Who won?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

1. Paul A+: Right in substance, but not style. Needs to tone the rambling down. He was GREAT on the drug issue, he needs to perform like that on all questions.

2. Huntsman A+: Very much like Paul, but he was not rambling. He did not make anything memorable though, so he by default is probably second.

3. Perry B: Perry had his best debate, but was weak in his attacks. He should of jumped on Romney on issues like immigration.

4. Gingrich B: He is a very, very smart man, but is running to sell books and speeches. I think it is VERY stupid to release your covert action plans, which proves to me he is not serious.

5. Santorum D: He openly admitted to racial profiling, which is politically toxic in a general election. He was not as aggressive as usual.

6. Bachmann F: She is awful. She has no reason to be running, she pretends to be a "Liberty loving Republican" but she is just trying to be the successor to the dying neocon (see Rumsfield, and Cheney) faction of the party.

7. Cain F: He does not know what he is talking about.

8. Romney F: He was overaggressive, and is dead wrong on foreign policy issues. He tried to make a joke early on, which was humiliating, and he was really angry throughout the night...

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Bachmann - Not as brain-dead as normal - but seemed upset the rapture might be delayed if Israel isn't backed-up

But she didn't really play that record last night, did she?  It's as though someone on her team replayed for her the quote from the previous debate where she referred to Israel's "indefensible" 1967 borders.  Borders which, I might add, Israel defended pretty damn well.  In fact, all of them, Perry included, seemed to have been sat down in front of cameras and made to listen to the asinine and inaccurate statements they'd made in past debates.

Not that there were no inaccuracies.  (I counted at least 14!)  But imho they all, except Cain, had commanding performances.  Bachmann included.

Allen West is my Congressman down here, and I like him alot, but he is the most pro Israel member of the House; he refers to Israel as his "spiritual homeland", and we should not be at all involved in their affairs, but if I were Israeli, I wouldn't want the 1967 borders. At one point, the width of the country is 9 miles...It makes a tight squeeze. But I agree with you for the most part.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I were Israeli, I wouldn't want the 1967 borders...

And if I were Mexican, I wouldn't want the 2011 borders.  I'd prefer the 1824 borders.

But I'm not Mexican.  And I'm not Israeli.

I'm a yankee.  And, as such, I prefer that my tax dollars got to my son's school and the local parks.  Not to Netanyahu's bombs and bullets which he points toward Palestinians in retribution for the pebbles and stones and sticks that they throw at his troops.  

I agree 100%, I dont want to fund Israel at all, I meant that it was not right for President Obama to be dictating what borders they have. I think Israel should do what they want, but when they are attacked in retribution, they should remember that they picked that war with Iran. I should of clarified.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I've talked to Paul at length, as I have mentioned on this forum before.  

Out of curiosity, where did you meet him? At rallies? When I go to political events I usually get about 15 seconds of conversation with the candidate.