How do we know they weren't just booing Bin Laden?

[wgadget]

More has been made of the boos than what (supposedly) caused them. Anti-Paulers are trying to make too much hay out of the boos.

Honest question.

[djruden]

Having attended the debate in Ames and seeing how the media spins things after, this is what I kind of think happened:
Most of the crowd was quiet and respectful most of the show, after Paul talks of course his supporters cheer quite loudly. It is quite possible that people were booing just to offset all the cheers. If you notice Paul makes a point, followed by his supporters cheering, and then people booing. I'm not sure people boo'd at Paul so much as just booing the idea that people were being loud and obnoxious for one particular candidate.

[wgadget]

It's sickening how all the right wing neocon talking radio heads have pounced on the "loud booing for Ron Paul." Jamie Dupree even suggested that it proof that Ron did the worst and that he should be dropping out, but won't because of all the money he gets from his supporters. The whole thing seems slightly suspicious to me.

[LibertasPraesidium]

The booing could be contributed to numerous things. The ill-education of the populace to the idea of reciprocating events. We've been overseas fighting wars for decades, eventually it was going to come and bite us in the arse. There was a few international news media stations that took what RP said and verified it with experts that have researched the documents from the CIA in 2006, the 9/11 commission report, and OBL's address to America. The letter has a lot of religious rhetoric in it that can be construed to believe that they dislike us because we are free. However, it is very much like an address from a pious priest against heathens. If you haven't read it, it is pretty funny, OBL says the citizens are as much at fault because those in our government are elected by US. This is technically very true despite the obvious problems we face with getting the right people into office. The other reports speak of the fact that the jihadists do not make a distinction between occupation and intervention. We have been over there for whatever reasons but they see it as an occupation, much like we would and that is why RP brings up the China doing it to us thing everytime.

There isn't much we can do to fight off the ill-educated, there isn't much we can do for those who believe extremely arrogantly that we are being attacked for being Free. I do agree we have a society that is partially antithetical to the "Jihadists." But we have many Muslims who practices Islam in America and they are pushing votes towards Ron Paul. That makes me very happy, and I cannot wait for Paul to crush the other candidates with the sheer force of truth on his side.

[ChiefJustice]

I doubt it. They didn't like Ron citing bin Laden.

[LibertyEagle]

The answer is in listening to Ron Paul's reaction to the boos. He knows why they were doing it.

[wgadget]

I think it was Mark Levin who I heard whining about how so many of our "liberties" have been stolen from us, and in the next breath he claimed that Al Qaeda "hates us for our freedoms." Talk about trying to have it both ways...SHEESH.

Which is it, neocons?

[freeforall]

I am happy he was booed. People are wrapping their heads around why he said it and why he was booed. I can't remember what anyone else said about foreign policy (although I did wonder if Santorum actually knew the meaning of antithetical), but I have been thinking about how Dr Paul said what I've been thinking for ten years. I'm not smart enough to be the only one.

[Romulus]

who cares though... Romney and Perry got booed but that didn't make headlines cause they are "frontrunners!" BS