REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Rand Paul reads Wiki page to crowd, passes it off as his own speech.

POSTED BY: ELVISCHRIST
UPDATED: Monday, November 11, 2013 14:43
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2521
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 3:56 PM

ELVISCHRIST




If it's bad form to try to claim Wikipedia as a cite or source, what does it say when you try to use Wiki as a speechwriter?

That's just pure intellectual laziness. No surprise, really, since it comes from someone who created his own medical board to certify himself and who brags about lying and misinformation as valid strategies.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/rachel-maddow-rand-paul-plagiarized-gat
tacas-wikipedia-page

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 4:19 PM

STORYMARK


He's such a joke.

Good litmus test, though. Any of his supporters can pretty much just be ignored as a matter of course.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 12:30 PM

ELVISCHRIST


After several more instances of him plagiarizing Wiki came to light, he's admitted to it now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 12:31 PM

ELVISCHRIST


And of course, he blames his staff, which is the utmost example of taking personal responsibility you'll ever see out of a conservative lie-bertarian like Rand Paul.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 12:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


And the funny thing is, WIKI is about the most socialist organization you can find!

Also, from WIKI
Quote:

Paul later recreated the board in September 2005, three months before his original 10-year certification from the American Board of Ophthalmology lapsed. Since then, Paul has been certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, with himself as the organization's president, his wife as vice-president, and his father-in-law as secretary. The National Board of Ophthalmology is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, the American Medical Association,or the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure.




So please donate to WIKIPEDIA!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us_-_Donors

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 1, 2013 1:03 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, supposedly Jesus created his own RELIGION and people still worship him, so why shouldn't the righties worship their Jesus Cruz, whatever he says or does? Works for them!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 4, 2013 1:02 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Yet more instances of Paul reading Wikipedia off a teleprompter have come to light.

To nobody's surprise, conservatives are not the least bit upset with him over these acts of plagiarism.

Rand Paul, however, IS upset. He's so upset that Rachel Maddow and others have shown him up for the fraud he is that he wants to shoot them.

How very Republican of him. No wonder libertarians like him so much! Just like most of them, he responds to valid criticism with threats of violence.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/03/rand-paul-wants-to-challenge-hac
ks-like-maddow-to-a-gunfight-over-plagiarism-charge
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 4, 2013 5:26 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


The worst of it for me is that he uses the plagiarized materials to try and make a point about one of his, and the extreme right's, pet projects. As though using the info from these sources makes him seem right about the nonsense these folks believe in.

He brings up the plotline from the movie Gataca as though it was real. I'm not sure if that's sad or scary, maybe both. Frankly, I'm not sure what his point really was. Truth be told, he thought nothing of "borrowing" large pieces of info until he got caught.


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 4, 2013 12:05 PM

ELVISCHRIST


It's made even more hilarious because it's Wikipedia.


Does anyone else here remember how indignant right-wingers like to get whenever anyone uses anything from Wikipedia as a source?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 4, 2013 1:49 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
It's made even more hilarious because it's Wikipedia.


Does anyone else here remember how indignant right-wingers like to get whenever anyone uses anything from Wikipedia as a source?


*raises hand*
Which is why I am so laughing right now, yes, taste the irony.
OM NOM NOM... mmmmm, tastes like nettles!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 2:52 AM

ELVISCHRIST





So why won't Rand Paul give credit when he's quoting directly from Wikipedia?

Because libertarians don't believe in credit!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 4:09 AM

FREMDFIRMA



*obligatory rimshot*


-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:27 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


It's not just his speeches where he's plagiarizing, it's a PATTERN of not caring whose words he represents as his own. And he'd be willing to fight a DUEL over it. I posted this recently without realizing there was already a thread going on the subject:
Quote:

A section of Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) book Government Bullies was lifted word-for-word from a Heritage Foundation study, the latest in a series of plagiarism accusations that are suddenly dogging the Kentucky Senator.

1,318 words of Rand’s 2013 publication were taken verbatim from a 2003 study by the political think tank. Heritage is attributed as the source of the information in the footnotes, but not cited as the source of the actual text in the book. In addition, later passages were similar to a Cato Institute report, Kaczynski reported.

This is at least third plagiarism allegation against Paul in the past week. Paul had lifted a plot summary of the movie Gattica from Wikipedia. Politico then found that a section of his response to President Barack Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address was copied word-for-word from an Associated Press report in 2011. http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-rand-paul-copied-sections-of-201
3-book-from-think-tank-study/
]


Quote:

Rand Paul on ABC: Plagiarism Charges the Work of ‘Hacks and Haters’

On This Week With George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) rejected the plagiarism charges that have surfaced in the past week, claiming that he was “being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters.”

Paul predicted further revelations of bad attribution from his previous speeches, but maintained that they were not intentional. “I take it as an insult, and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest or misleading,” he said. “If dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, it’d be duel challenge.”

Host George Stephanopoulos asked if Paul would at least concede that his speechwriting process had been “sloppy.” Paul responded that most of his speeches were extemporaneous, and that he quotes people but rarely cites secondary sources.

“I think the spoken word really shouldn’t be held to the same standard that you have if you’re giving a scientific paper,” paul said. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-on-abc-plagiarism-charges-the-wor
k-of-hacks-and-haters/
]


Uh, if you say you're the author of a book, then put someone else's writings in it without attribution, I think that's kind of the definition of plagiarism, isn't it? What else would he call it?
Quote:

Without actually naming the MSNBC host who’s been all over his plagiarism like a Confederate flag over a Tea Party protest, Sen. Rand Paul expressed a wish to “duel” Rachel Maddow, or anyone else who dares to infer dishonesty from his habit of lifting from others in his speeches, on Sunday morning’s This Week. In an interview with host George Stephanopoulos, Paul explained why he would forego pistols at dawn with Rachel and company.

Paul to chalk his burgeoning plagiarism scandal to overactive “footnote police” (here’s a footnote to high-schoolers working on term papers: footnotes do not actually allow you to lift other people’s work verbatim).

Of course, Paul wouldn’t challenge anyone to a duel, because that would be insane, or immoral, or insane and immoral, right? Wrong. The reason Rand Paul gave for not wanting to race Rachel Maddow to see who could shoot whom in the face first was that “I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”

As jokes about firearms homicides go, it was pretty funny, but those unfamiliar with Kentucky politics might not have fully understood the punchline. It’s not just that shooting another human being to death wouldn’t “play well” in the Bluegrass State, it’s that in order to hold public office in the state, officeholders must swear an oath that they have never participated in a duel:
Quote:

Members of the General Assembly and all officers, before they enter upon the execution of the duties of their respective offices, and all members of the bar, before they enter upon the practice of their profession, shall take the following oath or affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of …. according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.


While Kentuckians have tried, from time to time, to have that provision removed from the state’s constitution, it’s still there, so if Rand Paul ever wants to hold statewide office, he’ll have to hold fire for now. Maybe it’s for the best, though, because Maddow is apparently not such a shabby shot. http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-only-thing-keeping-rand-paul-from-s
hooting-rachel-maddow-to-death-in-a-duel/




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, and another one just cropped up:
Quote:


Add another outlet to the growing list of sources Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) allegedly plagiarized: parts of an op-ed the Kentucky senator wrote in September closely resemble an article published days earlier in The Week.

Buzzfeed reported Monday night that paragraphs from Paul's Washington Times op-ed on mandatory minimum prison sentences, published on Sept. 20, appear to lift language from an article by The Week's Dan Stewart published on Sept. 14.


To give one example, Stewart wrote in his "Rethinking mandatory sentencing" that "By design, mandatory sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances."

Paul's op-ed contained a virtually identical sentence: "By design, mandatory-sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances."

Both pieces also related similar anecdotes about a man named John Horner, a father of three who faced a 25-year prison sentence for selling prescription painkillers to a friend who turned out to be a police informant.


It's obvious by now that Rand Paul has no problem portraying the words of others as his own and taking credit for them, not to mention feeling he has an absolute RIGHT to do so and should be able to shoot anyone who has the audacity to complain about it. It's only that silly little law that keeps him from doing so.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 8:38 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh, and another one just cropped up:
Quote:


Add another outlet to the growing list of sources Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) allegedly plagiarized: parts of an op-ed the Kentucky senator wrote in September closely resemble an article published days earlier in The Week.

Buzzfeed reported Monday night that paragraphs from Paul's Washington Times op-ed on mandatory minimum prison sentences, published on Sept. 20, appear to lift language from an article by The Week's Dan Stewart published on Sept. 14.


To give one example, Stewart wrote in his "Rethinking mandatory sentencing" that "By design, mandatory sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances."

Paul's op-ed contained a virtually identical sentence: "By design, mandatory-sentencing laws take discretion away from prosecutors and judges so as to impose harsh sentences, regardless of circumstances."

Both pieces also related similar anecdotes about a man named John Horner, a father of three who faced a 25-year prison sentence for selling prescription painkillers to a friend who turned out to be a police informant.


It's obvious by now that Rand Paul has no problem portraying the words of others as his own and taking credit for them, not to mention feeling he has an absolute RIGHT to do so and should be able to shoot anyone who has the audacity to complain about it. It's only that silly little law that keeps him from doing so.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 9:23 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

On the one hand, the revelation that he lifted material from several speeches as well as whole pages of his book from other sources, without attribution, isn’t necessarily a 2016 candidacy-ender. What’s most politically self-destructive is Paul’s bizarre reaction to the charges – which really aren’t “charges,” they’re fact. Instead of admitting he or someone on his staff made an error and promising to toughen his standards, he’s attacked Rachel Maddow, who found the first instance of plagiarism, repeatedly and personally.

“This is really about information and attacks coming from haters,” he told ABC’s Latino-focused network Fusion. “The person who’s leading this attack — she’s been spreading hate on me for about three years now.” Ew, “spreading hate on me,” that sounds kind of disgusting, Rachel – really?

And then, in a bizarre, likely candidacy-ending interview with ABC’s “This Week,” he began talking about a duel.

“Yes, there are times when [speeches] have been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error,” Paul said. “But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.”

He went on: “And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”

“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters.”

Paul’s assumption that normal people will hear his reference to fighting a duel and say, “Hell yeah!” betrays his permanent residency on the American fringe. He lives in a world where it’s always the 19th century south, and troubles are best handled with guns and guts, not government. Paul acts like nobody’s ever been either smart enough, or brave enough, to tell the plain truth – and once he does, common sense voters will recognize it and reward him. Instead, they recoil and go, “Huh?”

It reminds me of his first run-in with Rachel Maddow, in May 2010, when he told her he didn’t think the Civil Rights Act should apply to private businesses. He bobbed and he weaved but when Maddow asked point blank, “Do you think that a private business has the right to say ‘we don’t serve black people?’” He answered, “Yes,” and defended their “right” to discriminate as “freedom of speech.” (He also said he thought if he’d been alive back then, he’d have marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) That’s the interview that made Maddow a “hater,” in Paul’s view.

I saw the same thing in his under-covered response to the revelation that his aide Jack Hunter was a neo-confederate racist who’d written a column headlined “John Wilkes Booth was right,” defending the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Paul, of course, came out against assassination – but then he went on to describe Lincoln the way neo-confederates do, as a tyrannical racist hypocrite who fought the Civil War not to end slavery but to consolidate Northern power.

There’s another problem with Paul’s over the top response to the plagiarism controversy: It suggests that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “plagiarism.” He has repeatedly insisted that he credited the original source of his speech material – the movie “Gattaca,” in one instance, and “Stand and Deliver” in another. But he does not seem to get that you can’t lift words directly from Wikipedia and claim them as your own – even though that’s something every sixth-grader knows. http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/rand-pauls-wacko-public-me
ltdown?page=0%2C0
]


About that "under-covered response to the revelation that his aide Jack Hunter was a neo-confederate racist who’d written a column headlined “John Wilkes Booth was right,” defending the assassination of Abraham Lincoln":
Quote:

Not surprisingly, Sen. Rand Paul is standing by his social media director and co-author Jack Hunter, the guy known as “Southern Avenger” who now dismisses his neo-Confederate past as a youthful indiscretion, even though he’s 39 and was still defending secession as recently as four years ago.

Paul argues that Hunter has recanted his most noxious views and, anyway, the guy is “incredibly talented.” Asked about Hunter’s habit, as a disk jockey, of dressing up in a Confederate flag ski mask, Paul played the exasperated, fun-loving libertarian.

“It was a shock radio job. He was doing wet T-shirt contests. But can a guy not have a youth and stuff? People try to say I smoked pot one time, and I wasn’t fit for office.” (Of course Paul was in college during his Aqua Buddha days; Hunter is 39.)

But it was when Paul took on Hunter’s hateful writing about Abraham Lincoln, including the odious essay “John Wilkes Booth Was Right,” defending Lincoln’s assassination, that he gave us a picture of his troubling views of Lincoln, which display the toned-down influence of neo-Confederates.

Paul presents a view of Lincoln that’s actually only a few degrees removed from the neo-Confederate revisionist history of our 16thpresident as a tyrannical hypocrite who was also a racist.

"There were great people who were for emancipation. Lincoln came to his greatness. One Republican congressman described it as ‘on borrowed plumage.’ I love the description, because there were some great fighters [for emancipation] and Lincoln had to be pushed. But I’m not an enemy of Lincoln."

That’s trademark Rand Paul, who’s trying to cast himself as the reasonable middle between states’ rights secessionists and the totalitarian Obama state: so he’s “not an enemy of Lincoln.” But the phrase “borrowed plumage” got my attention. It turns out Paul had made similar but more expansive remarks about Lincoln at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast in April. There he praised the book “Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream,” by Lerone Bennett Jr.

Here’s what Paul told reporters that day:

"There’s a great book on Lincoln called “Forced into Glory” by Lerone Bennett. It’s a good book and there’s a great passage in there by a reconstruction Republican … who says that Lincoln shouldn’t be allowed to ride into glory on the borrowed plumage, from somebody else’s hat, from their glorious ride. I think there’s some truth to that … He came into his glory because of some people who were greater than he was … the abolitionists who pushed him kicking and screaming toward emancipation."

But there are a few problems with his story. It wasn’t a Republican congressman but Polish count Adam Gurowski who accused Lincoln of riding into glory on “borrowed plumage.” (The exact quote is “History will not allow one to wear borrowed plumage.”) Gurowski was an admirer of radical Republicans whose tough federal approach to Southern reconstruction the libertarian Paul cannot possibly endorse, so I would wager he doesn’t understand it.

The “borrowed plumage” quote comes from Gurowski via Bennett’s “Forced Into Glory,” which Civil War historian James McPherson took apart thoroughly in the New York Times. Sadly for Bennett, his tendentious, cherry-picking case for Lincoln as racist hypocrite has become required neo-Confederate reading. You can find it frequently referenced at LewRockwell.com. Yes, the same Lew Rockwell who produced Ron Paul’s racist newsletter. It undergirds neo-Confederate writer Thomas diLorenzo’s crusade against all things Lincoln, including the movie — which was cited approvingly on Ron Paul’s website, under the headline “Lincoln the Racist.” Not surprisingly, Jack Hunter admired the book.

OK, that was in 2004. Hunter says he doesn’t believe that John Wilkes Booth was right anymore. But as recently as 2009, he was quoting Bennett approvingly to compare Lincoln to Hitler. There’s his Charleston City Paper column, “Those who compare Confederate soldiers to Hitler should look at Lincoln”.

Now, Rand Paul would never compare Lincoln to Hitler, of course. But his casual, self-satisfied assertion that Lincoln was “forced into glory” is a staple of neo-Confederate Lincoln hate, even if he says he’s “not an enemy” of the president who fought the Civil War to end slavery. This is classic Paul, trying to have it both ways.

You can cherry-pick quotes from Lincoln to prove virtually anything about his racial views. He was, in fact, a supporter of a colonization plan to send freed slaves to Africa — Liberia was usually the destination — for a time. He made many disturbing public declarations of his belief in black inferiority. But his views changed. In his last speech before he died, Lincoln indicated he supported giving the vote to freed slaves who were literate or had served in the Union army. Although that didn’t satisfy Lerone Bennett, as McPherson observed, since no such requirements applied to whites, it outraged slavery defenders. ”That means nigger citizenship,” John Wilkes Booth replied. ”Now by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will ever make.”

The cartoonish view of Lincoln as racist hypocrite expounded in “Forced Into Glory” is a dangerous lie that undergirds neo-Confederate thinking. But it’s a particularly good choice for Paul because it happens to be by a black man. Still, that he cited a mostly debunked work of Lincoln-hate approvingly shows that he’s right in refusing to fire or even distance himself from Hunter – because he believes many of the same things. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/11/rand_paul_completely_mangles_lincoln/




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 12:34 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Hah! He's finally had to "own up" (insofar as blaming his staff, anyway...):
Quote:

Rand Paul’s Wikipedia-Gate Gets Serious and Maddow Gets the Last Laugh

For more than a week, Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s flagship host, has been pursuing the story surrounding Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) lifting of the plotlines of the movie Gattaca from the film’s Wikipedia page in a speech.

Her tenacity in pursuit of that story inspired a series of jokes among conservatives at Maddow’s expense. But then, one week into the coverage of Paul’s “Wikipedia-gate,” new details emerged about Paul’s history of plagiarism. Far more egregious offenses came to light in outlets like BuzzFeed and the New York Times.

“In an op-ed article he wrote for The Washington Times in September on mandatory minimum prison sentences, Mr. Paul, a Republican, appears to have copied language directly from an essay that had previously run in The Week magazine,” Times reporter Jonathan Martin wrote on Monday.

The gravity of this revelation was compounded by an earlier report which indicated that “three pages” of Paul’s book were plagiarized from a 2003 Heritage Foundation study.

Paul and his supporters mocked Maddow’s charge of plagiarism surrounding the Wikipedia issue when it first broke. He said that the attacks on him would, in another era, be sufficient cause to call for a duel with the aim of restoring his sullied honor.

There is nothing trivial about plagiarism. Paul would be well-advised to take ownership of these infractions, correct for them, and ensure that they never happen again. Furthermore, he would also be well-served to not lash out at those who criticize them – especially when they can be so easily proven correct.

Update: Rand Paul has released a statement in which his office apologizes for his staff’s inappropriate references to other published works without citation.
Quote:

In the thousands of speeches and op-eds Sen. Paul has produced, he has always presented his own ideas, opinions and conclusions. Sen. Paul also relies on a large number of staff and advisers to provide supporting facts and anecdotes – some of which were not clearly sourced or vetted properly.

Footnotes presenting supporting facts were not always used. Going forward, footnotes will be available on request. There have also been occasions where quotations or typesetting indentations have been left out through errors in our approval process. From here forward, quoting, footnoting and citing will be more complete.

Adherence to a new approval process implemented by Sen. Paul will ensure proper citation and accountability in all collaborative works going forward.


http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-pauls-wikipedia-gate-gets-serious-and-
maddow-gets-the-last-laugh/



"(F)ootnotes will be available on request". That's not how it's done. If you write something under your own name, you footnote any time you QUOTE someone else's words. Obviously Paul still doesn't get it.

Plagiarism: "an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author."

Obviously there was neither "authorization" requested nor "credit" or "attrition" provided for the specific passages and directly-copied text Paul used in speeches, an op-ed AND a book he claims to have authored. Can he blame his "staff" for that one? If he "wrote" the book, why would he CHOOSE not to attribute the pages he lifted to their original author(s)? This pattern says a lot about the man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 1:19 PM

ELVISCHRIST




"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." - Rand Paul


"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Rand Paul


"To be or not to be; that is the question." - Rand Paul

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 3:58 AM

ELVISCHRIST


WaTimes has shitcanned his column in the wake of his serial plagiarism coming to light.

And Rand has admitted to it and now wants people to "leave me the hell alone."


Let's see, gets caught lying, check. Throws a tantrum, check. Threatens to shoot someone for pointing out his lying, check. Throws another tantrum, check. Now says everyone has to leave him the hell alone and stop pointing out that he's a serial plagiarist, check.

Oh, and he says it's an "implication" that he's dishonest.

No, Rand, the plagiarism and the lying about it are what make you look dishonest. It's not an "implication". It's a fact. You're just trying to blamestorm and point the finger at the people who called you on your bullshit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 6:13 AM

MAL4PREZ


The quote that kills me is this:

"What we are going to do from here forward, if it will make people leave me the hell alone, is we’re going to do them like college papers," he [Rand] said Tuesday. "We’re going to try to put out footnotes. We’re going to have them available. If people want to request the footnoted version, we’re going to have it available."

This guy so does not get it. Try? Footnotes available? He has no idea of what integrity is. Just like Romney, this guy thinks he can put himself out there as a candidate to run this country and have a major influence on people's lives, yet people have no right to expect any level of honesty and integrity from him.

Like others before him, Rand will learn that he is not some ultimate dictator, that his actions have consequences, and that this is in reality a BIG damned deal. I'm counting the minutes until he groks how bad the blowback is and reverses course, starts apologizing and such. The worse it gets for him, the more apologies will start to sound real.

They won't be though. He just doesn't get it, and now it is well documented.

I'm also looking to seeing how our local RWAs will rationalize this one. They have been notably absent on this topic...

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 9:45 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


They won't come, with the possible exception of Rap to make some inane, totally unrelated remark, or say it's a "non-story". Anyone taking bets?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:54 PM

STORYMARK


That's a pointless bet. We know these buffoons are in total denial mode.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:10 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Man, that apple fell so far from the tree, I'd be interrogating the milkman!

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 8:30 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Poor Rand Paul. The hits just keep coming, and he's STILL clueless:
Quote:

Sen. Rand Paul says he shouldn't have to stay in 'detention' forever for reported instances of plagiarism in his speeches and writings. But examples of pilfered prose keep emerging.

Someday, the political world may forget the time when Sen. Rand Paul was caught plagiarizing other sources for some of his speeches and writings. It is a blight on one’s brand, no matter that the Kentucky Republican has likened his case to a high school kid who got too cozy with Wikipedia. “Do I have to be in detention the rest of my career?” he asks.

Sen. Paul has felt a sort of shunning. The Washington Times and Paul have “mutually agreed” to end his regular column, the conservative newspaper announced this week.

“We expect our columnists to submit original work and to properly attribute material, and we appreciate that the senator and his staff have taken responsibility for an oversight in one column,” Times Editor John Solomon said. The newspaper got stung by a Paul column on mandatory sentencing, parts of which were identical to passages in a piece in The Week, BuzzFeed found.

Paul will continue to be able to preach (in writing) to the choir, however, via the tea party web site Breitbart.com. Without mentioning the plagiarism flap or his split with the Washington Times, Breitbart executives embraced Paul in making the announcement this week.

“We are pleased to add Senator Paul to our lineup of fearless, original thought leaders," said Breitbart News CEO Larry Solov. "Most of all, we think the fighting spirit he has become known for is a perfect fit for Breitbart News Network and reflects that of our founder, Andrew Breitbart.”

Meanwhile, a couple more instances involving Paul using other sources without giving due credit have risen.

“(I)n two 2013 speeches, Paul borrowed from a conservative think-tank without attribution.”

“In his speech at the Value Voters Summit on October 11, Paul appropriated written material from the Gatestone Institute, a think-tank chaired by John Bolton.

“The transcript of the speech has been removed from Paul’s web site – as have the transcripts from numerous other speeches while Paul battles an ongoing plagiarism scandal – but it can be found using Google cache.

“Paul’s speech draws – without attribution – from two Gatestone Institute articles, ‘The Degradation of Christian Women Under Islam,’ published on September 11, 2013, and ‘Muslim Persecution of Christians,’ published on April 18th.

“While several elements of Paul’s speech were taken word for word from Gatestone, in other cases a single word or two was changed or added. Paul did not attribute Gatestone’s writing or research anywhere in the speech, as it was originally posted on his web site.”

Another example has been found of Paul using the work of the Gatestone Institute without attribution, this time in June in a speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/1109/Politic
al-plagiarism-Will-Rand-Paul-ever-get-out-of-detention-video



Gotta love it: "original thought leaders." Yup, he's a perfect reflection of Breitbart, you betcha.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 12:50 PM

ELVISCHRIST



In college, plagiarism gets you expelled.

At the Washington Times, it gets you fired.

At Breitbart, it gets you a job.

That says something about their credibility.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 1:39 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Like anything needs to be said about Breitbart's credibility? ;o)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 2:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And not a single RWA poster here. How - cowardly.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 2:43 PM

STORYMARK


They are masters are staying inside their safe little bubble.

But yeah, buncha chickenshits.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL