"one side" has prattled for decades about "empowering women".

[woodsmoke]

FORGET POLITICS.

THIS woman truly IS empowered.

SHE ran the rehabilitation of the "Old Post Office" AND other major jobs for the Trump organization.

She spoke for about twenty minutes about how SHE rehabilitated the building, along with workers, etc. etc.

"the Donald" spoke for about four minutes, mostly about politics.

Again, she is a REAL example of a woman who is "empowered".



BTW....There WAS a full front picture of her, kind of from a slightly below angle, showing HER speaking, I, unfortunately thought I'd take a look at this pic and when I backed out...ONE CLICK BACK, the picture was GONE

Copy and past any of these search terms and take a look at the absolutely IRRELEVANT returns you get, one of them returns a bunch of FOOTBALL stuff, although by the time you do this it will probably be a bunch of results about aardvarks.

ESPECIALLY THIS ONE: search "any" or "images"

Ivanka trump opens the old post office oct 26 2016

NOTHING about Ivanka.... all snipes at Trump

Ivanka speaking old post office reopening october 26 2016

Ivanka speaking old post office reopening october 26 2016

Ivanka trump oct 26 2016

Ivanka oct 26 2016

opening old post office washington dc october 26 2016



Google probably got a "complaint" about the pic.

And this is only going to get worse when AT&T pulls off it's mega merger ....womething that....I think what.... ol' Bill oppsed decades ago.... AT&T was BROKEN UP..... and now...under Obama..........

IIIIITTTTTTSSSSS BAAAAACCCCKKKKKK.....

sheesh...

woodsmoke

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Wouldn't be the first time Google's been caught "adjusting" its search algorithm.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[woodsmoke]

Well, we all "hear" about it, but this is just...........mind boggeling....

A search for "Ivanka Trump" give a bunch of football links! :0

I am NOT a fan of Yahoo search because it provides, first and foremost, a lot of "sponsored" sites. Well, I gotta say that Yahoo did good on this one, when I searched for "Ivanka Trump Old Post Office Pavilion October 2016" I got a lot of relevant images, so "good on" for Yahoo.

I'm going to have to give them a second look!

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

During their last debate Trump called the Clinton Foundation a corrupt organization. Hillary responded by claiming that it gives 90% of the money it receives to charities, "look it up". Well, I did. It's amazing what I found, and how easy it was to find it. Obviously, the media had no interest in fact checking that claim, since they spent all their time castigating Trump for calling the Foundation corrupt.
Here is the 990 for the Clinton Foundation:

The government requires 501(c)3 organizations to file a Form 990, similar to your 1040. Notice that for the year ending 2015 the Foundation had received contributions and other revenues of $177,804,112. The document reveals that the total grants and donations by the Foundation to any charities amounted to $5,160,385 or 2.9% Not 90%.

Where did the money go? $34,838,106 went for salaries and benefits to 486 employees, for an average of $71,800 per employee. $6,718,539 was spent raising the $178 million in donations. That's more than what was paid to charities! $50,431,831 was spent for "other expenses", making the total expenses $91,281,145. That's right, 51.3% of contributions are spent on expenses! That leaves a profit of $86,523,467 or 48.6% of gifts and donations which, added to the profit carried forward gives the Foundation total assets of $354,190,170.

As a vehicle to fund charities the Clinton Foundation is extraordinarily inefficient! As a personal ATM it performs outstandingly.

PS- One "fact checking" website claimed 87%, in response to Pence's claim that the total gifts to charities was less than 10%.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/fac...the-vp-debate/
"Fact checkers" don't always check facts.

And, let's not forget Hillary's prattle about equal pay for equal work:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/21/news...ess/index.html

The stark numbers come from the foundation's public 990 tax forms for the year 2014, which list the highest-paid employees. The Clinton Foundation identifies its top leaders, all executives with titles like CEO, director or senior adviser.


That list included four women and nine men. The men averaged $291,000 in total pay. The women averaged $210,000. Many of the men clearly outranked the women in the leadership team.


The women earned 72 cents for every dollar a male executive made on average. That's worse than the national average Clinton cites in her "equal pay for equal work" speeches. The national average is 79 cents on the dollar.

[GreyGeek]

PC "science" and Lysenkoism

As an old retired physics & math prof when I first heard of "Anthropological Global Warming" my first thought was that our science has gone back to replicating the old USSR method of doing science, called "Lysenkoism".

Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.

.

I just saw another example of "Lysenkoism". The "Waterseer", a device which claims to be able to extract up to 36 liters per day from the atmosphere without expending power. It has collected $204,000 in funding to complete work on the device. The "PC" part of it comes from stalwart institutions like Berkeley being sucked into this con, at least until a YouTube video by PhD chemist Phil Mason, aka "Thunderfoot" produced a video calling BS on the device, and explaining why, and forced them to put a disclaimer on their webpage about the device.

He not only destroys the pseudo science behind the device, he exposes the con-man responsible for it.

[Snowhog]

Just goes to prove, people are gullible.

A fool and his money are soon parted

Literal meaning.


Origin


This is quite an early proverb in the English language and, as such, might be thought to contain the wisdom of the ancients. The notion was known by the late 16th century, when it was expressed in rhyme by Thomas Tusser in Five Hundreth Pointes of Good Husbandrie, 1573:


A foole & his money,
be soone at debate:
which after with sorow,
repents him to late.


The precise wording of the expression comes just a little later, in Dr. John Bridges' Defence of the Government of the Church of England, 1587:


If they pay a penie or two pence more for the reddinesse of them..let them looke to that, a foole and his money is soone parted.

[TWPonKubuntu]

Dang, I really wanted a WaterSeer!