Obama Echoes Deval Patrick...Again

What's wrong with copying or borrowing great words if it helps inspire people?

President Geo W Bush is pushing congress to adapt a policy in wheich there would be a $700,000,000,000 bail out program in which will only be a band aid solution to an inevitable problem that will come up again once all funds have been used up by the administration at these financial institutions. What is required is to stimulate the economy so that citizens will have the confidence to spend and invest again – something that has not been happening.

Let us assume that there are 100,000,000 people in the USA that fall below 150,000 per year in household income. Why not give $4700.00 to each of these individuals that fall below the “Threshold” to use to pay down their own debt or to buy appliances or cars or anything that is manufactured exclusively in the USA – this is what stimulates the economy – it is measures like this that get people investing in the country. Mr Bush just does not get it. You cannot get the financial institue to start curing out revenue unless there is confidence – he is merely putting up a smoke screen to show his government cares. This seems to be another one of his hair brain ideas just like the on e that put the US into war with Afganistan and Iraq.

These policies will indeed drive the US economy into the ground – I maintain the US dollar will weaken again because of these measures

President George W Bush is pushing congress to adapt a policy in which there would be a $700,000,000,000 bail out program. This program will only be a band aid solution to an inevitable problem that will come up again once all funds have been exhausted and used up by the administration of these financial institutions. What is required to beef up the economy is to stimulate the economy so that citizens will have the confidence to spend and invest again – something that has not been happening.

Hand the funds ($700,000,000,000) over to the people of the USA. Let us assume that there are 100,000,000 people in the USA that fall below 150,000 per year in household income excluding those that are under the age of 18 and above the age of 65. Why not give $7000.00 to each of these individuals that fall below the “Threshold” to use to pay down their own debt or to buy appliances or cars or anything that is manufactured exclusively in the USA – this is what stimulates the economy – it is measures like this that get people investing in the country again. Mr Bush just does not get it. You cannot get the financial institue to start creating revenue unless there is confidence – he is merely putting up a smoke screen to show his government cares. This seems to be another one of his hair brain ideas just like the on e that put the US into war with Iraq and Afganistan again drawing out hundreds of billions of dollars from the people of the USA.

These policies will indeed drive the US economy into the ground – I maintain the US dollar will weaken again because of these poor measures
The meltdown in the USA has just begun

"Is that really what you want your president to do? Garnish your wages for a health care plan you don't even want? I should have the right to decline health care coverage. Of course I have to accept that I will "pay the price" in the event of something catastrophic, but that's my choice."

Had to respond to this one. If someone is so hard up that they choose not to carry health insurance so they don't have to pay for it, then chances are, the majority won't have the financial means to "pay the price", as you so nonchalantly state. So what happens? Well if the visit occurs at a hospital, and the bill isn't paid, WE have to incur the cost of that over-priced visit (speaking in terms of ER visit vs. doctor's office). Where do you think the funds come from to pay that? US. So yes, absolutely I think everyone should be required to carry health insurance on themselves and their children, because if they don't, taxpayers will incur the cost of their visits when they can't or won't pay for them.

As for the plagiarism, I think it's very valid to bring it up. Hillary "exaggerated" her story about Bosnia and people won't shut up about it, but Obama passes someone else's thoughts off as his own (because obviously, he isn't original enough to come up with his own, considering the number of times he has done so - we're not talking about one incident here, people) and that's okay. If words aren't "just words", then why can't he come up with his own?

Oh, and what do I think? I think if Obama happens to steal the nomination, I will be among the estimated 36% of Hillary supporters who will vote for McCain if he gets the nomination (as opposed to 19% of Obama supporters who will vote for McCain if Hillary gets the nomination). Face it, even if he wins the nomination, he's very likely to lose the Presidential election, and I will whole-heartedly contribute to that prediction.

I hope voters will not be fooled by the borrowed words Mr.Obama uses to inspire people any more. It is so sad majority of them cannot tell they are all borrowed from somebody and not his own.

I see a lot of people missing the point. Plagiarism isn't merely using someone else's ideas, it's taking someone else's work *and passing it off as your own*.

So regardless of whether or not Gov. Patrick and Sen. Obama are firends, regardless of whether or not the Governor gave his implicit permission to use his speech, Obama is guilty of pretending someone else's work was his own. That's what the main offense is.

Just as it's wrong to have someone else write your college entrance exam essay for you, it's wrong to pass off your campaign speeches as being yours (or your speechwriters') when in fact they were someone else's. It's about giving credit where credit is due and not taking it when it's not yours to take.

It matters because if the heart of BO's campaign is about words and how they can "change the world," then words matter. His plagiarism shows that BO is utterly unoriginal, at best, and a fraud, at worst. If you can't trust his words, then you can't trust the man.

It matters because BO's campaign been run on the power of words and how his words can "change the world." It's not that he has just plagiarized words, but plagiarized ideas! Thus, he is exposed as an utterly unoriginal thinker at best, and a fraud at worst. If you can't trust that his words, you can't trust the man.

I'm sorry I'm confused. Are we upset with Obama and Wolfson because the did not give credit to Martin Luther King, "I have a Dream" Franklin D Roosevelt " We have nothing to Fear..." and John Kennedy "Ask not what your country..."

And if it's not that...then didn't Obama just do the same thing to Wolfson speech...just took a few "words" from it.

It's not like he recited the declaration of independence, or the constitution of the United States....by the way wouldn't I want a leader of my country to use and follow those words?

Isn't it a fact that the way to communicate ideas is to use words...that we all understand? Or am I now committing plagiarism because I'm not speaking some new form of Leek Speech? Should I quote each and every dictionary I have pulled these words from?

Why are the masses so distracted by shinny objects? You know children....John Locke...not the writers of the declaration of independence first published Life, liberty and the pursuit of property.

Thank God there was no media to jack that all up. I guess we would have never been able to leave the King had someone pointed out….they stole John Locke ideas.

Learn to think, it only hurts at first.

I have come to a final conclusion that those against Senator Hillary Clinton don't want a former First Lady to become the next President of America.

The Kennedys against Senator Hillary Clinton are jealous of the political success story of the Clintons.

What happened to Jackie Kennedy after JFK was assassinated?
She abandoned the JFK Legacy and became Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

Look at how Coretta Scott King preserved the legacy of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., until she died.

The Clintons have done more for America than most of the Presidents of America.

People are wasting a lot of energy talking about plagiarism when we really are looking at just a couple of vague, almost archetypal ideas being iterated by two similar people trying to make the same point. None of this seems to me to be anything anybody in their right mind would ever claim origination rights to. Can you have plagiarism if you don't have someone who feels plagiarized?

The irony kicks in when you realize -- what is all this bickering about? "Just words".

If you repeat an idea you heard and agreed with, are you plagiarizing? In my opinion, you are simply propagating a meme, and you can only be accused of plagiarism if you pretend you started the meme but you know you did not (because that's just arrogant) -- did that happen here?

Ever heard the phrase, "there's nothing new under the sun"? No, I did not come up with it. So don't accuse me of plagiarism.

This might have already been said in another comment but I'm lazy and don't want to read all 700 of them.

How did we let our country get to a point where how well a person speaks is how we vote for them? What does being a good speaker have to do with running a country?

I think it would be awesome if we had a candidate that was never at the debates. He was always out doing something instead of talking about what he might or might not do.

I'm weary of a presidential candidate who's riding on change, but is only a plagiarist. Plagiarism is theft, any student knows that. Even the romance industry, ask Cassie Edwards, a plagiarist, has set ethics and standards against plagiarism, yet we have a presidencial candidate brushing it aside. If he compromises his ethics, what else is he willing to compromise?

I have not been able to go through all the comments but I see the main issue as: Is this man USING his ability to be a Tony Robbins pitchman to get elected by using a brilliant strategy or is he a AUTHENTIC person? In light of his using the same political strategy and the fact he has the same POLITICAL STRATEGIST who ran the EXACT SAME CAMPAIGN for Gov. Patrick I would be quite leery. I personally have little trust or likink for this campaign as I have an aversion to cult like leaders and fully comprehend the limitations of people who always want to be led by the nose to the PROMISED LAND. This is not an endorsement of his opponents, it is just a warning which the mainstream media has ignored. We elected a phony likeable politicial who used a political strategy of being a likable and friendly beer buddy. Now we make the same mistake again. This strategy of hope and change has been used befroe and when it's proponents get elected, THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY.

Oh please, there's barely a wisp of difference in Clinton's and Obama's policy proposals, but this guy's got a large segment of the population running around starry-eyed like they've found the answer to all the divine questions. Sometimes, if it seems to good to be true, it's because it is. His "uniting" has left the party bitterly divided and people who two years ago would have defending the Clintons against the kinds of scurrilous Limbaugh and Colter would assert, now making those same attacks themselves. He's a snake charmer, a con man. He's never deserved all this adoration. The American people needed a fix of "hope" and inspiration after the last 7 yrs. of darkness, destruction, and war. They needed it, so he became it. Well, don't look at the man behind the curtain.

Grown ups face reality and problems head on, instead of fabricating a fictional superhero.

It seems Obama not only copied off Clinton's and Edwards' papers to come up with is policy platforms, but he also copied off of Patrick's paper for his message of hope, and his inspirational shtick. It's disappointing, but I always did have this icky feeling about him, like he was trying to sell me something, similar to a late night TV commercial, that would make me happier, smarter, and shine my shoes. Those products rarely, if ever, live up to their sales pitch. Sadly, the only one in the race who, IMO, was genuine, who didn't take any of their dirty money and wasn't beholden to anyone, who told the truth was Edwards, but he wasn't exciting and shiny enough for this American Idol competition of an election.

The level of hate and ignorance posted here by many Barrack antagonists is mind boggling. It is obvious that many of you accusing Obama of plagiarism would not have voted for him anyway.

For all who are still undecided or do not already dislike Obama for superficial reasons and are honest with themselves about this, see this for what it is, a desperate attempt to belittle one of the most intelligent, strong, charismatic and viable presidential candidates in US history who could actually put the United States back on track as a role model for justice, equality and progress. I urge you all to research the facts with an open mind without preconceived suspicions or fears. It should be obvious that Barrack is much less polarizing than Hillary, he also has a better chance at beating McCain and bringing more bi-partisan solutions to the nations problems.

Also, I saw a negative comment by an educator regarding Obamas plans for education. His plan calls for rewarding teachers who mentor new teachers, work in rural or inner city schools, or consistently excel in the classroom. Now I ask all educators, are you getting appropriately rewarded now for any of this? Obama has a comprehensive plan that puts Educators and students in a much better position than they currently are (there is a large pdf document on his website about this).

After reading a host of these reader comments, I now realize that there are a lot of people out there who are dumber than they may appear. How can one come down so hard on someone who borrowed a line from another speech while in the race for president after having had this bozo Bush for eight years??? If Bush's only shortcoming was that he used someone else's words from time to time it wouldn't be so bad, but everyone knows that Bush is certainly told what to say by someone else!!! And that person who made the comment that a "cloned goat" would be better than Obama, should go live in another country or go back to school. And where did that person get the story about Obama having a drug addiction and being a Muslim??? I think these people need to hold up a mirror before they make such potentially damaging statements. For when a finger is pointed at someone else, there are almost always three fingers aimed back at the pointer.
We need new blood in the white house, and with the administration we've had for the past eight years it is better to say that a cloned goat would have been better than Bush! Obama is the future of this country and if elected will have a positive effect on this country both here and abroad. So cynics, review your history before opening your mouths and revealing your ignorance.

I think that people are finding that Obama is more than just filled with words but a man of his word -- no matter how it's spun -- you cannot take away from the people unity, participation and hope to help "bridge" a change to the future.

This is all we need: a lecture on the importance of language and meaning from the people who brought you, "Well that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

Hilarious.

"LET JUSTICE ROLL DOWN LIKE WATER AND RIGHTEOUSNESS LIKE A MIGHTY STREAM..." IS ON THE MARTIN LUTHER KING MEMORIAL IN ATLANTA, GA, BECUASE HE USED THOS WORDS IN HIS "I HAVE A DREAM SPEECH IN 1963. THIS ICONIC PHASE HOWEVER IS ACTUALLY FROM THE PROFIT AMOS IN THE BIBLE (AMOS 5:21-24). ALTHOUGH MARTIN LUTHER KING GIVE NOT CREDITS TO THE PROFIT AMOS IN HIS SPEECH, THOSE LINES, SPOKEN AT THE HEIGHT OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT DRAMATIZED THE URGENCY OF THE MOMENT..

EQUALLY SO, MR. OBAMA'S USING THE ICONIC PHRASES OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, JOHN F. KENNEDY AND FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT EVEN WITHOUT MENTIONING THEIR NAMES DROVE HOME THE POINT THAT JUST AS THE WORDS UTTERED BY THEM LED TO CHANGES IN THE PAST, SO SHALL "YES WE CAN"...AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR IS US.." MOTIVATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO REALIZE THE URGENCY OF NOW AND EMBRACE CHANGE.