<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More Obama-Related Plagiarism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogpi.net/more-obama-related-plagiarism/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogpi.net/more-obama-related-plagiarism</link>
	<description>Putting the blogosphere under a magnifying glass</description>
	<pubDate>Fri,  5 Dec 2008 12:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stan</title>
		<link>http://www.blogpi.net/more-obama-related-plagiarism#comment-129255</link>
		<dc:creator>Stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:41:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogpi.net/more-obama-related-plagiarism#comment-129255</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I'm more impressed how attacks are spun out onto politicians.  The actual logical steps from incident to accusation are brushed over impressively, leaving behind nothing but the stain.  For instance: accusing Kerry of "flip-flopping" worked impressively, but what is really being attacked is changing your mind after seeing evidence to the contrary or being convinced by an opposing argument, and I can't see why this isn't a trait you'd want in a leader (rather than, say, dogmatically sticking to a terrible idea regardless of the circumstances).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In the same vein, here in the UK, there was a big plagiarism accusation against Brown (current PM) lifting Tory policies and implementing them.  There was a large backlash, but the end result is: you were promoting these policies, they got implemented, why are you complaining?&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m more impressed how attacks are spun out onto politicians.  The actual logical steps from incident to accusation are brushed over impressively, leaving behind nothing but the stain.  For instance: accusing Kerry of &#8220;flip-flopping&#8221; worked impressively, but what is really being attacked is changing your mind after seeing evidence to the contrary or being convinced by an opposing argument, and I can&#8217;t see why this isn&#8217;t a trait you&#8217;d want in a leader (rather than, say, dogmatically sticking to a terrible idea regardless of the circumstances).</p>
<p>In the same vein, here in the UK, there was a big plagiarism accusation against Brown (current PM) lifting Tory policies and implementing them.  There was a large backlash, but the end result is: you were promoting these policies, they got implemented, why are you complaining?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.blogpi.net/more-obama-related-plagiarism#comment-129219</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogpi.net/more-obama-related-plagiarism#comment-129219</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I just visited the http://delegatehub.com/ website claiming to teach us about the facts and myths of delegate count. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The disclaimer of the website reads like this:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hillary Clinton for President is not responsible for the content of any external websites.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I wonder how does that work!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just visited the <a href="http://delegatehub.com/">http://delegatehub.com/</a> website claiming to teach us about the facts and myths of delegate count. </p>
<p>The disclaimer of the website reads like this:</p>
<p>Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton for President is not responsible for the content of any external websites.</p>
<p>I wonder how does that work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
