quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
A duel ? Really!
Geee....just how think skinned can one get?
The tea-baggers darling is turning out to be an immature, shallow cry-baby....
Or maybe he`s feeling like the deer in the headlights because he really is guilty of plagiarism?
"Without actually naming the MSNBC host who’s been all over his plagiarism like a Confederate flag over a Tea Party protest, Sen. Rand Paul expressed a wish to “duel” Rachel Maddow, or anyone else who dares to infer dishonesty from his habit of lifting from others in his speeches, on Sunday morning’s This Week. In an interview with host George Stephanopoulos, Paul explained why "company."
How the hell did he think he`d get away with it in the 'internetz' age?
It`s mostly insulting to cult members tho.......thinking they were dumb enough to dupe.
He`s still ok tho cuz they'll forgive him or blame the "liberal media"(ie. reality).......But seeing him lose his cool is awesome.
Note to rand on the rest of the lunatic fringe.....fuck with the internet and you die....
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-only-thing-keeping-rand-paul-from-shooting-rachel-maddow-to-death-in-a-duel/
Oops....
"Report: Rand Paul Copied Sections of 2013 Book from Think Tank Study"
http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-rand-paul-copied-sections-of-2013-book-from-think-tank-study/
"According to a new post by Buzzfeed, a section of Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) book Government Bullies was lifted word-for-word from a Heritage Foundation study, the latest in a series of plagiarism accusations that are suddenly dogging the Kentucky Senator.
BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski wrote that 1,318 words of Rand’s 2013 publication were taken verbatim from a 2003 study by the political think tank. Heritage is attributed as the source of the information in the footnotes, but not cited as the source of the actual text in the book. In addition, later passages were similar to a Cato Institute report, Kaczynski reported."

quote:

Me: Rand said he'd challenge people who call him "dishonest, misleading or misrepresenting" to a duel, if dueling was still legal. He takes offense to be called those things - especially when, as he claims, he's never done so intentionally. Why would a legal response be crazy (you know, if dueling was legal)?

I am less concerned with the speech issues that were brought up than I am with the books. He asserts that he's written scientific papers and understands how to footnote. In a book, it's a must to give proper attribution. It's also a lot easier to do so properly in the written form.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)