No, we're talking about generic descriptive language used to convey actual events and describe a movie plot. This is the most phony and ridiculous scandal ever, and it's dripping with irony, because the left are the ones who always complain about conservatives making up phony scandals even when they're real scandals like the IRS and Benghazi.
I honestly don't think this is going to undue his chances of winning. This fake scandal is only a big deal among political junkies and the fringe minority who watches Maddow. Normal Americans are more concerned about the grand deception that Obama has perpetrated against them, lying over and over again right to their faces about how his healthcare legislation wouldn't cause them to lose their coverage or their doctor. Yes, I think Americans know the difference between borrowing some generic descriptive language about a movie plot and real life events and lying dozens of times to the American people in order to pass a disastrous healthcare law.
He got 86ed from the Washington Times editorial he wrote on a (semi) regular basis. They think it's serious.
Was it a mistake? Yes. Is it going to effect his chances in 2016? Not a chance. By the time it does come up with normal voters, he'll have had years to create a good answer and apologize for not being more careful. At present, mainstream America knows very little about plagiarism-gate with Rand Paul. It has absolutely no impact on their lives so they don't really care.
We should rethink , Plagiarism. Art is an expression of humanity. If a piece of prose eloquently expresses one's view, I have no problem with it being lifted. It isn't like one is laying claim to a literary prize over it. It is what art is suppose to be about, our lives. This is a "create an issue over a non issue" Story by persons opposed to the Paul candidacy. BTW Rand Paul has stated he would do a better job with his staff. Certainly better than; "Problem? What problem?", of the rest, the RepubloCrats. Obamacare, etc. Moi
Ethereal. . .it's not like you to hide your head in the sand. Look at it. . .it wasn't A MISTAKE. . .it was REPEATED MISTAKES, ONE AFTER THE OTHER, and then, when faced with it. . .no apologies, but whining about people who pointed out those "mistakes!" You are correct, it hasn't cost any life. . . But it certainly demonstrates a lack of ethic from a guy who is a presidential hopeful! I know he is "suppose to be" a LIBERTERIAN. . .but Liberterians deserve better. . .and America deserves better!
Because I'm not jumping on board with a phony leftist scandal and the Washington Times? Asked about the copied text Mike Gonzalez, vice president of communications for the Heritage Foundation, said, “We like when people cite our work. We wish more progressives would cite our work, maybe then they wouldn’t be so progressively wrong.” “Our ideas got in the book, we got credited in the notes. So that seems like a good thing for a think tank,” David Boaz, the executive VP of the Cato Institute said after BuzzFeed was asked to call him by Paul’s office.
No, because that "playing down" of a severe REPEATED incidence of lack of honesty and ethics in one of your idol is unlike your usual fair and logical attitude. It is not a "scandal," not enough people know about plagiarism to care enough to make it a "scandal." But anyone who has gone through College, and anyone who is going through an university program and takes it seriously KNOWS that plagiarism is one of the cardinal sins one can commit in academia. . .and that it demonstrates not only a lack of ethics, but also a lack of intelligence and imagination. . . One case of plagiarism can happen to almost anyone per accident. . . but REPEATED incidence of plagiarism cannot possibly be accidental!
Come on! You can ask 20 people to describe "Avatar" or "the Titanic," and you will have 20 different versions, although the plot remains the same! What's happening? It almost look like you are purposely suspending your critical thinking and fairness for this case! Maybe there is something to say about the "fan boy" syndrome! I would never have thought you were susceptible to that!
This whole debate about "plagiarism" has far-reaching ethical implications that, frankly, people don't seem interested in discussing. When I think of "plagiarism", I think of someone taking original work and explicitly presenting it as if it were their own. 1. Rand cited both CATO and Heritage foundation in his book, so that is clearly a non-starter. He explicitly gave them credit for their work and made no attempt in his book to present that research as his own work. Not "plagiarism". 2. Rand used a description of a movie plot appearing in Wikipedia. ALL entries in Wikipedia are opensource, which means they can be copied and subsequently modified without restriction. By technical definition, opensource information cannot be "plagiarized", and even if it could be, a generic description of a movie plot does not rise to the standard of dishonesty and misappropriation. 3. Rand uses the same language as a journalist to describe actual cases of people being impacted by mandatory minimum sentences. This is the only example where I can see a clear example of being lazy and failing to give credit where it's due, and I believe Rand has admitted he was wrong, so I'm not sure what else we're supposed to say after the guy admits he made a mistake. To be honest, I think there are a lot more important things to worry about than this.
This wasn't Roger Ebert's movie review, it was just a couple of sentences from Wikipedia giving a bare-bones description of a movie plot. Give me a break!
Exactly! How can ANYONE repeat, word for word ANYTHING that Wikepedia describes, unless they are actually copying and pasting it? And. . .that was not (by far) the only instance of "copy and paste!" But. . .if you want to continue seeing this as "nothing," that's okay with me. Just make sure you don't use the same "nothing" when you turn in a paper in school!
I don't think it's nothing. Rand should have credited the journalist who did the reporting on mandatory minimums and he's admitted that.
And I resent the implication that I'm being a "fanboy" for Rand Paul. I'm an anarchist and don't even believe in "intellectual property rights" to begin with, so it should come as no surprise that I have an equally dim view of academia's obsession with "plagiarism".
Until you publish a paper full of your own original ideas, a paper that gives you every right to be proud of all the work you put into it, and a lazy, unethical colleague just picks up your original ideas and/or your prose and stick it in his own paper. . ."forgetting" to give you credit. To set things straight. . .I certainly do not believe you are a "fanboy!" It's just not in your character. . . I was teasing (taking the expression of a previous comment made by someone else. . .a plagiarism? ). . .but your reaction and defense of this unethical action by a man whom you would like to see as a leader is also not in character for someone as straight forward and smart as you. Anyone. . .I'm done with this. Take care.
I am sorry if you "honestly" believe that. He is finished. Find a new guy. Your thinking is the same as other libertarians. You have no chance to win but you keep thinking that you can.
You, Paul and his staff really do not get it. "Lifted" is a very good term for it. Lifted: "Informal To steal; pilfer: A thief lifted my wallet." "when someone steals your stuff".
The plagiarism mattered. A little. He could have overcome it easily with a heartfelt mea culpa and appropriate embarrassment and two years from now it would have been a blip. It his childish petulance under pressure that have become the real story, causing the hometown newspaper that endorsed him to suggest that when Rand threatened to quit politics if people continued to be "mean to him" that he should "just go". It is this churlishness of Paul that will be the lasting stain, the arrogant peacock resenting any hint of correction. Even Kentucky is turning on him. Kentucky!
Stupid decision from Paul. Probably more to do with laziness of staff than maliciousness. regardless, It is shoot the messenger week and this post clearly espouses that message. - - - Updated - - - Stupid decision from Paul. Probably more to do with laziness of staff than maliciousness. regardless, It is shoot the messenger week and this post clearly espouses that message.
