Jump to content
rnmaybe rnmaybe (Member)

Another Democrat caught plagiarizing forced out of Senate Race

Politics   (1,622 Views 16 Comments)
7,444 Visitors; 1,454 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/us/politics/john-walsh-drops-campaign-under-pressure-from-democrats.html?_r=0

Senator John Walsh of Montana, who has served in office for just six months, said Thursday that he was dropping his election bid, clearing the path for his party to nominate a new candidate.

No surprise here lazy Democrats and their lazy voters have been living off the work of others for decades. However he could be a potential vice president nominee since Biden was also caught stealing the work of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living off of others is a Democrat credo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really agree that people who vote for either party can accurately be called "lazy" or anything else based on what a particular politician does, whether their someone I tend to agree with or not.

Although I don't share your view, I am curious how it works. So if it turned out a republican politician, or especially if many republican candidates, had been caught plagiarizing, that would mean that republican voters are also lazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just reinforces the notion that a lot of democrats are freeloaders and parasites.

I don't really agree that people who vote for either party can accurately be called "lazy" or anything else based on what a particular politician does, whether their someone I tend to agree with or not.

Although I don't share your view, I am curious how it works. So if it turned out a republican politician, or especially if many republican candidates, had been caught plagiarizing, that would mean that republican voters are also lazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just reinforces the notion that a lot of democrats are freeloaders and parasites.

So that goes for reports of plagiarizing republicans as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this thread would have had more steam had it started out as a question about how any elected official of that caliber, could make it past some kind of review. I understand he was an appointee, but surely he was vetted. After all, within 6 months he's found out as a liar and a cheat.

Eventually we'd have gotten around to Democrat and Republican, we always do.

Edited by imintrouble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this thread would have had more steam had it started out as a question about how any elected official of that caliber, could make it past some kind of review. I understand he was an appointee, but surely he was vetted. After all, within 6 months he's found out as a liar and a cheat.

Eventually we'd have gotten around to Democrat and Republican, we always do.

Do you think the intent of the thread was to invite a broad discussion about plagiarism or dishonest politicians, including differing views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course he wasn't vetted. They took his credentials at face value and I'm not really sure if that level of vetting would require looking at his thesis for plagiarism. More likely whether his degree was legit or not. Look at Obama he has never been vetted by any media. We have no idea what his grades or writings entail while he was in undergrad or law school.

I think this thread would have had more steam had it started out as a question about how any elected official of that caliber, could make it past some kind of review. I understand he was an appointee, but surely he was vetted. After all, within 6 months he's found out as a liar and a cheat.

Eventually we'd have gotten around to Democrat and Republican, we always do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really agree that people who vote for either party can accurately be called "lazy" or anything else based on what a particular politician does, whether their someone I tend to agree with or not.

Although I don't share your view, I am curious how it works. So if it turned out a republican politician, or especially if many republican candidates, had been caught plagiarizing, that would mean that republican voters are also lazy?

So it would be fair to say that any political party has politicians who, at one time in their lives, have plagiarized. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that people plagiarize regardless of political party, race, gender, age, ethnicity, etc., etc. Yes? No?

Do you think the intent of the thread was to invite a broad discussion about plagiarism or dishonest politicians, including differing views?

I'm going to be blunt about this. It's hard to take the title of this thread and its intent as anything but trolling. . . . :sarcastic:

(Let's just call a spade a spade. . . )

Edited by Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, the OP's point was that plagiarism by someone in a political party = proof that party and it's voters are "lazy", and includes "a lot of freeloaders and parasites". It would seem that if this equation is correct, that it shows the republican party and it's voters are actually far more "lazy", "freeloaders", and "parasites" since far more examples of republican plagiarism can be found (Rand Paul alone has been caught plagiarizing at least 5 different times, 8 different republican candidates have been caught plagiarizing off of Paul, one Republican was even caught plagiarizing Obama's 2004 convention speech).

I don't think it's correct to say these examples can used to show that republicans in general are lazy or anything else because I don't think the equation is correct to begin with, even if it does seem to turn the tables on someone who so eloquently referred to me as "lazy", among other things. I don't agree with everything republicans believe, but I base my disagreements on the individual issues and the facts involved, I don't just reflexively decide I hate republicans and then filter the facts as necessary to support my preconceived bias, unfortunately that's not true for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just like the discussion and debate on ANYTHING that is meant to be serious in nature to be thoughtful and respectful. Such discussions and debates can be heated, as you well know, MunoRN. But this thread is so obviously trollish in nature, it begs to be called out for what it is.

I'm singling this thread out because it seems to represent how our country debates its topics in general, especially to when it comes to politics. It seems that, all too often, generalities are thrown out about the "opposing political party" with little to no FACTS to substantiate the all-too-often outlandish claims. As a nation, we need to grow beyond this. We need to think. We need to critically think! It's as if we're becoming a nation of trolls as one side of the political isle disses the other side of the political isle.

So how would one talk intelligently about the claims of this thread? Let's discuss this.

Claim #1:

. . . lazy Democrats and their lazy voters have been living off the work of others for decades.

Well. . . provide reliable and verifiable proof that "lazy Democrats and their lazy voters have been living off the work of others for decades." In other words, provide statistics, and/or reliable and verifiable research, etc.

Claim #2

Living off of others is a Democrat credo.

Again. . . provide the research and statistics, and let those facts to support this claim be reliable and verifiable.

I know. . . it's a lot of work to substantiate one's claim. It's one reason why I don't engage in political debates anymore. I'm too lazy to provide the proof (even though I know that proof exists to the claims I would make).

Let the topic and intent found in this thread be a glaring example of laziness in thoughtful discussion and debate. So far, there is nothing to verify the two main claims that have been made. Please, someone go to work and find the verifiable facts to back them up. Someone. Anyone. I'll be waiting. Oh. One more thing. We should all make sure of the meanings to the words, "verifiable", "reliable" and "facts", before we proceed. ;)

Edited by Ted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here you go. Now let's here how this poll is skewed or is just right wing propaganda.

Super-Economy: Are Welfare Recipients mostly Republican?

I just like the discussion and debate on ANYTHING that is meant to be serious in nature to be thoughtful and respectful. Such discussions and debates can be heated, as you well know, MunoRN. But this thread is so obviously trollish in nature, it begs to be called out for what it is.

I'm singling this thread out because it seems to represent how our country debates its topics in general, especially to when it comes to politics. It seems that, all too often, generalities are thrown out about the "opposing political party" with little to no FACTS to substantiate the all-too-often outlandish claims. As a nation, we need to grow beyond this. We need to think. We need to critically think! It's as if we're becoming a nation of trolls as one side of the political isle disses the other side of the political isle.

So how would one talk intelligently about the claims of this thread? Let's discuss this.

Claim #1:

Well. . . provide reliable and verifiable proof that "lazy Democrats and their lazy voters have been living off the work of others for decades." In other words, provide statistics, and/or reliable and verifiable research, etc.

Claim #2

Again. . . provide the research and statistics, and let those facts to support this claim be reliable and verifiable.

I know. . . it's a lot of work to substantiate one's claim. It's one reason why I don't engage in political debates anymore. I'm too lazy to provide the proof (even though I know that proof exists to the claims I would make).

Let the topic and intent found in this thread be a glaring example of laziness in thoughtful discussion and debate. So far, there is nothing to verify the two main claims that have been made. Please, someone go to work and find the verifiable facts to back them up. Someone. Anyone. I'll be waiting. Oh. One more thing. We should all make sure of the meanings to the words, "verifiable", "reliable" and "facts", before we proceed. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.