Rand Paul is a Liar!

[kalm]

At least by Obama standards...

Over the past week, Senator Paul, widely viewed as a presidential contender in 2016, fended off charges that he lifted passages from Wikipedia for some of his speeches.

Now, an op-ed on mandatory minimum sentencing that Paul wrote in September for the Washington Times seems to contain several paragraphs lifted almost verbatim from an article by an editor of The Week.

RECOMMENDED: 14 Republicans who might run in 2016
The new example, first reported by Buzzfeed, comes after multiple instances were exposed in the past few days of Paul using language in speeches and his book that is identical to passages from various news articles.

Paul responded angrily to such charges over the weekend, telling ABC's "This Week" that he was being "unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters, and I’m just not going to put up with people casting aspersions on my character." He accused MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who had uncovered some of the plagiarism, of "spreading hate" about him.

But on Tuesday morning, Paul's office acknowledged in a statement that some of the material he used hadn't been property vetted, and promised to implement going forward a new system of footnotes and attribution.

“In the thousands of speeches and op-eds Sen. Paul has produced, he has always presented his own ideas, opinions and conclusions. Sen. Paul also relies on a large number of staff and advisers to provide supporting facts and anecdotes – some of which were not clearly sourced or vetted properly,” said Doug Stafford, a senior adviser to Paul, in a statement Tuesday. “Footnotes presenting supporting facts were not always used.”

Paul admitted on ABC to being "sloppy," but his office has stressed that the senator himself hasn't done anything wrong, and has attributed it all to improper vetting. Last week, a Paul adviser told Politico that, in the future, he would be "more cautious in presenting and attributing sources."

In the case of the Washington Times op-ed piece, much of the article appears to have been lifted directly from the essay in The Week.



http://news.yahoo.com/rand-paul-battlin ... 03195.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[YoUDeeMan]

Well, that makes Rand Paul at least eligible for the Vice President position.

[kalm]

Speaking of casting aspersions...

[youtube]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ukTMxxiY-7I[/youtube]

[Gil Dobie]

To take one from Houndawg, politicians are liar's and to be a little more specific, they are also crooks.

[Ivytalk]

Plagiarism in defense of liberty is no vice.

[kalm]

Plagiarism in defense of liberty is no vice.

[DSUrocks07]

To take one from Houndawg, politicians are liar's and to be a little more specific, they are also crooks.

Link?

[houndawg]

To take one from Houndawg, politicians are liar's and to be a little more specific, they are also crooks.

Houndawg wouldn't have used an apostrophe.

[CID1990]

He isn't a liar in this case.

He's a plagiarist.

[kalm]

He isn't a liar in this case.

He's a plagiarist.

Perhaps a he "misspoke" while initially denying it?

[houndawg]

He isn't a liar in this case.

He's a plagiarist.

Perhaps a he "misspoke" while initially denying it?

Maybe it's a "nuance" thing..

[JohnStOnge]

Not the same thing because it's plausible that he's not lying just like it was plausible that Bush wasn't lying abut weapons of mass destruction.

Not the same thing as seeing somebody on video saying something then having them later say they never said it when you SAW them say it. In that case you have confirmed that a lie is being told. You see with your won eyes and hear with your own ears that they say something. Then you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears them saying that they said something else. You KNOW they're lying. No doubt.

In a case like this Ron Paul thing, that hasn't happened.

[clenz]

Is the issue he isn't citing at all in his speeches....or he isn't cutting secondary sources?

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Not the same thing because it's plausible that he's not lying just like it was plausible that Bush wasn't lying abut weapons of mass destruction.

Not the same thing as seeing somebody on video saying something then having them later say they never said it when you SAW them say it. In that case you have confirmed that a lie is being told. You see with your won eyes and hear with your own ears that they say something. Then you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears them saying that they said something else. You KNOW they're lying. No doubt.

In a case like this Ron Paul thing, that hasn't happened.

Three things:
We were going to war with Iraq

1) A war plan was in place (period)
That has been confirmed by many sources /all that was required was a lie (or series of lies)

2) Obama care was going to pass
and whatever lies needed to be told to make that happen were told



3) And Plagiarism is a form of lying in that you are acting with deceitful intentions


Next...

[CID1990]

Not the same thing because it's plausible that he's not lying just like it was plausible that Bush wasn't lying abut weapons of mass destruction.

Not the same thing as seeing somebody on video saying something then having them later say they never said it when you SAW them say it. In that case you have confirmed that a lie is being told. You see with your won eyes and hear with your own ears that they say something. Then you see with your own eyes and hear with your own ears them saying that they said something else. You KNOW they're lying. No doubt.

In a case like this Ron Paul thing, that hasn't happened.

Three things:
We were going to war with Iraq

1) A war plan was in place (period)
That has been confirmed by many sources /all that was required was a lie (or series of lies)

2) Obama care was going to pass
and whatever lies needed to be told to make that happen were told



3) And Plagiarism is a form of lying in that you are acting with deceitful intentions


Next...

They're both dishonest

I have just always differentiated between lying and cheating. Maybe it's the old honor code thing