Rand Paul rips Maddow over Wikipedia questions: ‘She’s been spreading hate on me for three years now’
Without mentioning her by name, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) dismissed MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s questions surrounding his use of Wikipedia in campaign speeches in an interview with Fusion anchor Jorge Ramos on Wednesday.
“Nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from,” Paul told Ramos, arguing that he has credited “the screenwriters” for the movie Gattaca — though he did not name writer/director Andrew Nichol — and author Ray Bradbury for referencing their work.
“The rest of it’s making a mountain out of a molehill for people, I think, who are political enemies and have an ax to grind,” Paul added.
After Maddow reported on his reciting Wikipedia’s description of the movie’s plot during an appearance at Liberty University, Buzzfeed noted that he did the same thing with the plot for Stand and Deliver in a June 2013 speech.
“If you look at my speeches, there’s never been any indication that I’ve tried to take credit for someone else’s work,” Paul told Ramos. “So really, this is about information and attacks coming from haters.”
Paul then alluded to Maddow more directly, saying, “The person who’s leading this attack, she’s been spreading hate on me for three years now, and I don’t intend for it to go away. But I also don’t see her as an objective news source.”
Watch Paul’s interview with Ramos, aired on Wednesday, below.
He looks like he doesn't bathe. Wet dog smell with that poodle hair.
[quote] "But I also don’t see her as an objective news source."
That's alright, Rand, we don't see you as a legitimate lawmaker.
Poor Paul wet his pants.
He's another of those brittle, reality-challenged messiahs that cannot bear scrutiny or questioning.
He WAS on her show right before or right after he got elected. It was a total shitshow, and she just let him dig his own grave.
But R7 ... I keep hearing he's so popular, that the Dems ought be cowering in fear of his candidacy?
It's not as if she's putting him on the spot for quoting something - politicians do that all the time.
The issue is that he never said, "As XYZ movie says....". It's ALL he had to fucking say. If he was caught plagarizing he has only himself to blame.
I don't get it, isn't he supposed to be a libertarian? Why should he care if a woman gets an abortion or not?
Serious question, as a Libertarian,does he believe in giving attributions to begin with? I mean wouldn't the libertarian view be that once a person has put an idea or quote out there, the rest of the world can pretty much do with it whatever they want?
Rand Paul is a self-centered, ideological twit.
Love her. Little respect for him. But I thought it was a cheap shot. especially since he used a wiki.
Libertarians are virulently anti-abortion. Apparently in the case of females, the right to self-determination ends when a man cums in her.
I'm much more concerned by the fact he's a self-licensed ophthalmologist.
To Republicans, apparently "hate" is another word for "facts".
They hate facts so much they think the words are interchangeable.
He IS a libertardian - and not just any libertardian - the most famous and easily recognized libertardian in the country, right along with his libertardian racist newsletter publishing father.
Suck it up and feel the freedom, boys.
[quote]Libertarians are virulently anti-abortion.
Cue Kathy Bates: LIIIIIIIIIES!
Rand Paul, much like his daddy, is a typical Teabilly cretin. He knows that if he appears on Maddow's show she would own his ass!
Never trust a man in a wig.
I agree with Rachel. I don't think he understands what plagiarism is either. I doubt if he knows how to spell it and that is why he can't find it on Wiki.
On a side note, I think that Jorge Ramos is a Jorgeous silver haired Papi. He was handsome as a younger man and got better looking as he aged. Woof.
He did R21 and she did. He'll always hate her for that. I don't think this is as big of a deal as she's making it though. Paul has said and done much worse.
Poor Paul, "Everyone is pickin on me". What a fucking pussy. Now he knows how the folks he has made a career out of hating feel.
Rand Paul and his father are not libertarians; they are NeoConfederate Xtian Reconstructists.
Libertarians are too easily duped or blinded by the their own fantasies for guns, drugs and hookers 24/7 to realize
She comes out looking petty and snarky in this mess. Does she not have bigger fish to fry vis a vis Rand Paul? She's becoming too reliant on the group of sycophants that blow smoke up her ass.
Maddow should tell Paul she's simply doing what is in her own self interest, raising ratings for her show to bring in more money for MSNBC so they, in turn can "create more jobs". Why does he hate job creators so much?
Every libertarian I've ever met is anti-abortion, and so are Ron and Rand. It goes with the racism. They're scared that white women aren't having enough babies. We won't even get into how they really feel about white men who spill their precious white seed outside the white vagine.
Not only does Rand Paul obviously not understand what plagiarism is, clearly there are some DLers who don't understand it either. r13, that means you.
Nonsense, r30--these types loove Asian pussy.
R30, you mistake Tea Partiers for Libertarians.
Nah, r33--you're assuming that you're fooling the rest of us. But you're really only kidding yourself. Be honest: the only issues you might differ from the Tea Party on are abortion, pot, and gay marriage--and none of those issues stop you from voting the same. Ask your buddy Lhota.
R34, have you not been paying attention? Dufus above claims that all Libertarians are anti-abortion. Libertarians are definitely not anti-abortion, we're for personal liberty, which includes the right to choose for yourself what you believe.
Tea Partiers are conservatives, which definitely are anti-abortion. Randites have painted themselves as the Libertarian wing of the Republican party, but that very affiliation is anathema to true Libertarians.
Of course, this small distinction is too complex for most befuddled DL "progressives" to grasp.
Rachel gets bagged on by Mike Rogers, she plagiarized him.
Wow, R36, nice 6th grade lesbian and tranny bashing at your link. 'Rare' readers simply can't get over the fact that she's a DYKE!!!
Oh, and: Mike Rogers' tongue in cheek irritation at Maddow's 'plagiarism' is way too subtle for idealogues, apparently.
[quote]that poodle hair
I just assume that's a wig. I mean look at it.
He kind of reminds me of Gale from Breaking Bad. I'll always picture Rand Paul singing Major Tom
I notice the distinction you can't grasp/won't address is the one between how different you supposedly are from tea baggers, while strangely voting identically, r35. How befuddling.
re: Self-certified opthalmologist: Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist certified by an ophthalmology board run by...Rand Paul.
In a similar spirit, I've certified myself as a plastic surgeon specializing in lipo and facelifts. For [bold]FREEDOM(TM)![/bold]
The only reason Maddow isn't hosting MTP is specifically because she would know how to question these people and take them to task whereas assholes like Gregory can remain in the job (despite being a ratings disaster) because he's a douchebag more concerned with continuing to get invites around town rather than informing the public.
And Rachel responds, in her own inimitable way:
[quote]Senator, you can call me whatever names you want few. Trust me, I have been called worse. This is not a personal thing for me at all. I feel no emotion about this. I do not hate you or try to spread hate on you. I am sorry you feel that way. Also you didn't borrow plot lines from these movies, you read the Wikipedia page out loud. The point is that you seem to have a frequent habit of plagiarizing part of your speeches. And perhaps that is explained by the fact that you do not understand what plagiarism is. Nobody is accusing you of pretending that you wrote Gattaca or Stand and Deliver, that's not what this is about. Not about explaining a plot line. This is about lifting entire sections of a website and Inserting them in your speeches and passing them off as your own original thoughts. This is something that high school students know not to do. You are presenting yourself as the potential candidate for president. It has nothing to do with me. You heard senator Paul there say, "nothing I said was not given attribution to where it came from." That is absolute and probably not true. Senator somebody else's published word ended up in your speech without attribution. How did that happen? Do you understand that is a problem? I'm grateful for Jorge Ramos and fusion that senator Rand Paul has been forced to respond to the plagiarism tonight given his incoherence in his explanation. I have a feeling this may not be the end of it.
R45, in this case, your second comma isn't necessary.
What he is, is a fraud. Self licensed opthamologist? It's a disgrace that he is in elected national office.
His little Wiki plagarism is must a tiny example of the larger fraud of his life. I am astounded that people vote for this kind of a man aside from his politics.
Projection by Rand is the hate he spews.
R46, I acknowledge your clever riposte.
Libertarians may not all be anti-abortion, but they're definitely all stupid.
He's such a whiney little cowardly hypocritical tool.
Ron Paul is a gynecologist. I wonder how many abortions he's performed?
I love how excited Maddow is to be on "The Simpsons."
Haters? God it's embarrassing when adults appropriate teenage internet speak.
[quote]I have a feeling this may not be the end of it.
Rachel's gut was correct. He's also plagiarized The Week magazine:
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, who in recent weeks has had to explain how Wikipedia entries came to be incorporated into his speeches with no attribution, faced charges of direct plagiarism on Monday night.
Senator Rand Paul Is Accused of Plagiarizing His Lines From Wikipedia (October 31, 2013)
In an op-ed article he wrote for The Washington Times in September on mandatory minimum prison sentences, Mr. Paul, a Republican, appears to have copied language from an essay that had previously run in The Week magazine.
That article, written by Dan Stewart, an editor for The Week, included this sentence: “America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year.” It was posted to the web on Sept. 14.
On Sept. 20, Mr. Paul wrote this: “America now jails a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, including China and Iran, at the staggering cost of $80 billion a year.”
Mr. Paul’s article also mentioned a case involving a Florida man, John Horner, who was sentenced to a minimum of 25 years for selling painkillers. “John will be 72 years old by the time he is released, and his three young children will have grown up without him,” Mr. Paul wrote.
Mr. Stewart’s version: “He will be 72 by the time he is released, and his three young children will have grown up without him.”
Aides to Mr. Paul declined to comment about the apparent plagiarism, which was first reported by BuzzFeed.
After reports that Mr. Paul used word-for-word Wikipedia entries in a speech last week, his advisers, when confronted with additional examples of his using the language of others without attribution, told Politico that he would be “more cautious in presenting and attributing sources.”
In an interview on the ABC News program “This Week” on Sunday, Mr. Paul acknowledged he had been “sloppy” but also lashed out.
“I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters,” he said.