there as soon as possible. Obama needs to go with them. Hell I even voted for him but he is turning out to be more of the same. At least McCain was telling us he would be more of the same.
The problem remains that we have no control of the government and Big Business does. How do you fight that gang when they are really the "man behind the curtain". To be able to effect that kind of change would really mean we aren't in Kansas anymore.
Rhamson, I think you start with your district. Get controll over your district. Not with T.E.A Parties, but actual political forums, reach a consensus and hold your elected accountable. It will take A LOT of work, but it will work. The problem is these clowns know or are banking on the idea that we wont.
In the last two elections where I live we have thrown out the whole local government twice with no affect to how they are spending and who they are answering too. Our freshman representative told us he would vote one way on the health bill and then at the last minute he changed his vote going against the electorate who voted him in. This is because the State Legislature is run by the dominant Democratic party in control, who has been since forever.
I think the break up of the entrenched system needs to come from reliable exposure of the dirty crap they perpetrate and prosecute them for it. Bend their arms until they break to bring about term limits and take the freaking money out of campaign financing the career politicians need to run is a more viable solution. If they won't listen and make these changes we need to vote them out anyway.
The only thing that is preventing me from getting rid of Obama in the next election is the threat of Sarah Palin for President.
double_frick Clinton had to deal with a conservative congress in 1994 and together they passed some great legislation.
I think that you forget the NAFTA agreement which was the single most destruction of American jobs this country has seen since the Great Depression. Who do you think wanted that to go through? Right again, Big Business!
The Depression had an upside...it would end....NAFTA on the other hand.....
Great point! Once congress gets something they won't give it back. And that includes our jobs sold to slave labor in China.
NAFTA was destructive to American jobs. We do lose a lot of industry to China and once again it is We the People who enjoy nothing better than going to the local Wal-Mart and buying up tons of cheap chinese goods. Can anyone name for me the last thing they purchased which was made in America?
You make a fabulous point. The Constitution should read "We the people, in order to look out for our self indulgent ways, pledge to buy only from WalMart". If given a choice to buy something that is equivelent to another in quality for less money, only a fool would throw his money away and buy the more expensive one. Addressing the issue now is counterproductive. The only positive thing that came from NAFTA was profits for Big Business. They cut out the wages paid to American workers and charged us the same for bigger profits. Now after time with inflation there is no going back unless everyone does. Remember the new preamble I mentioned?
The funny thing is without the jobs to support the money to spend on these cheaper goods there will soon be very few who will be able to buy WalMarts goods.
The last ten years have seen the the greatest transfer of wealth to the rich since the Roman empire. We all know how that ended.
This is what scares me most. If things get worse economically people will freak out. Most know how to drive a car, but few know how to fix one. Most eat vegetables, but few know how to grow them. Many people are far from any level of self sufficency.
When people can no longer afford to purchase what they deem as essential they will come un-glued....
I guess we will have to adjust. I have two business with one just getting started and not creating any income as of yet.
The other has been severely hit by the recession and has forced me into many difficult decisions. One being I had to sell my two year old car that got almost 40 miles to the gallon because I could not afford the payments and insurance anymore. I was lucky enough to be given a thirteen year old car with 115,000 miles on it that burns oil and needs some repairs. Because of the repairs and gas mileage difference it will cost me just a little less. On the plus side I can do the repairs as needed where as the newer car would not wait for the payments to be made on time.
Hey another thing on the plus side is that after a week of driving it here in the northeast I was able to get the heat working. It only needed more water! Doh!
I feel I am adapting much as I hate to do so.
so it can be done.
i have to say, i kinda liked clinton.
not perfect, but not anything like people try to make him out to be.
obama is no clinton. ;P
rhamson I know big business is a problem but most big business are publicly traded stocks and are also owned by We the People. It is not the business themselves but the business leaders who also participate in the CFR and the Bilderberger meetings as well as the Trilateral commission who are the real evils of our society these people do not hide they are right out in the open. They pick who our leaders are to be. They decide who and when war will strike next. International BANKERS not the business who are to blame.
I agree. The funny thing is that big business is publicly traded and owned by "We the rich people" and are appropriately bailed out by "We the people".
There are alot of regular people who have 401ks and retirement accounts that also own huge segments of our stocks and bonds.
Who own's the Federal Reserve?
I have often wondered if the scratching in my attic was the MAN.....
...and then, adding the recent Supreme court ruling that big money can buy into political campaigns, you have another attempt of big money to buy the citizenry's liberty...but will we let them...not me!
i am going to give everyone running for office the Constitutional 'smell test' are they for 'we the people' or are they for 'fill my pockets with your money people'?
What is happening in the American government and business owners, has been a problem before America became a Nation.
The U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are tools citizens have to defend themselves against business and government.
Yet, people simply accept the fact that this cannot change. Which, is a HUGE assumption on their part. And, only proves that they do not understand what it truly means to be an American citizen.
It is apparent, that many define what being an American is by their own subjective view. There are DUTIES to being an American citizen, and it's incorporated in the 3 documents I listed above.
You say government is corrupt? I'll agree. What do we do? Should be the next question. However, it's not, the attitude that is displayed is that things will never change.
Then these same people, complain when things don't change. Americans interacting within society's evolution is a requirement, so as to strive to the more perfect union mentioned.
To do nothing, and expect change to come about? Is insanity!
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Too much government is detrimental to society's overall health and wealth.
Just a thought?
He was handed a mess, and it takes time to clean after others. Our government can and will only work the way we set it up to work, slowly.....and as far as a civilian army, we already have guns, as well as some vigilanties, some bad guys, some cops, and most of us have more than one. Be safe, stay safe, get a gun.
by Holle Abee 7 years ago
I read last night that some on the far right are blaming the White House for Isaac. Yep, the Dems seeded the clouds to make the storm attack the GOP convention.
by Leslie McCowen 8 years ago
"Before 9/11 there were 7 countries without Rothschild central banks;Afganistan, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Cuba. I note a definite pattern here.Afganistan: invaded (now central bank)Iraq: invaded (now central bank)Libya: invadedNorth Korea: low level invasionIran: planned...
by deegle 10 years ago
Who is to blame for conspiracy theories? The ones that reports or exposes them or the ones that conceals activities that get discovered then gets leaked to those that reports or exposes them?
by Jerad Maplethorpe 9 years ago
I am by no means asserting that our government orchestrated 9/11, but I would like to know how these terrorists living in caves on the other side of the world were able to pull off such a precise chain of events?Your thoughts.
by Deforest 4 years ago
We always impute global warming to the excess of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. My theory is the following one : the Vietnam war extended from 1954 to 1975, if I refer to this event in our history is because it is now acknowledged that weather geoengineering was implemented during this period....
by Specialkizza 9 years ago
I ask this question to all readers and myself. I ask that everyone who frequents this topic to please reply. Feel free to elaborate and converse. Thank You. Its both for me. I can't remember when I felt more passionate about something. I'm from NYC and a vet, so these theories, especially 911...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|