Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A school kid? He copied an entire speech in 1987! Biden was a sitting Senator who was running for POTUS.
But did Biden wish he could challenge someone to a duel?
Quote:
On “This Week” Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., dismissed charges of plagiarism in his speeches and writing made in the last week, saying he was being “unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters” who he wishes he could challenge to a “duel.”
I recall because it was a powerful speech and then all humbug because he stole it from someone else.
This is where I have to note that Mr. Biden has already made several appearances in this thread.
Only responding to add this:
"But those articles did not note that while Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association, Biden reportedly had credited Kinnock. "
Biden received an "F" in the class for the paper he submitted in 1965, 22 years prior to running for President. He DID cite the article from which he lifted the text. He re-took the class the following year.
Now if only the left would get as upset over Obama lying his ass off to get the ACA passed, and then lying for three more years to get reelected. With some of these Obama boot-lickers, that will never happen.
Paul lifting quotes from someone else does not cause tens of millions of American citizens to lose their health care insurance.
Thanks for clarifying. I noted the "F" solely to show that Mr. Biden did not profit from his misdeed as Mr. Paul has done.
Well...I guess. Rand Paul would have profited whether or not he plagiarized. If you're stupid enough to buy his book, then you deserve whatever you get. He could have re-printed the entire 1980 New York City yellow pages and certain dumbasses would have still bought the book.
I suppose you could make the case that future books won't sell, but I doubt that's the case. Maybe Buzzfeed could determine what percent of his book was plagiarized, and then ask Paul to donate that percent of the profits to charity.
Now if only the left would get as upset over Obama lying his ass off to get the ACA passed, and then lying for three more years to get reelected. With some of these Obama boot-lickers, that will never happen.
Paul lifting quotes from someone else does not cause tens of millions of American citizens to lose their health care insurance.
If you use someone else's work, any segment thereof, and you don't cite the source, then you are claiming it as yours.
It doesn't matter where you get the information. If you "borrow" someone's post from CD forum, and you put it in a paper authored by you, and you don't cite what you borrowed, that's plagiarism. Biden wrote a dissertation where he "borrowed" from someone else. Rand wrote a BOOK where he "borrowed" from someone else. That's plagiarism.
I have nieces and nephews in high school and college who don't seem to have been taught what plagiarism is. If someone has a nice turn of phrase that you decide to use, you can't claim that turn of phrase as your own. You have to credit the person you "borrowed" it from. Ideas, work, words, have to be credited to the original source. Otherwise, if you include them in your speech, your news column, your book, you're claiming them as your own. And that's plagiarism.
It gets tricky in the area of ideas and concepts. That of course is not the Rand problem...He was lifting intact sentences. But there are virtually no new ideas or concept in the worlds of philosophy and political concepts.
A well removed example...recipes. There are virtually none that are actually original. Virtually all have a predecessor of basically the same items. So aside from lifting the text directly it would be difficult to plagiarize a recipe.
If i write on a concept I will quote anyone who I use directly. But much less likely to cite conceptual work back to Locke or Thomas Aquinas. And then you combine three or four different thought into a new thing.
I am somewhat sympathetic to Rand in some of the stuff. I see little evil intent in quoting a Wikipedia summary of a movie. That is more in the class of a clerical breakdown.
What he should have said was something along the line of "darn, I will fix that" and then fixed that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With some of these Obama boot-lickers, that will never happen.
