Okay, just so we're clear, Rand, who copied some generic descriptive language into a speech and an editorial, has no hope now of running in 2016, whereas Hillary Clinton, a woman whose gross incompetence resulted in the needless death of four Americans in Benghazi, is the presumed winner? This country is totally screwed!
That's not a rebuttal. Tell us why we should ignore this. Tell us why the Washington Times is wrong. Tell us how this isn't owned by Paul. I really like him but... not ready for prime time.
I'm not saying you should ignore it, I'm just saying it's not a big deal in the slightest. Did he adhere to the arbitrary citing standards we impose on students in liberal arts universities? No. Could he have been more artful? Sure. But what is the actual offense here? Who is the victim? Last time I checked, generic descriptions of actual events and movie plots are not original material that can actually be "plagiarized". Every word or phrase we use is itself unoriginal. Every day, people use Shakespearean turns of phrases in their speech and their writing, but I don't hear anyone give him credit whenever they say "all of a sudden" or "cold comfort".
I have honestly seen Marine criticize both sides , I agree with you that we should be equal in our critiques of either side . My thoughts are that neither have our welfare in mind just theirs.
What a stupid comparison!! We are talking about paragraphs and not a simple sentence. Here is a good use of quotes. I didn't say "Our ideas got in the book, we got credited in the notes. So that seems like a good thing for a think tank". i gave credit to David Boaz for the quote. So 2 institutions funded by the Koch brothers backed Rand Paul. What a surprise - not.
Okay, just so we're clear, Rand, who copied word for word the same language into a speech and an editorial, has no hope now of running in 2016.
Arming the enemy. Being sloppy. Getting 86ed by the Washington Times. He also handled it poorly. He tried to brush it off onto others. I'm convinced he's not up to the art of high office.
So. . .you are perfectly comfortable with a guy who can't write without copying from others, who creates his own association to avoid having to pass the recertification in his specialty field and names himself, his wife, his and his father in law as the "heads," and who has two malpractice suits (one that was cleared, the other that was concluded with a "settlement"). Yep. . .maybe he would be the "right kind of leader" for politics. . .at least it might avoid some more malpractice suits!
How about talking about the incompetence demonstrated by those under Bush that (if you want to see it that way for Benghazi. . .you must be fair and see it that way for ALL the attacks against consulate and embassies!) occurred in the last 12 years? Where was the outrage THEN?
"Paul passed the certifying examination of the American Board of Ophthalmology in 1995, entitling him to describe himself for 10 years as a "board-certified" ophthalmologist" The issue arises when.... Iin 1997, in protest of the American Board of Ophthalmology's decision to grandfather in older ophthalmologists and not require them to periodically recertify in order to maintain their status as board-certified practitioners, Paul, along with 200 other ophthalmologists formed the National Board of Ophthalmology to offer an alternative ophthalmology certification system" Rand Paul along with 200 other people created it...... You act like 2 Malpractice suits is some sign of a horrible person? One went no where and a $50,000 settlement in a lawsuit is chicken feed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul Typical thinkprogress spin on things Sadanie even you are better that that. - - - Updated - - - Was helped denied in those instances? Care to answer that simple question? Most Progressives have an issue with answering it perhaps you could.
I didn't spin anything. . .I just provided the FULL information about Rand Paul's medical career. In fact, I quoted EXACTLY the same thing you did! Personally, it is not ONE of those "unsavory" details that matters so much, it is the compilation of all of them that, in my opinion, does not present the image of a "strong" leader, or even a very ethical person (as witnessed by the multiple instances of plagiarism and the way this person handled it. . .basically brushing it off instead of taking full responsibility), or a very likable, caring person. I'm sure you have your opinion, and that it probably differs from mine. It is, however, my right to express my own opinion. . .without being insulted (i.e.: "EVEN YOU are better than that."). I do not spin. I do, however, remember clear the "scandal" made by the Left when Presidential candidate Obama "plagiarized" ONE sentence from his friend during a speech in 2008!
Did the CONGRESS denied funding for help in those cases. . .and was there TIME to send help in Benghazi?
Are you suggesting they couldnt have had more assets in high risk areas? Want to play that game really?
I don't see it as a "game," but as a political witch hunt with for only purpose to throw dirt on Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Nothing really different from what happens every day in the Right wing nutshell! Have fun with YOUR GAME!
Real life isnt a game kid. People died. That is not a game. Help was denied while people fought for their very lives. That is not a game.
Rand Paul is apparently the hapless victim of a conspiracy to make him look like a plagiarist. [video=youtube;n7iOAPRDJAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iOAPRDJAY[/video]
Yep. . .and people die EVERY DAY in the US because of how addicted people are to their guns! You don't seem to mind that. . . Many more people died in terrorist attacks, or just plain attacks under Bush. . .and you didn't mind. More people died last week in shooting in malls IN AMERICA. . .which should be a LOT easier to "protect" or to "get help to" than Benghazi. . .but you don't seem to care. ALL the Benghazi troll are focusing on is how much damage they can do to the President and ANY Democrat who might run in 2016. . .doesn't matter that increased funding for Benghazi was refused by Congress! Yes. . .there are areas in this world that are DANGEROUS, and if people sign up to go there. . .they KNOW that they will be facing increased dangers. It is very sad, it is too bad, but it is REALITY, and it has ALWAYS BEEN. The hypocrisy around this "non-issue" is disgusting! Why don't you focus on all the American soldiers who died in an unnecessary war in Iraq? And those who are disabled for life because of that war based on LIES? Why don't you focus on why Bush didn't do anything about the warnings prior to 9/11. . ? 9/11 or the Iraq wars were NOT GAMES either. . .but they sure didn't get any real scrutiny from the Right! By the way. . .what does Benghazi have to do with the OP? Diverted the attention from Rand Paul's short coming and poor ethics may work for awhile. . .but it doesn't change reality either, AND it is against the rules of this forum! Stay on topic!
Of course i care when people die i just done care more when they die from a gun then anything else. That is your ball of wax. I never defended Bush in my life so i dont know why you keep posting that crap when replying to me trying to get one over me or something.... Yes and those people who sign up who are willing to die are willing to die to protect each other NOT people told to stand down and let people die. FFS talk to any Marine. Again with Iraq.. What is your issue.. I NEVER SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR. I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. I AM NOT ON THE RIGHT. Perhaps with caps it will sink in. And bringing up 9/11 ?? Wtf is your problem? Ah now all of a sudden you want to stay on topic but you bring up Bush, 9/11, Shootings in malls etc etc etc..??? Look i know they tend to look the other way depending on who is posting but your crap i have put up with long enough.. Rant to someone else. Ignore list you are on permantly.. Rave to someone else.
Who said Republican lawmakers were saints or even good guys? I never have. Essentially I bash the guys with the power and during this administration with Obama's Democrats controlling the Senate, the Leftwing of this nation is currently dominant. So I assume as a matter of course that Republican generated scuzziness is happening behind the scenes along side Democratic generated scuzziness. But as to whether or not there is fire behind all that smoke that Obama and Rice and Clinton generated after the event happened? Yeah there's real fire of some sort there. Something really weird went down in Benghazi and it smacks of a panic induced cover-up done for the purpose of getting Obama re-elected and to cover the political a*ss of the Democratic Party's front runner for 2016. I figure that the nation will begin to discover what really happened and WHY it happened that way about twenty years from now.
Panic induced cover up. Let's see if we can guess at a likely scenario minus all the political nonsense around it. What do you suppose the odds are that an ongoing intelligence operation is associated with this incident?
The odds were excellent I think. It's been over a year since I studied the nature of the Benghazi region but I seem to recall that the largest known Al Qaeda training camp was located directly across the border from the little town of Benghazi. Also there was some sort of hint that Obama and the State Department were using Benghazi as a staging area for shipping arms to Syrian rebels. But I haven't studied the Benghazi stuff for quite some time now and so I may be wrong about all of that.
Sounds like Republicans are asking questions that members of the Intelligence Committee already know the answers to.
