The Rand Paul plagiarism accusation is absurd

Of course not. But, if you can't depend on your staff to not hand you a plagiarized speech, then you have a shitty staff, and you might not be the best manager.

And, as a manager, you have to reiterate the basics to your employees. Some things seem like the kinds of things that don't need to be said. They aren't. You need to tell the folks that work for you exactly what you expect from them. And, for speech writers, that means telling them no plagiarism even/especially from Wikipedia.

 

Just carrying on the family tradition of Daddy, who couldn't be bothered to determine the orgins of racist blather lifted from white supremacist sources and run verbatim in his newsletters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

Seems these two wizards of spectacular self-reliance ain't real big on actually generating any of their own ideas.

 

Didn't he basically license his name, and have no editorial control?

Kind of a dumb decision if you value your name, but it's not the same thing as what we're discussing.

 

Paul should just say that he was unaware and move on. That strategy seems to be
working well for some of Washington's other politicians.

 

Sure it is. If you issue a newsletter with your name on it, you assume responsibility for whatever is in it.

That is, if that kind of thing matters to you, which it obviously does not to either Paul the Elder or Lesser.

 

Maddow and the rest of the sheep in the media found something to latch on to that might take the focus away from Obama for a second or two... We really shouldn't be surprised.

 

and WHOOMP, There It Is.... Again.

 

It's not that. It's that Maddow has a hard-on for Paul ever since he said the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional on her show.

 

Well, the key to licensing any brand is to partner with like minded folks, and have a mechanism to ensure your brand standards are upheld.

The hotel chains will pull their name of a property if the owner doesn't meet their standards. I have a customer who doesn't do a great job, and is in danger of losing it's licensed store agreement with a major coffee roaster.

Paul's crime was not knowing who he was dealing with, and not monitoring it.

That's bad. It is. It's also different.

 

Ding, effin, ding. We have a winner.

 

Well that certainly proves she's a socilist raddikal.

 

Can you maybe go find another thread to post on?