Australian Opposition Leader- Clinton Plagarist?

Mr Manifesto

Illuminator
M
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
4,815
You be the judge

Mr Clinton: "Every 18-year-old must be able to go to college."

Mr Latham: "Every 17-year-old must be ready to extend their education. "

Mr Clinton: "Every eight-year-old must be able to read."

Mr Latham: "Every infant child must be the beneficiary of reading programs."
Click to expand...

Well, folks, which is it? Is the opposition a plagarist patsy, or is the government a preening prima donna? No shades of gray here, folks, it's pure bi-polar debate all the way! Unless you vote for something else.
 
Latham's speech in full

Clinton's speech in full (the bits quoted in the article being on page 3)

As for my opinion, Wildcat, this is typical Liberal party smear. They do this sh!t every election year. A classic tactic is, they spread the rumour among Labor party faithful that the Labor party is planning to move Aboriginies from slums to the suburbs.

"But you can't do that! It's against UN regulations!"
"Uh... we aren't planning to do any such thing..."
"What, are you saying that everyone's just made the rumour up?!?"

I prefer Labor's method of making outrageous promises and refusing to keep them, and using Laura Norder and immigration as 'wedge issues'. Although, disasterously in the last election, the Libs trumped Labor in the immigration-wedge stakes.

edit to add Ooh, and branch-stacking. Can't forget that. And saying they're pro-union while union busting! Gotta love that. Any other Labor sleaze I've missed?
 
Mr Manifesto said:
You be the judge



Well, folks, which is it? Is the opposition a plagarist patsy, or is the government a preening prima donna? No shades of gray here, folks, it's pure bi-polar debate all the way! Unless you vote for something else.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like plagiarizing to me and like Wildcat said this is standard political speech.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
Latham's speech in full

Clinton's speech in full (the bits quoted in the article being on page 3)

As for my opinion, Wildcat, this is typical Liberal party smear. They do this sh!t every election year. A classic tactic is, they spread the rumour among Labor party faithful that the Labor party is planning to move Aboriginies from slums to the suburbs.

"But you can't do that! It's against UN regulations!"
"Uh... we aren't planning to do any such thing..."
"What, are you saying that everyone's just made the rumour up?!?"

I prefer Labor's method of making outrageous promises and refusing to keep them, and using Laura Norder and immigration as 'wedge issues'. Although, disasterously in the last election, the Libs trumped Labor in the immigration-wedge stakes.

edit to add Ooh, and branch-stacking. Can't forget that. And saying they're pro-union while union busting! Gotta love that. Any other Labor sleaze I've missed?
Click to expand...
I don't see anything so similar between the two that would constitute plagiarism, just typical stump speech vagaries. They touch on many of the same subjects, but they're ones that are of general concern in any country.

You're right, the criticism is probably just election-year politicking.
 
You be the judge

Mr Clinton: "Every 18-year-old must be able to go to college."

Mr Latham: "Every 17-year-old must be ready to extend their education. "

Mr Clinton: "Every eight-year-old must be able to read."

Mr Latham: "Every infant child must be the beneficiary of reading programs."
Click to expand...

Well, folks, which is it? Is the opposition a plagarist patsy, or is the government a preening prima donna? No shades of gray here, folks, it's pure bi-polar debate all the way! Unless you vote for something else.
 
shemp said:
You be the judge



Well, folks, which is it? Is the opposition a plagarist patsy, or is the government a preening prima donna? No shades of gray here, folks, it's pure bi-polar debate all the way! Unless you vote for something else.
Click to expand...

Waitaminute...
 
I just think you are drawing a long bow by calling that plagiarism, because was not word for word, at worst it was just a highly unimaginative policy speach. What's the big deal.

This would be closer, unless John Howard's policy speach writer was the US academic Kenneth Pollack:
Mr Howard told the National Press Club on March 13, 2003: "We're talking about a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from the child's parents. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs in order to force a confession or compliance. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed the crime of criticising would be punished by the amputation of tongues."


Pollack wrote: "This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of a child to force a confession from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force

him to confess or comply. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticising the regime would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue."
Click to expand...
 
crocodile deathroll said:
I just think you are drawing a long bow by calling that plagiarism, because was not word for word, at worst it was just a highly unimaginative policy speach. What's the big deal.
Click to expand...

I hope you're using the royal 'you', because I don't think it's plagarism at all.
 
UserGoogol said:
On a related note, Elton John totally ripped off REO Speedwagon.
Click to expand...

Even if Elton John ripped off REO Speedwagon, what has that got to do with the subject at hand?

Charlie (come on end of work day .....) Monoxide
 
Given how central education has been to the Labor party's policies for the last three decades (at least), maybe Clinton plagarised Gough Whitlam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom