Saturday, February 23, 2008

By His Own Definition, Barack Obama Plagiarized And Then Lied

17 comments:

Scott Tribe said...

Scott:

With all due respect, this attack has to be the definition of "splitting hairs", and I characterize it as the attempt of a desperate Clinton campaign who knows their campaign days are numbered.

I realize Clinton supporters feel she's somehow entitled to be President, but it doesn't quite work like that.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of anything you may think of my motivations, Barack Obama, without a doubt plagiarized and lied. He plagiarized not only by the dictionary definition but by his own. Your suggestion of just splitting hairs is actually contrary to Obama's own campaign.

Now you may argue his lie was not that great, for he said he only took 2 lines from Deval and just used some more from some other speech. But the thing is, Barack Obama has said over and over again "Words are important," and if they are indeed important, then shouldn't the fact he has been using someone elses without permission, presenting them to be his own, then even just slightly lying, be a gross wrong?

How can it be called splitting hairs when one questions Obama's speech validity, when Obama has made his whole campaign about words? That just doesn't make sense. For if questioning Obama's speeches is splitting hairs, then speeches themselves aren't that important, but that would be contrary to Obama's very own message. So what is it? Do words matter? Or is lying and plagiarizing splitting hairs?

-scott

Justin Socie said...

So, how do you deal with the fact that politicians have speechwriters? I assume that to be consistent, you also have to think that any politician that uses speechwriters is a fraud as well.

Also, what about the multiple vids on youtube showing Clinton lifting phrases from other politicians and using them in her speeches?

Anonymous said...

Speechwriters are speechwriters. They get paid, just like any other writer. Speechwriter's are on the payroll of the campaign. Speechwriters are not ever given free reign on what to write, and they never copy anyone else or they are accused of plagiarism. Barack Obama copied someone, just like a speechwriter using someone elses words, he plagiarized, then he lied about it.

As for Hillary using other's words, I've seen maybe 10 videos, not one illustrated one case of plagiarism. They showed at most 6 of the same words which were usually "We're going to be fine" or she was making light of Obama's "Words are important" or his "Yes we can" but there is no plagiarism that I can find. Also she hasn't lied about it either.
-scott

Justin Socie said...

So you're going to make a distinction between a politican using a speechwriter's words without vocally footnoting, and a politician using a friend's words without vocally footnoting?

Why would anyone care about such a thing?

Anonymous said...

"So you're going to make a distinction between a politican using a speechwriter's words without vocally footnoting, and a politician using a friend's words without vocally footnoting?"

Now not only I'm I going to make a distinction but it's a widely held distinction, and as such it's what ruined Joe Biden's bid in 1988. Now

I clearly illustrated the differences between hiring a speechwriter and copying someones words without permission. Now you can actually respond to my comment or you can clearly say you are having a one sided conversation.
-scott

Justin Socie said...

I clearly illustrated the differences between hiring a speechwriter and copying someones words without permission.

No, you didn't. Check out the differences that you cite, and ask yourself why any of them matter in this situation.

Also, in this case Obama had permission to use the line of argument, didn't he? Patrick suggested a line of argument to him. Similarly, speechwriter's suggest lines of argument, and politicians run with it.

Listen, I know that it is going to be hard for you to admit that this whole issue is crap, since you took the time to make the video. In the end though, the issue is a total smokescreen by the Clinton camp.

Anonymous said...

A Speechwriter gets paid to write a speech, the candidate buys those words, just like a magazine buys a journalists words. If a candidate buys words they're his, period. A speechwriter never gives speeches then sells them, those speeches are directly used firstly and only by those who pay for them.

Deval Patrick used those speeches, those were his words, and he never sold them to Obama. You really should watch my entire video before commenting because I point to the fact Obama used deval's words even before Deval said he could.

Now I ask again, you can actually respond to my comment (and merely saying, look at what you said, is not contributing anything) then I would suggest you clearly state you're not interesting in any form of conversation but mere diatribe.

I clearly said,
1. a speechwriter's words are bought and just like in any other dealing become the property of those who buy them. Deval never sold his words.

2. A speechwriter never claims those words are his or her own once sold, so they never go out giving those speeches, Deval did.

3. Deval never gave a line of thought like one gives a speechwriter, Obama used word for word passages of Deval.

4. Obama used Devals words in March 2007 without permission, therefore by his own definiton plagiarism.

5. Obama then lied about the material he took.
-scott

Justin Socie said...

*sigh*

I thought that if you just reread your arguments in regards to the various distinctions between the two situations, you would realize why they are distinctions that don't make a difference to this situation.

Okay, in order:

1. a speechwriter's words are bought and just like in any other dealing become the property of those who buy them. Deval never sold his words.

Mr. Patrick gave Obama the idea. Mr. Patrick is working on the Obama campaign. I have no idea if he is paid or not, but it doesn't make a difference. If I give you permission to use what I wrote, you are welcome to use it whether I ask for money in return or not.


2. A speechwriter never claims those words are his or her own once sold, so they never go out giving those speeches, Deval did.

Just because Mr. Patrick used the line of argument in a previous speech doesn't preclude him from suggesting it to others.


3. Deval never gave a line of thought like one gives a speechwriter, Obama used word for word passages of Deval.

I think that you may have misworded this one. Anyways, all Obama really uses from Mr. Patrick is the phrase "Just Words". Every other phrase in the clip is just a recitation of the most famous phrases in American political history.


4. Obama used Devals words in March 2007 without permission, therefore by his own definiton plagiarism.

Dubious claim at best. The similarity of the one line can probably be explained by the fact that both men have the same guy running their campaigns, and Patrick is helping Obama with his campaign. Besides, Clinton has used at least this much content from Edwards and her husband, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.



5. Obama then lied about the material he took.

Dubious claim, as outlined above in #4.

As for me "not contributing to the debate," I have to assume that means "disagreeing with Scott". Frankly, it seems like it's you who is disinterested in conversation; clearly you get upset when people have a different opinion than you do.

Your arguments on this issue just aren't very good. You're relying on false distinctions and red herrings.

Anonymous said...

Just Society, first, WATCH THE VIDEO. Your comments illustrate you are talking about something you haven't even fully watched. There are two clips of Obama plagiarizing, not one.

And I am not suggesting you are not contributing to the conversation because you are disagreeing, I said clearly that you aren't responding to my comments, and in this instance you illustrate this.

You say: "I thought that if you just reread your arguments in regards to the various distinctions between the two situations, you would realize why they are distinctions that don't make a difference to this situation."

Now I could be as arrogant as you and suggest you merely reread your own statements, but I won't because I like to provide reasons for my position.

You're whole line of thought is that using speechwriters and Obama copying Deval were similar, so if one is okay the other must be.

1.
Now I brought up the point that a politician buys the words of a speechwriter and they therefore become his or hers and thus is nothing like what Obama did. Your answer was:
"Mr. Patrick gave Obama the idea. Mr. Patrick is working on the Obama campaign. I have no idea if he is paid or not, but it doesn't make a difference. If I give you permission to use what I wrote, you are welcome to use it whether I ask for money in return or not"

Now I must ask how is this a response to what I said?

By your response you are talking about "Sharing" I am talking about owning. A speechwriter does not give his words away, he sells them permenantly to a politician.

So this is a stark contrast between using a speechwriter and Obama using Deval's words; one is a transfer of ownership the other is a copying. Thus using a speechwriter as soon as a politician pays for them they are the politicians words. Using Deval, Obama can't even pretend those words are his.

2.
Now I argued that another difference is a speechwriter never claims those words are his or her own once sold, so they never go out giving those speeches, Deval did.
You responded:

"Just because Mr. Patrick used the line of argument in a previous speech doesn't preclude him from suggesting it to others."

Again I must ask how is this a response to what I said?

I never even implied because Patrick used those words meant he could preclude him from sharing it with others. I argued that a speechwriter can't do that. A speechwriter IS precluded, and that's why using a speechwriter is different.

3.
Now for number three you say:

"I think that you may have misworded this one. Anyways, all Obama really uses from Mr. Patrick is the phrase "Just Words". Every other phrase in the clip is just a recitation of the most famous phrases in American political history."

First off, again, watch the video before commenting, can you do that? It really is quite irresponsible to keep talking about something you have no idea about. For there are two video clips of Obama using Patricks words not one.

Also plagiarism is copying ideas not just words, ergo the very structure of the argument can and was plagiarized.

4.
As for my point that Obama used Patrick's material before he was given permission and therefore is by his own def. plagiarism you give the very weak reply:

"The similarity of the one line can probably be explained by the fact that both men have the same guy running their campaigns, and Patrick is helping Obama with his campaign."

Seriously, watch my video completely. It's more then one line, it's more then two, there's passages, from multiple speeches copied. Youre response of the same guy working for both campaigns has no proof whatsoever.

As for Hillary copying edwards or Bill, show me one sentence she copied.

5.
I stated: "5. Obama then lied about the material he took."

You cleverly retorted:

"Dubious claim, as outlined above in #4." Now reviewing #4 you make no mention of the fact Obama said he only took 2 lines from one speech but took other lines from other speeches as well, but I know thats because you never even watched the full video.

Now finish it off by saying I have made false distinctions, yet every distinction I havee given is a definitional distinction and thus cannot be false, by your position they may appear irrelavent to you but they cannot be false. And you also claim I've given red herrings; please pray tell where have I misled you?

Please watch the video before commenting.
-scott

Anonymous said...

when confronted Obama looked like he " wet the bed". He has no words of his own only copy. signed granny

Scott Tribe said...

Off topic.. but why do you sign in here to comment as "Anonymous" when everyone knows its you (Scott Ross) who's doing the replying?

Seems a bit strange ;)

Scott Tribe said...

By the way, Scott, considering Clinton appears to have abandoned the plagiarism attack and is now trying to focus on Obama's pamphlets which she claims is wrongly attacking her, it appears she and her advisers think the plagiarism issue is going to go nowhere.

Anonymous said...

Well because I deleted my profile, so even when I log in it says anonymous. Now why did I do that? Well I feel sometimes I may want to say things in anonymity.

Now I never call people names, that I don't provide evidence for ie liar (see phantom observer), but sometimes my ideas may not be popular. Now by what I mean by that is not that I have radical positions, but in expressing my ideas I would be affecting personal and business associate relationships. Being anonymous provides me an ability to say what I believe and not have negative externalities.

I believe all people should have the ability to be anonymous in expressing their ideas, that's why I allow it on my blog, even to my disadvantage. But above all its just the ideas we should focus on.
-scott

Anonymous said...

Well everyone in the world, including Hillary Clinton could say I'm wrong, unless they point to a logical weakness or some mistake, then I'm going to continue believing that what Barack Obama did, multiple times, and then lied about it, is wrong.

This is the same position in regards to every position I hold. Considering not many Liberals, or for that matter, Canadians think we should never have gone to Afghanistan, and I do is because I've found weaknesses in every other argument contrary, and have an argument that I've had Afghan experts agree with me on. Now this may sound arrogant, but I admit when I'm wrong when someone shows why I am, see my embarrassing reversal in recognizing Quebec as a nation among other things.

I used to think Barack was the best chance for the democratic party. You may think I was always preferring Hillary, well I didn't; even as I was predicting her to win, I honestly thought that in the states, though she would win the nomination, there was no way a woman would win the presidency. I believed and still believe, that being racist is more of a taboo then being sexist, and therefore attacks on Obama would be more scrutinized then those against Hillary.
-scott

Justin Socie said...

Just Society, first, WATCH THE VIDEO. Your comments illustrate you are talking about something you haven't even fully watched. There are two clips of Obama plagiarizing, not one.

I watched the video. My answer to #4 was in response to the March 2007 clip.



You say: "I thought that if you just reread your arguments in regards to the various distinctions between the two situations, you would realize why they are distinctions that don't make a difference to this situation."

Now I could be as arrogant as you and suggest you merely reread your own statements, but I won't because I like to provide reasons for my position.


I wasn't trying to be arrogant, it was just a bit late, and I thought that the errors were fairly obvious.


By your response you are talking about "Sharing" I am talking about owning. A speechwriter does not give his words away, he sells them permenantly to a politician.

So this is a stark contrast between using a speechwriter and Obama using Deval's words; one is a transfer of ownership the other is a copying. Thus using a speechwriter as soon as a politician pays for them they are the politicians words. Using Deval, Obama can't even pretend those words are his.


Scott, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about analogies. I've used an analogy to show you that, since there isn't anything of significance that is different between the two situations, our conclusions about the acceptability of the situations should not be different. You seem to think that if you can point out any difference at all between the two situations, this is sufficient to show that our conclusions about them should be different. That is not the case.

You argue that Obama can use words that aren't his own as long as he pays for them. You think that Obama can not use these words if permission is given to him without the transfer of funds. Is that how you think ownership works? You think that if you buy a car then it's yours, but if I give you a car then it isn't?


Now I argued that another difference is a speechwriter never claims those words are his or her own once sold, so they never go out giving those speeches, Deval did.

You really think that if you write a speech for a politician, then you are then precluded from using excerpts from the speech in some future speech that you make? From where do you get that?


Youre response of the same guy working for both campaigns has no proof whatsoever.

As for Hillary copying edwards or Bill, show me one sentence she copied.


The name of the political advisor that the two share is David Axelrod. I thought this was common knowledge.

The videos of Clinton using Edwards' lines and her husband's lines are at the following links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RernchYH-Ec

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U


Now reviewing #4 you make no mention of the fact Obama said he only took 2 lines from one speech but took other lines from other speeches as well, but I know thats because you never even watched the full video. My point was that Obama didn't have anything to apologize for in relation to the charges. For you to say he is lying means that you know that Obama purposely copied Deval Patrick and was pretending that he hadn't. My answer had demonstrated why that wasn't the case.


And I am not suggesting you are not contributing to the conversation because you are disagreeing, I said clearly that you aren't responding to my comments, and in this instance you illustrate this.

Scott, this is incredibly daft. You bring up a bunch of meaningless distinctions that you think override my analogy, I explain exactly why they are meaningless, but somehow this isn't a "response to your comments"?

Anonymous said...

Justin: You say: "Is that how you think ownership works? You think that if you buy a car then it's yours, but if I give you a car then it isn't?"

A car is not words. A car is concrete, ownership is clear. Words are not so clearly owned, that's why plagiarism is a big deal. That's why copying someone is a big deal. It's not a big deal to share a car, but it is when one presents like he owns it, when he doesn't.