The source of this blog is clandestine -- the Ron Paul blog that spews propaganda lies everyday. What economics Ron Paul is teaching them? He couldn't even understand that the gold standard is a dead cucumber in monetary economics ... and he thinks that because a TOKEN silver coin has silver in it, it is a legal tender! What economics does a specialist in delivering more than 400 babies know? Are you kidding me? You still don't get it. The only economics Ron Paul can teache is called "LOCONOMICS". His crazy followers are those who are always requesting him that as he sits in Congress, he should AMEND the Law of Supply and Demand. Can't you see how "loco" that is?

 Heh! heh! he, he ...! I couldn't help giggling, Annonymous75. You are a great debater.  You should run for president instead of Ron Paul.

Paul's "loconomics" ... ha! ha!ha! ... you are funny Phantom75! My invisible phone number is printed here. Call me. We might arrange a date! PureTrust developed a cold feet when he talked about a possible "date" he was not capable of handling.  Maybe you can.  Your mental prowess seemed evident you can.

Actually, I fail to see the sense in Paul dropping out.  His delegates are hardly going to support any other candidate.  His supporters will tell the others to go to hell.  It is the media that wants this troublesome interloper gone so real issues need not be addressed and etch-a-sketch visuals can be mirthlessly applied.  

A far more realistic question at this point is why is Gingrich still running? [besides raising cash so he doesn't have to work]  Clearly, he and Santorum are splitting the anybody but Romney vote.  He only has half the delegates as Santorum and has only won a single state (his own).  Now that Gingrich is losing in the southern states his future is assured.  His delegates would likely go to Santorum.  So, why is Gingrich helping Romney by splitting the vote?  VP Gingrich has a nice ring, eh?

Since it is foolish to debate that as a nuisance candidate Ron Paul is out of the picture, his followers from the "lunatic fringe" as the New Hampshire newspaper aptly described them, are FORCED to vote or FORCED not vote any presidential candidate this coming presidential electiion. They will be forced to vote Obama or either Romney, Santorum or Gingrich. On the other hand, they will be forced NOT to vote at all -- and just be useless,  like flowers that wilt under the sun. Their anger and frustration will no longer serve any purpose at all as they wither in the vine so to speak. So what good is it to Powell Gammill to punch on Gingrich when as a rabid Ron Paul follower, whatever he says no longer count?

 Good point, JV! But remember, that came from the "lunatic fringe".

I'm curious why there is such a campaign to get rid of Ron Paul? If he doesn't matter then why does anyone care? His supporters aren't going to support another candidate so they are (as is often pointed out) irrelevant to the apportionment of their votes to other candidates. The other 3 candidates for the (R) nomination will rally behind whoever is the 'chosen one'... so why the fuss?

It's not because Ron Paul represents a 'threat' to the nomination process or the eventual election of 'anyone but Dr. Paul'. It's because he'll be the winner in the minds of millions of people in their minds, their opinion, their writings and their speech.

Government computer vote totals don't mean shit compared to a shared opinion that Ron Paul and his philosophy more closely represents the mood of this planet's population. THAT's what scares the crap out of those that must have the cooperation of Generation Next to keep the statist machinery turning.

And all Ron has to do to be certain of providing an historical marker for when the mind of humanity was 'changed', is just stay in through the RNC convention... so he just might for no other reason than to help Generation Next change the world.

Just the way it is :)

Ernie … I take note of your curiosity as to "why there is such a campaign to get rid of Ron Paul?" It is established in the people’s general belief – of course with the exception of his followers and supporters, and without doubt you made it clear enough that that includes you – that the U.S. Presidency is NOT winnable for rebel candidates like Ron Paul. The Main Stream Media, no matter how anyone looks at it, reflects this general belief of the public.

Many times the term "Unelectable" is attributed by the Media to Ron Paul’s perennial candidacy for President that is repeated during so many presidential election years that come and go.

In short, for a negatively perceived candidate like Ron Paul, the chance of winning is historically proven to be Zero or negative. That being the case, it is better to save badly needed resources than waste it in such a futile exercise.

Since it is the people’s resources being wasted wantonly in such vain undertaking, they have the right to wage a campaign to get rid of him as a nuisance candidate to save their own resources. I am talking in terms of the sentiment or preference of the GENERAL PUBLIC – the general public being solicited by the Ron Paul headquarters for contributions to fund his candidacy. My computer inbox is saturated with such solicitation letters to raise fund for the Ron Paul campaign. As you very know, this runs to millions of dollars.

Now in specific terms – ergo to narrow it down to your own private or personal interest not in the general public’s interest – the question may be asked: Is the cost of such waste of time and energy and resources, worth it? If your answer is yes, please note that your personal sentiment for saying so, does not represent the "mood of this planet's population" as I think was inadvertently stated in your comment.

Furthermore, to associate the tattooed, tongue-piercing sexually active Generation Next to Ron Paul’s legacy is in my opinion, not very complimenting to Ron Paul. The only thing Generation Next and Ron Paul have in common is that each wants to create their own version of what America should look like in the next generations to come. Other than that, Ron Paul is a principled entity, if you may, while the Generation Next has no principles or redeeming values for America to look up to. In your opinion, if the only reason for Ron Paul’s "unwinnable" candidacy is to help this Generation Next change the world to their own liking, that’s not the right direction to go to either.

 What I deduced from the publisher’s comment is that the Generation Next that he mentioned, is anticipating a change of the world from bad to worse, with the help of Ron Paul’s rejected candidacy for President that’s a total waste of resources had it not for that purpose only – repeat, to help the Generation Next change the world from bad to worse!

And yet, this is a fallacy of vision because historically, the world always changes for the better – not for the worse. Life, civilization, technology and scientific discoveries always move the world forward – not backward. The moral values of today’s generation is perhaps the only alarming phenomenon that is changing from bad to worse which outlines the future of the publisher’s Generation Next. But the Generation Next and its regressive attributes are as scarce as the unique Ron Paul himself. Scarce as it is, it cannot be reckoned with as a force powerful enough to change the world from bad to worse. Historically, more powerful forces that would change the world from good to even better would overwhelm it in the years ahead.