http://blog.heritage.org/2011/03/28/mor … crats-cut/
This congress and this president have been completely irresponsible in producing a realistic budget. We are 1/4 into this year and still there hasn't been a vote on the budget for this year! The democrats refuse to cut anything in the hope of blaming the republicans for being "mean spirited" and Obama, as usuall, refuses to take a leadership role in the debate, content to sit back while others hammer out something temporarily acceptable where upon Obama will step in and make a flowery vague and non commital speech! Obama.and the.dems.gave to go they're useless cowards, ineffectual bureaucrats that don't serve the interests of this country or its people!
You know lady_love. I don't know what your intent is, but it not only reveals a complete lack of sensitivity towards others, but not much of a brain to post things like the above headline.
Firstly, who are you to judge other people? You don't know enough of what is going on in other people's heads to be able to do that?
Secondly, your evaluation of different situations has been shown to be somewhat simplistic. You omit thousands and thousands of pieces of data that change the picture you're drawing. Like, for instance, you assumed because I was taking one position that I had to be a 'leftie'. (Our last thread discussion.)
Thirdly, in seven months, you're written three very juvenile poems. I'm, therefore, assuming that all these posts of yours are nothing more than a tactic for people to click on your hub and read your poems.
Get a life.
Who are YOU to judge me?? Am I not entitled to my opinion? If you disagree fine then tell me why I'm wrong! No better to attack me my views my writing and tell me to get a life! Oh you're sooo much better than me! You lack the courage to admit you're a left wing liberal progressive socialist but you have the nerve to tell me to get a life! Get your own life!
lady love, actually, politically, I am dead center. I believe some of what the GOP wants (fiscal responsibility) and some of what the Dems believe (that medical care is out of reach for most people - I don't like the current solution, though.)
I don't believe abortion should be paid for by the State (Republican) but I do believe that everybody has the right to make their own decision as to whether to have one or not (Democratic.)
So, no party suits me.
Who am I to judge you? I assessed your actions, behavior, and your words. I did not judge you. You, on the other hand, called half of the United States, cowards. That makes YOU a judge. There is a difference between telling someone they're lying (stating an action that someone else is doing) and calling them a liar (making a judgement). You make a lot of judgments about other people.
Is everybody entitled to an opinion??? Not in my opinion. An opinion used to be based on highly researched information. Today, people confuse opinion with the ramblings of an uneducated mind. A lawyer, for example, used to be asked to give 'opinion'. He needed heavily researched facts to express that opinion. Same with a doctor or other medical personnel. One didn't just spout forth a feeling, a belief, or whatever else it is that passes for opinion these days.
I'm not sure what writing you're talking about. Three poems isn't writing. As a professional editor and writer for much of my life, I think I know good writing when I see it. I've certainly been paid to evaluate it (by publishers) in the past.
Clearly the actions of Obama and.the democrats speak for themselves. I stand by my opinion which is based on reported facts. I certainly don't need to spe d years researching every action of congress in the past to make what is an obvious conclusion.
And that is the issue. Your 'reported facts' are written by a propaganda press. And because you don't go and check where the 'press' got their sources and their information, you don't realize how erroneous your reading is.
Yes, you DO have to spend years researching things. I have. Like the last time I asked you to quote a piece from the constitution and show me exactly where the current government doesn't obey the constitution.
You couldn't do it because all you had was what someone else said. It doesn't seem to occur to you that the press is owned by people who have a vested interest in getting you to believe what they want you to believe. The only way around that is to go do the research yourself - or at least, enough of it to know that probably what you're reading isn't the truth.
Did you know that there was some research a couple of years back that showed that the brains of those on the right are different to the brains of those on the left?
Those on the right are unable to process complex information while those on the left can...
You are a fraud! I quoted the constitution directly! Clearly it states congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion the ACLU has worked to get court judgements to eliminate prayer or the mention of god in public institutions.
The article on the budget states simple facts like this being the first congress that hasn't even had a vote on a budget this late into the fiscal year. Fact Obama created a debt commission by executive order against the will of congress and ignored every single recommendation! These are facts.
I think what you need to learn is there is a difference between research for writing a book and a forum post intended to promote discourse... you being a professional and all, one would think that you know that though.
The audacity of the Left is easily computed! And not something to be proud of, I will add.
"Those on the right are unable to process complex information while those on the left can..."
The left can make some pretty outrageous posts, but I'm pretty sure this one takes the cake.....
Lol! Right! Where is her "research"? She's just repeating what other people say... and chances are she has it wrong and is parrotting it the way she remembers it! Lol! More hypocrisy from the left!
No, wait, she documented it......remember "there was some research a couple of years back...."
Sheesh, give the lady some credit!
Whut ith "credit"? Ithn't that sumthin like when I uses a card in them thar masheens at the storr? Pardin me, but I is not abel tu prothess them "complex" infurmation thangs like whut Sophia wuz talkin' 'bout...
Weeel yuu pleese go git me sum person frum the Left tu help me inturprit this stufff? Eeny liberill will du.
You know, even sarcasm, be that as it may, can be useful at times, however, it is usually missed for a reason, except when said in a personal and/or public physical conversation.
Typing the words, to display stupidity, shows your sarcasm, but also doesn't make YOU look too good either.
Childish actions will bring about childish responses. If you continue with the childish antics, then not only would you end up in a heated argument, but would also show that your actions were purposed filled, as well.
Again, you would not look too good in that light either.
Just a thought.
Drat! Me thunk yu wuz here to help me. I is sooo disapoiented.
If you cannot see the help that was within the words I used or just wanted to respond to my post, as you did. I again, restate that you're not doing yourself any good.
But, then again, what do you care? Whenever you sin, all you have to do is repent and you're all again right as rain.
So, what is your agenda Brenda? Religious righteousness?
These thred hyere is about them missing or utherwize pesky Demucrats. Kant yuu prosess that fakt? We is not hyere to talk abowt religin stuff. Y dont yew ask Sophia to elaburate on hur outrajus remarks? Come own, consintrate, yew can do it!
I enkurage yew.
Continued childish behavior? WOW! The changing of letters in your words...good going.
It's a political forum thread is why you don't bring religion into it. Duh!
Besides, your religious beliefs, be what they are, YOURS, should not have any affect or effect, on my life. Keep it yourself and you'll notice that you will have less conflict in your life.
What you hold for beliefs is supposedly personal. Well then, keep them that way.
Your religion or beliefs oppress my rights to life and right to choice, when you bring them into the political arena.
You are the one bringing religion into this thread!
Why don't you go encourage those cowardly ones (the MIA Democrats) to get back in Congress and face the music?
I've asked you that twice now. What part of it are you unable to process?
"You are the one bringing religion into this thread!"
He is a philosopher of sorts.
Brenda, your actions seep and are deeply rooted in you, as a person.
As for bringing it up in the thread- I didn't either, Lady_Love did, through the word usage- "righteousness". And, since that is one thing YOU and HER have in common, it is why I said it to you. Not everything in my posts are directly directed at you, but are for those who I know read my posts.
The message is universal, not just for you.
Nice to see you continue to wear blinders.
Bringing politicians back to a table of compromise versus freedom and asking them to compromise? Apparently, you do not know or understand compromise or how/why it happens.
To you, it's your way or the highway, instead of the path of least resistance.
"Besides, your religious beliefs, be what they are, YOURS, should not have any affect or effect, on my life."
But you let it twist you up inside.
No I don't get twisted up inside Jim. I like pointing out things that are obvious to me, but apparently not obvious to other people.
It isn't sad. Religious folks are generally good people when they keep their beliefs in check. Those who know their place in this world, have no need to use their "religious righteousness" in a destructive way, but do quietly do valuable work within some communities. Those who create no conflict with their beliefs are the ones I'm not referencing in this forum thread.
The ones who enjoy conflict, which shows they failed to learn about their own religious beliefs to begin with, are the ones doing the most damage.
There's still freedom of speech! We can still call upon God even in the public square to give us the wisdom to deal with progressive socialists that seek to destroy all that we hold dear!
Yes, there is freedom of speech. I'm not denying that. But, an intelligent and wise person would know the correct path to take, which causes less conflict as possible, so as to convey a specific message to those who are listening.
You can call on whatever "god" you choose and in public. It's unfortunate that your "god" hasn't answered your prayer/call, because you truly do lack "WISDOM" with regards to much.
I won't stop you or your right to do so, but when your actions defeat your claim, it is my right to speak up and show you the difference.
http://neuropolitics.org/Right-and-Left … Part-1.htm
http://neuropolitics.org/Conservative-L … -Brain.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/14 … h-goldberg
I could go on posting all the links to this research.
As stated previously, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word 'opinion' means. Research is NOT opinion. The results of the research are fact.
Yes but you are just posting what others say and we all know they are biased!
Do you actually know the difference between research and hearsay?
I'm sorry, lady love, but at this point, really, I don't have time for stupidity.
Um, you do realize the third article is quite critical of your "conclusions", right?
The other two articles read like someone with an agenda.....so I think I'll pass.....
Obvious opinion? How ridiculous. Your Republicans ignore any significant cut, and only want to focus on social engineering like eliminating NPR, Planned Parenthood, etc. YOUR REPUBLICANS ignore the hundreds of billions we pay in corporate welfare, and did this year too. YOUR REPUBLICANS ignore the subsidies in the hundreds of millions we pay to oil companies for no reason. Defense? Don't even get me started. It is a joke, and yes, so are you.
Lol! And who just renewed subsidies for ethanol? Your president Obama! Can win reelection withou the farmers in Iowa now! Open your eyes!
President Obama and most Democrats did not campaign on promises of cutting spending in general and entitlements in particular. Republicans, and more specifically the TEA PARTY, did. Why do you expect Obama and the Democrats to do their job for them?
Oh really? His entire agenda was supposed to be designed to cut the deficit. Maybe you need to review the campaign rhetoric.
I seem to recall that just about EVERYTHING he said was about cutting spending.
But the difference is I knew he was lying.
Lol! Only liberals can believe spending 2.5 trillion dollars on a new health care entitlemen would lower the deficit!
Hey libs I'm selling vacation property on the moon for 1/2 price... buy now before the increase it will increase your income! Lol
Here's your idea of cutting:
Take away that guys healthcare, which he can't afford.
Later, he becomes ill--which could have been avoided by a simple medicine, and is seen at a Hospital, costing thousands upon thousands of dollars.....for, geuss who?
Penny wise and pound foolish!
Healthcare reform CUTS SPENDING by billions, in a 10 year period.
Just THINK what could have happened without those dam tax give-aways....
We would have been 700 BILLION less deficit down the 10 yr road.
But alas, the talk of cutting on the GOP's part, only applies to those who can least afford it.
It does cut the defict....down the road.
The point is to make changes in the policies that promote deficits...like TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY!!!!!
Which, he has recommended NOT continuing on the next go-round. Pity they had to put unemployed lives on the line to give their base that x-tra cashola.
Pity and so sad....oh my, Beck.....TEARS!!!
Obama never promised to eliminate the deficit, he promised to work toward reducing it and he has. However, you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the budget must be approved by Congress. Obama can't wave a magic wand and have all of his policies magically enacted.
Again, I ask you, why should the President, who never said he wanted to cut entitlements, do the job of the Tea Party, who DID say they want to cut entitlements and are now apparently too focused on the miniscule NPR and Planned Parenthood budgets to follow through on their very vocal opposition to wasteful social programs like Medicare and Social Security?
Could it be that they are too cowardly to go after such popular programs, even though they campaigned on cutting them?
"However, you seem to conveniently ignore the fact that the budget must be approved by Congress. Obama can't wave a magic wand and have all of his policies magically enacted.
You seem to conveniently ignore that the President can veto a bill.
Any bill that comes down the hill cutting entitlements will be vetoed.
So what would be the hurry?
I guess you forgot about Obama's own debt cutting commission. They came back with some serious proposals which Obama happily ignored! He ignored his own commission! Yup that's leadership!
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/03/news/ec … /index.htm
I wish he would have incorporated more of their recommendations into his budget, including increasing the gas tax; increasing the amount of workers' income subject to the payroll tax, which funds Social Security; and creating a new special minimum benefit to prevent seniors from falling into poverty.
LaLo,you still didn't answer my question about the Tea Party.
Obama didn't put ANY of their recommendations in his budget and the senate wont put forth anything either!
I don't expect Obama.to do the "work" of the tea party but I do expect him to do the work of the people and he was.elected to lead so I expect him to lead! Debt is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed its not an issue that he and the dems should be playing politics with.
Here's the thing. In order for the recommendations of the debt commission to work, they must be taken as a whole. Any serious attempt to reduce the deficit must include increasing revenues. Why do I have a feeling that you and congressional Republicans would support the cuts but not the increased revenues?
Also, what prevents the Tea Party from leading if Obama isn't?
Are they cowardly, too?
The Tea Part is a grass roots group it's the people if they are going to lead then what do we need the president and congress for? The tea party wasn't elected to lead!
You're right about one thing I certainly would NOT be in favor of giving the government any more revenue! Not until they learn to live on what they have should they get a single penney more! Not until the government returns to the confines of the constitution should they get any more funding! I don't care if it gets shut down either!
You just won't admit that your criticism works both ways, will you?
I'm not sure what you mean. I've been just as critical of the republican leadership for compromising on the tax cuts and the last CR! I want less government and I will attack the republicans if they don't make it happen. Trust me I know they are just as bad in many ways. I'm going to go after them to institute term limits too. The people have had it with the corruption of these scoundrels!
You don't have an opinion. You are a party troll who only spouts bumper sticker talking points. You could care less about the truth. You are a propagandist, nothing more. That makes you a bad person by the way.
Wow. The apparent-Leftists in this thread just keep spouting hateful stuff! Wonder if they've been talkin' to those missing Democrats too much?
That was a really nasty, totally intolerant remark you made, Texasbeta.
These personal attacks on LaLo are getting out of hand in my opinion. You not only attack her post at this forum you also stalk her and attack her Hubs.
I don't know the politics of the administrators of this forum but I have been banned for suggesting that someone might not have actually checked the "news" he was commenting on. I asked if he'd checked behind his own eyelids since he didn't seem to have a grasp on the fact that myriad individuals and nations had indeed volunteered to help the Japanese in their crisis. It was deemed unnecessarily combative.
I have hesitated to hit the report link because I don't want to be involved in any pi**ing matches, I'm here to discuss politics.
But in this case I have hit the report link and we'll just have to see what happens, if anything.
I will happily leave a forum that allows people to gang up every day on a person who is posting her opinion and breaking no forum rules that I am aware of.
So, you think that we should ignore her daily 3-4 attacks on Obama and anything Democrat?
Just let you other Repubs comment on her threads? Tearing us a new one every minute?
As someone who has also been banned, and also been gang attacked.....
I say, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
So questioning policies becomes "attacks"?
Questioning competence becomes "hate"?
Boy, I wish you people came with subtitles......
According to Ann Cee, when it is directed at Lady Love....
There is a big difference between attacking PUBLIC figures and attacking PRIVATE citizens.
Maybe it's time to read the journalists code of ethics if we don't understand that.
PUBLIC figures are fair game. Why leftists can even make a movie about the assassination of George W. Bush with complete impunity. Magical ain't it?
Thanks Ann! It's no big deal... let them attack me it only serves to show the weakness in their positions!
Apparently, neither you nor LaLo realize this a writers site. Yes, we have different forums for different subjects which brings discussion among writers here. The forums aren't for merely posting daily contentious political threads while not producing any writing of substance on the site.
There are plenty of formats available elsewhere to simply rant to your heart's content without putting this trash on here everyday. Now if you or LaLo have other accounts here in which you actually produce something beneficial to the site, then I apologize for accusing you of not writing much.
But if between you two you only have the few hubs posted on your known accounts, then yes, I disapprove of you being able to continue posting junk threads. And if either of you are getting paid to post these threads, you are the lowest of the low!
Again, blaming only one side. How ridiculous.
Both sides are cowards and both sides are corrupt. If that isn't obvious to you, then I would suggest you take the blinders off and pay closer attention.
Those who are in your own political party or as others describe it, the "right" are just as bad, if not worse in some ways than those they oppose.
That you cannot deny, no matter what you do to try and distort the facts of the entire situation, never mind, nit picking specific things.
Absolutely true. Obama doesn't like to take actual ownership of anything.
He's playing to so many conflicting constituencies he can't bow to anyone without mooning someone else.
So true AnnCee!
He makes a big show of trying to please EVERYONE. Maybe one of these days he will realize that can't be done. And then, maybe he will openly show his true overall agenda.
Helping Eastern Kentucky to march boldly into the 20th century?
Yep. That is fur shure where I gots me part of me edumacation! They is so prowd uv me! WKU is sad that they dedn't git to skool me.
Hey Ron---is yu the cavalree come to help mee?
For your information when it comes to dealing with the tough choices involved both in cutting programs to reduce the
budget deficit and still maintaining needed federal programs, whose approach do you prefer: the
Republicans in Congress or President Obama's?
According to the latest sample survey by the CNN which was released today Obama wins by one percent, LOL
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/image … /rel5f.pdf
Please read the constitution I'm sure you heard of it. The purpose of the federal government is not to create "needed" programs.
Then again, you're probably just getting your news from heavily biased sites.
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy won't they listen?
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy can't the demlibsocialists embrace my ignorant hateful preachings?
Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy must I work 24/7 to eradicate tolerance, literacy, and democracy?
It's enough to put bats in yer belfry I tells ya.
The Republicans on this thread are like those who called Max Cleland a coward.
He, a decorated war vet who came home in a wheelchair--they, the high-paid lawyers who came to Congress to further their monetary careers.
And Obama does have to work for all sides. He's the pres of the United States, not the president of his party.
If he takes heat from everybody--which he does-- that would make him something other than a coward, if you ask me. A coward is one who plays to his/her base all the time, refusing to budge.
Would this be the same Max Cleland who lied about how he lost his limbs in Vietnam in order to make it look more "heroic" than it actually was?
I was sooo thrilled when Max lost his seat.....good times.....
Actually, it wasn't meant in that manner, which is nothing new for your viewing habits.
It's called bring civility to the table, which apparently many people who post to the threads lack.
And people claim society is civilized. Yeah, right. You people point the finger at one another, place blame on only one side while not admitting that the side that you are on is no better than the side you oppose.
Talk about being a hypocritical actions.
Citing statistics is not a peronal attack!
Lady Love show 2729 forum posts vs. 3 hubs in 7 months.
Compare to another staunch voice of the conservatives,
Billie D. Ritchie
700 posts, 142 hubs in basically the same time period.
As Randy said, this is a writers' site.
As they say in academia, publish or perish.
(And please do not interpret that as a death threat against people who have published a very low #s of hubs/time on HP).
You would like HubPages to impose a quantifier insuring that contributors to forums meet a certain criteria vis a vis prodigiousness and quality of literary output?
LaLo's writing was called juvenile and she was called insensitive. Others have called her worse. I've been called worse. But I think stalking a contributor in this manner is a problem.
Nobody cited statistics but you, MM.
If you don't like LaLo's threads don't respond to them. Easies.
It's a writers site then with so many forum posts id say I qualify as a writer. Some write poetry some songs some articles some books I write forum posts so what's the problem?
Fine! You consider yourself a writer? Then why not post your rants on your hubs and see how much support you get in the comments section. Be a writer if you are going to consider yourself one.
@Lady-Love. Everybody writes on forums. That doesn't mean they are writers. Writers write articles, web content, screenplays, plays, books, journalistic content, etc. Nowhere does it define someone who writes on forums as a writer. That's merely social interaction.
Having not read LaLo's 3 hubs I can't comment on whether they are juvenile or not. That is one poster's opinion.
I've seen plenty of posts here on the forums calling other people "juvenile" (not using that exact word, however).
I think it is fair to say LaLo is insensitive. Insensitive meaning not sensitive. If she were sensitive she would have stopped posting long ago.
As for "stalking" I'm not sure who is/was stalking LaLo (?)But if it is true, it is a problem that LaLo can bring to Admin.
Are you kidding?
This is a political discussion board. There are some here who are obviously not in favor of Obama's fundamental transformation of the United States.
You call it "insensitive" to express those opinions because some others object to those opinions?
Seriously are you kidding?
I think she meant I have thick skin which is true! Lol! I don't care what anyone thinks about me especially people I don't even know nor care to!
LaLo has a right to post as much as she wants, just like I have a right to monopolize the conversation at dinner. However, if I do monopolize the conversation at dinner, especially by repeating multiple variations of the same topic and in a negative tone, I shouldn't be surprised if someone calls me insensitive or rude. Similarly, LaLo's posting seems to be considered excessive by many people here. Does she have a right? Sure. Do others have a right to point out that she is being insensitive or rude? Yes.
I suppose I could say to my dinner friends, "Why are you complaining? Why not do something productive with your time? Why not start your own conversations at dinner and ignore mine"? I'm guessing they will eventually be driven away from having dinner with me and I'll be sitting all alone with no one to listen to my drivel.
IF that is your intent, LaLo, keep going and it will eventually happen. The difference here is that new people will come and respond to your one-note posts until they get bored and move on. I suppose you might like that. If so, just carry on. Or, you could choose to be just a little bit more considerate and slow down on the posting.
What you choose to do is a reflection of your character, in my humble opinion, which I have a right to state and which you care nothing about, I'm sure.
Why do you leftys want to silence me? What is really the problem? This isn't a dinner table conversation its a forum! Simply don't reply or make your own post and ignore me!
Thing is that's not good enough for you! You want me to shut up!! But I wont!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lol! Just for you pretty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Au contraire, LaLo! I want you to talk, especially about my previous questions you are afraid to answer. You said you had answered them but haven't pointed out where. Come on, what's it gonna harm to give me a link to where you answered the question concerning if you are paid to post here?
As usual, you over dramatize. No one wants to shut you up and you know it.
You didn't know you had missed it already? That explains loads!
And of course you missed my point and my humor because you're just so. . . well. . . humorless and well. . . never mind.
I'm sure I'd be banned tuit de suite if I called you juvenile or insensitive. So I won't.
Of course I got your point, AntCee! You were comparing Winston Smith's job of changing history to the way LaLo tries to do the same with her inevitable daily anti-Obama rants. Geesh, I ain't so dumb I couldn't see the huge similarity, gimme a break!
Or accurate, for that matter! I cannot conceive of being so bored to the point of posting the same old propaganda, day in and day out, for seven long repetitive months.
Why would any rational person do this on a site intended for writers? Any reasonable explanation will be appreciated if anyone can think of one.
The intent is obvious, so there's no real discussion. That's why I have this forum blocked. When I do take a look, it's the same stuff, an inflammatory headline, some article and a rant.
I understand. I think I'll just choose not to address her anymore as I believe she is a paid political poster. Overpaid, I might add!
by ga anderson 2 years ago
I am in a dilemma. I have been presented with an argument that I consider very knowledgeably founded and very well-sourced and researched.I am talking about Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz's Senate floor presentation that the Democrat's impeachment charges are Constitutionally invalid.I have...
by ga anderson 7 days ago
I don't really have his opinion, but I do have a clerk's description of what it was.I caught an interview segment of Fox's Neil Cavuto with Justice Scalia's son, Chris.A clerk of Scalia's, Jan Samuals, paraphrased something that Scalia said, or intimated to his clerks. It was said that several...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
in light of the current sociopolitical and socioeconomic situation regarding the United States of America? Do you believe that President Obama is doing the best job he can under the circumstances? Do you maintain that President Obama can do a much better job as President? Do you contend that...
by Sharlee 9 days ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Can the President of the United States override the First Amendment?Here is the first amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven 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.|