about the crowd at the debate. ...

[satchelmcqueen]

after watching the recap of all of rons answers, i noticed something interesting . at first ron got huge massive applause up until he was asked about the racial disparity with the war on drugs. on this answer the crowd was almost silent, very silent. from that point on, ron got booed a lot on the golden rule answer. i think the neocons were rallied to boo ron over the pro ron cheers. i do have to wonder why all of the massive paul applause was almost gone on that question? its almost as if the paul supporters went missing for a minute. although he did get some good applause again after the golden rule thing. it went very well after i rewatched it.

what happened? did you notice this?

over all i really think ron gained more support tonight. if he does this well or better thursday, i could see him taking first in sc.

[mport1]

They seemed to be almost entirely composed of neocons so an anti-drug war question got no applause and a non-interventionist war gets boos from that blood thirsty crowd.

[isthisonetakenalso]

after watching the recap of all of rons answers, i noticed something interesting . at first ron got huge massive applause up until he was asked about the racial disparity with the war on drugs. on this answer the crowd was almost silent, very silent. from that point on, ron got booed a lot. i think the neocons were rallied to boo ron over the pro ron cheers. i do have to wonder why all of the massive paul applause was almost gone after that question? its almost as if the paul supporters went missing in the last half.

what happened? did you notice this?

I personally just think the whole crowd was drunk. Reminded me of that episode of family guy where louis runs for mayor...

[Edward]

Ron doesn't have a knack for talking in soundbites, which is why a lot of us like him but it often just leaves you nodding your head in agreement rather than pumping your fist in the air.

[Kords21]

Any candidate not named Paul could have announced a war on neocons and they would have cheered it.

[jcannon98188]

Here is what is going down. Like me (and most likely many of you) back before I heard Ron Paul, I was very much America going in kicking butt and solving the worlds problems. But at the same time, I wanted our troops home. The first line of thought comes from the Republican talking heads telling us to think this. The second line of thought comes from within my heart. If you notice, they booed at "we shouldn't be over there" and cheered at "bring our troops home" he said the same thing twice, just in different ways. I think the fact that they did this proves that they are almost ready to be exposed more fully to the truth

[LadyBastiat]

Here is what is going down. Like me (and most likely many of you) back before I heard Ron Paul, I was very much America going in kicking butt and solving the worlds problems. But at the same time, I wanted our troops home. The first line of thought comes from the Republican talking heads telling us to think this. The second line of thought comes from within my heart. If you notice, they booed at "we shouldn't be over there" and cheered at "bring our troops home" he said the same thing twice, just in different ways. I think the fact that they did this proves that they are almost ready to be exposed more fully to the truth

Did Ron just usurp a play right out of the Luntz handbook of how to say the same thing but in a different way so as to get the answer (applause) you want?

[RonPaulMall]

Here is what is going down. Like me (and most likely many of you) back before I heard Ron Paul, I was very much America going in kicking butt and solving the worlds problems. But at the same time, I wanted our troops home. The first line of thought comes from the Republican talking heads telling us to think this. The second line of thought comes from within my heart. If you notice, they booed at "we shouldn't be over there" and cheered at "bring our troops home" he said the same thing twice, just in different ways. I think the fact that they did this proves that they are almost ready to be exposed more fully to the truth

I don't think Ron Paul is ignorant of this though. In practical terms, his foreign policy is damn near the same as Pat Buchanan's. Buchanan has this image of having an excessively macho attitude and a foreign policy of "heartlessness" because he puts America first (which plays very well with the GOP base), while Paul is viewed as being a weak hippy (which plays very poorly) for advocating pretty much the same thing. The difference is all in the rhetoric they use. And whether we like it or not, I don't think Paul is going to change his rhetoric. He just isn't comfortable appealing to xenophobic or "America First" type sentiment. Paul is probably the most deeply religious Presidential candidate in decades. He truly believes in the Golden Rule and sees everybody, not just Americans, as God's children. He'll cite the Constitution. He'll cite fiscal realities. And he'll cite the fact that even if we ignore the Constitutional limits and fiscal realities, aid and meddling still does more harm than good. But if you look back at his career, he's never been one to make an argument that appeals to "us vs them" type mentalities or making excuses for or condoning interventionism in any way.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think Ron Paul is ignorant of this though. In practical terms, his foreign policy is damn near the same as Pat Buchanan's. Buchanan has this image of having an excessively macho attitude and a foreign policy of "heartlessness" because he puts America first (which plays very well with the GOP base), while Paul is viewed as being a weak hippy (which plays very poorly) for advocating pretty much the same thing. The difference is all in the rhetoric they use. And whether we like it or not, I don't think Paul is going to change his rhetoric. He just isn't comfortable appealing to xenophobic or "America First" type sentiment. Paul is probably the most deeply religious Presidential candidate in decades. He truly believes in the Golden Rule and sees everybody, not just Americans, as God's children. He'll cite the Constitution. He'll cite fiscal realities. And he'll cite the fact that even if we ignore the Constitutional limits and fiscal realities, aid and meddling still does more harm than good. But if you look back at his career, he's never been one to make an argument that appeals to "us vs them" type mentalities or making excuses for or condoning interventionism in any way.

If he's not for America first, then he shouldn't be President. But, he is. Putting America first doesn't mean you run over other countries.