Who no mention of big elephant in the room at GOP debates?

[moderate libertarian]

Is there any doubt that current economic bankruptcy and national morale depression are directly tied to 9/11 and resulting Iraq war/global wars human/financial costs borne out policies that almost all GOP Presidential candidates supported/still support?

Why stances on causes of 9/11, Iraq war, risk of future 9/11s, current foreign policy/foreign aid to mideast oppressors, TSA gropings, Obama's power to assassinate US citizens not been a key part of debate questions?

Has their been some censorship put in place by media owners to not ask any question about Obama's newly assumed power to assassinate US citizens without due process of law?
I would think this is a huge paradigm shift and changes character of the Constitutional Republic as we knew it.

Corporate media orchestrated debates conductors can talk all day long about this tiny domestic Post Office expense to cut (US Post Office may go bankrupt for an amount that was cost of one week of Iraq war) or that city to turn lights off but that would do little to educate public on bigger causes and risks. On current misguided course, economically bankrupt America and politically confused/guilt ridden voters may see a left wing socialist/reluctant neocon like Obama drag down America further from 2008-2016 and right wing neocon puppet like Herman Cain do the same from 2016-2024. Then maybe Romney will get his shot to invade Iran in 2024 if not done already by then.



Herman Cain: "There Have Been A Lot Of Benefits That Have Come Out Of Iraq"

http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201110170010

If GOP nominated this idiot who was leading the polls recently, Obama will win easily and I'll support Obama over Cain in such a race.

[TCE]

If GOP nominated this idiot who was leading the polls recently, Obama will win easily and I'll support Obama over Cain in such a race.

I'd hope you'd support the most liberty-leaning Third Party candidate, but that's another topic for another day.

All of the GOP candidates on the stage are pretty much in unison about the wars, TSA powers, and likely on the security measures put in place to supposedly prevent another 9/11. The debate moderators/networks don't want everyone agreeing with each other and Ron Paul as the only one against the above. They would rather talk about things where there is widespread disagreement and a chance for some entertaining soundbites. The economy is a perfect example of this. As far as 9/11 goes, ten years ago is ten years ago and I don't see how anything besides reiterating the extent of the catastrophe would come of bringing it up.

[kahless]

I always thought I would vote third party, as I usually do since there is no way in hell I would vote for a Democrat or Progressive Republican. But this thing with Cain had me seriously considering voting for Obama if Ron loses the nomination and does not run 3rd party. But then I though that is probably exactly what the Neocons want.

The Neocons do not care if they lose this election. Although they would never admit it, the fact is Obama is their guy on foreign policy and as far as Domestic issues he has been inline with their big government agenda.

Neocon talk radio and Foxnews are against Ron Paul since he upsets and risks that balance of having a win win situation not matter which party wins the Presidency.

[TCE]

I always thought I would vote third party, as I usually do since there is no way in hell I would vote for a Democrat or Progressive Republican. But this thing with Cain had me seriously considering voting for Obama if Ron loses the nomination and does not run 3rd party. But then I though that is probably exactly what the Neocons want.

The Neocons do not care if they lose this election. Although they would never admit it, the fact is Obama is their guy on foreign policy and as far as Domestic issues he has been inline with their big government agenda.

Neocon talk radio and Foxnews are against Ron Paul since he upsets and risks that balance of having a win win situation not matter which party wins the Presidency.

The neocons know the GOP is going to win back the Senate and maintain a majority in the House, so they win no matter what. It also depends on your state. If one lives in 30 of the 50 states, they are automatically GOP or Dem. IE: Illinois, California, New York are all Democrat and Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee are all reliably GOP. So, anyone living in a decidedly red or blue state should vote third party should Ron not win the nomination. I will be voting Third Party every single Presidential Election that Ron is not on the ballot as I live in Illinois, so my vote is meaningless unless I vote Third Party.

[moderate libertarian]

I always thought I would vote third party, as I usually do since there is no way in hell I would vote for a Democrat or Progressive Republican. But this thing with Cain had me seriously considering voting for Obama if Ron loses the nomination and does not run 3rd party. But then I though that is probably exactly what the Neocons want.

The Neocons do not care if they lose this election. Although they would never admit it, the fact is Obama is their guy on foreign policy and as far as Domestic issues he has been inline with their big government agenda.

Neocon talk radio and Foxnews are against Ron Paul since he upsets and risks that balance of having a win win situation not matter which party wins the Presidency.

I certainly hope GOP would not be stupid enough to nominate Cain or Perry or any other obvious or neocon in disguise but would nominate Ron Paul. However if they did nominate a neocon puppet like Cain, a third party candidate with libertarian stances would be my choice over either Cain or Obama. I'm independent minded with little regard for R or D labels.

This is still early, let's hope once flavors of the week/month are exhausted, GOP voters will in the end wake up and pick the only candidate with sensible ideas. There is lot of ignorance out there, this is a tall order.

[moderate libertarian]

I always thought I would vote third party, as I usually do since there is no way in hell I would vote for a Democrat or Progressive Republican. But this thing with Cain had me seriously considering voting for Obama if Ron loses the nomination and does not run 3rd party. But then I though that is probably exactly what the Neocons want.

The Neocons do not care if they lose this election. Although they would never admit it, the fact is Obama is their guy on foreign policy and as far as Domestic issues he has been inline with their big government agenda.

Neocon talk radio and Foxnews are against Ron Paul since he upsets and risks that balance of having a win win situation not matter which party wins the Presidency.

That is very thoughtful analysis. I fully agree, this made me rethink my first impulse view too.

Althouh my earlier pediction on Cain has been wrong so far, I still believe Cain will fall in coming weeks. Who knows, GOP voters being so dramatically shifty may even push RP in lead at the right time before the real poll.

[Aratus]

our aggragate expendatures sank us into this downward spiral

[anaconda]

I'd hope you'd support the most liberty-leaning Third Party candidate, but that's another topic for another day.

All of the GOP candidates on the stage are pretty much in unison about the wars, TSA powers, and likely on the security measures put in place to supposedly prevent another 9/11. The debate moderators/networks don't want everyone agreeing with each other and Ron Paul as the only one against the above. They would rather talk about things where there is widespread disagreement and a chance for some entertaining soundbites. The economy is a perfect example of this. As far as 9/11 goes, ten years ago is ten years ago and I don't see how anything besides reiterating the extent of the catastrophe would come of bringing it up.

I would love it if, before answering the question posed to him in a debate, Dr. Paul would first begin with a brief unrelated comment, every time, that points out his unique differences from the rest on most every policy. Something like this: "Congressman Paul, how would the millions of hopeful students pay for college without the federal student loan program?"

Paul: "First of all, I am the only candidate who has pledged to end the TSA program of sexual assault, molestations, and gropings of our citizens."

"Now, with respect to the federal student loan program............."

[Peace&Freedom]

I'd hope you'd support the most liberty-leaning Third Party candidate, but that's another topic for another day.

All of the GOP candidates on the stage are pretty much in unison about the wars, TSA powers, and likely on the security measures put in place to supposedly prevent another 9/11. The debate moderators/networks don't want everyone agreeing with each other and Ron Paul as the only one against the above. They would rather talk about things where there is widespread disagreement and a chance for some entertaining soundbites. The economy is a perfect example of this. As far as 9/11 goes, ten years ago is ten years ago and I don't see how anything besides reiterating the extent of the catastrophe would come of bringing it up.

Well for one thing, bringing it up until the families finally see justice, by way of the inside job culprits seeing jail time, would be helpful. By bringing up 9/11 and other the false flags that have led to the wars abroad and omni-surveillance state at home, it stops or slows down the culprits responsible from pulling off ADDITIONAL inside jobs and false flag ops, that would have taken us further down tyranny road. That's why the 9/11 truth movement has continued to be one of the strongest factors blunting the progress of the Total State for a decade now. Paul's mere presence in the race has also had the effect of blocking or slowing down the war party, but he would have been more successful in doing so if Paul had been more open about the inside job. Like last time, he has chosen not to---and like last time, he is not doing so well in the polls.