|
|
Post by davo on Nov 6, 2013 12:47:03 GMT -5
I would challenge you to a duel!On the one hand, the revelation that he lifted material from several speeches as well as whole pages of his book from other sources, without attribution, isn’t necessarily a 2016 candidacy-ender. What’s most politically self-destructive is Paul’s bizarre reaction to the charges – which really aren’t “charges,” they’re fact. Instead of admitting he or someone on his staff made an error and promising to toughen his standards, he’s attacked Rachel Maddow, who found the first instance of plagiarism, repeatedly and personally. And then, in a bizarre, likely candidacy-ending interview with ABC’s “This Week,” he began talking about a duel. “Yes, there are times when [speeches] have been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error,” Paul said. “But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.” He went on: “And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”
There’s another problem with Paul’s over-the-top response to the plagiarism controversy: It suggests that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “plagiarism.” He has repeatedly insisted that he credited the original source of his speech material – the movie “Gattaca,” in one instance, and “Stand and Deliver” in another. But he does not seem to get that you can’t lift words directly from Wikipedia and claim them as your own – even though that’s something every sixth-grader knows.
Only a few days after Tailgunner Ted Cruz seemed to be facing a credible Tea Party rival, that rival is melting down. For his part, in the Times piece Cruz was said to be telling GOP donors that Paul can never be elected president “because he can never fully detach himself from the strident libertarianism of his father.” An even bigger problem: Rand Paul can never fully detach himself from himself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And certain Tea Party types had such high hopes for him!! Not that surprising from a fake opthamologist, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 6, 2013 15:19:51 GMT -5
I would challenge you to a duel!On the one hand, the revelation that he lifted material from several speeches as well as whole pages of his book from other sources, without attribution, isn’t necessarily a 2016 candidacy-ender. What’s most politically self-destructive is Paul’s bizarre reaction to the charges – which really aren’t “charges,” they’re fact. Instead of admitting he or someone on his staff made an error and promising to toughen his standards, he’s attacked Rachel Maddow, who found the first instance of plagiarism, repeatedly and personally. And then, in a bizarre, likely candidacy-ending interview with ABC’s “This Week,” he began talking about a duel. “Yes, there are times when [speeches] have been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error,” Paul said. “But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.” He went on: “And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”
There’s another problem with Paul’s over-the-top response to the plagiarism controversy: It suggests that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “plagiarism.” He has repeatedly insisted that he credited the original source of his speech material – the movie “Gattaca,” in one instance, and “Stand and Deliver” in another. But he does not seem to get that you can’t lift words directly from Wikipedia and claim them as your own – even though that’s something every sixth-grader knows.
Only a few days after Tailgunner Ted Cruz seemed to be facing a credible Tea Party rival, that rival is melting down. For his part, in the Times piece Cruz was said to be telling GOP donors that Paul can never be elected president “because he can never fully detach himself from the strident libertarianism of his father.” An even bigger problem: Rand Paul can never fully detach himself from himself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And certain Tea Party types had such high hopes for him!! Not that surprising from a fake opthamologist, though. Hello oooo ooooo ooooo chirp chirp chirp Wow, just think how ape sh$t the board would be going if this had been about, say, a Democrat.  |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 15:22:43 GMT -5
Rand Paul? Who takes him seriously? If the Pubs stand him they *deserve* to lose another election.
|
|
|
|
Post by davo on Nov 6, 2013 15:25:24 GMT -5
Rand Paul? Who takes him seriously? If the Pubs stand him they *deserve* to lose another election. Ohh, I believe they do, here, and elsewhere. That's why this thread got looked at but left alone until you chimed in, imho. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 15:27:27 GMT -5
It is not the first time he has acted like a politician. They're not sorry about what they do. They're only sorry about getting caught.
It was like when he went on Fox News and said he'd drone strike a guy robbing a liquor store. He probably figured he was talking to a 'tough on crime' crowd of conservative views and was okay to say it. It wasn't. It is disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 15:29:07 GMT -5
Ohh, I believe they do, here, and elsewhere. That's why this thread got looked at but left alone until you chimed in, imho. Clearly enough people care about him to get him elected to a Senate seat. But the presidency? He'd lose, and by a lot. If the Pubs can't figure that out maybe they need the lesson. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 15:36:53 GMT -5
Ohh, I believe they do, here, and elsewhere. That's why this thread got looked at but left alone until you chimed in, imho. Clearly enough people care about him to get him elected to a Senate seat. But the presidency? He'd lose, and by a lot. If the Pubs can't figure that out maybe they need the lesson. I'll agree that Paul is not ready for prime time. What is the alternative? |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 15:42:41 GMT -5
I don't know that there's anyone I can endorse. I'll never vote for a Democrat again (I have voted for them in the past) because of Obamacare. Whether I vote for the Republican or stay away is going to depend on who they stand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 15:52:05 GMT -5
If it is Hillary versus 'also ran' then I'll be at the pub.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 16:28:35 GMT -5
If it is Hillary versus 'also ran' then I'll be at the pub. God help us if Hillary runs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 16:37:50 GMT -5
In all honesty, I don't think Hillary would be as bad as Obama. The Clinton's, policy aside, have been fairly good at playing the political game. Bill maybe better than Hillary. It remains to be seen if Hillary can pull the DNC back from the ideological extremism and incompetence of the Obama admin.
|
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 16:47:28 GMT -5
If it is Hillary versus 'also ran' then I'll be at the pub. Face it unless you live in one of the toss up state it doesn't really matter who you vote for, or if you vote. I mean that for the presidency, local voting is still useful. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2013 17:03:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 6, 2013 18:31:53 GMT -5
I don't hate the man. I just don't respect him, nor do I think he can run a country.
|
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 6, 2013 20:24:35 GMT -5
I don't hate the man. I just don't respect him, nor do I think he can run a country. That goes for all the current politicians. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 6, 2013 21:49:02 GMT -5
I don't hate the man. I just don't respect him, nor do I think he can run a country. Some people hate all things Republican. Conversely, some people hate all things Democrat. I'll leave you to figure out where the OP stands.  BTW...Rachel Madcow, who sort of broke the story last week, has some, er, issues of her own.People - glass houses. |
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Nov 6, 2013 23:04:22 GMT -5
Rand Paul is as viable a presidential candidate as Dennis Kucinich.
|
|
|
|
Post by highmc2 on Nov 7, 2013 0:19:54 GMT -5
The MSM is at it early.
2016 promises another choice of perpetual debt to satisfy the financial industry, perpetual war to satisfy the MIC, and perpetual assualt on civil liberties to divide the populace.
Meet the new boss...
|
|
|
|
Post by toon face on Nov 7, 2013 4:16:04 GMT -5
If it is Hillary versus 'also ran' then I'll be at the pub. Face it unless you live in one of the toss up state it doesn't really matter who you vote for, or if you vote. I mean that for the presidency, local voting is still useful. thats why the electoral college should be banished |
|
|
|
Post by howarewegoingtopay on Nov 7, 2013 6:59:42 GMT -5
Face it unless you live in one of the toss up state it doesn't really matter who you vote for, or if you vote. I mean that for the presidency, local voting is still useful. thats why the electoral college should be banished The problem is that democracy where everyone has a vote regardless of any civic responsibility causes people who do not have to pay the cost of society to vote for benefits for themselves that others have to pay for, in the long run this isn't sustainable. Getting rid of the electoral college would allow east coast high population states to be the only states which count. Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2013 11:00:21 GMT -5
I would challenge you to a duel!On the one hand, the revelation that he lifted material from several speeches as well as whole pages of his book from other sources, without attribution, isn’t necessarily a 2016 candidacy-ender. What’s most politically self-destructive is Paul’s bizarre reaction to the charges – which really aren’t “charges,” they’re fact. Instead of admitting he or someone on his staff made an error and promising to toughen his standards, he’s attacked Rachel Maddow, who found the first instance of plagiarism, repeatedly and personally. And then, in a bizarre, likely candidacy-ending interview with ABC’s “This Week,” he began talking about a duel. “Yes, there are times when [speeches] have been sloppy or not correct or we’ve made an error,” Paul said. “But the difference is, I take it as an insult and I will not lie down and say people can call me dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting. I have never intentionally done so.” He went on: “And like I say, if, you know, if dueling were legal in Kentucky, if they keep it up, you know, it would be a duel challenge. But I can’t do that, because I can’t hold office in Kentucky then.”
There’s another problem with Paul’s over-the-top response to the plagiarism controversy: It suggests that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the term “plagiarism.” He has repeatedly insisted that he credited the original source of his speech material – the movie “Gattaca,” in one instance, and “Stand and Deliver” in another. But he does not seem to get that you can’t lift words directly from Wikipedia and claim them as your own – even though that’s something every sixth-grader knows.
Only a few days after Tailgunner Ted Cruz seemed to be facing a credible Tea Party rival, that rival is melting down. For his part, in the Times piece Cruz was said to be telling GOP donors that Paul can never be elected president “because he can never fully detach himself from the strident libertarianism of his father.” An even bigger problem: Rand Paul can never fully detach himself from himself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And certain Tea Party types had such high hopes for him!! Not that surprising from a fake opthamologist, though. Well, he could always go Democrat. That's a resume inhancement for them. |
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Nov 7, 2013 11:02:58 GMT -5
Face it unless you live in one of the toss up state it doesn't really matter who you vote for, or if you vote. I mean that for the presidency, local voting is still useful. thats why the electoral college should be banished Why? So every President from the time of it's extinction will be elected by NY and CA? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2013 12:23:33 GMT -5
I don't hate the man. I just don't respect him, nor do I think he can run a country. Yet in all fairness, with all the corruption and cronyism that is the federal government, who could run it? For example, how do you fix Detroit? You may have to raze a quarter of the city just to start. Who is going to run on that, much less, get elected? |
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Nov 7, 2013 12:24:33 GMT -5
Face it unless you live in one of the toss up state it doesn't really matter who you vote for, or if you vote. I mean that for the presidency, local voting is still useful. thats why the electoral college should be banished Eliminating the College would reduce the number of states that matter, not increase it. Basically, California, Texas and New York would fight it out. Federal government offices would be decided by the people who live in urban areas, and the people who live anywhere else would be disenfranchised. It's not terribly likely to happen. It would require a Constitutional amendment. And the laws that seek to short-circuit the college by requiring delegates to vote according to the popular vote? If they didn't cause a sharp uptick in the number of faithless electors, they'd be challenged on Constitutional grounds. You think people are going to sit still for electors being thrown in the bucket for being faithless? I don't. Well, I'd hope not, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by douger on Nov 7, 2013 12:43:20 GMT -5
thats why the electoral college should be banished Eliminating the College would reduce the number of states that matter, not increase it. Basically, California, Texas and New York would fight it out. Federal government offices would be decided by the people who live in urban areas, and the people who live anywhere else would be disenfranchised.It's not terribly likely to happen. It would require a Constitutional amendment. And the laws that seek to short-circuit the college by requiring delegates to vote according to the popular vote? If they didn't cause a sharp uptick in the number of faithless electors, they'd be challenged on Constitutional grounds. You think people are going to sit still for electors being thrown in the bucket for being faithless? I don't. Well, I'd hope not, anyway. It's already like that. Maryland's three most urbanized areas control its politics. |
|
