Harper the Plagiarizer

[Dr69]

Apparently Stephen Harper plagiarized almost half of his speech in 2003, urging that troops be sent to Iraq. His speech is almost word for word the same as given by the Australian PM earlier. Coincidence? Probably not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...930/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

 

[train]

Apparently Stephen Harper plagiarized almost half of his speech in 2003, urging that troops be sent to Iraq. His speech is almost word for word the same as given by the Australian PM earlier. Coincidence? Probably not.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...930/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

5 years ago - a speech- not even when he was elected PM - fark you guys are desperate if you think this has the slightest bit of importance. Maybe he just agreed wholeheartedly with the guy.

So is the reason the Liberals are broke because they bought the Globe & Mail

 

[Dr69]

5 years ago - a speech- not even when he was elected PM - fark you guys are desperate if you think this has the slightest bit of importance. Maybe he just agreed wholeheartedly with the guy.

So is the reason the Liberals are broke because they bought the Globe & Mail

Riiiiight. Of course. The fact that he is parroting Bush Admin foreign policy is of no issue. Here is the PM giving a speech copied word to word from someone else and it is of no consequence because it happened 5 years ago???????! what a ridiculous argument from the right wing nut jobs.

It shows his record. Whether it happened 5 years ago or today, it doesnt change the person that he is, i.e a plagiarizer who parrots Bush Admin foreign policy and has no brain of his own.

If somebody murdered someone fiver years ago, does it mean that he is not a murderer today because it was wow.. a whole five years ago? what a dumb argument from a bunch of dumb right wing idiots.

 

[train]

Riiiiight. Of course. The fact that he is parroting Bush Admin foreign policy is of no issue.

Perhaps you should amend your thread. That isn't what you were talking about previously - you were talking about an Australian PM's speech.

Here is the PM giving a speech copied word to word from someone else and it is of no consequence because it happened 5 years ago???????! what a ridiculous argument from the right wing nut jobs.

He wasn't PM 5 years ago. What were the points of the speech that you disagree with ?Isn't that the most important consideration ?

Who was his supposed speech writer ? Answer any of these questions and I might have a more detailed response. But no I don't think it's of any consequence unless there is something in there that you disagree with that is still policy.

It shows his record.

So far you have said he did it once

Whether it happened 5 years ago or today, it doesnt change the person that he is, i.e a plagiarizer who parrots Bush Admin foreign policy and has no brain of his own.

This is a totally different subject unless you think that Bush, in turn, parrots the Australian PM's foreign policy. Do you wish to change the subject of this thread ?

If it's parroting foreign policy that you are really concerned about and not speech plagerizing please detail US foreign policy that you feel we are copying, other than being in Afghanistan along with half a dozen other countries - perhaps something in respect of Asia or Europe for example.

If somebody murdered someone fiver years ago, does it mean that he is not a murderer today because it was wow.. a whole five years ago? what a dumb argument from a bunch of dumb right wing idiots.

Do you always get so upset so quickly ? Insulting everyone who disagrees with you ? Don't you think that comparing speech plagerizing with murder is a tad melodramatic ?

 

[mmmburritos]

What a waste of time

Two things strike me as silly about this whole issue:

1. It took the Liberals and the Media 5 years to figure this out.... I know Australia is pretty far away but I would have figured that news traveled around the globe faster than that. If this was really news, it would have been already become an issue, last time I checked Harper already ran for PM, and won, a few years ago.

2. Dion and his Liberal friends (Bob Rae, now there's a guy who really kicked a$$ as a premier, for the NDP no less) keep going on about how Harper's agenda mirrors that of the Bush administration... Of course it does... The political leaning of the Conservative party is not really a secret. Perhaps Dion and his sinking ship could start talking about why we should vote for them rather than why we should not vote for the other guy.

I don't really have a great deal of love for Harper, but in comparison to his opponents he looks like the best option.. The liberal campaign has become more and more desperate. And that is not Harper's fault, it's theirs. Most people could have seen this coming about a minute after the Liberals allowed Dion to slide into the leader spot because their party was too fractured to allow one of their more palatable choices take the reigns.

 

[slowpoke]

5 years ago - a speech- not even when he was elected PM - fark you guys are desperate if you think this has the slightest bit of importance. Maybe he just agreed wholeheartedly with the guy.

So is the reason the Liberals are broke because they bought the Globe & Mail

If Harper had footage showing Dion scratching his balls or picking his nose, this would be irrelevant insofar as it has no bearing on Dion's ability to be PM. But Harper would use it anyway. This plagiarism is much the same. It shows Harper in an unflattering light. I can't see any practical reason why Harper shouldn't borrow Howard's speech. But it still seems shabby to stand up in our house of commons and deliver a speech that isn't entirely your own - unless you acknowledge that you are quoting someone else. It is academically incorrect. It is considered cheating. It will cost him a few votes from undecided voters who value integrity as much as ability.

 

[nottyboi]

5 years ago - a speech- not even when he was elected PM - fark you guys are desperate if you think this has the slightest bit of importance. Maybe he just agreed wholeheartedly with the guy.

So is the reason the Liberals are broke because they bought the Globe & Mail

This reminds people, he supported the criminal war in Iraq, and he did not plagiarize the speech, he simply read what his boss (Dubya) told him to. The IP legislation is also an exact copy of US legislation. I am glad the libs did this, it reminds people that Harpo is a warmonger, that is and American wannbe.

 

[train]

If Harper had footage showing Dion scratching his balls or picking his nose, this would be irrelevant insofar as it has no bearing on Dion's ability to be PM. But Harper would use it anyway. This plagiarism is much the same. It shows Harper in an unflattering light. I can't see any practical reason why Harper shouldn't borrow Howard's speech. But it still seems shabby to stand up in our house of commons and deliver a speech that isn't entirely your own - unless you acknowledge that you are quoting someone else. It is academically incorrect. It is considered cheating. It will cost him a few votes from undecided voters who value integrity as much as ability.

I agree with you.

But it's about as important as the video of Dion scratching his balls. Hell we don't even know whether he did it knowingly - even 5 years ago he would have had speech writers wouldn't he ?

Plagerizing is incorrect in school and in writing for artistic or financial gain - it doesn't particularly bother me when it's political as long as I agree with the content. Having said that he would look pretty odd if he got up in front of a crowd and started a speech " Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country...."

Anyway I suppose this type of thing is of great comfort to those of you still drinking BB's infamous cool-aid. iamme is kind of cute working the muzzling thing into every single thread.

 

[CapitalGuy]

It just proves that Harper is intellectually dishonest. It's about his character, and that is most relevant.

Hey didn't the Lieberals promise to abolish the GST a couple elections ago? What does that say about their character?

hint - way more than what this says about a guy who read a speech that someone else plagiarized and slipped into his boss' dossier.

 

[train]

It just proves that Harper is intellectually dishonest. It's about his character, and that is most relevant.

If you think so that certainly is your perogative. No problem.

On questions of character I'm happy that he scores as well as any other politician of prominance in this race and I guess that my perogative.

 

[slowpoke]

Hey didn't the Lieberals promise to abolish the GST a couple elections ago? What does that say about their character?

hint - way more than what this says about a guy who read a speech that someone else plagiarized and slipped into his boss' dossier.

Actually it says nothing about anything that matters. As I recall, it was Chretien who made that promise and where is he now? Even the finance minister (Martin) at that time is no longer a force within the Liberal party. So unless you've got some evidence to suggest that Liberals are all genetically predisposed to breaking promises more than Conservatives are (income trusts, Mulroney's bags of cash), I suggest that this line of reasoning will lead you exactly nowhere.

 

[train]

So unless you've got some evidence to suggest that Liberals are all genetically predisposed to breaking promises more than Conservatives are (income trusts, Mulroney's bags of cash), I suggest that this line of reasoning will lead you exactly nowhere.

No more but certainly no less

Ok have we flogged this one to death yet? Debating which group of politicians is more honest is a bit like debating which used car dealer is more honest.

 

[slowpoke]

No more but certainly no less

Ok have we flogged this one to death yet? Debating which group of politicians is more honest is a bit like debating which used car dealer is more honest.

I agree. It's becoming a waste of electicity.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Actually it says nothing about anything that matters. As I recall, it was Chretien who made that promise and where is he now? Even the finance minister (Martin) at that time is no longer a force within the Liberal party. So unless you've got some evidence to suggest that Liberals are all genetically predisposed to breaking promises more than Conservatives are (income trusts, Mulroney's bags of cash), I suggest that this line of reasoning will lead you exactly nowhere.

Wow. Testy. You must be a socialist Lieberal. Ya love to dish it out but get all sissified when it gets thrown back at you.

I would offer that you are deceiving yourself if you think that the removal of the leader of the day from the Lieberal party roster indicates a change in the powerbase of the Party itself. Genetically predisposed? I'm not a child so I won't follow you down that hole. Shaped by a Party culture of entitlement, resentment of conservative success, and Democrat-style theatrics such as bringing up a 5-year old non-event, simply to embarass a straight-shooting leader? Yes.

By the way, the Conservative Party has purged itself of the "Progressive" types who watered down the Right's core values - ie. Mulroney and the income trust gang. That was the whole point of Reform/Alliance - getting rid of the chaff. I suspect the Lieberals are about to be purged in the very near future, but from external sources (NDP), since the Lieberals don't have the intestinal fortitude to willingly abandon their entitlements of their own free will, the greedy, selfish fucks.

 

[Garrett]

It just proves that Harper is intellectually dishonest. It's about his character, and that is most relevant.

How do you figure that. His speechwriter admitted to it, and Harper had no knowledge. The guy lost his job.

It is not even close to being an election issue. Rae posturing over this says a lot more about Rae than anything.

 

[fuji]

It's incredible that there are people saying this isn't an issue--those people must have already decided that they will support Harper no matter what.

It's a big deal for some pretty obvious reasons, such as:

-- Do we have a Prime Minister who is just someone else's puppet? Does he think for himeslf? Does he even believe the things he says? Does he even KNOW what he is saying, or is he just reciting someone else's words?

-- Assuming that the fault lies in his own office, how does this reflect on his managerial skills?

-- Who is setting Canadian policy? Is the person Canadian?

You can shrug all this off saying things like "so long as you agree with the content" but I think that Canadians would demand original strategic thinking from their leaders.

When Harper faces a crisis, will he think it through and adopt a strategy particularly well suited to Canada? Or will he parrot what some advisor told him to say, which is lazily stolen from some other country?

To say these are not concerns... amazing.

Yes it's awhile ago and yes that reduces its relevance, but it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. The question then becomes is this how Harper still operates? Has he improved?

 

[danmand]

How do you figure that. His speechwriter admitted to it, and Harper had no knowledge. The guy lost his job.

It is not even close to being an election issue. Rae posturing over this says a lot more about Rae than anything.

No issue at all compared to Dion speaking with a french accent.

 

[CapitalGuy]

It's incredible that there are people saying this isn't an issue--those people must have already decided that they will support Harper no matter what.

It's a big deal for some pretty obvious reasons, such as:

-- Do we have a Prime Minister who is just someone else's puppet? Does he think for himeslf? Does he even believe the things he says? Does he even KNOW what he is saying, or is he just reciting someone else's words?

-- Assuming that the fault lies in his own office, how does this reflect on his managerial skills?

-- Who is setting Canadian policy? Is the person Canadian?

You can shrug all this off saying things like "so long as you agree with the content" but I think that Canadians would demand original strategic thinking from their leaders.

When Harper faces a crisis, will he think it through and adopt a strategy particularly well suited to Canada? Or will he parrot what some advisor told him to say, which is lazily stolen from some other country?

To say these are not concerns... amazing.

Yes it's awhile ago and yes that reduces its relevance, but it doesn't mean that it is irrelevant. The question then becomes is this how Harper still operates? Has he improved?

None of the leaders write their own speeches.

There is no parroting. The US and Canada are identical cultures in the same region of the planet. It is natural that our perspectives and thus our policies will be similiar. One can argue just as easily that the US is simply parroting Canadian policies.

 

[Garrett]

Canada would be better off with Dion and his accent rather than Harper who is George Bush's Lap Dog.

How is he his lap dog? Any specific examples? Support for socialized medicine? Staying out of Iraq?

Like Harper or not... but the more people focus on inanities or meaningless hype generated by the media or other parties, the more we signal the decline of our country.

 

[nottyboi]

How is he his lap dog? Any specific examples? Support for socialized medicine? Staying out of Iraq?

Like Harper or not... but the more people focus on inanities or meaningless hype generated by the media or other parties, the more we signal the decline of our country.

Agreed to implement IP laws to appease the great Dubya. Apologized to Americans for Canada's unwillingness to join their criminal enterprise in Iraq, agreed to a combat role in Afghanistan in return for a lumber deal...that was quickly violated, then rendered irrelevant by currency. Supported Israel's grotesque obliteration of Lebanon....

This cuddly poodle responds to the name "steve" woof woof.