Rand Paul Plagiarized Wikipedia in Speech

[Vox]

leftard tools still can not grasp an idea that an open source without an author can not be plagiarized? LOL

rightard idiots cannot understand when you pass something off word for word -

as

your

own

words,

and you didn't write it, that's plagiarism.

idiot leftard still not getting that wikipedia can not be plagiarized?

 

[Vox]

leftard tools still can not grasp an idea that an open source without an author can not be plagiarized? LOL

What makes you believe that an open source can not be plagiarized? How can something written not have an author? Why are you the only person with this distorted definition of a word listed in every dictionary in print or online? Where did your idea come from? Is it something you heard on the radio or read in some blog? And anyhow, Paul is now being accused of plagiarizing published works that DO have copyrights and specific authors.

wikipedia can not be plagiarized by a default.

why - educate yourself on your own.

hint - for something to be plagiarized it needs to have a definite author, an owner

 

[Vox]

leftard tools still can not grasp an idea that an open source without an author can not be plagiarized? LOL

Biden was accused of plagiarizing a public speech from another politician, in 1988.

Are you claiming that Right-Wingers have been wrong all these years since that speech was in the public domain?

you idiot, another politician IS an author

wikipedia does not have a legitimate author and can be changed by Rand Paul himself.

Or it could have been written originally BY HIM. In wikipedia.

Prove that it was not

 

[flacaltenn]

Holy shit -- this flatca dude is having a cow, and saying *I* stole words because I posted this:

"I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important." -Rand Paul, giving advice to college students.

in the same thread he is trying to make a case that his patron saint Rand Paul, who swiped acres of words as his own work, word for word - in his speeches, in his books, in his op-eds -- and did.not note.they.were.not.his.own.words. That Paul -- tada! didn't plagiarize.

If that don't eat all the chocolate cake in Kintucky.

Now you want to argue about journalistic ethics and plagiarism with a respected journalist? YOU JUST STOLE a political quote from a source that you didn't credit..

Whatcha gonna do next? Challenge me to a duel??

Hey dude: I'm not a senator that wants to be president, or a journalist for a media corp

-- I'm a poster on a fucking message board that posts quotes like that all the damn time, in a manner I just did. Noting the source of the quote, and in what regard.

Wanting to put a bullet or sword in the chest of a woman for uncovering his deception is Rand Paul's territory. I don't make such silly challenges.

So you're unrepentent for your theft because you're not as IMPORTANT as a US Senator?
Is that your standard of ethics?? Dont care about your cred on a mere Message Board?

 

[paperview]

leftard tools still can not grasp an idea that an open source without an author can not be plagiarized? LOL

rightard idiots cannot understand when you pass something off word for word -

as

your

own

words,

and you didn't write it, that's plagiarism.

idiot leftard still not getting that wikipedia can not be plagiarized?

There is some nuclear grade stupidity going on here.

How do you manage to even log on?

 

[paperview]

Now you want to argue about journalistic ethics and plagiarism with a respected journalist? YOU JUST STOLE a political quote from a source that you didn't credit..

Whatcha gonna do next? Challenge me to a duel??

Hey dude: I'm not a senator that wants to be president, or a journalist for a media corp

-- I'm a poster on a fucking message board that posts quotes like that all the damn time, in a manner I just did. Noting the source of the quote, and in what regard.

Wanting to put a bullet or sword in the chest of a woman for uncovering his deception is Rand Paul's territory. I don't make such silly challenges.

So you're unrepentent for your theft because you're not as IMPORTANT as a US Senator?
Is that your standard of ethics?? Dont care about your cred on a mere Message Board?

Rachel, take it away:

“In politics, this is a classic,” Maddow said. “When you’re getting attacked for something, just accuse your opponent of being guilty of the same thing. Whatever the attack is, if it’s sticking to you, just apply those words in a substantively meaningless way to whoever’s saying it about you, so at least it starts to seem confusing to people or the words lose their meaning.”

Sure...."you can try to make this whole problem for yourself about me, try to make me the story? Good luck. I can take it.”

Maddow to Rand Paul: Good luck trying to make this plagiarism thing about me | The Raw Story

 

[paperview]

Rand Paul's Staff Admits a Copy-and-Paste Problem - Allie Jones - The Atlantic Wire

Over the last week, multiple allegations of plagiarism have been levelled at Sen. Rand Paul. In a couple speeches, Paul repeated Wikipedia descriptions of the films Gattaca and Stand and Deliver.

A column he recently wrote for The Washington Times has lines that are nearly identical to one that was published in The Week a week earlier.

He's borrowed language from the Associated Press, and he parroted information from Focus the Family during a speech earlier this year. And, oops — some of his book Government Bullies comes straight from the mouths of researchers at the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

Paul has responded to the allegations by challenging the "hacks and haters" to a duel, if dueling were still legal in Kentucky.

"The footnote police have really been dogging me for the last week," he said in an interview on Sunday.

Like the last line here:

"Unless dueling becomes legal in Kentucky, in which case, problem solved. "

 

[flacaltenn]

rightard idiots cannot understand when you pass something off word for word -

as

your

own

words,

and you didn't write it, that's plagiarism.

idiot leftard still not getting that wikipedia can not be plagiarized?

There is some nuclear grade stupidity going on here.

How do you manage to even log on?

He's actually quite correct.. The entire PARADIGM and submission rules for Wikipedia EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT any "original material".. Even moderately obscure assertions need to have been made PREVIOUSLY by other authors with proper attributions.. NOTHING on Wiki is NEW original thought or content.

You cannot steal NON-ORIGINAL content. Rand Paul CITED the source for the original content when he acknowledged the name of the name of the work he was referring to as "Gattica"........... THAT --- is sufficient credit to the authors in a political speech.

If I give a speech about race relations and referenced the plot of "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" --- it would HAVE to be similiar to the Wiki description.. Because Wiki does NOT ALLOW review or analysis or interpretation of that plot in a Wiki article..

 

[paperview]

You keep repeating that dude.

Maybe you'll even convince yourself swiping whole passages from other's works, original or not, and calling it your own -- is not plagiarism.

 

[paperview]

Here's what you guys don't get, and why I am dogged in this matter.

Part of what I have done for work, for decades now, is deal in historical documents, letters, etc., a whole lot of original, unpublished material. I work with museums (and even the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, etc...) and part of what I do entails transcribing that original work, and building a story around it.

For example, an original Civil War letter from Union soldier Jeremiah Brown (picking a name at random) is before me. He writes about the battle of Cold Harbor to his cousin Jeb and his fighting off the "rebel scoundrels" and his position in that battle.

In order to give the reader an understanding, I need to provide a summary of the battle.

I cannot go to Wikipedia and use this in my summary:

On May 31, as Grant's army once again swung around the right flank of Lee's army, Union cavalry seized the crossroads of Old Cold Harbor, about 10 miles northeast of the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, holding it against Confederate attacks until the Union infantry arrived. Both Grant and Lee, whose armies had suffered enormous casualties in the Overland Campaign, received reinforcements. On the evening of June 1, the Union VI Corps and XVIII Corps arrived and assaulted the Confederate works to the west of the crossroads with some success.

Even though they are the basic facts of the matter, those are not my words.

If I did decide to be lazy, I could, but I would need to cite it as a Wiki reference. Anything other is not honest. I can't claim it as my own. Whether one person wrote those facts, or a community did. The arrangement of the words are not my own.

You Paulbytes don't seem to get that, and it speaks volumes, on so many levels.

We have since learned Paul does not just swipe Wiki though, much of his stealing DID originate from one, original source. he may have noted, in some cases, the reference for his words -- but STILL, he did not put those words in quotes.

He did not make clear to the reader those were not his words. His summary, detail, work-product -- was someone else's work product.

By appropriating the exact language, verbatim, he is engaging in plagiarism, cut, dry and dead center fact. Any high school student knows this. Any high school student knows he would be flunked if he did what rand did.

It might explain why Randian's don't know this, but who's to say?

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey dude: I'm not a senator that wants to be president, or a journalist for a media corp

-- I'm a poster on a fucking message board that posts quotes like that all the damn time, in a manner I just did. Noting the source of the quote, and in what regard.

Wanting to put a bullet or sword in the chest of a woman for uncovering his deception is Rand Paul's territory. I don't make such silly challenges.

So you're unrepentent for your theft because you're not as IMPORTANT as a US Senator?
Is that your standard of ethics?? Dont care about your cred on a mere Message Board?

Rachel, take it away:

“In politics, this is a classic,” Maddow said. “When you’re getting attacked for something, just accuse your opponent of being guilty of the same thing. Whatever the attack is, if it’s sticking to you, just apply those words in a substantively meaningless way to whoever’s saying it about you, so at least it starts to seem confusing to people or the words lose their meaning.”

Sure...."you can try to make this whole problem for yourself about me, try to make me the story? Good luck. I can take it.”

Maddow to Rand Paul: Good luck trying to make this plagiarism thing about me | The Raw Story

So you're excusing your plagiarism by hiding behind Maddows desk?

 

[Vox]

rightard idiots cannot understand when you pass something off word for word -

as

your

own

words,

and you didn't write it, that's plagiarism.

idiot leftard still not getting that wikipedia can not be plagiarized?

There is some nuclear grade stupidity going on here.

How do you manage to even log on?

you, leftard moron, do you even know what wikipedia is?

 

[Camp]

Here's what you guys don't get, and why I am dogged in this matter.

Part of what I have done for work, for decades now, is deal in historical documents, letters, etc., a whole lot of original, unpublished material. I work with museums (and even the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, etc...) and part of what I do entails transcribing that original work, and building a story around it.

For example, an original Civil War letter from Union soldier Jeremiah Brown (picking a name at random) is before me. He writes about the battle of Cold Harbor to his cousin Jeb and his fighting off the "rebel scoundrels" and his position in that battle.

In order to give the reader an understanding, I need to provide a summary of the battle.

I cannot go to Wikipedia and use this in my summary:

On May 31, as Grant's army once again swung around the right flank of Lee's army, Union cavalry seized the crossroads of Old Cold Harbor, about 10 miles northeast of the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, holding it against Confederate attacks until the Union infantry arrived. Both Grant and Lee, whose armies had suffered enormous casualties in the Overland Campaign, received reinforcements. On the evening of June 1, the Union VI Corps and XVIII Corps arrived and assaulted the Confederate works to the west of the crossroads with some success.

Even though they are the basic facts of the matter, those are not my words.

If I did decide to be lazy, I could, but I would need to cite it as a Wiki reference. Anything other is not honest. I can't claim it as my own. Whether one person wrote those facts, or a community did. The arrangement of the words are not my own.

You Paulbytes don't seem to get that, and it speaks volumes, on so many levels.

We have since learned Paul does not just swipe Wiki though, much of his stealing DID originate from one, original source. he may have noted, in some cases, the reference for his words -- but STILL, he did not put those words in quotes.

He did not make clear to the reader those were not his words. His summary, detail, work-product -- was someone else's work product.

By appropriating the exact language, verbatim, he is engaging in plagiarism, cut, dry and dead center fact. Any high school student knows this. Any high school student knows he would be flunked if he did what rand did.

It might explain why Randian's don't know this, but who's to say?

Facts don't matter. Truth is not important. Never take responsibility and admit a mistake. Deflect and change the subject. Redefine words. Muddy the waters.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's what you guys don't get, and why I am dogged in this matter.

Part of what I have done for work, for decades now, is deal in historical documents, letters, etc., a whole lot of original, unpublished material. I work with museums (and even the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, etc...) and part of what I do entails transcribing that original work, and building a story around it.

For example, an original Civil War letter from Union soldier Jeremiah Brown (picking a name at random) is before me. He writes about the battle of Cold Harbor to his cousin Jeb and his fighting off the "rebel scoundrels" and his position in that battle.

In order to give the reader an understanding, I need to provide a summary of the battle.

I cannot go to Wikipedia and use this in my summary:

On May 31, as Grant's army once again swung around the right flank of Lee's army, Union cavalry seized the crossroads of Old Cold Harbor, about 10 miles northeast of the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia, holding it against Confederate attacks until the Union infantry arrived. Both Grant and Lee, whose armies had suffered enormous casualties in the Overland Campaign, received reinforcements. On the evening of June 1, the Union VI Corps and XVIII Corps arrived and assaulted the Confederate works to the west of the crossroads with some success.

Even though they are the basic facts of the matter, those are not my words.

If I did decide to be lazy, I could, but I would need to cite it as a Wiki reference. Anything other is not honest. I can't claim it as my own. Whether one person wrote those facts, or a community did. The arrangement of the words are not my own.

You Paulbytes don't seem to get that, and it speaks volumes, on so many levels.

We have since learned Paul does not just swipe Wiki though, much of his stealing DID originate from one, original source. he may have noted, in some cases, the reference for his words -- but STILL, he did not put those words in quotes.

He did not make clear to the reader those were not his words. His summary, detail, work-product -- was someone else's work product.

By appropriating the exact language, verbatim, he is engaging in plagiarism, cut, dry and dead center fact. Any high school student knows this. Any high school student knows he would be flunked if he did what rand did.

It might explain why Randian's don't know this, but who's to say?

Easy way to solve that problem.. Fire YOU and make the plaque with words from the Wiki with proper attribution.. After all, if you are not contributing new insight dude --- that work is already done..

I'm sure the Wiki guys would be THRILLED to volunteer their work for immortalization. And they DID that for free.

IN FACT ---- according to Wiki standards, you failed to adequately describe the Cold Harbor battle. "....... the Union VI Corps and XVIII Corps arrived and assaulted the Confederate works to the west of the crossroads with some success".. You made an assertion there that NEEDS an attribution. And the Wiki standards would require one right there. Because certainly you GAINED the knowledge to make the assertion of "some success" from some other researcher..

You really are not up to the ethical standards of a US Senator --- are ya?

 

[boilermaker55]

The accusations of plagiarism continue to pile up for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, with new reports that an op-ed he wrote in September bears passages that closely resemble an opinion piece that had been published a week earlier.
Rand Paul faces another plagiarism claim - Tal Kopan - POLITICO.com
rand...u didn't build this.

 

[Camp]

idiot leftard still not getting that wikipedia can not be plagiarized?

There is some nuclear grade stupidity going on here.

How do you manage to even log on?

you, leftard moron, do you even know what wikipedia is?

It doesn't matter what wikipedia is. When you use someone elses words with the implications that they are your own, it is plagiarism. If you see a poem written on a shit house wall and use it as your own it is plagiarism.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is some nuclear grade stupidity going on here.

How do you manage to even log on?

you, leftard moron, do you even know what wikipedia is?

It doesn't matter what wikipedia is. When you use someone elses words with the implications that they are your own, it is plagiarism. If you see a poem written on a shit house wall and use it as your own it is plagiarism.

We're not talking about crediting "Anonymous" writings on shit house walls.. We're talking about the fucking plotline of a movie.. A MOVIE that was properly CREDITED in the Senator's speech..

The description that was "lifted" from the Wiki, BY DEFINITION, contains NO ORIGINAL WORK. It cannot analyze, embellish, review or editorialize on the content. It is common knowledge by DESIGN and consensus knowledge by the Wiki publishing rules..

It is no different than repeating a TEACHER'S summary of "Alice in Wonderland".. She offered that "common knowledge", FREE OF INTERPRETATION, and FREE OF CHARGE for you to use as you wish for the rest of your life...

 

[paperview]

I'm beginning to think there is a serious mental retardation problem with RandPaulites. Serious.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm beginning to think there is a serious mental retardation problem with RandPaulites. Serious.

Any ACTUAL retardation stems from the hours of YOUR LIFE wasted tuning into the base propaganda from MSNBC "anchors" that you are trying to unsuccessfully sell to SANE and RATIONAL folks.

 

[paperview]

Rachel, take it away:

“In politics, this is a classic,” Maddow said. “When you’re getting attacked for something, just accuse your opponent of being guilty of the same thing. Whatever the attack is, if it’s sticking to you, just apply those words in a substantively meaningless way to whoever’s saying it about you, so at least it starts to seem confusing to people or the words lose their meaning.”

Sure...."you can try to make this whole problem for yourself about me, try to make me the story? Good luck. I can take it.”

Maddow to Rand Paul: Good luck trying to make this plagiarism thing about me | The Raw Story