[jrooney]

You are the one claiming they are requiring loyalty oaths. First you put the phrase with a question mark, then make the accusation again as a statement, as if it is a fact. Where does it say in the article they are requiring loyalty oaths or is that a figment of a paranoid Paul supporting mind?

[JOAT]

You are the one claiming they are requiring loyalty oaths.

You don't understand party politics very well.

No state wants to be the first to go on national television without 100% of their delegates supporting the annointed one.

When I went to the national convention in 1992, our state would have been the first state to announce delegates for Pat Buchannan. The party hacks were going beserk. When the Buchanan people were clearly going to stick to principles, they moved us out of alphabetical order to the end, to ensure our results would not appear during prime time.

They may not technically be 'loyalty oaths' but the state level party WILL purge dissenters early to avoid embarrassment.

[Rebelbase]

I’ll ask it again:

“Ron Paul supporter delegates being called to a special meeting to disprove allegations that they don’t support McCain.

What is the purpose of that? Are not delegates free to vote for whomever they like?”