PDA

View Full Version : Who won the GOP debate? The audience thought Ron Paul did




low preference guy
06-14-2011, 02:24 PM
Who won last night's Republican presidential debate on CNN?

It's a question a lot of pundits have been asking -- and there seems to be some consensus forming among the analysts: Former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

But judging by the reaction of the audience in New Hampshire, a different candidate carried the night and it's a candidate many analysts are saying emerged as a loser.

An analysis of audience reaction shows Paul was applauded twice as much as any other candidate on stage.

Link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story)

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 02:36 PM
Link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story)

The host asked people not to clap, it wastes the candidates time.

Fox McCloud
06-14-2011, 02:39 PM
The host asked people not to clap, it wastes the candidates time.

Which only bolsters the argument of how much they liked Ron all the more--they're willing to break he rules to show how much they liked him. =p

trey4sports
06-14-2011, 02:39 PM
To be fair, the analysts also thought Ron did the LEAST amount of damage to himself.

Sola_Fide
06-14-2011, 02:41 PM
Great article.

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 02:45 PM
Which only bolsters the argument of how much they liked Ron all the more--they're willing to break he rules to show how much they liked him. =p
No, it means Ron Paul supporters are rude and can't follow rules. The Host asked for no clapping. :collins:

Carehn
06-14-2011, 02:48 PM
No, it means Ron Paul supporters are rude and can't follow rules. The Host asked for no clapping. :collins:

The host sucked. I say clap and then tape him to a post after the debate.

trey4sports
06-14-2011, 02:53 PM
they clapped for other people to. According to someone who was there, the audience was not packed with Ron Paul people.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 02:55 PM
No, it means Ron Paul supporters are rude and can't follow rules. The Host asked for no clapping.

It also means that FrankRep is against Ron Paul, as he doesn't point out that the supporters of all candidates applauded numerous times and therefore they are rude and can't follow rules.

emazur
06-14-2011, 03:01 PM
No, it means Ron Paul supporters are rude and can't follow rules. The Host asked for no clapping. :collins:

Ron Paul supporters are using Marxist tactics!

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 03:01 PM
It also means that FrankRep is against Ron Paul, as he doesn't point out that the supporters of all candidates applauded numerous times and therefore they are rude and can't follow rules.
It means FrankRep realizes that clapping is a poor measurement.

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 03:03 PM
Ron Paul supporters are using Marxist tactics!
Just poor losers who are threatening to shoot "Zombies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVmavMCVPOk)" if they don't get their way.

AGRP
06-14-2011, 03:04 PM
Who the heck are these "analysists" and what the heck are they analyzing?

Anti Federalist
06-14-2011, 03:12 PM
No, it means Ron Paul supporters are rude and can't follow rules. The Host asked for no clapping. :collins:

Oh Gawd...

Anti Federalist
06-14-2011, 03:14 PM
Link (http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/bthesite/the-ridiculous-report-blog/bal-who-won-the-gop-debate-the-audience-thought-ron-paul-did-20110614,0,419922.story)

Great story, nice find +rep

My question: who are the "analysts"?

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:16 PM
Great story, nice find +rep

My question: who are the "analysts"?

lobbyists and other types of DC scum

trey4sports
06-14-2011, 03:19 PM
Frank is implying that it was Ron Paul supporters who were clapping for Ron and being rude.

What Frank doesn't understand or fails to realize is that the crowd was not stacked with Ron Paul supporters like the last debate was. The crowd seemed to be made up of mainline GOP folks (not people from the liberty movement) according to people who were there. Rightly so, Ron served up several red meat conservative answers and got applause. He also "missed" many times and got no applause, and other candidates received applause for their answers at times.

So, you're wrong to try and blame the more vocal members of our movement for the "rudeness" you so describe.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:22 PM
Oh Gawd...

Exactly.



The law is: Adults without children are not allowed in the park.


Not about donuts

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:23 PM
So, you're wrong to try and blame the more vocal members of our movement for the "rudeness" you so describe.

It shouldn't surprise you. That's what marxist anarchists do.

JoshLowry
06-14-2011, 03:24 PM
just poor losers who are threatening to shoot "zombies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvmavmcvpok)" if they don't get their way.

Why are you here?

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 03:25 PM
You guy better start working on getting the support of Republicans rather than attacking me for pointing out the obvious.

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 03:26 PM
Why are you here?
I support Ron Paul. I don't support an armed revolt.

Anti Federalist
06-14-2011, 03:26 PM
lobbyists and other types of DC scum

Purely rhetorical question, that exactly what I figgered as well...

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious."

Theocrat
06-14-2011, 03:27 PM
Frank Luntz hates that article. [lol]

Anti Federalist
06-14-2011, 03:29 PM
I support Ron Paul. I don't support an armed revolt.

Armed revolt???

WTF???

People applauding against the wishes of the "host" of a dog and pony show called a debate = armed revolt?

A "host", I'll be happy to remind you, that is part of the establishment that has gotten us into this fine fucking mess we are in.

If there was any justice in the world it would be people with torches and pitchforks at that "debate" last night.

JoshLowry
06-14-2011, 03:29 PM
I support Ron Paul. I don't support an armed revolt.

That's not being promoted. Stop being abrasive.

Vessol
06-14-2011, 03:29 PM
You guy better start working on getting the support of Republicans rather than attacking me for pointing out the obvious.

Yes because the entire focus of this forum is to attack you, Frank.


I support Ron Paul. I don't support an armed revolt.

Straw man fallacy.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:30 PM
I don't support an armed revolt.

What does that have to do with the thread? Do armed revolts start with people applauding at debates? Is that another marxist anarchist tactic you want to warn us about, clapping hands?

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 03:32 PM
What does that have to do with the thread? Do armed revolts start with people applauding at debates? Is that another marxist anarchist tactic you want to warn us about, clapping hands?

Keep fitting the stereotype. Go ahead.

The MIAC Militia report specifically mentions the SPLC twice, but the report reads like a copy-and-paste job from the SPLC’s infamous Intelligence Report, which are notorious for smearing political conservatives, constitutionalists, pro-lifers, and Christian organizations by referring to them as “hate groups” and including them in lists and articles alongside violent and repulsive groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, and skinheads.

http://www.thealexjonesshow.com/assets/images2/2009-03-13_023123.jpg (http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/)

Anti Federalist
06-14-2011, 03:33 PM
You guy better start working on getting the support of Republicans rather than attacking me for pointing out the obvious.

Umm, it was republicans cheering RP last night.

As has already been pointed out, we didn't get tickets, the audience wasn't stacked, you had a 25 year Navy man asking, "when the hell are troops coming home"?

That's US, that is what has been accomplished over the last four years.

In 2007 they were on that same stage laughing at RP.

Last night, they all sounded like him.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:33 PM
The MIAC Militia report specifically mentions the SPLC twice, but the report reads like a copy-and-paste job from the SPLC’s infamous Intelligence Report, which are notorious for smearing political conservatives, constitutionalists, pro-lifers, and Christian organizations by referring to them as “hate groups” and including them in lists and articles alongside violent and repulsive groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nazis, and skinheads.

http://www.thealexjonesshow.com/assets/images2/2009-03-13_023123.jpg (http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/)

And this is related to this thread because....?

Vessol
06-14-2011, 03:33 PM
What does that have to do with the thread? Di armed revolts start with people applauding at debates? Is that another marxist anarchist tactic you want to warn us about?

It's obvious isn't it.

In the music video for Michael Jackson's "Thriller", the zombies in that video clap and dance. The audience in New Hampshire clapped. So audience in NH=zombies!? OH DEAR GOD I SEE THE LOGIC BEHIND IT ALL

Vessol
06-14-2011, 03:35 PM
Last night, they all sounded like him.

I really noticed that.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:36 PM
Keep fitting the stereotype. Go ahead.

Alright. So I'm fitting the stereotype of a terrorist because I'm point out the ridiculousness of comparing clapping hands to armed revolts?

Did WaltM steal password?

Frank has become insane. I can't believe he didn't get a timeout yet.

teacherone
06-14-2011, 03:38 PM
Alright. So I'm fitting the stereotype of a terrorist because I'm point out that ridiculousness of comparing clapping hands to armed revolts?

Did WaltM stole your password?

Frank has become insane. I can't believe he didn't get a timeout yet.

while i agree with you, the grammar here displays all the signs of senility.

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 03:39 PM
Alright. So I'm fitting the stereotype of a terrorist because I'm point out the ridiculousness of comparing clapping hands to armed revolts?

Did WaltM stole your password?

Frank has become insane. I can't believe he didn't get a timeout yet.

I'm just upset that I keep getting attacked.

georgiaboy
06-14-2011, 03:40 PM
From the article:



Now, I realize Paul's supporters tend to be louder and more enthusiastic than other candidates' and the amount of applause is hardly a scientific way to judge a debate. But to not even consider as a potential debate winner the person who was applauded more than twice as much as any other candidate strikes me as strange.


Strange, indeed.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:41 PM
while i agree with you, the grammar here displays all the signs of senility.

oopps.. let's blame little sleep.

Anti Federalist
06-14-2011, 03:43 PM
I'm just upset that I keep getting attacked.

I don't know that anybody is "attacking" you.

You called us, RP supporters, rude, because some people clapped out of turn last night.

We're trying to point out that there were not "RP supporters" in that crowd, the tickets were meted out by means I know not, but the audience wasn't "stacked" with RP or liberty people.

Vessol
06-14-2011, 03:43 PM
I'm just upset that I keep getting attacked.

And I've been attacked many times as well on these forums for being a market anarchist. I don't take it personally. There is a wide demographic on these forums alone. Don't take things so personally Frank. People are going to disagree with you on a number of things, even if they disagree with you on a majority of things.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 03:44 PM
I'm just upset that I keep getting attacked.

How can you expect to not get called out when you compare clapping hands to armed revolts?

flightlesskiwi
06-14-2011, 03:50 PM
Slippery slope Batman! Clapping = rude = terrorists = armed revolt. Did I miss anything?

dannno
06-14-2011, 05:42 PM
No, it means Ron Paul supporters are rude and can't follow rules. The Host asked for no clapping. :collins:

You're assuming all those people went there AS Ron Paul supporters and didn't simply like his message.

dannno
06-14-2011, 05:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjcUlRK4F38

noneedtoaggress
06-14-2011, 05:54 PM
I'm just upset that I keep getting attacked.

No, you just feel like you're getting attacked because you consistently go around vocally chastising people with appeals to authority, which many people don't care for. Especially when it's backed by your pet opinions and theories, which you largely ignore criticisms of.

If only they'd shut up and listen to your voice of 'reason' instead of challenging your statements "attacking" you after you go around calling people names by making outrageous, insulting remarks about the collective groups you put them in, everything would be under control and just perfect, right?

It's the noxious attitude, dude... and now it would appear you're trying to play the victim because you won't look outside your worldview and statements long enough to realize the factors that cause these issues. It's everyone else who is being irrational for not conceding to the 'obvious' the superiority of your opinionated, unsubstantial, and often caustic theories views.

One would hope members of this forum would understand the term blowback.

FrankRep
06-14-2011, 06:38 PM
One would hope members of this forum would understand the term blowback.
Let me explain something about blowback.

When Ron Paul supporters:

- attack Conservatives,
- attack Christians,
- attack traditional marriage,
- attack Pro-Life,
- attack Israel,
- attack National defense,
- attack immigration laws,
- attack the existence of government

Don't expect Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination.

That's blowback.

acptulsa
06-14-2011, 06:46 PM
Let me explain something about blowback.

When Ron Paul supporters:

- attack Conservatives,
- attack Christians,
- attack traditional marriage,
- attack Pro-Life,
- attack Israel,
- attack National defense,
- attack immigration laws,
- attack the existence of government

Don't expect Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination.

That's blowback.

Largely true. But spontaneous applause that can't be maintained is as old as stump speeches.

And don't underestimate too much how many crossovers we can get this year.

Yeah, we're trying to piece together a very uneasy coalition of strange bedfellowes. And, no, it isn't easy. Believe me, Frank, you don't make it easy for those of us working a different angle, either. But we're pulling it off anyway.

And I think our best weapon, and our best lubricant as we try to pull these very, very disparate, but equally disgusted, groups together, is humor.

So, deal with your own blowback. Some of these maybe liberal converts are liable to eat beans, too.

low preference guy
06-14-2011, 06:48 PM
Let me explain something about blowback.

Let me explain you something about blowback. When you equate clapping hands with armed rebellions, people are going to call you out on that. And it's not an "attack" on you. It's just to point out that what you are saying is utter nonsense.

acptulsa
06-14-2011, 06:52 PM
Let me explain you something about blowback. When you equate clapping hands with armed rebellions, people are going to call you out on that. And it's not an "attack" on you. It's just to point out that what you are saying is utter nonsense.

No, not utter nonsense. But I'm inclined to guess off the top of my head that it's a three and a half percent of the electorate that we weren't going to get anyway. No matter what.

noneedtoaggress
06-14-2011, 07:07 PM
Let me explain something about blowback.

When Ron Paul supporters:

- attack Conservatives,
- attack Christians,
- attack traditional marriage,
- attack Pro-Life,
- attack Israel,
- attack National defense,
- attack immigration laws,
- attack the existence of government

Don't expect Ron Paul to get the Republican nomination.

That's blowback.

You're just steering the topic somewhere else while pushing the victim angle even harder.


It's the noxious attitude, dude... and now it would appear you're trying to play the victim because you won't look outside your worldview and statements long enough to realize the factors that cause these issues.

How did the issues in this thread begin?


because you consistently go around vocally chastising people with appeals to authority, which many people don't care for.


after you go around calling people names by making outrageous, insulting remarks about the collective groups you put them in

Was it closer to the above descriptions or the one you posted?

acptulsa
06-14-2011, 07:09 PM
Point made. No need to aggress.

noneedtoaggress
06-14-2011, 07:40 PM
Point made. No need to aggress.

I've only made responses to his remarks. ;P



And one last point:


- attack the existence of government


- Books to Read -
Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century
- Thomas E. Woods Jr

Tom Woods is an anarchist, and he doesn't hide it.
Here he is in a discussion titled "Is Limited Government an Oxymoron?":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI

acptulsa
06-14-2011, 07:46 PM
Here he is in a discussion about "Limited Government" being an oxymoron:

Yeah, Nixon thought so too. But I still don't buy it. Just wants minding, that's all.

The U.S. learned that lesson about a hundred years ago. And it took a whole seventy or so years for it to wear completely off. That would buy our kids some time, anyway.

Until we're grown up enough to just get along, well, I'll take it.

noneedtoaggress
06-14-2011, 08:23 PM
Nixon and his views on limited govt are irrelevant to this discussion and Tom's position.

I wasn't intending to start a discussion about limited government or what anyone else said about it. I was simply pointing out that Frank is peddling a book by an "anarchist" at the same time he goes on insulting tirades against members of this board who agree with Tom's ultimate position.

Revolution9
06-14-2011, 10:11 PM
I'm just upset that I keep getting attacked.

That is the lot of the internet life of fools with no compunction in tossing passive aggressive attacks with backhanded insults out in scattershot expecting such drivel to be accepted and swallowed as if the agenda proffered by said drivel was pure innocence wrapped in candy coated stardust and freckles. I hope this helps you to understand the nature of the reactions you are receiving and probably continue to receive if you continue with the redundancies.

Yer Pal
Rev9

acptulsa
06-14-2011, 10:16 PM
A fate worse than death.

Good to see you, R9.

TheTyke
06-15-2011, 12:33 AM
Although I am one of the people who strongly believes we alienate others by rudeness and attacking their favorite candidates/issues..... I had to say that applause was a GOOD thing.

The image people at home get is not "these people shouldn't be clapping" but instead "the people like what the candidate was saying." In one of Rand's first debates, we had the majority but were silent following the moderator's instruction. Bill Johnson supporters ignored the moderator and cheered him constantly. The papers and media proclaimed him "crowd favorite with enthusiastic response." We learned our lesson after that, and Rand was the "crowd favorite" from then on.

If the applause is loud, but short, you make the point well without taking up time. SC was great about this... NH seemed pretty good too.