Sections Of Rand Paul’s Op-Ed On Drug Sentencing Plagiarized From Article Week Earlier

MrInquisitive

burntheships

Indigo5
Correct. So if Rand owns-up to his mind-numbingly blatant, cut and paste, plagiarism...which he has refused to do

I guess you will be getting over it, just as everyone did with Biden.
abcnews.go.com...

In the mean time, the haters and hacks will always be around,
playing hypocrite games. Enjoy ~

It took Biden twenty years to rehabilitate his political career with respect to his plagiarism scandal in order to run for national office again. I'm all for holding Randy Paul to the same standard as Biden. Let's see him consider throwing his hat into the ring for POTUS in 2036. Until then, he needs to show the American people that he has learned from his experience. So far his tactic of blaming the media for his own literary crimes is not showing that he has learned anything or has any sense of honor.

He is a word thief and he is a liar and a denier. If he was man enough, he would just admit that he made NUMEROUS mistakes and apologize for them and make sure they never happen again. But instead he is blaming others for pointing out his misdeeds and then acting very petulently by suggesting that if it were legal, he would challenge his critics to a duel. What a big lying baby. Baby needs a nap too.

If that means you have to leave politics do we get to throw out obozo now then? Lets see the great liar step down first

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by burntheships

 

Unfortunately, this one is legitimate, and he's admitted himself. Even blaming his office and suggesting major changes will fix what it's now obvious he's done. Often, by all appearances. I respect his Dad very much and I feel bad for Ron now. He must be deeply disappointed. What Rand has done and now been busted for is simply no small thing. It's a real biggie. I've lost respect for him after reading his reactions and latest statements.

I wonder though, is this as bad as say cheney's lie about when he was first in the bunker on 911, or is this as bad as comptroller Dov Zackhiem the dual passport ( Israeli/ american ) who disappeared a couple of trillion from the whitehouse coffers pre 911, or even obama's 3o+ odd lies about being able to keep one's old Dr under obama care when one can't?

maybe young Rand should have his post stomped by a mod and lets all move on

reply to post by pyramid head

So in the grand scheme of things I'll take the plagiarizer who will stand up to the federal reserve and you can take the murdering and treasonous banking prostitute, that apparently never gets away with anything.

That logic is precisely HOW we got the President we have now and how we got the President we had before him.

'ANYTHING BUT THIS!' was the cry in both 1999 and 2008. Anything but the scumbag we have now!

In with Bush? Well, idiocy like stains on a blue dress, China-gate with Los Alamos and a dozen other things had people saying ANYTHING but Clinton or his kind! ...and so what if Bush may have done drugs, seemingly proud of the fact. Who cares if there were issues in his background ...Who cares if his foreign policy experience was as vast as a teenager back from Spring Break? (not quite...but not far off in 2000, either. It wasn't Clinton!! ...so we won. twice.

With Obama? ANYTHING but Bush!! So what if Obama was a nobody, no one had ever heard of outside Illinois politics and Chicago's corrupt circles before 06/07? Who cares if he's coy and playing games with basic documents, to split the public against each other? Pay no mind to the fact HE knew less about foreign policy than BUSH did. Oh, none of that was important! He wasn't Bush!! So....he won... twice.

Now, I'm to believe Rand Pauls scumbag character and integrity of a con-man shouldn't matter, because, well, HE ISN'T BUSH OR OBAMA! Yes... He isn't those two... so, all else should be forgiven.

Yeah... He isn't those two. I'd hoped he was better than that. Now we see he is not ...and we ignored the signs of what the LAST two scumbags were, despite the signs being right there to see, BEFORE they could prove it by destroying a nation.

I'd rather not give another one the chance to prove HOW bad he is, when he too has now given us all the warning signs we SHOULD need, to know much worse will come from him if given the chance.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Good point, but then, since when do we really have any choice in the matter? Well, people like us here at ATS do, we already know it's not a two party system, and there are many other people to choose from. To the rest of the masses its only dems vs reps. And we are in a huge minority unfortunately. When have we really had a choice in who runs? The people that get backed by big money are the ones that run, and we all know what kind of vermin end up backed by big money

reply to post by TKDRL


supporting someone who will make things worse helps nothing even if they throw a few a few bones in your direction now and again. Rand was already questionable before this in my mind.

reply to post by monkofmimir


I am not a Rand supporter by any means. Love Ron, but the apple fell from the tree and rolled down a mountainside it seems in Rand's case. I don't trust him at all, I just think nitpicking stupid stuff like this is an exercise in futility. I have said the same about nitpicking against others I don't support, like Obama for example. Plenty of real ammo to use, why bother with the blanks is my only point.

Then again I am a bluecollar guy, not an academic. Perhaps that is why I view this kind of thing as small potatoes.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by pyramid head

 

So in the grand scheme of things I'll take the plagiarizer who will stand up to the federal reserve and you can take the murdering and treasonous banking prostitute, that apparently never gets away with anything.

That logic is precisely HOW we got the President we have now and how we got the President we had before him.

'ANYTHING BUT THIS!' was the cry in both 1999 and 2008. Anything but the scumbag we have now!

In with Bush? Well, idiocy like stains on a blue dress, China-gate with Los Alamos and a dozen other things had people saying ANYTHING but Clinton or his kind! ...and so what if Bush may have done drugs, seemingly proud of the fact. Who cares if there were issues in his background ...Who cares if his foreign policy experience was as vast as a teenager back from Spring Break? (not quite...but not far off in 2000, either. It wasn't Clinton!! ...so we won. twice.

With Obama? ANYTHING but Bush!! So what if Obama was a nobody, no one had ever heard of outside Illinois politics and Chicago's corrupt circles before 06/07? Who cares if he's coy and playing games with basic documents, to split the public against each other? Pay no mind to the fact HE knew less about foreign policy than BUSH did. Oh, none of that was important! He wasn't Bush!! So....he won... twice.

Now, I'm to believe Rand Pauls scumbag character and integrity of a con-man shouldn't matter, because, well, HE ISN'T BUSH OR OBAMA! Yes... He isn't those two... so, all else should be forgiven.

Yeah... He isn't those two. I'd hoped he was better than that. Now we see he is not ...and we ignored the signs of what the LAST two scumbags were, despite the signs being right there to see, BEFORE they could prove it by destroying a nation.

I'd rather not give another one the chance to prove HOW bad he is, when he too has now given us all the warning signs we SHOULD need, to know much worse will come from him if given the chance.

That logic is not how we got in this mess. The last two POS politicians were/are banking whores, and did/doing everything the can to rape every last cent from the American people. Rand is not a banking whore, that automatically makes him different than every other president since Kennedy.

Listening to the press tell a bunch of sheeple how great candidates are vs how bad ones are that they don't like is how we keep ending up in this situation. If two of the most worthless and evil pieces of trash on the face of the earth, rove and mccain, dislike someone, that should tell you you're on the right track.

Now I honestly do not think rand will ever get the chance to be president simply because he is not a banking whore, but if he truly isn't, he should get everyone's vote because he would be the most honest president we've had since the 1960's.

reply to post by pyramid head

That logic is not how we got in this mess. The last two POS politicians were/are banking whores, and did/doing everything the can to rape every last cent from the American people. Rand is not a banking whore, that automatically makes him different than every other president since Kennedy.

I don't believe his Father was a tool of the power structure. It takes deed, not word, to convince me. Things like the Republican Party running hard challenges against Ron Paul, right in his own district to remove HIM from the GOP and Public Office have spoken volumes. What they did to the man in his final days of public life, already having declared his intent to retire, showed all I needed to see to know I'd been right in my feelings of Ron being a good man. They can't stand good men.

Rand? Well... No.. He isn't his father. I'd hoped he'd be. We needed him to be..and so it's easy to MAKE him be, in image if not reality.

......There is something I think we *HAVE* to remember here and I'm going to make a comparison I rarely ever do because I personally hate how misused it is. However, in this case? It's 100% dead on to never forget.


When Hitler came to power in 1933, and totally removed from anything which came later and the people then couldn't have known without psychic powers ... Germany had been suffering profound domestic unrest, political killings in the streets and scandal to arrest in the higher levels of the Government. They were a World Power which, due to the terms which closed World War I, had fallen to a staggering low in record time.

They were ready to elect anything. Anything at all, which gave the promise of better times and peace on the streets. They did, in the end, elect "Anything" and they did it with cheers and glee. SO far down had they fallen, they didn't care to learn what should have been clear. He wasn't a savior and despite the true nature of future events being impossible to know? Little things showed that beyond any question in hindsight.

America is now falling ...with profound unrest on the horizon if not already started. We too have been dictated by "anyone but him!" to vote toward whichever each of us has voted for, as a vote against the other guy. A clever man with bad intent might just know history too....and see the unbelievable opportunity current circumstances present.

I think it's MORE important now, than ever before, that we *DO* care about the character of the men we put, in our name, into leadership of what is the most potentially dangerous nation on Earth ...if run poorly or with malicious intent.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by pyramid head

 

I don't believe his Father was a tool of the power structure. It takes deed, not word, to convince me. Things like the Republican Party running hard challenges against Ron Paul, right in his own district to remove HIM from the GOP and Public Office have spoken volumes. What they did to the man in his final days of public life, already having declared his intent to retire, showed all I needed to see to know I'd been right in my feelings of Ron being a good man. They can't stand good men.

Rand? Well... No.. He isn't his father. I'd hoped he'd be. We needed him to be..and so it's easy to MAKE him be, in image if not reality.

......There is something I think we *HAVE* to remember here and I'm going to make a comparison I rarely ever do because I personally hate how misused it is. However, in this case? It's 100% dead on to never forget.


When Hitler came to power in 1933, and totally removed from anything which came later and the people then couldn't have known without psychic powers ... Germany had been suffering profound domestic unrest, political killings in the streets and scandal to arrest in the higher levels of the Government. They were a World Power which, due to the terms which closed World War I, had fallen to a staggering low in record time.

They were ready to elect anything. Anything at all, which gave the promise of better times and peace on the streets. They did, in the end, elect "Anything" and they did it with cheers and glee. SO far down had they fallen, they didn't care to learn what should have been clear. He wasn't a savior and despite the true nature of future events being impossible to know? Little things showed that beyond any question in hindsight.

America is now falling ...with profound unrest on the horizon if not already started. We too have been dictated by "anyone but him!" to vote toward whichever each of us has voted for, as a vote against the other guy. A clever man with bad intent might just know history too....and see the unbelievable opportunity current circumstances present.

I think it's MORE important now, than ever before, that we *DO* care about the character of the men we put, in our name, into leadership of what is the most potentially dangerous nation on Earth ...if run poorly or with malicious intent.

What you are describing is commonly referred to as the "strongman". Rand is not that person. Its pretty simple, for once in 50 years we have a chance to elect someone who is not beholden t to big banks and is possibly electable. If you want to wait until the next Jesus or Washington comes around to elect thats fine, but also unrealistic.

The country is on life support, Rand, again like I said, would be the first potential president to actually address the problem of the country being owned by foreign banks. If he did that ONE thing, he would be the greatest thing to happen to our country since Jackson/Lincoln. I could care less about plagiarism, Kennedy was personally a POS, but was also the last president to actually stand up for and care about the American people.

burntheships
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Wow, more attacks on Rand, well he must be gaining too broad
of an audience, and then those folks are taking him seriously,
as they should.

So apparently, Rand poses a real threat to the status quo,
which is why all of the sudden he is worthy of attack.

Yeah he sure does .
I liken it to the threat a certain man had in Germany in about 1930.
Little guy, crazy ideas funny hair...

How did Rand get elected again ? Grass roots ?
hahahahaha !!!! Nope....
About 30 million in TP money did the trick..ah freedom.

Rand gave the leftover money after his win to Ted Cruz.(thanks Rand)
This is how Cruz, a complete unknown, waltzed in as Senator of Texas.
Rand Paul is the Tea-Pot calling the Kettle Hitler.
Achtung! This man is NOT the politician his Father is.

reply to post by FyreByrd


A joke? Obama is the king of plagiarism. A quick google will give you endless data of his plagiarization.

I dream of a world without plagiarism.
Now you may say I'm a dreamer...
But I'm not the only one.

reply to post by pyramid head


Kennedy was a leader of men in combat and showed his character as well as strength there, among other things. Rand Paul has been in office since 2011.

Obama at least had years of office time in Illinois before coming to the national level, and a term in the Senate before jumping to President. Despite that much, he still arrived woefully unprepared and it's shown...whatever his motives may have started as.

Rand Paul has only one thing that makes him any different than any other freshmen in Congress, working on their first term as an office holder. He has a Father whom many deeply respect, myself included.

What he just demonstrated about his character tells me he has very little, if anything in common with his Dad. That severs the tie for benefit, in my mind at least, and puts him back as 'just another' freshmen in Congress with ambition that hits the stops, trying for more. Not a man I'll vote for.

amfirst1
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

A joke? Obama is the king of plagiarism. A quick google will give you endless data of his plagiarization.

The operative word in your comment is 'data'. We all usenother people's data, those with integrity provide audiences with the sources for data.

In a speech it's often difficult to mention attributions for every single fact; however, a well written speech will announce the source of quoted prose or data often.

I'd, personally, like to see a biolography and footnotes for any speech given as a hand out so presentations aren't endless. I'd like all political statements vetted (but then who vets the vetters).

I'd love to use 'stuff' I've heard in presentations and do occassionally with somesort of disclaimer but if something is going in the public record then your sources need to be verifiable.