Rand Paul

Report: Three Pages of Rand Paul's Book Were Plagiarized

|

Reason

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is facing another accusation of plagiarism.

According to BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski, a whole section of Paul's book Government Bullies was copied from a 2003 Heritage Foundation case study. The case study is reportedly cited in the book's footnotes, but there is no indication or acknowledgement that the same words from the study were taken and used in the text of the book.

A spokesman from The Heritage Foundation told BuzzFeed that they "don't care" about the copying.

From BuzzFeed:

An entire section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul's 2013 book Government Bullies was copied wholesale from a 2003 case study by the Heritage Foundation, BuzzFeed has learned. The copied section, 1,318 words, is by far the most significant instance reported so far of Paul borrowing language from other published material.

The new cut-and-paste job follows reports by BuzzFeed, Politico, and MSNBC that Paul had plagiarized speeches either from Wikipedia or news reports. The book was published in August 2013 by Center Street, a division of Hachette Book Group.

The news comes days after Paul was accused of plagiarizing from the Wikipedia entry on the sci-fi film Gattaca during a speech at Liberty University. Reason's Ron Bailey wrote on the controversy surrounding the Liberty University speech here

Paul has dismissed questions surrounding his speech and has accused MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who pointed out some of the similarities between sections of Paul's speech and the Gattaca Wikipedia article, of "spreading hate on me for three years now."

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Advertisement

NEXT: Nobel Peace Prize Winner Obama Reportedly Told Aides Last Year That He's "Really Good at Killing People"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Haters gonna hate…

  2. Let’s address the true scandal here: why has Reason’s weekend output increased 200% without including any A.M./P.M. links?

  3. Let me know when he shamefully plagiarizes the Constitution and says we should be secure in our persons, papers, and effects.

    Think how horrible it would be if he said, “Congress shall make no law.”

  4. Oh, no. Jabba the Hut is whining about the DO NOTHING CONGRESS.

    1. I blame Bush!

  5. Again, he cited where the information came from. How can it be plagiarism when you say where the information came from?

    That would be like if I said “As it says in the book of Mark…” and was then accused of plagiarizing the Bible.

    1. I’m gonna need chapter and verse there Irish…

    2. I’m also confused by the Wikipedia allegation. Paul took four quotes from Wikipedia to describe what Gattaca is about. It’s not like he took any information that was not readily available or stole someone else’s ideas without attribution, in the way that Biden did when he plagiarized a law review in school and a British politician on the campaign trail.

      All Paul did was take a synopsis of Gattaca. This is so minor that no one but the most deluded progressive could possibly care.

      1. But think about it; do we really want a plagiarist in the White House?

    3. Well, what system do they use in poli sci research? If they use MLA or APA a mere footnote wont cut it; however, if I remember correctly, Chicago style does allow it.

      Either way, they’re trying to blow up an academic technicality into an attack on Paul’s character, when it should really be acknowledged as a goof by his editor.

      1. “Well, what system do they use in poli sci research?”

        Who gives a fuck? It’s not a research paper, it’s a book.

        What standard a university uses is absolutely irrelevant.

      2. It’s bad form, but if this or the bit about his certification are the variety of scandal we’d see from a Rand administration, I’m on board.

        1. So you’re saying that Rand Paul is the lesser evil?

          That didn’t used to be an acceptable argument around these parts.

          1. Not that I’d fundraise or knock on doors for the guy, but if the worst they can dig up are improperly cited quotes, I might even throw a vote his way.

            Of course, his all-too-frequent sops to so-cons are enough to tip my regard back to ambivalent. And let’s be honest, they’ll dig up worse. But crummy attributions aren’t evil, or even relatively less evil, just classless.

      3. ” when it should really be acknowledged as a goof by his editor.”

        And this, too, makes no sense. It’s not a goof, I can write, and cite, however I dman well please in my own book.

        The preference3s of people who did not write my book are, again, irrelevant.

      4. Either way, they’re trying to blow up an academic technicality into an attack on Paul’s character, when it should really be acknowledged as a goof by his editor.

        It’s three fucking pages of copy and paste, HM. That’s not an editorial goof.

        How the hell do you even indicate a three page copy and paste in academic writing? Quotation marks are going to be tiresome and confusing, indentation is hard to notice when the quote covers the whole page…. I guess I don’t know because I’ve always written my own work.

        1. How the hell do you even indicate a three page copy and paste in academic writing?

          Heh, you don’t. A 3 page direct quote is way too much, but I wasn’t judging Paul by the standards of professional academic writing.

      5. I would think Chicago style would suit progressives just fine these days.

    4. If it’s directly copied from someone else’s work you have to indicate that by quotation marks, indentation, or some sort of language clearly stating that it’s a direct copy (as in your book of Mark example). A bare citation, endnote, or footnote is not enough to indicate that these are not your own words; those are used to indicate that your statement is supported by the work cited.

      And a three-page quote is pretty damn excessive… probably enough to constitute violation of copyright (though Heritage says they won’t pursue).

      It’s not as bad as plagiarism where there’s no acknowledgement of the source, but it’s still plagiarism.

      1. It’s not as bad as plagiarism where there’s no acknowledgement of the source, but it’s still plagiarism.

        Right, but plagiarism isn’t always malicious, as those who are pushing this story in the media claim. As Paul is not an academic, I’m leaning toward plagiarism by ignorance of the conventions of citation, as opposed to say, Mike Barnicle or Jonah Lehrer, both of whom knew better.

        1. I totally agree that it probably wasn’t malicious. And I’m not holding him to academic standards, either; even an incorrect citation (e.g., wrong page number or issue number) is a BFD in academia. Three pages of copy and paste is pretty damned blatant even for a layperson, well unless you’re a White Redskin type.

          1. Three pages of copy and paste is pretty damned blatant even for a layperson

            True, but think of this, he’s not even a “layperson”. He’s someone who’s job it is to read what his speechwriters wrote as his own words. I’m not claiming it isn’t a stupid fuck up, and I’m pissed off that people are going to use this to attack the credibility of libertarians as a whole. However, I can totally see the mind of a politician absorbing 3 pages of text and regurgitating it as his own. It’s an occupational hazard, I guess.

            It’s not right, but it’s not like he fucked underaged prostitutes in the Dominican Republic wrong. (Hey, remember that?)

            1. Or said he’s “Good at killing people” or was a member of the KKK or drove off a bridge and left a woman to die.

              I realize this is Tu Quoque, but watching the Democrats try to act as if this is some major moral lapse when their two longest serving Senators in the last 50 years were a lady killer and a Klansman, their current VP has a far more egregious history of plagiarism, and their president is essentially a war criminal is absolutely laughable.

              1. BO lifted a speech from Deval Patrick too; this was dismissed by the media because Patrick and he were friends.

                But, that doesn’t matter. We should expect more from Rand Paul.

            2. However, I can totally see the mind of a politician absorbing 3 pages of text and regurgitating it as his own.

              If that’s what he did, he has one hell of a memory. 1318 words worth.

              It was a copy-paste, clearly.

              1. Yes and of course it was Rand’s fingers on the keyboard. Some stupid intern more likely.

      2. Tulpa, it’s not an academic work. I think he should be criticized for it and told not to do it again, but the idea that this is in any way malicious or a reflection of bad character is ludicrous. It’s a reflection of a poor understanding of citation conventions, but the fact that he cited it says that he was in no way attempting to claim that those were his own words.

        1. I don’t think it’s malicious either, but he should apologize for it and admit he fucked up. Framing it as an attack by Maddow is not the response I’m looking for.

          1. He was framing the wikipedia issue as an attack by Maddow. I actually agree with him on that. The wikipedia one is far more ludicrous than the book, which he admittedly did not cite properly and unquestionably used too large a section of the report.

            The Wikipedia issue is about him taking a movie synopsis from a Wiki article about the film. This was for a stump speech for another politician. The Wikipedia one is a total non-issue.

            1. -The Wikipedia issue is about him taking a movie synopsis from a Wiki article about the film. This was for a stump speech for another politician.

              But Biden was criticized for plagiarism in speeches, correct?

              1. He was more than criticized; the accusations were used by the Dukakis campaign to knock Biden out of the running, in 1988, which is hilarious when you think how plagiarism would have played in Peoria compared to Willie Horton.

                1. The Willie Horton stuff didn’t seem to play with Dems when Al Gore used it, IIRC.

              2. Biden took entire speeches from a British politician and plagiarized a law review article. Paul took four sentences from a Wikipedia article so that he could give a quick plot synopsis of Gattaca.

                There is no equivalence between these two things.

                1. Well, there does not have to be an equivalence for them both to be examples of violating the same principle.

                  Look, you will find few bigger boosters of Paul than I. You may remember you and I arguing about Ted Cruz because I felt he was undercutting Rand.

                  But putting three pages of someone else’s work into your book without introducing it as such or indicating with quotes or indention is going to be flagged as plagiarism, even if it is sourced back in the footnotes section of the book. Paul should not ‘apologize’ because this is a pretty minor mistake which is only taken seriously in the halls of academe and the beltway, but he should acknowledge the error, laugh it off and move on.

                  1. I think he should apologize. Just say “I didn’t do the proper attribution, I apologize for the mistake.” I do agree with Tulpa that he should say that, I just think that any claim that this is somehow a major issue is ludicrous in the grand scheme of American politics. It isn’t even the worst case of plagiarism committed by an active politician.

                    1. Good. But if he tries to deny or minimize it he’s in my rhetorical crosshairs.

                    2. Uh oh, he might be in Tulpa’s micropenis crosshairs! What will he do?!? Can his life ever be redeemed? Don’t do it, Tulpa! It’s too cruel! You’re far too important for him to risk your disapproval! Please show some mercy!

                    3. Oh no. Not your rhetorical crosshairs.

                  2. Nobody knew the difference between pregnant, dimpled, and hanging chads seriously before Nov 7, 2000.

                    Nobody knew which ligatures and kerning were possible using an early 1970s typewriter until Dan Rather’s report on Bush’s TANG service in 2004.

                    It’s amazing how quickly people can go from utter apathy and ignorance to expertise when it becomes TEAM time.

              3. But Biden was criticized for plagiarism in speeches, correct?

                Biden did not just plagiarize a few speeches.

                He stole the labor leaders life story, claimed it as his own and used that life story to justify socialist policies.

                The story was central to his candidacy in 1988 – so it’s absolutely nothing like what Rand did – unless Rand was claiming to be the character in Gattica and using that experience to explain his adherence to libertarian principles.

          2. Except no one gives a shit about what you’re looking for, you idiotic narcissistic fuck. How stupid are you? Wait, don’t answer that, it’s impossible to give an affirmative that’s strong enough.

            1. Tulpa is correct that for a politician looking to run at the national level it would probably do more good than harm to just admit the faux pas and move on, though I think Episiarch is largely correct that most people outside the beltway will care little about it.

              1. Most Americans wouldn’t know plagiarism from priapism. Which isn’t the point.

                1. No one gives a fuck what penile symptoms you suffer from, Captain Choad. But you keep masturbating on this board. It’s what you do.

                2. Big Booty Bitches #32 clearly ripped off the double penetration scene from Barely Legal Runaway Skanks #4 right down to the dialog.

                  1. “Quotations lasting longer than two pages are a sign of a serious writing inability, and require immediate editorial attention.”

                    1. Then shouldn’t people be more upset with the editor? Seeing as how he didn’t give it the proper amount of “editorial attention”?

                  2. Big Booty Bitches #32 clearly ripped off the double penetration scene from Barely Legal Runaway Skanks #4 right down to the dialog.

                    I KNEW that dialogue sounded familiar!

                    I, er, watched them for the laughs…

                    1. That’s only because your porn doesn’t exploit women. 🙂

                    2. Yet! We have techs in the lab working 24 hours to make our porn more exploitation inclusive.

                      Proposals have been made to sell exploitation offset credits: feeling guilty about your lady-exploiting heteronormative pornography? Go out and buy a gay friend a porn. If what your watching is REALLY exploitative you might want to pick up something from German in the late ’90s to make sure you have a complete offset.

      3. If it’s directly copied from someone else’s work you have to indicate that by quotation marks, indentation, or some sort of language clearly stating that it’s a direct copy

        You need their explicit permission.

        If you don’t have permission, then putting the copy into quotes does not help.

        1. Well, depends on how long it is, along with other factors. A couple of sentences or even a paragraph would almost always be considered fair use, but three pages is going to be considered a copyright violation, though Heritage won’t sue.

          1. It sounds to me a lot more like Heritage said they don’t even care. That’s a bit more than “won’t sue”. The supposed victim of this offense has no problem with what happened. That makes your argument here seem a lot more like that of a concern troll.

      4. a three-page quote is pretty damn excessive… probably enough to constitute violation of copyright (though Heritage says they won’t pursue).

        Was the Heritage report even copyrighted? You need to understand the purpose of copyright: It’s not to protect ideas, but their literary expression. Heritage would probably love more people to use their material verbatim, with or without attrib’n, because they didn’t write those reports to make money selling them, nor do their authors rest their literary reput’ns on their ability to write stunning prose. It’s neither plagiarism nor copyright viol’n if the “violated” want to be “violated”.

        1. Let’s contrast a report with a blog entry by Matthew Feeney. People are paid to write for HyR because they’re good writers. If you lift their words, you’re stealing their livelihood. In a report, by contrast, nobody cares about the writing per se. I doubt Heritage even copyrights their reports; if they do, it’s because they forgot to tell their staff, who may be used to other public’ns, to leave the notice off.

    5. As soon as you said that, I asked myself, “so, is this a Feeney piece?” Indeed it is. Meet the new Weigel, same as the old Weigel.

    6. I think most teachers would count it as plagiarism if you cut and pasted three pages of someone else’s work into your own even if you had a footnote to the source, especially if you did not have a statement such as ‘as so and so says’ or ‘my point is expressed well by the following words of so and so.’ Also, whether all of that was in quotations or ‘blocked off’ as a extract that would matter.

      1. And even if you did indicate that it was quoted, you’d still get marked off for inserting such a long quote rather than expressing it in your own words. Which of course is the lure of plagiarism; if you did cite/quote properly, it would be clear you had nothing to say.

      2. I’m sure his PhD adviser was soooo disappointed.

  6. Well, crazy Joe Biden is the vice president and he still thinks he’s going to be the president, so I guess plagiarism isn’t really that big a deal.

    1. Is that the standard we’re judging by?

      1. I’d hate to see Paul stoop as low as Biden.

      2. That’s the standard the authors of this attack seem to find acceptable, so, sure, why not?

  7. It was my impression the Gattaca thing was a pop culture reference, and he assumed the audience already knew about the story.

    A complete non issue.

    1. Yeah? Well… maybe, but.. he still should of screamed “spoiler alert!” first… so, he’s still an asshole.

  8. This is funny coming from the content stealing Buzzfeed. At least one party has decided to do something about it:

    http://paidcontent.org/2013/06…..ing-model/

  9. He should just claim he never wrote it, doesn’t know how his name got on it, and has no idea who actually wrote it. Worked for his dad.

    1. Works for Obama too, oddly enough…

    1. Tu quoque brigade, attack!

      1. Sauce for the goose brigade…

      2. It’s only tu quoque if I were attacking the logical validity of BuzzFeed’s argument; however classical rhetoric has two other modes of argument: ethos and pathos. The main thrust of BF’s rhetorical argument is ethos, that is they are attacking Paul’s credibility. Pointing out that BF has the same lack of credibility that they are accusing Paul of is a perfectly acceptable argument from ethos.

        1. Umm, what? That’s a very distorted view of classical rhetoric.

          First off, ethos and pathos (along with logos) are modes of persuasion, not argument. Argument is always part of logos (even when invalid or irrelevant).

          Second, attacking BuzzFeed’s ethos only serves to question their skill at rhetoric. It doesn’t give you ethos for yourself. So tu quoque is always a form of logos (and an invalid one).

          1. First off, ethos and pathos (along with logos) are modes of persuasion, not argument.

            You know, as well as I, that in the second clause of my first sentence the term “argument” entailed “persuasive argument”.

            Second, attacking BuzzFeed’s ethos only serves to question their skill at rhetoric.

            Which is all I was attempting to do. Tu quoque would have been to reference the two plagiarism scandals Joe Biden has found himself in.

            Again, note that I haven’t denied that Paul did plagiarize. He did, out of ignorance I believe. However, for a site like BF that has a business plan of using the loose IP culture of the Internet to draw readers in for Ad revenue to get all strident about Paul is…well, not so persuasive, wouldn’t you agree?

  10. I dunno. I’ve always been taught that with direct quotes you must cite your source and clearly demarcate the quote from the rest of the text. Paul (or whomever actually put the book together) didn’t do the latter.

    That being said, the fact that he did do the former is strong indication that it was simply sloppiness.

    Moreover, it is really a case of no harm, no foul, considering that:
    1. Heritage, publicly, is happy about it, and privately it’s hard to imagine they’d be anything worse than neutral
    2. Heritage wasn’t selling the piece for profit anyway
    3. It’s by all appearances an amalgamation of easily available facts, rather than a creative work or one that required a lot of legwork (e.g., hitting up archives)

    My main qualm with the Paul team on this is that it’s an easy mistake not to make.

    1. My main qualm with the Paul team on this is that it’s an easy mistake not to make.

      This was my first thought.

  11. I’ve thought that some people here were being overly hard on Tulpa.

    Now I realize the error of my ways.

    Tulpa no one gives a fuck about this so called plagiarism. It’s fucking bullshit smear by the same folks that brought you the war on womyn.

    1. This is a really important issue to Tulpa, what with his super-important academic work as adjunct calc professor.

    2. Tulpa’s far too stupid to honestly critique anything. You have to remember that when reading his tripe.

    3. The “bullshit smears” that are actually true are especially heinous, I guess.

      1. True, or truthy?

      2. For anyone beyond douchenozzle academics, this isn’t meaningfully plagarism. He cited the source. Anyone who really wanted to could easily enough follow the source to see it was the same material. The people who he was supposedly plagarizing had no problem with him using their material.

  12. When the worst thing they got on you is that you quoted stuff from an anonymous source on Wikipedia with inadequate citing, or that decades ago you put your dog in a carrier on the roof of your car — they got nothing.

    1. They got plenty — RandP wants to cut spending and wage war on women. Or something.

      This gives them live ammo to mix in with the dummy rounds.

      1. Close, it is the dummies playing with live ammo.

    2. Are you equating Paul and Romney? Boo hiss.

  13. The hit jobs on Rand Paul will only increase through 2016. The last thing Clowncrats want is to run against him, they’d much rather have a Ted Cruz. Even Christie is more amenable to the Republican establishment. Paul will be taking hits from all sides from here on out.

    Fact that they have to dig up pages in his book (that are attributable in the book) tells how thoroughly they already are digging. I can only guess the bursting file on him floating around the White House/OFA infrastructure, full of pilfered private data from various federal agencies.

    Neither Republicans or Democrats are out to get him, but the Establishment itself.

    1. “Fact that they have to dig up pages in his book (that are attributable in the book) tells how thoroughly they already are digging.”

      This^

      I’m wondering if the rooting through his trash at night, and grilling friends and neighbors, has come up short on ammunition for their drivel cannons, and they’re left with only contingency and gotcha bullshit to prime their smear machines…

      1. You’re comparing reading Rand Paul’s book to rooting through trash? Ouch.

        1. “You’re comparing reading Rand Paul’s book to rooting through trash? Ouch.”

          Nooo.. and I didn’t state that anywhere in my post, but, I suppose you are free to draw any inference or conclusion you choose. It was a merely my musings on the lengths that Paul’s political adversaries and opposing punditry would go to get the goods on him. I would of suspected that a well educated man, such as yourself, would of been able to make such a distinction…

        2. Don’t be silly. There was an army of people going through everything Palin ever wrote or said or did looking for ammunition for Team Blue. They call themselves journalists. I don’t care for Palin, but it was pretty ridiculous. Combing through Rand’s book was just one of many things these vultures did.

          Having said that, Rand or his team were pretty stupid to have let this slipped by them. They should have known they wouldn’t be given the same slack as Biden and Chocolate Nixon.

  14. Wow. All that’s missing is a Randtard showing up to say “reason sucks”.

    1. Tulpa sucks.

    2. What I see is a bunch of people saying that what Paul did was wrong but isn’t a particularly big deal and is hardly a scandal. Serious took this tact, I did, HM did, Thane did, Dweebston did. Half the people on this page essentially agree with you that what he did was wrong but that it’s still pretty minor and hardly a ‘scandal.’

      Of course, if you admitted that most people here are substantially agreeing with you, you wouldn’t get to play this contrarian game and puff up your ego by explaining how superior you are.

      1. What I see is a bunch of people saying that what Paul did was wrong but isn’t a particularly big deal and is hardly a scandal.

        You must have a lot of people on filter. I see it characterized as a “hit job”, a “bullshit smear”, and compared favorably to the transgressions of utter shitbag politicians — as if that’s the standard we expect from the Pauls.

        1. Claiming that it some kind of scandal is a bullshit smear you fuckwit.

          And a lame one at that – no one is going to give a shit.

          Obama’s blowing up brown people, spying on your email, using the government to extort businesses and raising your insurance premiums through the roof – but look over there that crazy teabagger Rand didn’t cit wiki in a speech and extensively quoted a think tank in his book – oh so scary.

          1. That’s the point — he DIDN’T quote them.

            If you can find where I said BO is better than Rand Paul, good for you.

      2. Of course, if you admitted that most people here are substantially agreeing with you, you wouldn’t get to play this contrarian game and puff up your ego by explaining how superior you are.

        Irish, were you talking to Tulpa or Bo?

        Oh wait, it doesn’t matter.

      3. what Paul did was wrong but isn’t a particularly big deal

        Technically wrong is the best kind of wrong, then?

    3. Here’s a little secret: Nobody who matters gives a flying fuck what Rand Paul thinks about anything.

      The Rand Paul challenge: How many times has he cited his dad referencing God in the Constitution.

      /anti-Randtard

      1. You mispelt Rand Pual

    4. You seem hostile to Rand. Other than this failure to attribute, what do have against one of the few in congress who will challenge the state’s right to steal and kill?

  15. Meh. Bad form and he deserves some embarrassment, but I don’t see how that disqualifies him from anything

  16. Let’s not forget what an awful parent Rand is, letting his college-age son drink whiskey and wager on the horses. Is this the sort of monster we want in the White House? I think not.

    1. Yeah… that guy sux…

    2. And yet you give Jimmy Carter a hard time.

      1. Shoelaces give Jimmy Carter a hard time.

      2. I hope we give Dhimmi Carter a hard time. He was statist piece of shite and an enemy of freedom. One of the worst presidents ever, hands down.

    1. Does that count for an own goal?

      1. Wood (the guy whose face the ball hit) actually plays for Leicster, so it’s a valid goal, but not an own-goal.

        BBC match summary

    2. No one said they weren’t tough. “They’re just not the most masculine fellows in the world.”(1)

      1. Eddie Murphy, Delirious, 1983

      1. Nice citation there FdA.

        1. Wouldn’t want to get on the wrong side of BuzzFeed or MSNBC.

        2. He saved Tulpa from further bunching up his panties.

  17. And yet you give Jimmy Carter a hard time.

    Aside from being pretty much completely wrong, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

    1. Brooksie, are you actually expecting someone suffering from Cystic Tulposis to actually make sense? The best way to read any Tulpa comment is to picture Corky from Life Goes On going “DUHHHHHH”.

  18. Boy there is nothing like poor editing to get reason all worked up. I remember Mark Twain once reprinted whole an entire book, inside one of his books, because he thought it was the worst book ever written. I didn’t read the original edition, so I don’t know if the margins changed.

    1. Mark Twain wasn’t fit to hold G.K. Chesterton’s jock.

      1. G.K. Chesterton never wrote anything as good as Huckleberry Finn, Innocents Abroad, or the end of Mysterious Stranger. For that matter, I don’t know that there’s a single story Chesterton ever wrote that’s as powerful as The War Prayer.

        Chesterton was more consistent than Twain, but Twain at his best was much better than Chesterton at his best.

        1. “Whatever.”

          — Kathleen Sebelius, remarks to Congress, Oct. 30, 2013

        2. Irish, are you surprised that Tulpa said something astoundingly retarded? Remember what kind of dickless mongoloid you’re dealing with here.

      2. “Chesterton knew a kindred spirit when he saw one, and once said of Twain: “he was chivalrous in his power of fighting for unpopular causes, in his contempt of clamor and coarse unanimity, [and] in a certain instinct for saying defiant and dramatic things, if they were only a sort of grim jokes, on great and crucial occasions.”…

        …”I have always admired the genius of Mark Twain,” Chesterton told Twain’s cousin, Cyril Clemens, when they met toward the end of Chesterton’s life. “He was the greatest master of the tall story who has ever lived, and was also, what is more important, a thoroughly sincere man.” Then, taking up Cyril Clemens’ autograph book, he wrote in it: “Greetings to The Mark Twain Society from an Innocent at Home, G.K. Chesterton, known as the unjumping frog of Bucks County.”

        “…”If,” Chesterton wrote, Twain, “had ever found the real court of King Arthur, he might very well have been knighted there.”

        http://www.hieropraxis.com/201…..hesterton/

  19. Then there’s 24/7, which is mostly made up of excerpted content without further comment. (Though it is linked and credited.)

  20. I take it back. RP isn’t as bad as MLK Jr.; he didn’t use plagiarized material for an advanced degree.

  21. I founded that info elsewhere; looks like Rachel Maddow also copied.
    http://rare.us/story/rachel-ma…..of-it-too/

    One word to Rachel Maddow: be careful, you have skeletons in your closet too.

  22. On the one hand, this is what you get when you let interns write stuff for you.
    On the other, the fact that this is being played up means they don’t have anything better to run on Paul, and the CRA stuff isn’t getting the wanted reaction.

    I really hope he doesn’t have too many real skeletons in this closet.

  23. Isn’t it adorable how quickly Tulpa learned all his DailyKos talking points when the TEAM Red politician in question was a guy with libertarian leanings?

    But remember kids, if you voted for anybody but Romney, you are literally worse than Hitler.

    Tulpa’s finally gone fully Tony. Completely beyond parody.

  24. Even in this comment thread here writers know to use quote marks when inserting what other people have written into their own writings.

  25. Someone must have really been trying hard to find something if they read both this book and the Heritage source. As someone who’s sold books before, I can tell you these Conservative Book Club-type selections tend to depreciate to practically zero resale value in a matter of months, after the initial release and the book club discounts, which means they aren’t even widely read by conservative audiences while they’re in vogue, so whichever progressive came up with this must have really not had enough to do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.