Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rand Paul was talking with University of Louisville medical students when one of them tossed him a softball. "The majority of med students here today have a comprehensive exam tomorrow. I'm just wondering if you have any last-minute advice."(Steve Brodner)
"Actually, I do," said the ophthalmologist-turned-senator, who stays sharp (and keeps his license) by doing pro bono eye surgeries during congressional breaks. "I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."
He went on to describe studying for a pathology test with friends in the library. "We spread the rumor that we knew what was on the test and it was definitely going to be all about the liver," he said. "We tried to trick all of our competing students into over-studying for the liver" and not studying much else.
"So, that's my advice," he concluded. "Misinformation works."
But then NJ asks a very important question:
Paul's little riff had the students laughing hard. And it was amusing—but also amazing. Why would he set himself up with an anecdote like that? He knew reporters were in the lecture hall. He's also well aware that watch- dogs are compiling a growing file of evidence that he plays loose with the facts.
OK, I'm posting that on twitter!
Biden was accused of plagiarizing a public speech from another politician, in 1988.leftard tools still can not grasp an idea that an open source without an author can not be plagiarized? LOL
The floodgates are open when reporters smell blood in the water.Even MORE instance are coming out. From Forbes now, the latest.
(What does this make ....like 7....8? instances where he cut & pastes pretty much wholesale...)
Section Of Rand Paul’s Book Plagiarized Forbes Article
Section Of Rand Paul?s Book Plagiarized Forbes ArticleA section of Rand Paul’s 2012 book Government Bullies appears to be plagiarized from a Forbes article from earlier in that year. BuzzFeed had previously reported that more than three pages plagiarized from The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute were the only instances of copying in the book.
As was the case with cut-and-pasted sections from The Heritage Foundation and a Cato scholar, Paul included a link to the Forbes article in the book’s footnotes, but made no effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves, had been taken from Forbes.
Biden was accused of plagiarizing a public speech from another politician, in 1988.leftard tools still can not grasp an idea that an open source without an author can not be plagiarized? LOL
Are you claiming that Right-Wingers have been wrong all these years since that speech was in the public domain?
Rachel Maddow MSNBCVerified account ‏@maddow 
Oh, the incredible irony.
Yeah, it's really getting out of hand now.Three Pages Of Rand Pauls Book Were Plagiarized From Think Tanks
An entire section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Pauls 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.
Three Pages Of Rand Paul's Book Were Plagiarized From Think Tanks
Can I plagiarize that?
The floodgates are open when reporters smell blood in the water.Even MORE instance are coming out. From Forbes now, the latest.
(What does this make ....like 7....8? instances where he cut & pastes pretty much wholesale...)
Section Of Rand Pauls Book Plagiarized Forbes Article
Section Of Rand Paul?s Book Plagiarized Forbes ArticleA section of Rand Pauls 2012 book Government Bullies appears to be plagiarized from a Forbes article from earlier in that year. BuzzFeed had previously reported that more than three pages plagiarized from The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute were the only instances of copying in the book.
As was the case with cut-and-pasted sections from The Heritage Foundation and a Cato scholar, Paul included a link to the Forbes article in the books footnotes, but made no effort to indicate that not just the source, but the words themselves, had been taken from Forbes.
Rand Paul should resign.
Did you just PLAGIARIZE THAT?? MISREPRESENT HOW it was asserted? Of course you just did...
The Truthiness of Rand Paul - NationalJournal.com
It was a joke --- not serious prescription for public policy.. But keep up the propaganda and plagiarism... And quoting folks out of context...
Wow. You prove even FURTHER you don't know what plagiarizing is.Oh, the incredible irony.
The irony of you PLAGIARIZING AND MISREPRESENTING original content?
Yeah --- that is rich...
It's weird you had to tell that to someone who portends to be something of an educated chap.
Did you just PLAGIARIZE THAT?? MISREPRESENT HOW it was asserted? Of course you just did...
The Truthiness of Rand Paul - NationalJournal.com
It was a joke --- not serious prescription for public policy.. But keep up the propaganda and plagiarism... And quoting folks out of context...
When you add the name of the author or original speaker at the end of a quote, that makes it not plagiarism. Misrepresenting a comment is not plagiarism. It is misrepresenting. Quoting facts is not propaganda.
Did you just PLAGIARIZE THAT?? MISREPRESENT HOW it was asserted? Of course you just did...
The Truthiness of Rand Paul - NationalJournal.com
It was a joke --- not serious prescription for public policy.. But keep up the propaganda and plagiarism... And quoting folks out of context...
When you add the name of the author or original speaker at the end of a quote, that makes it not plagiarism. Misrepresenting a comment is not plagiarism. It is misrepresenting. Quoting facts is not propaganda.
You can quote me on that: Advice on attribution for journalists | The Buttry Diary
Attribution is the difference between research and plagiarism. Attribution gives stories credibility and perspective. It tells readers how we know what we know. It also slows stories down. Effective use of attribution is a matter both of journalism ethics and of strong writing.
How do you know that? Attribution is a key ingredient in any story’s credibility. Readers are entitled to know where we got our information. If we are citing official statistics gathered by a government agency, that tells the readers something. If we are citing the contentions of an interest group or a political partisan, that tells the readers something else. If we don’t attribute our information, readers rightly wonder how we know that.
When should we attribute? Attribute any time that attribution strengthens the credibility of a story. Attribute any time you are using someone else’s words. Attribute when you are reporting information gathered by other journalists. Attribute when you are not certain of facts. Attribute statements of opinion. When you wonder whether you should attribute, you probably should attribute in some fashion.
Don’t just attribute; link. Linking is an essential part of attribution in online journalism. Linking lets people see the full context of the information you are citing. Even when readers don’t click links, the fact that you are linking tells them that you are backing up what you have written, that you are attributing and showing your sources.
Recycled quotes. If you didn’t hear the person say something, you should probably attribute the quote not only to the speaker but to the medium that reported it. Stealing quotes from other news media used to be a pretty common practice. Oblique references to competitors as “reporters” or “news media” or “a blogger” aren’t adequate attribution. If you got your quote from a televised interview or another newspaper or a blog, cite the outlet. However, if a politician is making a televised speech or holding a televised news conference, that is not the same as an exclusive interview. That speech is public domain and you can use a quote without attribution to another medium, just as if you were there (but don’t use a dateline, unless you were there).
Holy shit -- this flatca dude is having a cow, and saying *I* stole words because I posted this:Camp::: Here's a little education for political attributions...
You can quote me on that: Advice on attribution for journalists | The Buttry Diary
Attribution is the difference between research and plagiarism. Attribution gives stories credibility and perspective. It tells readers how we know what we know. It also slows stories down. Effective use of attribution is a matter both of journalism ethics and of strong writing.
How do you know that? Attribution is a key ingredient in any story’s credibility. Readers are entitled to know where we got our information. If we are citing official statistics gathered by a government agency, that tells the readers something. If we are citing the contentions of an interest group or a political partisan, that tells the readers something else. If we don’t attribute our information, readers rightly wonder how we know that.
When should we attribute? Attribute any time that attribution strengthens the credibility of a story. Attribute any time you are using someone else’s words. Attribute when you are reporting information gathered by other journalists. Attribute when you are not certain of facts. Attribute statements of opinion. When you wonder whether you should attribute, you probably should attribute in some fashion.
Don’t just attribute; link. Linking is an essential part of attribution in online journalism. Linking lets people see the full context of the information you are citing. Even when readers don’t click links, the fact that you are linking tells them that you are backing up what you have written, that you are attributing and showing your sources.
Recycled quotes. If you didn’t hear the person say something, you should probably attribute the quote not only to the speaker but to the medium that reported it. Stealing quotes from other news media used to be a pretty common practice. Oblique references to competitors as “reporters” or “news media” or “a blogger” aren’t adequate attribution. If you got your quote from a televised interview or another newspaper or a blog, cite the outlet. However, if a politician is making a televised speech or holding a televised news conference, that is not the same as an exclusive interview. That speech is public domain and you can use a quote without attribution to another medium, just as if you were there (but don’t use a dateline, unless you were there).
Got it? To avoid plagiarizing a political quote -- if you were not there to HEAR IT --- you should attribute the media that REPORTED the quote (and the date, location) as I said before. If you didn't HEAR IT -- you stole it from some news source that HEARD IT for you..
PaperView is guilty of improper Attribution and stealing...
Holy shit -- this flatca dude is having a cow, and saying *I* stole words because I posted this:Camp::: Here's a little education for political attributions...
You can quote me on that: Advice on attribution for journalists | The Buttry Diary
Attribution is the difference between research and plagiarism. Attribution gives stories credibility and perspective. It tells readers how we know what we know. It also slows stories down. Effective use of attribution is a matter both of journalism ethics and of strong writing.
How do you know that? Attribution is a key ingredient in any story’s credibility. Readers are entitled to know where we got our information. If we are citing official statistics gathered by a government agency, that tells the readers something. If we are citing the contentions of an interest group or a political partisan, that tells the readers something else. If we don’t attribute our information, readers rightly wonder how we know that.
When should we attribute? Attribute any time that attribution strengthens the credibility of a story. Attribute any time you are using someone else’s words. Attribute when you are reporting information gathered by other journalists. Attribute when you are not certain of facts. Attribute statements of opinion. When you wonder whether you should attribute, you probably should attribute in some fashion.
Don’t just attribute; link. Linking is an essential part of attribution in online journalism. Linking lets people see the full context of the information you are citing. Even when readers don’t click links, the fact that you are linking tells them that you are backing up what you have written, that you are attributing and showing your sources.
Recycled quotes. If you didn’t hear the person say something, you should probably attribute the quote not only to the speaker but to the medium that reported it. Stealing quotes from other news media used to be a pretty common practice. Oblique references to competitors as “reporters” or “news media” or “a blogger” aren’t adequate attribution. If you got your quote from a televised interview or another newspaper or a blog, cite the outlet. However, if a politician is making a televised speech or holding a televised news conference, that is not the same as an exclusive interview. That speech is public domain and you can use a quote without attribution to another medium, just as if you were there (but don’t use a dateline, unless you were there).
Got it? To avoid plagiarizing a political quote -- if you were not there to HEAR IT --- you should attribute the media that REPORTED the quote (and the date, location) as I said before. If you didn't HEAR IT -- you stole it from some news source that HEARD IT for you..
PaperView is guilty of improper Attribution and stealing...
"I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important." -Rand Paul, giving advice to college students.
in the same thread he is trying to make a case that his patron saint Rand Paul, who swiped acres of words as his own work, word for word - in his speeches, in his books, in his op-eds -- and did.not note.they.were.not.his.own.words. That Paul -- tada! didn't plagiarize.
If that don't eat all the chocolate cake in Kintucky.
Hey dude: I'm not a senator that wants to be president, or a journalist for a media corpHoly shit -- this flatca dude is having a cow, and saying *I* stole words because I posted this:Camp::: Here's a little education for political attributions...
Got it? To avoid plagiarizing a political quote -- if you were not there to HEAR IT --- you should attribute the media that REPORTED the quote (and the date, location) as I said before. If you didn't HEAR IT -- you stole it from some news source that HEARD IT for you..
PaperView is guilty of improper Attribution and stealing...
"I never, ever cheated. I don't condone cheating. But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important." -Rand Paul, giving advice to college students.
in the same thread he is trying to make a case that his patron saint Rand Paul, who swiped acres of words as his own work, word for word - in his speeches, in his books, in his op-eds -- and did.not note.they.were.not.his.own.words. That Paul -- tada! didn't plagiarize.
If that don't eat all the chocolate cake in Kintucky.
Now you want to argue about journalistic ethics and plagiarism with a respected journalist? YOU JUST STOLE a political quote from a source that you didn't credit..
Whatcha gonna do next? Challenge me to a duel??
They're looking at his books too and those were ghost written.
Got a link?
Three Pages Of Rand Pauls Book Were Plagiarized From Think Tanks
An entire section of Kentucky Sen. Rand Pauls 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.
Three Pages Of Rand Paul's Book Were Plagiarized From Think Tanks
