Surrrrrrrrrrrrre they are
One day in and they're already waffling. Teabaggers, you've been bamboozled.
Who could have seen that coming?
They learned from the best.
The difference is we will vote those who screw us out, democrats just keep voting scumbags in.
Go ahead and start your campaigns then. You've been screwed.
That is truly funny! Politicians are politicians. They don't do ANYTHING unless there is something in it for them. Therefore, the repubs are doing the same as the democrats. They have both screwed up the world. They are both false religions.
Thats why we the people get to vote for or against them.
Doesn't matter if the politician is a democrat or a republican we will get rid of those who screw us.
Eventually they will get the message, at least republicans will.
Why would you open a bill that repeals health care to amendments? What is there to amend? Why would you amend something you're getting rid of? This is a perfectly common sense and wise exception to house rules and I applaud them for it. Without this democrats on the committee would seek to attach amendments that would erode support and place other necessary programs in jeopardy.
Interesting point. A very good one. So it's to preven parlimentary tricks from tainting the bill. Notice the R's didn't "taint" the healthcare bill, they just voted NO. Good for them. Besides, it's pretty clear there is very little common ground between the two parties on this issue.
Ooooooh, so if YOU like something, it's Ok to "Ram it down our throats"!
Part of this post isn't in English, and the other part doesn't say anything. In a way, it is kind of artful. In another way, it is the verbal manifestation of what my dog just left in the yard.
"Why would you open a bill that repeals health care to amendments?"
Do you realize that this isn't technically a sentence? What are you trying to say here? We don't give health care to amendments. Amendments don't get sick.
Is it any surprise to you that reps and dems are all the same?
If that was actually true, yes I would find it surprising. I don't claim that Dems don't have their own ethical problems, but for this particular band of hypocrites to march into the house promising transparency and integrity, then re-neg on the very first day...
btw, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not a member of either party.
"btw, I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not a member of either party."
Thats a good one Ron.
I know you see the entire population as one extreme or the other(intellectually, it makes things less challenging for you). But I had never voted for a Democrat prior to this election.
It's a direct result of how far FoxNews has taken it's political wing to the edge of insanity.
All I hear is about Fox News. What about MSNBC? - these guys are in the tank for Obama.
If you say that Keith O. or Rachael Maddow are moderates, your wrong. These guys are as far left than Fox News is right winged.
Keith and Rachel are political commentators - the editorial page on TV.
So is Rush Limbaugh and Beckles the Clown.
The reason Fox is under fire is because they twist and/or omit facts in their straight reporting. This week on Fox, see if you can detect that the problems Medicare has are NOT the result of 'Obamacare'.
Totally agree. I've never heard anyone describe MSNBC as representing an objective or moderate viewpoint.
On the other hand, I don't know that any of their commentators will be running for office in 2012. Every Republican contender is on Fox's payroll.
Just last night, Maddow was blasting him for his chief of staff pick.
And Olbermann always clashes with BO..in fact, he did a whole "special comment" about Obama...can't remember what the issue was, but it was NOT in Obama's favor...he was calling him out--like he always did Bush.
Same with Ed Shultz. He gave Obama hell for compromising on the tax bonus.
But they DO give him credit where credit is due. That is not "in the tank".
Prove it why don't you. How is MSNBC in the tank for Obama?
Oh, and I forgot that guy at 4 pm est...he never likes Obama. Dylan Ratinger.
Oh good golly!!
A Republican politician just said Obama has taken away her freedom!!!!
When did the House floor move to a prison?
I honestly can't say one is better than the other. Thats like picking between my dad(R) and my aunt(D), oh wait that is exactly what politics forces me to do, well at least tries to force me to do.
Pick a side! Now the other one is wrong! Great way of thinking.
Ever notice how liberals and Democrats seem to want to deny being either? I don't claim the GOP, but I do claim conservatism.
The GOP has so far been smart enough to recognize that they are in power not out of any great love for Republicans, but distaste for Democrats. Hopefully they also know that this is their last shot, and if they lose it again, turn out the lights, the party's over.....
"Ever notice how liberals and Democrats seem to want to deny being either?"
They are partial to their new name "No labels".
They have finally figured out that the label "liberal" is a no go for most thinking Americans.
As opposed to the "teabagger wingnut" label? Yeah, that one has legs.
Thats right it doesn't have legs.
But then again any liberal idea usually doesn't last.
You guys picked the name. We just make fun of you for doing so.
No, you guys picked that name.
The first place your minds were drawn to was deviance.
Its telling and exactly why the democrats can never hold onto power.
Look it up. It's better to know something about the subject before you comment on it.
Um, there's the slightest of differences between "Tea Party", and the phrase "tea bagger" which was coined by the left.
Wow, throwing out the historical connotation in favor of a gay racial slur....I'm guessing all bets are off for much in the way of rational discourse....
Look it up. It's better to know something about a subject before you comment on it. Here, I'll get you started:
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620 … tea-bagger
Teabaggers aren't the brightest of folks of course, so they didn't realize the name they had chosen for themselves had another meaning.
Um, dude? Nobody on the conservative side was even aware of the "new" meaning of the word. Nor would most of us since we don't run in those circles (apparently, you do and are proud of it).
You are either unable to grasp the historical connotation of "Tea Party" (which is bad), or simply unwilling (which is worse).
"No Labels" are not Democrats. They are people who love/hate both parties....ie, can't make up their mind!!!
Hang on to that hope, buddy....its going to be an interesting two years....
We'll keep score here. What's the over/under on number of Republican sex scandals this session?
John has picked up the color of a carrot. Is there a 'ilia' name for relations with a vegetable?
Nope...big huge psy-op and a huge barrel of lies.
Republicans will continue to fleece america keeping us on the road to financial armageddon, start more wars based on lies, continue to ship jobs that are needed overseas, and continue to help the rich and screw everybody else.That is a fact and America voted for it so brace yourself for a bunch of elephant dung get a spoon eat it and learn to love it.
And of course handing more and more of our lives over to government is infinitely preferable, no?
I'm sorry, but I can't let that stand! The wars were both approved by resolutions in congress and had bipartisan support. Let's not forget all the wars Clinton got us involved in, none of which was in our interests! As to fleecing America, the democrats are every bit as culpable as republicans in that regard. Half of Obama's cabinet are tax cheats and there are plenty of big business and wall street big shots that advise him. Lets not forget Charlie Rangle, Maxine waters and that guy with the 100 grand in his freezer! Oh and it was Clinton that passed NAFTA, you know, that giant sucking sound of jobs leaving America was courtesy of democrats!
Don't confuse the poor guy with the facts, love....
Let's go down the rant - item by item.
Didn't some democrats vote against the resolutions that led to the Bush Wars? But I believe ALL republicans signed on.
Shall we look at the cost of the wars Clinton got us involved in in dollars and/or loss of life - and the outcomes of those interventions. And let's not forget that republicans in Congress opposed strikes Clinton made to take out OBL when Clinton was POTUS. BTW, Reagan intervened to protect Sadam Hussain when he 'gassed his own people'. Yep, Saint Ronnie quashed a move by Helms to condemn the mass murders..
The cabinet is 16 people. Name 8 who have had tax problems. BTW, I had tax problems with the IRS 20 years ago. It's not hard and not always your fault.
I am no fan of NAFTA as it stands - Free trades needs to be replaced with Fair Trade. But it's way wrong to lay the blame entirely on democrats. It's the biggest bipartisan bad idea since congresses of both parties started skimming Social Security money.
Don't forget, Iraq was approved TWICE! The re-entry into IRAQ could have been justified based on non compliance with the cease fire agreement of Operation Dessert Storm. We needed no other premise. So that explains Iraq. Afgahnistan is the one that bothers me. 15 of the 9/11 Terrorist came from Saudi Arabia, two from two from the UAE, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon. Prior to 9/11 the USS Cole was attacked in Yemen. Yet, we invade Afghanistan! Unbelievable. This is the war that the Liberals say is JUST! I'ts so obvious that this country was chosen because it's sparsly populated and loaded with valuable mineral deposits. Yet Liberals claim that Bush did all this for OIL MONEY! Geez.....
I have to mention that NAFTA originated under Bush. It was actually signed into law under Clinton. I'ts my opinion that NAFTA was designed by the R's to hurt the Unions. The thinking being that you could always lure the companies back once the Unions were brought under controll. With this line of thought, I'm still shocked Clinton signed it. However he proved early on that he could legislate from the middle.
"had bipartisan support."
Did not! Dems went along with it reluctantly, and it was only supposed to be as a last resort. As usual, the Republicans did whatever was necesary to get their way.
And anything ANYONE on any side does as far as fleecing, PALES in comparison to Criminal Cheney. And he still gets cheered by CPAC.
LOL! You are just too much! The dems "went along with it", and voted for it and that in your brain isn't "support"? LOL!
This is why I say the democrats shouldn't even be ALLOWED to govern! They just don't have the brains! LOL
Well, if what we see from the Current bunch of Republicans is "brains"....thank God Dems don't have em, cause who would want that?
And it's the truth.
There were many press conferences where Democrats were speaking on their un-ease and reluctance to pass that thing.
And they clearly stated that it should only be used as a last resort.
But, back then, there was a HUGE mind game going on. Anyone not supporting Bush was looked on as un-American. No one in Congress wanted to be looked on as "supporting the enemy". Funny how all that has changed around now, and you guys consider yourselves patriotic for bashing the POTUS.
I didn't buy it back then, and I'm not buyin it now.
They look ridiculous now. Standing up there acting like they care about cutting spending, the deficit the "American people", or jobs. They are a joke.
PS: When Obama was putting forth the stimulus package, there were many job-creating provisions in it. BUT, to gain the support of Repubs Snow and Collins, he had to change from job spending to tax cuts. Once again---Russssshhhhhhh had to come first.
SIGH. ALWAYS on the wrong side of things they are!!!
"SIGH. ALWAYS on the wrong side of things they are!!!"
They are on the side of the American citizen.
You might want to try it occasionally.
Maybe a democrat would keep power longer than one term.
lovemychris reminds me of that old song by the Youngbloods.... "I am a one note man, I play it all I can".....
Jim Hunter You always have something to say. If YOU go to a real tea-party meeting you might get shot. think about that one.
So what you're saying is the democrats sacrificed their principles because they lacked the courage to lose their jobs for doing what they believed in?
Yes you're right, I can agree with you there, the dems don't care about anything except their "ends" which is the destruction of our free capitalist society in exchange for a ruthless central authority headed by themselves!
Some things are not even worth responding to.
Like I have said many times before...in America, we live in parrallel universes. Never the twain shall meet.
You stay in your universe, I'll stay in mine.
Never mind the fact that eight years of republican crap has brought america to the brink of destruction..............get your spoons out and don't forget to hold your nose.
Well, at least the Righty's can have a little crow with that dung.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think this Congress is off to a rollicking start.
Boner's waterworks, the kiss of Judas Pelosi -- oh what a beautiful transition!
And then, the rousing rendition of the United States Constitution. For the briefest of moments it really did look like there might be fireworks over whether or not the Amendments are part of the document. Score one for the PROGRESSIVES (isn't that what we "L" words used to be called?).
Yessir. What a lovely way to kick things off.
If anyone knows why this was done -- other than the likelihood that the incoming TP frosh needed to bone (not to be confused with Boner) up on the rules... I'd love to hear it.
As for bringing integrity to the house. Don't bogart that joint, Ron!
Hi MM, off topic I know, but you so need to follow on from my recent reminiscing on the 'I Have Had It' forum thread currently in feed. I mention you fondly, (amongst others), and your input could well be relevant to the point I have made, (I hope).
Me, off to bed now, (gone 06.20am here now), but will be back later today !!!
Are you unhappy about the founding document being read on the house floor?
They should have read the entire document and amendments and shown that this country has moved further and faster than any other.
Are liberals using the term progressives now?
You should know that progressives are the cause of all of our problems.
Progressives murdered native Americans, ripped natural resources from the ground and caused all of our climate problems.
Progressives are dangerous and need to be stopped.
Oh for god's sakes.....can someone please tell me how regulations that Obama put in since he's been there have prevented job creation since 2000???????????
HOW did Obama STOP job creating from 2000-2008, when they had LAX regulations and the sainted "Tax Cuts"??? Yet, and still....no big job creations here.
Me thinks the regulations had nothing to do with it. Me thinks the repubs are blowing smoke out their cuts.
What a crock of steaming horse poop.
Worried about bankrupting the nation?
Do away with the Bushco tax-give aways! If those continue, we are trillions in debt for the sake of trillionair'es.
Sheeeesh- do I have to do their thinking for them? Hey Rightys-----get a clue!!!
Listening to them now.....I almost feel sorry for them. They are in WAYYYYY over their pointy heads....
Here's a song for them:
"Oh, the itsy bitsy spider went up the water spout
Down came the rain and washed the spider out"
...that's about their speed.
Well, if anyone would know about being in over their head, it would be an Obama supporter.....
Oh here we go....abortion....what took so long?
Freedom? my azzzzzzzz
By George Zornick on Jan 7th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Kentucky Law Would Force Women To See Ultrasound Images Before Abortion Procedures
"The Kentucky state Senate passed a law yesterday mandating that women seeking an abortion must wait 24 hours before the procedure is performed, and also must be shown an ultrasound of the fetus. The measure, which passed 32-5, requires that women receive an ultrasound and see the results, and if she chooses to avert her eyes, the “doctor still would have to describe to her the image.” Cases of rape or incest are not exempted from this requirement, and doctors face fines as high as $250,000 for disobeying the law.
Forced ultrasounds are becoming an increasingly popular tool for the anti-choice movement; 20 states have laws encouraging or requiring ultrasounds be performed before an abortion. Kentucky would be the first state to mandate the ultrasound information be impressed upon the woman if this measure is enacted. The bill must be passed by the state House and then signed by Gov. Steve Beshear (D).
“It’s very intrusive, and very cruel,” Ms. Meek said.
Women in other states, interviewed this summer by the New York Times, echoed the view that ultrasound information inflicted needless emotional pain:
Laura, who asked that her last name not be used, had come to the New Woman All Women Health Care clinic in Birmingham with her mind set on having an abortion. And she felt that seeing the image of her bean-size fetus would only unleash her already hormonal emotions, without changing her mind.
“It just would have added to the pain of what is already a difficult decision,” she said later. [...]
Laura, who has a 17-year-old son, said she took offense at the state’s implicit suggestion that she had not fully considered her choice.
“You don’t just walk into one of these places like you’re getting your nails done,” she said. “I think we’re armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured.”
The bill is clearly required to limit, as much as possible, the right of women in Kentucky to receive abortions."
"Cases of rape or incest are not exempted from this requirement"
Having been raped, and having a daughter who was raped too,I agree with Laura. I find this to be so inhumane as to be torture and abuse.
How about they force people advocating this law to be raped? Then they can see what it would be like to endure this psychological torture they want to enforce on others.
"You will have that baby by order of the State."...this from "small gvt" types? Me thinks NOT. ALL gvt intervention is what they are after....just THEIR kind.
This is one reason why I'm a Democrat. Because they are pro freedom of choice. But if this is signed by that Dem gvr.....where are we to go?
Abortion was illegal in colonial times! What about freedom of choice for the unborn? You're for freedom of YOUR choice but you don't want to protect THEIR choice! Why? Doesn't a child, unable to protect itself deserve a CHOICE, or should children have less value in our society? You liberals are all for a level playing field and equality, as long as you are inconvenienced with it!
Palestinian children have NO value in your world view...what makes a born child less important than a zygote in the womb?
Anyone who supported Operation Cast Lead, or any "war" for that matter has no integrity on the abortion issue.
You go along with killing children...just after they're born.
Oh? So that's how you want to justify it? You are now saying abortion should be legal because war is legal? I see... well by extension then why shouldn't all murder be legal? You see, you can't justify a wrong with another wrong, it doesn't work!
"Abortion was illegal in colonial times!"
So was working on Sunday.
And slavery was legal.
And there was no general or local anesthetic, no decent dentistry beyond yanking rotten teeth, and lots of kids didn't survive past their third year due to sickness or accident.
Seriously, if you want to bring back the "good ol' days," have a care that you remember how bad they really were.
Uh huh....flag stuff now. And this clown actually said fly "Old Glory"?
Mmmmm, yeah..this stuff will solve our problems. Create jobs, end poverty.
Uh OHHH, war protesters protesting Bush....COMMIES. ANTI-AMERICANISM. I'm not making this up!
Protestors are Anti-American. He said it. Steve King, Republican.
*Wow*...with such force and hatred too.....
Well, I'm sorry Tea-Baggers....you are "officially" Anti-American!!...oh wait, you're protesting Obama, so that's oK, right King?
Complete take-over,BILL and HILLARY??????
What is going on? he is dis-associated from reality, imo. And he is a new Chairman. Dealing with Pollution.............................better buy those gas masks now.
He just called himself pro Constitution. But he's against protesting?
Guess those founding fathers should have just shut up and took it, huh?
Oh...wait. ONLY if they are protesting Republicans is it anti Amerian....I have to learn the rules.
And I am not making it up. He said it now, Jan 7, 2011...People protesting Bush's war were Anti-American.
Gods, Guns and Country......on steroids! Of course, as long as it's THEIR God, THEIR guns, and of COURSE, their country.
Back to Old Glory days, no abortion, no freedom for blacks and women.
I take back my former vow. Anyone who is associated with and agrees with this buffoon deserves to be called Boner. $197,000 a year to govern like it's 1890. And try and make US do it too!!! Maybe we can pay him in 1890 terms.
Arguing about which party is more corrupt? You folks are funny. DC breeds corruption, on both sides of the aisle. Remember the old adage about power and curruption? It's twue, it's twue! lol
Well, I can't find that post of mine that mentioned Paul Ryan, but here is the new policy implemented by your transparency, all inclusive "new" House:
"As National Journal reported today, “a little-noticed detail in the new rules proposed by House GOP leaders would greatly increase the power of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the incoming chairman of the House Budget Committee.” Indeed, under the proposed rules, if the House and Senate do not agree on a budget resolution (a distinct possibility with a divided Congress), Ryan will be able to unilaterally set spending levels that are binding on the House, and any attempt to lessen the impact of these cuts can be ruled out of order."
Nice, huh? Brings back memories of Kasich, the old Republicorp ruler:
"We are in chare now, you don't HAVE a say!"
FWIW, I give props to Speaker Boehner for cutting the House's operating budget, symbolic though it may be. If we need to tighten our belts, the we all need to tighten our belts.
At the same time, this article nicely illustrates the difficulties the new tea-party freshmen face. My favorite quote:
"unless Tea Party Republicans are willing to stand proud and announce that they adore and revere the whole Constitution as written, except for the First, 14, 16th, and 17th amendments, which totally blow, they should admit right now that they are in the same conundrum as everyone else: This document no more commands the specific policies they espouse than it commands the specific policies their opponents support."
I adore the whole constitution including all the amendments and I see no reason why all of it wasn't read, though in the interest of time I can see skipping over the amendments that were later repealed by later amendments.
Yes it is a FRAMEWORK with which the federal government is supposed to operate. That frame works has been expanded beyond the intent of the founders and in my view dangerously so, that too much power is centrally concentrated. I disagree with the author that this is exactly what the constitution does, and I disagree with Obama's view that the constitution doesn't tell us what the government CAN do on behalf of the people, this is an attempt to make the federal government the supreme ruler of all people based on a perversion of the "general welfare" statements, and I reject it and I want to see this trend started in the days of FDR reversed. That's not fear mongering, those are facts based upon a legitimate view of the constitution.
"That's not fear mongering, those are facts based upon a legitimate view of the constitution."
LOL. You say it, therefore it must be true.
Look, you want to have the federal government cut down to a smaller and less powerful size. That's cool, and I can respect that (while disagreeing with it). But the "attempt to make the federal government the supreme ruler of all people" BS is totally fearmongering. It's like, the essence of fearmongering.
The problem is not really the size and scope of the government, but rather that the government has been infected by corporate interests such that it no longer effectively represents the general public. Take such an infected government, and cut all of its power, and you'll have exactly zero restraint on corporate excesses.
The solution is not to hamstring the government but rather to reinforce safeguards against influence peddling (or create new ones). But that's not what the radical right really wants. They want a free hand to do as they please without fear of punishment if they happen to violate an individual's (or many individuals') rights. Who wants no cops on the beat other than folks who want to do crimes?
"But the "attempt to make the federal government the supreme ruler of all people" BS is totally fearmongering. It's like, the essence of fearmongering."
That's your view but the trend since FDR says otherwise, our debt and spendind says otherwise, this Presidents policies say otherwise, all of it is leading to oppresdsion like all the great democracies of the past, Rome, Greece and Spain, and guess what, it doesn't end well! I'd like to prevent that ending and see America remain a light of freedom in the world for my kids and my grandkids, but Obama and the democrats have a different vision, a country ruled by intellectul political elites that decde whats best for humanity and they call THAT "progress".
Another excellent example of fearmongering. You're two for two!
Fearmongering? That's your response? Sadly that's the real problem in this country, an unwillingness to recognize the poential threat to our way of life. No, I'm not worried about this in my lifetime, but clearly there is a disturbing trend and to just dismiss it as fearmongering is just further evidence that it will continue. Already the left is proposing controls on speech as a result of the AZ shooting, this in addition to FCC control over the Internet. Of course, that isn't fear mongering, is it?
You are absolutely right its not fear mongering, The Constitution is under assault from many different directions. Possibly, three quarters of what the government does has no Constitutional authority. Congress has used general statements in the Bill of Rights such as "The General Welfare Clause" as an excuse to justify huge spending programs which redistribute wealth. The word welfare as we know it today is different that its meaning in the time of the founders. Welfare back then was not entitlement program, general welfare then had to benefit everyone not just a select group.
"The word welfare as we know it today is different that its meaning in the time of the founders. Welfare back then was not entitlement program, general welfare then had to benefit everyone not just a select group."
WBA - Do explain the "Act for the Relief of Sick & Disabled Seamen" 1798 which mandated that civilian sailors MUST pay for government-run health care. Not a select group?
"Fearmongering? That's your response?"
Fearmongering: that's what you're doing.
Now, if you want to talk about a specific policy, and what you don't like about it, and why, then we can have a rational discussion. But if you're going to insist that there's some grand left-wing plan to deliberately destroy the United States, sorry. I prefer reasoned discourse to unreasoning fear.
Michelle " there are black helicopters over minnesota " Bachman is is emerging as the frontrunner for the republican nominee in 2012......God help us all.
by Philip Cooper 6 years ago
Who believes the Republicans will win the White House in two years time?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 4 years ago
Regardless of advice from his own campaign staff and the RNC, Trump is freestyling, like the rap artist!!! In the meantime, his numbers are going down, down, down. If you have been loyal to him over the past year, compare that to how loyal he is being to you!
by IslandBites 4 years ago
Heavyweight foreign policy adviser Brent Scowcroft, who served as National Security Adviser to Presidents George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford, and who worked in the White House of Presidents Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, said Clinton "brings truly unique experience and perspective to the...
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 16 months ago
It seems we get so bogged down in taking sides, that the major objective is to have undying devotion to "my" side. Aren't some things supposed to be clear cut.Lindsay Graham enlisted the support of Democrats in trying to put the Syrian fire out. If Hunter Biden is wrong to work for...
by Reality Bytes 10 years ago
I just want to congratulate the Democrats for running such a well planned and efficient campaign.I would also like to acknowledge the hard work Obama has put into this endeavor.I would also like to acknowledge the incredible efforts of Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama.Good job guys, I wish you all...
by Ralph Schwartz 2 years ago
How will the Left react when Hillary Clinton loses the election to Trump?Even with her cronies fixing the polling, she's declining and Trump is rising. Trump is moving into new territory, talking directly to Democrat voters such as blacks; people she has been taking for granted as...
Copyright © 2021 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.|