Wake up people. McCain plagiarized his speech today and you're lost on bullshit!!!

[Renew Deal]

Hello! Is anybody home??? McCain plagiarized his speech today, yet you're lost on other BS. This is a legitimate story. McCain lifted information about Georgia directly from Wikipedia. This is te highest of intellectual crimes. Time to wake up. This is very important. Just ask Biden. Read and recommend these threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6621444

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6621282

[Unsane]

1. Forward this to CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX

[snowbear]

11. I agree.. The more that different people send it to those networks...

....with the exception of Faux that is, the more likely they'll try and see what all the hub-bub is about.

Good idea!

FAIR's list of media contacts: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=111

--

[tblue37]

17. To Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart. n/t

[tblue37]

18. Oh, and Jay Leno and David Letterman, too. Make McCain a laughingstock. n/t

[annabanana]

2. McCain knows nothing about anything. We can all be as "expert" as him

with the slightest of facility with teh google.

[AspenRose]

3. First cookie recipes, now this

Is anyone really surprised...

[Sulawesi]

4. People have been King & Ring those threads..

[Bobbie Jo]

5. Well, I assumed that he either plagiarized or lifted any coherent

speech or statement that came out of his mouth. Actually...I would have been more shocked to find evidence of independent thought. :eyes:

[WeDidIt]

6. Ho Hum

Nobody in teh media will pick it up. They're all in the tank for McCain, so why would they report anything bad about him?

[Disturbed]

7. The "Liberal "TV Media supports this RWing Asshole

because he will keep Deregulation of Media into effect. The like their consolidation of Power.

[onenote]

8. and if this is made an issue, you realize that we will see story after story

repeating the claim that Obama plagiarized from Deval Patrick. It doesn't matter that Patrick says it was okay, the two will be equated and the net effect will be no gain for Obama. So what's the point, exactly?

[bunnies]

9. *ding ding* We have a winner. nt

[tblue37]

19. But it's Wikipedia! The choice of Wikipedia as a source for

geopolitical information by a man who claims to be a foreign policy expert goes way beyond the simple plagiarism issue. There is an opportunity to hit him on his supposed strong point.

[onenote]

24. which of the information was wrong?

this is such a non issue.

[tblue37]

27. The point is NOT whether the info is right or wrong, but that a

candidate running for president whose claims to be a foreign policy expert is his main excuse for running should not be using a noncredible source for his speeches about geopolitical issues. The reason mere students are not allowed to use Wikpedia to source their papers is that even if the particular article they refer to has no errors in it, it is still not appropriate to use a source whose credibility is dubious.

The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia means that there is no guarantee that the information is authoritative, and also no guarantee that mischief is not being done.

Surely you have read about the way Repubican operatives and government operatives have been caught deliberately tweaking Wikipedia pages to reflect their political agenda. And then there are the prank articles, in which a person's reputation is trashed as a joke by a friend or acquaintance (like the one who was said to have been involved in the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life).

Those instances were caught and publicized, but how do we know there are not other instances that have not been caught--or that never will be caught? Also, even in the cases where the erroneous ingformation was corrected, who knows how long it was up there or whether someone accessed those particular articles and used them as sources during the time when they were deliberately filled with inaccurate and/or partisan information?

These are the issues that make Wikipedia unacceptable for student papers. Certainly a presidential candidate who claims to be a foreign policy expert should at least lift his speeches from an authoritative encyclopedia, if he is going to plagiarize them in the first place.

[janet118]

10. Can you imagine if Obama . . .

had been caught cribbing foreign policy from Wikipedia? The mainstreamers would be on it like flies on poo. Yet the supposed "experienced" candidate copies his facts from an online encyclopedia. This is stuff that third graders do.

Is there nothing that McCain can do to prove he is a complete fraud?

[tblue37]

20. Wikipedia isn't just any online encyclopedia. It's one that

anyone can edit, so it simply cannot be accepted as a credible or authoritative source. If he is going to plagiarize, he should at least be going to an encyclopedia with articles written by acknowledged experts, not by some 22-year-old in pajamas or some bored housewife or senior citizen.

[Occam Bandage]

22. WHAT IF THE TERRORISTS EDIT WIKIPEDIA AND HE BOMBS THE WRONG PLACE

[vaberella]

25. Oh man...I spit out my juice!!

:rofl:

[ArbustoBuster]

28. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

[mzmolly]

12. The key is to get this info to people like Olbermann.

Thanks Bleachers. K and R

[Thrill]

13. Please......You think the media is going to run with this? Keep dreaming

McCain is safe from all gaffes, flip flops, cheating, lies, etc.......

[gateley]

14. Olbermann referenced it on Countdown tonight. nt

[Raster]

15. I'm sorry, but John Edwards penis and whom he may have put it in is far too important.

Republicans illegally invade countries - no problem!

Republicans murder hundreds of thousands of innocents - no problem!

Republicans lie to Congress - no problem!

A Democrat has a tawdry little affair and everyone comes fucking unglued.

[tblue37]

16. Although the plagiarism bothers me, it doesn't bother me anywhere

near as much as the fact that a man who claims foreign policy as his strong suit gets his information about key geopolitical issues from frickin' Wikipedia! I teach college English. One of the first things we tell our students is that Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Oh, sure, sometimes it is accurate enough--but there is no way of telling whether it is accurate unless you are yourself already an expert on the topic you are looking up.

Obviously McCain didn't get the information himself, or write the speech himself. His aides did that. But they are going to Wikipedia for the information! There is simply no excusing that. Foreign policy based on Wikipedia is absurd

Aides also embarrassed the McCains when they lifted Cindy's "family cookie recipes" straight from the Nestle site. If this is how McCain runs his campaign, how can we expect him to run an administration any better? He is obviously clueless, and his handlers seem to be equally clueless.

[Occam Bandage]

21. Really, this won't fly. So he gave matter-of-fact background information

in a manner that, in two sections, followed the same chronological (and logical) order as Wikipedia?

It might point to a sorta-lazy speechwriter, but that's not exactly the stuff that breaks campaigns.

[vaberella]

26. If only he had said "Atlanta, Georgia" then we'd see this as a plus on our side.

[crimsonblue]

23. who cares?

It wasn't Obama, so why would anybody care? :sarcasm:

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. And 98% of Amerika says.....SO?

[otohara]

30. This Makes McCain Look Like A Bigger Idiot Than Bush

Wikipedia - they aren't even a reliable source.

[Hope And Change]

31. Kick!