*****Republican National Convention thread. Let the games begin.*****

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did she plagiarize or paraphrase?

How to Recognize Plagiarism

If the summary contains a sequence of 7 or more words taken from that source which is not properly acknowledged, then word-for-word plagiarism is also committed.

Yup. It passes as plagiarism. There are several places where more than seven words were EXACTLY the same. There's one place where 23 words are the same.

The writers obviously knew they were plagiarizing, because sometimes they left one word out or changed just one or two words... It's not her fault, it's the incompetent campaign... run by an incompetent politician.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You never answered if you would be treating Jeb!'s wife like this.

Would you be making excuses if Barack Obama's wife had copied someone's speech?

Incompetent politician... sounds refreshing. Someone not used to the veil of bull# then.
Meanwhile for real incompetence let's refer back to a secretary of state leaving classified information that put lives at risk on her home brew server in her basement

And yet another red herring.

It's a logical fallacy double play!

Not really - the charge was incompetence. I am merely pointing out that the clearest case of incompetence relating to the two candidates is that of the ex secretary of state. That is unless you believe not fully vetting a speech is more incompetent than leaving classified information on an unprotected server in your basement.

Yes, it was a red herring because you are trying to change the focus of attention to someone other than the topic at hand.

Rejected. Hillary Clinton is most relevant to the topic at hand considering the whole convention last night was about the alternative to her.

Trump's wife's potential plagiarism has nothing to do with Hillary.

Still rejected. A charge was brought against Donald Trump for being incompetent based on Melania's speech.
The thread and topic is about the convention, a main focus of which was Hillary Clinton
I am merely pointing out the fact that Clinton is proven to be incompetent in public office.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did she plagiarize or paraphrase?

How to Recognize Plagiarism

If the summary contains a sequence of 7 or more words taken from that source which is not properly acknowledged, then word-for-word plagiarism is also committed.

Yup. It passes as plagiarism. There are several places where more than seven words were EXACTLY the same. There's one place where 23 words are the same.

The writers obviously knew they were plagiarizing, because sometimes they left one word out or changed just one or two words... It's not her fault, it's the incompetent campaign... run by an incompetent politician.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You never answered if you would be treating Jeb!'s wife like this.

Would you be making excuses if Barack Obama's wife had copied someone's speech?

Incompetent politician... sounds refreshing. Someone not used to the veil of bull# then.
Meanwhile for real incompetence let's refer back to a secretary of state leaving classified information that put lives at risk on her home brew server in her basement

And yet another red herring.

It's a logical fallacy double play!

Not really - the charge was incompetence. I am merely pointing out that the clearest case of incompetence relating to the two candidates is that of the ex secretary of state. That is unless you believe not fully vetting a speech is more incompetent than leaving classified information on an unprotected server in your basement.

Yes, it was a red herring because you are trying to change the focus of attention to someone other than the topic at hand.

Rejected. Hillary Clinton is most relevant to the topic at hand considering the whole convention last night was about the alternative to her.

Wrong; the convention was supposed to articulate the party's platform so that voters can decide.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps you should set aside your political bias and just give her credit. To be fair to most of the pundits, that's what they did.

I have not said anything on this issue to give the appearance of a bias. All I said is that if this was someone on the Left, the right would be in an uproar.

It would probably be creeping towards making the front page of ATS and even one of the main headlines on Drudge Report.

Bias takes many forms, including the things one does not say. I am yet to hear a rounded and balanced assessment from anyone on this thread not supportive of Trump and his campaign. When that is the case it undermines everything else one could say, even if true.

That is illogical nonsense. I know you are biased in your politics, but you could at least not try to insult our intelligence with that sort of garbage.

Please link a single post you have made in this thread that is even slightly positive about anything that happened at last nights convention. I will wait.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did she plagiarize or paraphrase?

How to Recognize Plagiarism

If the summary contains a sequence of 7 or more words taken from that source which is not properly acknowledged, then word-for-word plagiarism is also committed.

Yup. It passes as plagiarism. There are several places where more than seven words were EXACTLY the same. There's one place where 23 words are the same.

The writers obviously knew they were plagiarizing, because sometimes they left one word out or changed just one or two words... It's not her fault, it's the incompetent campaign... run by an incompetent politician.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You never answered if you would be treating Jeb!'s wife like this.

Would you be making excuses if Barack Obama's wife had copied someone's speech?

Incompetent politician... sounds refreshing. Someone not used to the veil of bull# then.
Meanwhile for real incompetence let's refer back to a secretary of state leaving classified information that put lives at risk on her home brew server in her basement

And yet another red herring.

It's a logical fallacy double play!

Not really - the charge was incompetence. I am merely pointing out that the clearest case of incompetence relating to the two candidates is that of the ex secretary of state. That is unless you believe not fully vetting a speech is more incompetent than leaving classified information on an unprotected server in your basement.

Yes, it was a red herring because you are trying to change the focus of attention to someone other than the topic at hand.

Rejected. Hillary Clinton is most relevant to the topic at hand considering the whole convention last night was about the alternative to her.

Wrong; the convention was supposed to articulate the party's platform so that voters can decide.

And in so doing drew contrasts with Hillary Clinton. As I said a main focus of the convention was Hillary Clinton, regardless of what it was 'supposed' to do in your mind. Undeniable fact, ergo I was correct.

a reply to: UKTruth

The thread and topic is about the convention, a main focus of which was Hillary Clinton

Even though it was supposed to be about foreign policy and national security. No fresh ideas in that department other than "Hillary sucks?"

I am merely pointing out the fact that Clinton is proven to be incompetent in public office.

Wrong again, but that's not the issue: the issue is that Trump is inexperienced in public office and incompetent as a businessman.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did she plagiarize or paraphrase?

How to Recognize Plagiarism

If the summary contains a sequence of 7 or more words taken from that source which is not properly acknowledged, then word-for-word plagiarism is also committed.

Yup. It passes as plagiarism. There are several places where more than seven words were EXACTLY the same. There's one place where 23 words are the same.

The writers obviously knew they were plagiarizing, because sometimes they left one word out or changed just one or two words... It's not her fault, it's the incompetent campaign... run by an incompetent politician.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You never answered if you would be treating Jeb!'s wife like this.

Would you be making excuses if Barack Obama's wife had copied someone's speech?

Incompetent politician... sounds refreshing. Someone not used to the veil of bull# then.
Meanwhile for real incompetence let's refer back to a secretary of state leaving classified information that put lives at risk on her home brew server in her basement

And yet another red herring.

It's a logical fallacy double play!

Not really - the charge was incompetence. I am merely pointing out that the clearest case of incompetence relating to the two candidates is that of the ex secretary of state. That is unless you believe not fully vetting a speech is more incompetent than leaving classified information on an unprotected server in your basement.

Yes, it was a red herring because you are trying to change the focus of attention to someone other than the topic at hand.

Rejected. Hillary Clinton is most relevant to the topic at hand considering the whole convention last night was about the alternative to her.

Wrong; the convention was supposed to articulate the party's platform so that voters can decide.

And in so doing drew contrasts with Hillary Clinton. As I said a main focus of the convention was Hillary Clinton, regardless of what it was 'supposed' to do in your mind. Undeniable fact, ergo I was correct.

Why did they say the theme was supposed to be about foreign policy and national security? Tonight is supposed to be about economics. Wanna bet that they will only talk about Hillary?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

The thread and topic is about the convention, a main focus of which was Hillary Clinton

Even though it was supposed to be about foreign policy and national security. No fresh ideas in that department other than "Hillary sucks?"

I am merely pointing out the fact that Clinton is proven to be incompetent in public office.

Wrong again, but that's not the issue: the issue is that Trump is inexperienced in public office and incompetent as a businessman.

Whatever you think it should have been about is irrelevant. It was very much about Clinton.
Yes trump is inexperienced in public office - a great strength.
As for the businessman part, he has generated a return of somewhere between 400,000% and 1,000,000% on his initial start up money of £1m. Your accusation is not unexpected but is, of course, laughable.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ha, ha, ha! Now see?

Here you are defending Biden while accusing someone else.

Melania had 7 words all in a row, but Biden steals a whole bunch of details about someone else's life and claims they are his life story ... but he didn't have 7 words all in a row, so it's OK because he paraphrased them.

Melania Trump is being accused of cribbing words from Michelle Obama in two paragraphs in her RNC speech. According to Slate Magazine, “Biden’s misdeeds encompassed numerous self-aggrandizing thefts, misstatements, and exaggerations that seemed to point to a serious character defect.”

Not even Slate was willing to defend Biden, but you will to make your point.

Biden left the race because of the plagiarism accusations in part. But, you know, he didn't take 7 words in a row. So I guess you need to write to all those media outlets and tell them how wrong they were. You clearly know better. Taking the details of someone else's life ... oh, and the details of other politician's lives in there too ...

Reported Slate in 2008, “The incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race have drawn little comment since his selection as Barack Obama’s vice presidential running mate.”

The Washington Post said other things contributed, including “the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.”

But, you know, Melania had 7 words in a row ...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did she plagiarize or paraphrase?

How to Recognize Plagiarism

If the summary contains a sequence of 7 or more words taken from that source which is not properly acknowledged, then word-for-word plagiarism is also committed.

Yup. It passes as plagiarism. There are several places where more than seven words were EXACTLY the same. There's one place where 23 words are the same.

The writers obviously knew they were plagiarizing, because sometimes they left one word out or changed just one or two words... It's not her fault, it's the incompetent campaign... run by an incompetent politician.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You never answered if you would be treating Jeb!'s wife like this.

Would you be making excuses if Barack Obama's wife had copied someone's speech?

Incompetent politician... sounds refreshing. Someone not used to the veil of bull# then.
Meanwhile for real incompetence let's refer back to a secretary of state leaving classified information that put lives at risk on her home brew server in her basement

And yet another red herring.

It's a logical fallacy double play!

Not really - the charge was incompetence. I am merely pointing out that the clearest case of incompetence relating to the two candidates is that of the ex secretary of state. That is unless you believe not fully vetting a speech is more incompetent than leaving classified information on an unprotected server in your basement.

Yes, it was a red herring because you are trying to change the focus of attention to someone other than the topic at hand.

Rejected. Hillary Clinton is most relevant to the topic at hand considering the whole convention last night was about the alternative to her.

Wrong; the convention was supposed to articulate the party's platform so that voters can decide.

And in so doing drew contrasts with Hillary Clinton. As I said a main focus of the convention was Hillary Clinton, regardless of what it was 'supposed' to do in your mind. Undeniable fact, ergo I was correct.

Why did they say the theme was supposed to be about foreign policy and national security? Tonight is supposed to be about economics. Wanna bet that they will only talk about Hillary?

No I do not want to bet, because they will.
As part of any discussions, It makes total sense to differentiate and shine a light on Clinton's lies and failures.

a reply to: UKTruth

So are you going to address that charge against Trump, or just change the focus to Hillary?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps you should set aside your political bias and just give her credit. To be fair to most of the pundits, that's what they did.

I have not said anything on this issue to give the appearance of a bias. All I said is that if this was someone on the Left, the right would be in an uproar.

It would probably be creeping towards making the front page of ATS and even one of the main headlines on Drudge Report.

Bias takes many forms, including the things one does not say. I am yet to hear a rounded and balanced assessment from anyone on this thread not supportive of Trump and his campaign. When that is the case it undermines everything else one could say, even if true.

That is illogical nonsense. I know you are biased in your politics, but you could at least not try to insult our intelligence with that sort of garbage.

Please link a single post you have made in this thread that is even slightly positive about anything that happened at last nights convention. I will wait.

What does positivity have to do with it?

You're not making much sense.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

So are you going to address that charge against Trump, or just change the focus to Hillary?

I already have. I don't have much of a problem with someone saying that the campaign was incompetent for not checking the speech more thoroughly. I am pointing out, however, that any charge of incompetence pales into insignificance at the incompetence of putting ones countrymen and womens' lives at risk through 'extreme carelessness' when in the office of Secretary of State.

Have you found one of your positive, even slightly positive, comments yet from this thread?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did she plagiarize or paraphrase?

How to Recognize Plagiarism

If the summary contains a sequence of 7 or more words taken from that source which is not properly acknowledged, then word-for-word plagiarism is also committed.

Yup. It passes as plagiarism. There are several places where more than seven words were EXACTLY the same. There's one place where 23 words are the same.

The writers obviously knew they were plagiarizing, because sometimes they left one word out or changed just one or two words... It's not her fault, it's the incompetent campaign... run by an incompetent politician.

originally posted by: ketsuko
You never answered if you would be treating Jeb!'s wife like this.

Would you be making excuses if Barack Obama's wife had copied someone's speech?

Incompetent politician... sounds refreshing. Someone not used to the veil of bull# then.
Meanwhile for real incompetence let's refer back to a secretary of state leaving classified information that put lives at risk on her home brew server in her basement

And yet another red herring.

It's a logical fallacy double play!

Not really - the charge was incompetence. I am merely pointing out that the clearest case of incompetence relating to the two candidates is that of the ex secretary of state. That is unless you believe not fully vetting a speech is more incompetent than leaving classified information on an unprotected server in your basement.

Yes, it was a red herring because you are trying to change the focus of attention to someone other than the topic at hand.

Rejected. Hillary Clinton is most relevant to the topic at hand considering the whole convention last night was about the alternative to her.

Wrong; the convention was supposed to articulate the party's platform so that voters can decide.

And in so doing drew contrasts with Hillary Clinton. As I said a main focus of the convention was Hillary Clinton, regardless of what it was 'supposed' to do in your mind. Undeniable fact, ergo I was correct.

Why did they say the theme was supposed to be about foreign policy and national security? Tonight is supposed to be about economics. Wanna bet that they will only talk about Hillary?

No I do not want to bet, because they will.
As part of any discussions, It makes total sense to differentiate and shine a light on Clinton's lies and failures.

Since it seems to be a concern of yours, where is the positivity in doing that? Where are they highlighting their solutions?

Oops! Double post.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

I can never get any "heavy" links to work. But if Biden used 7 or more words from another speech, then he plagiarized. I FULLY acknowledge that! I haven't seen a word for word on his speeches. Let's take a look...

'Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university?'' Then pointing to his wife in the audience, he continued: ''Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?''

''I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university?'' he said. Then, pointing to his wife, he continued: ''Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?''

Source

I can't find 7 words that are the same, in the same order. But I would admit that he obviously based this paragraph on another speech. It's the difference between paraphrasing and plagiarism, which is what I looked up.

But when the shoe is on the other foot, you defend "your guy" and refuse to acknowledge it. If you're going to try to make me look hypocritical, be sure you're not exposing your own hypocrisy in doing so...

From the Heavy link that I posted a couple of pages back:

Biden admitted he had plagiarized a law review article for a “paper he wrote in his first year at law school.” The Times said Biden had called the plagiarism a “mistake.”

In that case, Biden admitted plagiarism.
The article goes on to say this:

History.com says that Biden “even borrowed facts from “Kinnock’s life, stating inaccurately, for example, that he was the first in his family to go to college and that his ancestors were coal miners.” The History site also says that Biden was then accused of taking “passages from Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey, and he was caught on camera exaggerating his academic credentials.”

Heavy.co m

Americans have been conditioned to the fan fare their whole lives. Everyone has been to the circus, watched 'sporting events', seen game shows on TV, and celebrated the holidays.

Let the circus begin...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Here you are defending Biden while accusing someone else.

I am not defending him! I said he obviously paraphrased from the other speaker.

I didn't say it was OK. I am making no judgments about it in EITHER case. I'm simply saying that 7 words or more in a row is considered plagiarism.

In Biden's case, his speechwriters were careful to paraphrase instead of plagiarize. In Trump's case, they weren't.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UKTruth

Perhaps you should set aside your political bias and just give her credit. To be fair to most of the pundits, that's what they did.

I have not said anything on this issue to give the appearance of a bias. All I said is that if this was someone on the Left, the right would be in an uproar.

It would probably be creeping towards making the front page of ATS and even one of the main headlines on Drudge Report.

Bias takes many forms, including the things one does not say. I am yet to hear a rounded and balanced assessment from anyone on this thread not supportive of Trump and his campaign. When that is the case it undermines everything else one could say, even if true.

That is illogical nonsense. I know you are biased in your politics, but you could at least not try to insult our intelligence with that sort of garbage.

Please link a single post you have made in this thread that is even slightly positive about anything that happened at last nights convention. I will wait.

What does positivity have to do with it?

You're not making much sense.

Nope, just a single even slightly positive comment from your entire post history on this thread, please. Simple request. For the avoidance of doubt I am saying you are biased and therefore your opinion on this matter is completely worthless. I await your example from your over 50 posts since on this thread alone...

a reply to: UKTruth

Have you found one of your positive, even slightly positive, comments yet from this thread?

No. I'm not a dog and I don't do tricks. If you desire such a thing, go find it yourself.

You asking for such a thing is another red herring. It has nothing to do with the topic.

a reply to: butcherguy

OK. Then he plagiarized his speech in high school.

See how I quickly admitted that and didn't defend him and make excuses for his plagiarizing?