# Liberty Movement > Grassroots Central >  For Bradley in DC and anyone that wants to understand the truth of the delegate proce

## Drsteveparent

Hello Bradley, 

I must come out and now defend my positions again on another forum because people do not take the time to look at the facts but rather just say i am a nut and i need to be put in a straight jacket and i am wrong on every account. 

This has to do with my information about the delegate process and how Dr. Paul CAN obtain the nomination in September at the RNC convention.

Bradley i do not recall everything you said so if i missed something bring it up and i will gladly answer it. 

1: You are confusing the fact of winning delegates with obtaining delegates as in most states these delegates are elected to go to the state and national convention to support their candidate and the fact is Dr. Paul does not need to win the majority of delegates in 5 states but only obtain the majority in 5 states and there is a HUGE difference between winning and obtaining the majority. 

For all of you out there that have questioned this in my article written about the delegate process i will make it clear now. 

Dr. Paul only needs the actual people that are elected to be the majority of delegates in ANY 5 states to be placed on the ballot at the RNC in September and he DOES NOT have to win 5 state primary votes to obtain the delegates.


2: I have also seen where you claimed that people will go to jail for violating state election laws if they are bound to vote for Mccain in their state and choose to NOT vote for Mccain at the convention.

You are confusing state law with party rule and to this day i have never seen a state law that states that the republican party must force their delegates to vote for who wins the primary or GO TO JAIL for it. If there is such a law in any state i would love to see it. 

The republican party is a private entity that the states do not dictate how the party chooses it's nominee however the party must follow any state laws that are in place pertaining to the candidate they have running on thier ticket but that has really nothing to do with party rule. 

The previous delegates from prior years have made the rules for their state on how the party will choose the nominee and this is why some states have portioned delegates, winner take all delegates and 100% NON BOUND delegates. 

The beauty of the delegated system and the party rules that are in place is that they can always be changed and this is why states are different from each other. 

If we can obtain a 2/3 majoirty at any state convention those delegates control everything and can change anything they wish on a state level so long as it is pertaining to party rule such as UNBINDING the entire slate of delegates that were previously bound by the party rules.

If we have 50% plus 1 VOTE those delegates will control most of the convention and can still vote to change the entire party platform pass their resolutions etc.. and work to bring the republican party back to it's roots.

3: What happens to the Romney and Huckabee delegates? 

The fact is there are 2 choices here 1: They would release their delegates and they are then free to vote for who they wish regardless of whether that candidate that releases them endorses Mccain for this does not bind them and they will be free to vote how they want end of story. 2: They will keep those delegates bound through the convention and depending on the state party rules they will vote for them untill they become released from casting the required number of votes they have been bound for and then they are free to do vote how they wish.

4: You claimed every state is different and this we agree on however. 

I have told every meetup i have addressed to obtain a copy of their county and state bylaws to understand what is already in place before doing anything else other than registering to be a delegate. Again the bylaws can always be changed as well as the bylaws reflect the laws of the party NOT THE STATE that are currently in place and with the majoirty of votes the delegates and people of the party can change the bylaws in the county and the state to better fit the american people and the party as they see fit.

5: You also claimed i don't know what i am talking about when it comes to the RNC call and i assure you i am better versed in it than you are just from the comments you have made that are completely incorrect and i would hope you would take the time to become educated on the RNC call before tearing down everything i have been working on with many people for it is you that are giving false information and discouraging the people from getting involved because the assumed  i was either wrong or a nut but it is you sir that is wrong or uninformed at the very least on many issues.

6: If you wish to challange me on the intellect of the RNC call and party rule why did you not contact me personally or simply reply to a post on daily paul and sopmeone would have gladly given you my contact information instead of treating my information as if i was an idiot and you could have saved me much needed time we have so little of now. In the future please if you doubt me contact me and debate me on the issue and we can get the truth without demeaning the message that i would hope we both long to accomplish which is to support and get Dr. Paul elected.

7: As i said i do not remember everything you claimed but i want everyone to understand this the goal here is to obtain the nomination in September and the plan i have put in front of thousands now is a working plan that can and will work so long as we get our people to register to become delegates before it is too late.

If anyone wishes to read the short article i wrote on the delegate process may view it here which also contains links to the RNC call, Robert rules of order, The green papers and information on how to be a delegate in your state as well as a volunteer at the convention.  link : http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com

We also do not need to focus on every state for you are correct some states and very few we will not be able to make the changes we need as far as unbinding delegates we only need to focus most of our effort on the states we can make the changes and that will completely tip the scale in our favor and for thos in doubt i suggest you view some of your posts here that have had great success such as WA and here is a post to seek and ask them how they discovered that the primary meant nothing in the state you will be suprised with the answer i am sure. 

link : http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=122090


Dr. Steve Parent

----------


## tajitj

I understand we all need to be delegates. But you seem to just put the idea out there but never have details. You understand the way delegates are picked differ in every state. Put out some specific info at each state forum on here. I am Texas state delegate along with my wife.

----------


## Bradley in DC

Steve, WELCOME!!!  

I'm running out the door now to a McKinley for Congress meeting, but let's follow up later.

A few quick things--working together is better than anything else.  I never doubted you and I want the same thing (promoting Dr. Paul).  The delegate selection processes are complex and appear confusing (or at least difficult for you or I or anyone to make simple statements/explanations) and there are at a minimum three different sets of processes for each state and then LOTS of variations between states.

I humbly suggest using the wiki might be more useful.

----------


## Drsteveparent

I will not use wiki for they are not absolute i would rather read the source myself. 

Yes as i said i do agree every state is different and tha is why each state needs to be addressed but it is almost impossible to detail everything myself with the short time we are working with although i am working on data for a web page that will educate every american on the process of every party so we can all get involved and make real change.

I look forward to our conversation.



Steve

----------


## orlandoinfl

Bravo DrSteve

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

Hi Steve, welcome and thanks for coming around (and all the work you are putting into this effort). 

I think what Brad meant was the RPF Wiki in the Nav bar above. I haven't used it yet but, looking now, there are a few pages built.

I'm looking forward to seeing this develop

Thanks again

m

----------


## acptulsa

Welcome, Dr. Parent.  The Wiki bar above is still wiki, and I don't blame you for preferring to do things threadwise.  If you look yourself up on the members list above, you'll be able find this thread easily when desired.

----------


## Drsteveparent

I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer. 

I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> If we can obtain a 2/3 majoirty at any state convention those delegates control everything and can change anything they wish on a state level so long as it is pertaining to party rule such as UNBINDING the entire slate of delegates that were previously bound by the party rules.


What about loophole primaries?  As national delegates are elected separately, no matter how many delegate slots Ron Paul supporters fill, these delegates will vote for who they wish.  In Illinois, we elect delegates individually, and their preference is listed on the ballot.  Pennsylvania is much alike, but without the preference listed.

How do you suggest unbinding helps in this case? What about states without a traditional state convention system?

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer. 
> 
> I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.


Many of us are terrible typers / etc.  No worries.

Please be aware though, that we have our share of troublemakers here and it is best to have a thick skin at times

----------


## Drsteveparent

> What about loophole primaries?  As national delegates are elected separately, no matter how many delegate slots Ron Paul supporters fill, these delegates will vote for who they wish.  In Illinois, we elect delegates individually, and their preference is listed on the ballot.  Pennsylvania is much alike, but without the preference listed.
> 
> How do you suggest unbinding helps in this case? What about states without a traditional state convention system?



There is no need to unbind those delegates that are already unbound for they are bound by nothing although the party might ask or suggest they can not force the delegates to vote for someone in any way.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Many of us are terrible typers / etc.  No worries.
> 
> Please be aware though, that we have our share of troublemakers here and it is best to have a thick skin at times


If you knew what i go through on a daily basis you would know my skin is thick and they will never drive me away. 

It is very hard to defeat the truth although trouble makers are usually very easy to discredit for these people combine nouns and verbs to illicit prescribed responses which are irelivent to an intellegent mind. 

I get frustrated sometimes but i will be going nowhere i assure you.




Steve

----------


## LibertyIn08

So, in terms of hard delegates, McCain has between 25-30% dependent upon the source.  This means of the remaining 60 odd percent, assuming that Ron Paul picks up the Romney and Huckabee delegates (10% on top of McCain's 30, and a rather large assumption.), Ron Paul would have would have to get around 70+% of the remaining delegates.

Current numbers from conventions don't really indicate we're going to get those kinds of percentages.   What is your plan, then, for conversion of delegates or pushing the voting past the first couple of ballots, where more delegates then become unbound?

----------


## acptulsa

Mr. Bydlak didn't see fit to answer, and I would certainly understand if you find it impolitic to do so, but I do have a question.  Would it be useful to Dr. Paul for us to circulate ballot access petitions in the various states this summer?  Would that make a handy Sword of Damocles for Dr. Paul to dangle over their heads in September?

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Mr. Bydlak didn't see fit to answer, and I would certainly understand if you find it impolitic to do so, but I do have a question.  Would it be useful to Dr. Paul for us to circulate ballot access petitions in the various states this summer?  Would that make a handy Sword of Damocles for Dr. Paul to dangle over their heads in September?


That would more likely please rather than upset party stalwarts.  The Libertarians would steal some of Ron's support, he most likely wouldn't be on every state ballot, and he wouldn't be featured in debates unless polling 10+%.  Beyond that, we would end up with Peden receiving his congressional seat.

Paul himself has stated he wished to work within the party.  I see no reason to pursue this non-starter further.

----------


## constituent

> If you knew what i go through on a daily basis you would know my skin is thick and they will never drive me away. 
> 
> It is very hard to defeat the truth although trouble makers are usually very easy to discredit for these people combine nouns and verbs to illicit prescribed responses which are irelivent to an intellegent mind. 
> 
> I get frustrated sometimes but i will be going nowhere i assure you.


rock on!  welcome to the forums!

----------


## Drsteveparent

> So, in terms of hard delegates, McCain has between 25-30% dependent upon the source.  This means of the remaining 60 odd percent, assuming that Ron Paul picks up the Romney and Huckabee delegates (10% on top of McCain's 30, and a rather large assumption.), Ron Paul would have would have to get around 70+% of the remaining delegates.
> 
> Current numbers from conventions don't really indicate we're going to get those kinds of percentages.   What is your plan, then, for conversion of delegates or pushing the voting past the first couple of ballots, where more delegates then become unbound?


The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter. I do not understand what you mean by the remaining 70% could you please clarify this for me so i can give you a correct answer please.

We are not looking really for conversion because the mccain people will be mccain so the goal is to get to the convention with the majority going in which is looking better and better all the time.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

Dr. Steve, your article is full of stuff that you write as fact but instead is wishful thinking.

You write,

First, stop looking at who wins each state’s popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a *candidate. So if a candidate like McCain now has 906 delegates but he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE WILL NOT*, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing. Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters. 

NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would *have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it.* Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

This will be a brokered convention, there is no way around it.  Do you really believe that?  If so, you should put your money where your mouth is and bet the brokered convention at 20-1.  You can donate the winnings to Dr. Paul.   You say McCain WILL NOT get to 1191.  He is already over at 1200 with 10 states left, of which he is surely going to win.  
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...5pFHScTNGq7bUg

You also say
The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

I can't remember the exact number but it's actually 75-80%.

I'm starting to think trying to unbind the delegates is a really BAD idea.  First, it has a 0% chance of success.  It's unlikely that we will have 2/3 of the delegates in ANY state.  

Second, we have nobody on the RNC, which means nobody on the committees.  Make no mistake, the RNC runs the party, not the delegates.  The RNC makes up all the committees at the convention.  The delegates do get to vote, but the committees can do a number of things, including not allowing delegates.  

Third, trying to take over the GOP in this manner does not do our movement any good.  It will only make the GOP more hostile towards us.  I'm all for people becoming involved and becoming delegates, but trying to overturn the delegates is a Clintonesque move, which in the end will do us no good.  

Finally, I've never listened to Alex Jones and don't really have an opinion of him, but I do agree with him that Ron is going to tell his supporters bound to McCain to go for McCain AT THE CONVENTION.  Alex might have misspoke and not said it clearly.  Ron certaintly isn't going to tell people to vote for McCain, but I think he will have his supporters bound to McCain do what they are bound to do.  He also said Ron didn't want to be accused of "stealing" the nomination.  

I was one of the people who were trying to get RP supporters to vote for Huckabee in a couple of winner take all states with the idea of stopping McCain and leading to a brokered convention.  The campaign issued a statement saying that although the idea had good intentions, if you for RP, vote for RP.  It also went on to say, "But voting for a candidate other than Ron Paul when there isn’t any chance of getting delegates for Dr. Paul, merely in the hope of having a brokered convention, only weakens the Ron Paul movement rather than strengthening it."

These situations are different but they didn't want vote trading for, "merely in the hope of having a brokereed convention."  I would also think Ron wouldn't want us trying to overturn delegates, merely in hope of stealing the nomination.  I think trying to overturn delegates only weakens the RP movement, rather than strengthening it.  

What does strenghthen the movement is getting people like BJ Lawson, Jim Forsythe, Brent Sanders, Murray Sabrin, Vern McKinley or any other of your favorite liberty candidates elected.  

What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House.  We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012.  Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter. I do not understand what you mean by the remaining 70% could you please clarify this for me so i can give you a correct answer please.
> 
> We are not looking really for conversion because the mccain people will be mccain so the goal is to get to the convention with the majority going in which is looking better and better all the time.


There is no other way to make it anymore explicit.

Hard Delegate Numbers (Bound as of conventions/primary processes, see Green Papers et al.):
25-30% McCain
10% Other (For Sake of Argument, All RP)

60% Not Yet Bound or Fully Decided

Basically, we have to get 70% of those remaining in conventions to go all to Paul to come in with a majority.  Do you see this happening?

I think there needs to be a contingency plan in place, because unlike you, I do not feel the statistics are on our side.  I do not see how 2-3 states unbinding somehow rectifies this as you suggest.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> There is no other way to make it anymore explicit.
> 
> Hard Delegate Numbers (Bound as of conventions/primary processes, see Green Papers et al.):
> 25-30% McCain
> 10% Other (For Sake of Argument, All RP)
> 
> 60% Not Yet Bound or Fully Decided
> 
> Basically, we have to get 70% of those remaining in conventions to go all to Paul to come in with a majority.  Do you see this happening?
> ...


My questions means 70% of what delegates most delegates have not even been voted on yet and are only going to the county level and 12 states have not even had a primary yet so to make a prediction of what delegates we need is premature. 

Most of Mccains delegate count is nothing more than virtual delegate numbers and according to the hard numbers he only has a little over 500 delegates bound to him. 

As we get closer to september i can give you better number but until then your guess is as good as mine on how many we will have or need.

What we need is 50% plus 1 to obtain the nomination in September. We have many states to go and if we can sweep some key states as we have done ouyr chances are increased everytime we do so. WA was our first huge victory and MO will be out 2nd and so on. 

As we have more conventions in the next few weeks we will all have a better understanding of where we actually stand but if people do not become delegates we will have no chance.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> My questions means 70% of what delegates most delegates have not even been voted on yet and are only going to the county level and 12 states have not even had a primary yet so to make a prediction of what delegates we need is premature. 
> 
> Most of Mccains delegate count is nothing more than virtual delegate numbers and according to the hard numbers he only has a little over 500 delegates bound to him. 
> 
> As we get closer to september i can give you better number but until then your guess is as good as mine on how many we will have or need.


There is such a thing as a hard delegate count.  Have you looked at the Green Papers website?  I think estimating under 500 guaranteed delegates for McCain would be a mistake on our part.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> There is such a thing as a hard delegate count.  Have you looked at the Green Papers website?  I think estimating under 500 guaranteed delegates for McCain would be a mistake on our part.


Using only the hard delegates numbers from the Green Papers doesn't make the situation any better.  Yeah McCain has "only" 582 delegates, but they've only alloted 816, meaning McCain has 71% of the "hard" delegates.

----------


## nbhadja

> Dr. Steve, your article is full of stuff that you write as fact but instead is wishful thinking.
> 
> You write,
> 
> First, stop looking at who wins each states popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a *candidate. So if a candidate like McCain now has 906 delegates but he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE WILL NOT*, most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing. Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters. 
> 
> NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
> 
> Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would *have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention  there is no way around it.* Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?
> ...


Over 1200 delegates? I stopped reading after that. Stop listening to the MSM.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> There is such a thing as a hard delegate count.  Have you looked at the Green Papers website?  I think estimating under 500 guaranteed delegates for McCain would be a mistake on our part.


Yes i have looked and i didn't say under i said a little over and as i stated these are not even actual people yet in most cases they are only numbers nothing more and to decide what we need and don't need at this time would be misinformation

Please do not take offense to this but your questions seem like those coming from a high school student or freshman in college and i am not trying to be sarcastic here. 

If you dobt what i have said just go an research it for yourself and you will see what i am trying to explain.



Steve

----------


## tajitj

Quit kidding yourselves. Just because most are not bound, most states delegate process is already been underway. We have already been shut out of a number of states. Yes we should all try to be delegates, of course. 
It is unrealistic to think come national convention time Dr. Paul is going to have 1152 supporters as delegates. How many states have already nominated state delegates and do not have a 2/3 Paul majority. Almost every state. Some out west are different. Time will tell our real support.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Yes i have looked and i didn't say under i said a little over and as i stated these are not even actual people yet in most cases they are only numbers nothing more and to decide what we need and don't need at this time would be misinformation
> 
> Please do not take offense to this but your questions seem like those coming from a high school student or freshman in college and i am not trying to be sarcastic here. 
> 
> If you dobt what i have said just go an research it for yourself and you will see what i am trying to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve


I'm glad you are willing to berate me simply due to my level of education.  Yes, I am a high school student.  I think you only issued that proclamation as an ad hominem attack or simply guessed correctly; nothing about my questions was illogical or immature.

Your attack does not reduce the validity of my argument.  Tajit made the exact point that I am making: Our exclusion from previous conventions and the amount of bound delegates from such conventions, as well as loophole primaries, give McCain a formidable concrete delegate count that has to be overcome with a significant percentage of the remaining delegates.

I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Quit kidding yourselves. Just because most are not bound, most states delegate process is already been underway. We have already been shut out of a number of states. Yes we should all try to be delegates, of course. 
> It is unrealistic to think come national convention time Dr. Paul is going to have 1152 supporters as delegates. How many states have already nominated state delegates and do not have a 2/3 Paul majority. Almost every state. Some out west are different. Time will tell our real support.



I have never stated we will have 2/3 at national i have only stated what will happen isf we do at state conventions. 

Like i have said i can;t give you all the answers now because most states have not even elected delegates yet but if we have the numbers we can win the nomination but we have lots of work to do. 

mY INFO for now is in general for we still have 12 states that have not even had a primary yet but if we do not get our people to become delegates where they have not been elected yet we will have no shot. 

You have to take these things in steps and everything will depend on our numbers and i can not in to the future time will tell over the next several weeks and from what i have seen so far from the people contacting me we are doing very well and that is all i will say until we get closer.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> I'm glad you are willing to berate me simply due to my level of education.  Yes, I am a high school student.  I think you only issued that proclamation as an ad hominem attack or simply guessed correctly; nothing about my questions was illogical or immature.
> 
> Your attack does not reduce the validity of my argument.  Tajit made the exact point that I am making: Our exclusion from previous conventions and the amount of bound delegates from such conventions, as well as loophole primaries, give McCain a formidable concrete delegate count that has to be overcome with a significant percentage of the remaining delegates.
> 
> I don't see how you can argue otherwise.


I did not attack you i only stated my opinion as to what your questions pertained but you are asking me to give you numbers that are impossible to give you for we have only had a handfull of states that have even elected delegates yet. 

To try and illicit a prescribed response from me as to claim my intergrity is to belittle you is without merit and will only prolong any response i entertain from you in the future and to claim i attacked your intellect is unwarranted and is actually offensive so i will say this once again research it for yourself and do not rely on other to give you the information you require.

We still have 12 states that have not even had a primary so how can i possibly see what the future holds? As we get closer i can give you more precise answers as for now i can not give you what you require and when i can i will happily share the information with you.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I did not attack you i only stated my opinion as to what your questions pertained but you are asking me to give you numbers that are impossible to give you for we have only had a handfull of states that have even elected delegates yet. 
> 
> To try and illicit a prescribed response from me as to claim my intergrity is to belittle you is without merit and will only prolong any response i entertain from you in the future and to claim i attacked your intellect is unwarranted and is actually offensive so i will say this once again research it for yourself and do not rely on other to give you the information you require.
> 
> We still have 12 states that have not even had a primary so how can i possibly see what the future holds? As we get closer i can give you more precise answers as for now i can not give you what you require and when i can i will happily share the information with you.


Likewise I can ask this: How can you still tell people we have a shot, if you have no numbers yourself?  As I said, the hard numbers do not look good.  Many of us have also done our own calculations; see the spreadsheet above for an example.  What are the alternative strategies?  One cannot simply put on their blinders and be oblivious to all possibilities.

I have not seen concrete or reasonable answers to these questions yet.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Over 1200 delegates? I stopped reading after that. Stop listening to the MSM.


I'm not listening to the MSM.  I'm listening to my spreadsheet that I linked right after I said that.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...5pFHScTNGq7bUg

And like I said, the people relying on the hard count that only shows McCain at 582 fail to mention that the 582 is 71% of the hard delegates so far.  And out the the 816 hard delegates that have been allocated, 0 have been overturned, a trend that will most definitely continue.

----------


## mdh

Please fact-check any statements made by _Drsteveparent_.  Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.  

*I don't mean to be disparaging here, just to encourage everyone to do their own fact checking before taking *any* statements made on the internet at face value... *

----------


## No1ButPaul08

One more thing to add for now.  Dr. Steve, can you prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts  which is delegates.

I'm going to guess you can't, because I don't think it's even close to being the truth, and yet you state it like it's pure fact.

Also, since I posted my criticism of you, you've replied four times in this thread, yet you have failed to reply to my post, any reason for this?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> One more thing to add for now.  Dr. Steve, can you prove this statement
> 
> Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts  which is delegates.
> 
> I'm going to guess you can't, because I don't think it's even close to being the truth, and yet you state it like it's pure fact.
> 
> Also, since I posted my criticism of you, you've replied four times in this thread, yet you have failed to reply to my post, any reason for this?


Steve, 

Yes, I was referring to the wiki here on RPFs.  This would be the best way to examine issues and avoid confusion.  We could spell out where we agree and then differentiate where we don't.

One huge difference between us, you and I, is that I have been relying not just on my own thoughts but have been working with several other people here cooperatively (via Google docs, the forum, PMs, emails, etc.) to understand everything as well as possible.

You make truly outlandish claims such as the one quoted and questioned above.  You also have confused rules binding delegates in many different ways.  For one, you have claimed repeatedly that there will be a brokered convention because McCain doesn't have enough votes from bound candidates.  I have corrected your misunderstanding repeatedly: votes from unbound delegates count at the convention too.

I can assure you that in all points where I had questions (lots, especially for caucus states), I've sought answers before pontificating on them.  I am not confused at all.  If you take a look at the state subfora here (created by the admins by my request for this purpose), I posed the rules from 2004 urging people to update their states' rules for 2008 even before the call of the convention.  I have clarified all questions I had from the legal counsel of the DC GOP and the RNC personally.  If there is a dispute between your understanding and that of the legal counsel of the RNC, I'm pretty sure the convention isn't going to go to you resolve disputes.

----------


## SteveMartin

The whole "brokered convention" thing is, IMO, a cynical canard being used to excuse the continued salaries of those who have already ripped all of us off in so many ways, as well as a way for Dr. Paul to put off running as an independent.

----------


## acptulsa

> The whole "brokered convention" thing is, IMO, a cynical canard being used to excuse the continued salaries of those who have already ripped all of us off in so many ways, as well as a way for Dr. Paul to put off running as an independent.


The attempt to bring a third party to prominence in this country has failed and failed and failed again.  The last time anything resembling an independent run succeeded in seating a president was 1860.  This is somewhat discouraging.

You don't like the idea of trying to make the G.O.P. safe for conservatives once again?  Well excuuuse me!

----------


## SteveMartin

That's why I am not promoting a third party run.

The last Independent candidate took 19% in the general election, and would have been in the White House had he not dropped out 6 weeks before the election (because his "ROLE" was not to win, but to distract and totally marginalize patriots.)

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Steve, 
> 
> Yes, I was referring to the wiki here on RPFs.  This would be the best way to examine issues and avoid confusion.  We could spell out where we agree and then differentiate where we don't.
> 
> One huge difference between us, you and I, is that I have been relying not just on my own thoughts but have been working with several other people here cooperatively (via Google docs, the forum, PMs, emails, etc.) to understand everything as well as possible.
> 
> You make truly outlandish claims such as the one quoted and questioned above.  You also have confused rules binding delegates in many different ways.  For one, you have claimed repeatedly that there will be a brokered convention because McCain doesn't have enough votes from bound candidates.  I have corrected your misunderstanding repeatedly: votes from unbound delegates count at the convention too.
> 
> To get the updater versions of my articles on the delegate process you need to view the UPDATED March 13th VERSION which can be found here : http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901
> ...


I will try and answer everyones questions that have been asked today but i will start with Bradley.

Refering to the question above : The numbers as far as picking up the majority of delegates thus far ar from the reports i receive privately from the people directly involved and not what the local MSM reports so i believe i have the hard numbers that matter and will never disclose everything i have been sent until every state convention is over. 

Many states have not even had a convention as of yet and i can not possibly give you numbers that we do not have but everyone keeps looking at the virtual delegated numbers instead of the hard numbers of bound delegates which i believe for Mccain now is 563 hard delegates. Bradley is correct that unbound votes do count if they actually support Mccain and this is exactly why we need to obtain as many delegates as possible to have a shot at winning the nomination but if we do not get the numbers all over the country then this election for Dr. Paul will probably be over and for you to tell people i am a nut and i need a straight jacket does not help me to encourage people to even become a delegate in the first place so it is counter productive.

The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state. The article will continue to change as more states and delegates are selected and i can not possibly cover every county and every state in the USA myself and i have always urged everyone to obtain their local bylaws and call before they do anything as well except registering to become a delegate then i have scheduled conference calls with the heads of meetup groups in those states to discuss thier strategy based on a state to state basis. If someone here wishes to write an entire USA county and state article to explain every county and state by all means do so but i assure you it will not be finished before September.

I suggest we start here Bradley are we in agreement that the only way we even have a shot at the nomination is through the delegate process? Are we in agreement that everyone getting involved needs to understand rules of order as well as parliamentary procedure BEFORE they enter their process?

How can the DC GOP and the RNC possibly have the answers for every county and state as you describe? Do they patch you thorugh to someone when you are asked what state are you from to discuss only that state and furthermore how can you possibly trust the GOP to give you the accurate information without verifying the context of that information?

If you people here do not want me educating people on Parliamentary procedure and the delegate process fine i will gladly continue what i have been doing in other areas which if you have seen these people have done extremely well in their states with my help in preparing them but to make claims Bradley that i need A STRAIGHT JACKET is uncalled for sir and does nothing but discourage people from even doing the research they require to make actual changes in thier local communities which is exactly what i have encouraged all to do BEYOND this election.

My goal is simple which is to get people involved locally in their party to make the changes that are long over due and in the process take the nomination in September. If you have listened to any of my radio interviews i make it very clear as to what my intentions are and have been on numerous programs. 

My focus of this posts was to address directly Bradley and what he claims i have stated is wrong to clear up those issues first then i will adress any remaining issues when i have time for the rest of you.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Please fact-check any statements made by _Drsteveparent_.  Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.  
> 
> *I don't mean to be disparaging here, just to encourage everyone to do their own fact checking before taking *any* statements made on the internet at face value... *


I have not done nor said any such thing and you and melissa should really seek counciling for your op status in a tiny little chat room has distorted your views and to continue to have your wife follow me in chat rooms while i am doing question and answer interviews is very childish on yours and her part and has become very boring.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Dr. Steve, your article is full of stuff that you write as fact but instead is wishful thinking.
> 
> You write,
> 
> First, stop looking at who wins each states popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a *candidate. So if a candidate like McCain now has 906 delegates but he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE WILL NOT*, most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing. Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 906 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters. 
> 
> NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
> 
> Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would *have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention  there is no way around it.* Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?
> ...



I answered these questions on page 4 while addressing Bradley.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Using only the hard delegates numbers from the Green Papers doesn't make the situation any better.  Yeah McCain has "only" 582 delegates, but they've only alloted 816, meaning McCain has 71% of the "hard" delegates.



He still needs 1191 hard delegates to be assured the nomination 1191 is the magic number unless we can unbind in a few states such as MO and TX then that changes everything.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Quit kidding yourselves. Just because most are not bound, most states delegate process is already been underway. We have already been shut out of a number of states. Yes we should all try to be delegates, of course. 
> It is unrealistic to think come national convention time Dr. Paul is going to have 1152 supporters as delegates. How many states have already nominated state delegates and do not have a 2/3 Paul majority. Almost every state. Some out west are different. Time will tell our real support.


Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.

Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> I'm not listening to the MSM.  I'm listening to my spreadsheet that I linked right after I said that.
> 
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...5pFHScTNGq7bUg
> 
> And like I said, the people relying on the hard count that only shows McCain at 582 fail to mention that the 582 is 71% of the hard delegates so far.  And out the the 816 hard delegates that have been allocated, 0 have been overturned, a trend that will most definitely continue.


This is where you should be looking : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml

----------


## LibertyIn08

> This is where you should be looking : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml


Earlier you told me those numbers aren't credible.  Which way is it?

By the way, the assertion that only 2 states have chosen their delegates is not correct.  You are, once again, forgetting State GOP nominated delegates (California) and loophole primaries (Illinois).

----------


## mdh

> I have not done nor said any such thing and you and melissa should really seek counciling for your op status in a tiny little chat room has distorted your views and to continue to have your wife follow me in chat rooms while i am doing question and answer interviews is very childish on yours and her part and has become very boring.


Unfortunately for you, I have irrefutable proof of what you were up to, including the sock-puppetry.  I've also seen logs from another chat where you stated that you used a drug used to treat schizophrenia.  Hint: your IP matches what it did when you were using the "El_buggo" and other sock puppets and what it does here on the forum.  Any moderator can confirm that (and in fact one has).  

Your statements here directed towards me once again show signs of mental illness, including paranoia.  But listen, all I want is for you not to spread disinformation to this movement which I've worked very hard to spread good information within.  If you choose to continue, it's only your own reputation that you damage.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Steve, WELCOME!!!  
> 
> I'm running out the door now to a McKinley for Congress meeting, but let's follow up later.
> 
> A few quick things--working together is better than anything else.  I never doubted you and I want the same thing (promoting Dr. Paul).  The delegate selection processes are complex and appear confusing (or at least difficult for you or I or anyone to make simple statements/explanations) and there are at a minimum three different sets of processes for each state and then LOTS of variations between states.
> 
> I humbly suggest using the wiki might be more useful.


Are you some sort of insider? I thought that only corrupted people reside in DC

----------


## mdh

> By the way, the assertion that only 2 states have chosen their delegates is not correct.  You are, once again, forgetting State GOP nominated delegates (California) and loophole primaries (Illinois).


West Virginia is even more complicated - we've chosen *some* of our RNC delegates (rather, the Huckabee campaign chose them since he won), and not others (three apportioned to each of the three congressional districts in the state are chosen in the May primary).

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Earlier you told me those numbers aren't credible.  Which way is it?
> 
> By the way, the assertion that only 2 states have chosen their delegates is not correct.  You are, once again, forgetting State GOP nominated delegates (California) and loophole primaries (Illinois).


I never said any such thing and that link was refering to a spread sheet that appears someone made up without hard data which is why i will not use anything like that until it is confirmed and the greenpapers numbers i have confirmed. 

Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?

California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.

I have no time to bicker with you young man if you want to challange my information bring us facts to dispute my claims instead of doing exaclty what others have done which is say your wrong without 1 fact to back it up.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I will try and answer everyones questions that have been asked today but i will start with Bradley.
> 
> Refering to the question above : The numbers as far as picking up the majority of delegates thus far ar from the reports i receive privately from the people directly involved and not what the local MSM reports so i believe i have the hard numbers that matter and will never disclose everything i have been sent until every state convention is over. 
> 
> Many states have not even had a convention as of yet and i can not possibly give you numbers that we do not have but everyone keeps looking at the virtual delegated numbers instead of the hard numbers of bound delegates which i believe for Mccain now is 563 hard delegates. Bradley is correct that unbound votes do count if they actually support Mccain and this is exactly why we need to obtain as many delegates as possible to have a shot at winning the nomination but if we do not get the numbers all over the country then this election for Dr. Paul will probably be over and for you to tell people i am a nut and i need a straight jacket does not help me to encourage people to even become a delegate in the first place so it is counter productive.
> 
> The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state. The article will continue to change as more states and delegates are selected and i can not possibly cover every county and every state in the USA myself and i have always urged everyone to obtain their local bylaws and call before they do anything as well except registering to become a delegate then i have scheduled conference calls with the heads of meetup groups in those states to discuss thier strategy based on a state to state basis. If someone here wishes to write an entire USA county and state article to explain every county and state by all means do so but i assure you it will not be finished before September.
> 
> I suggest we start here Bradley are we in agreement that the only way we even have a shot at the nomination is through the delegate process? Are we in agreement that everyone getting involved needs to understand rules of order as well as parliamentary procedure BEFORE they enter their process?
> ...


Steve,

You have claimed (which you may have corrected) that a majority of McCain's delegates are secretly Ron Paul supporters and would vote for Dr. Paul if we unbind the delegates.  I consider that delusional, yes, and have said so.  (It would please me greatly for you to prove me wrong--especially at the national convention.  )  I have pointed out that many delegates (from CA, DC, NY, etc.) have finished our processes with Dr. Paul getting no delegates, clandestine or not.  Our delegates were decided entirely by the "straw poll [having] no real bearing on who will become the nominee" as you mistakenly claim.

You claim, "The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1192 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates."

Thank you for correcting your statement that the unbound delegates votes count.  Your inference that they didn't I've labeled a "load of crap" and jaundiced my view of your understanding of this process greatly.  Since you now admit your statement on unbound delegates was misleading (factually incorrect), so you now realize that yes, McCain get a majority of the votes at the convention and it might not be brokered?  Even for the sake of argument that McCain gets no votes from Romney or Huckabee delegates, McCain can still win a majority of the delegates' votes at the national convention on the first ballot avoiding a brokered convention.

You say, "Everyone - when a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates. What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the particular state at the national convention. We call these people convention delegates."
In straight primary states, the presidential contender recruits a slate of "delegate candidates" to compete with the slates of "delegate candidates" from his competitors. These names are filed with the state secretary of state/board of election and are part of the public record (in some states, the delegates' names are actually printed on the ballot). I am the one who recruited the initial slate for Dr. Paul in DC. Whoever wins the primary sends their slate of (now) delegates to the national nominating convention (there are no state conventions, etc., in these states).  Show my the RNC by-laws about your so-called "virtual delegates" please.

You say, "First off these results are good. Even though it seems as though Ron Paul is coming in last, the popular votes mean NOTHING. Most of these Super Tuesday states are winner take all. What that means is if ONE candidate wins with 51% of the votes then the delegates are legally bound to vote for that winner. If no one candidate takes 51% then it becomes a brokered convention. With there being three virtual frontrunners there is no chance of any of the candidates taking that required 51%. Let me repeat THERE IS NO CHANCE OF ANY ONE CANDIDATE TAKING 51%."

I say: 
Load of crap. The results were NOT good--they were the piss-poor results you'd expect from an official campaign staff that is almost totally incompetent; they are the weak link in the rEVOLution, stop deferring to them. The popular votes do mean something--in many states it is the ONLY thing that matters. The author confuses the rules for winner-take-all and bound--they are entirely separate. There is VERY MUCH a chance that McCain would get a majority of the delegates, yes.
This is one PM I got and will give you the opportunity to respond:
"Changing the Rules \ Suspending
Bradley,

You seem to be a sensible man.. and you're probably about to get banned for defeatist talk here...

These people that talk about changing the rules are confused. Suspending the Rules means suspending Robert's Rules of Order.. not suspending all the rules that exist on the docket.

They also talk of changing the rules and unbinding delegates at the state levels, yet all the state levels that have convention have rules specifically against adjusting the delegate's stature and status as bound at the convention.. those must be done BEFORE the convention by a meeting of the rules committees in most states.

These kids think they've found some kind of a loophole, and they're not nearly as smart as they think. It's frustrating watching people rely on this tactic, as it's going to fail.

I wish I could communicate to them that this is not going to work. That they can't cherry pick rules to their favor and ignore other rules that outright state "You cannot unbind national delegates at the state convention/county convention/etc."

How do you not just explode?"
You claim I'm confused about the five state rule to qualify to nominate someone at the convention.  Here is my post and explanation of that (which differs greatly from what you claim I say):

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
(since you're new here, Aravoth is a member that has done some INCREDIBLE YouTube videos and was an inside joke among our forum members).

----------


## MelissaWV

Good Afternoon!  I realize that my convention didn't happen, even though I was there.  Most states, after all, have not had them.  Someone has already pointed out two states which have, therefore it stands to reason that my state GOP Convention did not occur, despite being there with my husband as delegates and participating in the process.  I am sure I could have been online instead, doing something as important as posting up sock puppets in a "little" chatroom.

I have been in said chatroom since its inception.  Despite your paranoid assertions to the contrary, I have been in the chatroom I "stalked" you to since its inception as well.  I am friends with a large number of those people.  Lest your paranoia ebb, I am also friends with Bradley... or at very least my husband is.  The man is a saint, and helped us out when no one else would or could, by letting mdh stay with him an extra period of time when mdh's ride left him stranded in DC.  This was, of course, campaign-related... mdh has worked very hard to get the word out about the national campaign, and worked locally to try to make our state Paul-friendly.  Our county's results speak for themselves.  Bradley is a busy, busy man and he took time out to be courteous and compassionate -- because that's just how he is.

I do find irony in the pot-kettle-black taking place here.  I have a handful of posts on here, even fewer questions which I posed to you in chatrooms, and I have never claimed to be something I'm not.  I have not followed you, I have never once called you a scourge, ignorant, or any number of more colorful things.  I have stated time and time again that everyone's entitled to do what they will, and that I am not interested in going out of my way to try to pry change from the jaws of the past (as I am deluded and really do think I was at that Convention).  I am interested in working locally to get people elected who give a damn, and working within the system here on various projects.  I am not going to be "volunteering" in MN unless my husband ends up going for some reason.  We do not have the money to pack up and go to MN otherwise just to "be a part of it".  Your need to assert that mdh and I are delusional megalomaniacs who have nothing better to do than follow you across the internet needs some fact-checking of its own, and perhaps a mirror.

I am here because I am interested in Bradley's posts, and since you decided to drag ME into YOUR post (honestly... I'm flattered and all but please stop hitting on me) I am entitled to this response.  Yes, we get it: delegates.  I have been saying the same thing for months.  I should perhaps have gone under the title of Admiral so that people would listen.  I also, though, understand that you are a farce.  I saw the sock puppets myself, I saw you state you overdonated to the campaign (breaking the law is a great way to represent the campaign!), I saw you ply your oft-quoted "You are either part of the solution or part of the problem", and I saw the internet ignorant speaking in tongues and yelling "AMEN!" at the message.  Why?  Because the message is sound.  The messenger is suspect, though.

I suppose we could have a fake Ron Paul on, and spread the message, and that would be fine with some people.  Personally, I want the messenger to reflect the message, and not spread their disinformation and what's potentially some other agenda under the surface.  A former-DNC ear/nose/throat doctor from Florida who is now helping other states (but not his own --- FL is LOST! per the doctor?) from his base in Canada (he's on his way to Switzerland... has been for two weeks) via the internet, who feels so self-important he has to belittle anyone NOT taking part in his delegate rush?  

Keep spreading your message, but leave me out of it.  Find another tiniest violin to play for yourself.  You'll find in the longrun that people do want substance behind claims, not "trust me" or "I can't reveal that".

----------


## Liberty_is_NORML

Dr. Steve Parent,

People like you are one of the reasons that I don't hang out much here anymore.

I have just read this entire thread and I cannot make one coherent thought out of your posts.

I trust that you are neither:

A. A Doctor of any sort - if you are, remind me not to go to your graduate school.

or 

B. A parent.

Take your meds and do something productive for liberty.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I answered these questions on page 4 while addressing Bradley.


Steve, again, since you're new to the RPF, I should explain that referencing page numbers doesn't work here since users can define preferences differently (User CP at the top left of the navigation bar); ie., your page numbers are not my page numbers.

Again, I strongly urge you to put forth your arguments on the RPF Wiki (using the link at the top of the toolbar) to facilitate this type of discussion.  Rather than talking past each other, we could actually clarify our points.  I urge you to start it out of respect and suggest you suggest "rules(!)" for the wiki development (one of which might be we identify ourselves for our changes, if that concerns you).

In response to one of your first questions in the OP, I commented on a web page I believed to be yours correcting bad information.  My post was simply deleted with no changes made to the false info nor any further effort to contact me.  I took that as a clear sign.

Also, your disrespect of the work of the many people on our forum who have spent many hours working together co-operatively to learn the rules and get as many delegates as possible is probably not the best way to win over this audience.    Don't underestimate Bryan & Josh's superpowers.   *Please do check out the work we have been doing publicly informing everyone of the state-specific rules in our state subfora.*

----------


## ButchHowdy

> Dr. Steve Parent,
> 
> People like you are one of the reasons that I don't hang out much here anymore.
> 
> I have just read this entire thread and I cannot make one coherent thought out of your posts.
> 
> I trust that you are neither:
> 
> A. A Doctor of any sort - if you are, remind me not to go to your graduate school.
> ...


Actually, because of your presence Dr. Steve, I am returning for duty and look forward to reading all of your posts.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "Straight-Jacket" thing . . . I'm sure Bradley meant it affectionately!

----------


## orlandoinfl

It's shocking to see how vile people can be towards Steve. If you've talked to him on the phone or listened to his interviews, you'd see he is a very intelligent man. 

A man teaching Ron Paul supporters how to beat the MACHINE is nothing but good.

----------


## SteveMartin

...unless it precludes the only thing that will eventually work in THIS ELECTION cycle: An Independent run.

Some of you believe we have more cycles to save this country.  Others of us do not.

----------


## Bradley in DC

I took the liberty of starting a wiki on the thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...82#post1389282

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> This is where you should be looking : http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R.phtml


That's where I quoted those hard numbers from, so I'm not sure why you're linking that.  Ir also confirms what I've been saying, if you only want to go by the hard numbers, McCain has 582, but that 582 is 71% of the hard delegates alloted and exactly 0 delegates have been unbound at this point.

Can we PLEASE stop listening to "Dr." Steve Parent.  He makes delusional wishful statements and passes them off as fact.  He's hurting the movement more than helping it. 

Can we please focus on getting congressional candidates elected.  

Oh, and Steve you mention people keep linking your article about the brokered convention with the old wrong info and you can't stop it.  Why did then link the same article in your original post

----------


## ButchHowdy

> " . . . Can we PLEASE stop listening to "Dr." Steve Parent.  He makes delusional wishful statements and passes them off as fact.  He's hurting the movement more than helping it. . . ."


Unlike your interference, of course . . .

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I never said any such thing and that link was refering to a spread sheet that appears someone made up without hard data which is why i will not use anything like that until it is confirmed and the greenpapers numbers i have confirmed. 
> 
> Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?
> 
> California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.
> 
> I have no time to bicker with you young man if you want to challange my information bring us facts to dispute my claims instead of doing exaclty what others have done which is say your wrong without 1 fact to back it up.


California's convention is after the GOP convention.  The delegates are not chosen at California's state convention.  Illinois is a loophole primary.  All but I believe 10 have been chosen, and the other 10 to be decided at the convention.

These are facts.

- A Young Man

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> It's shocking to see how vile people can be towards Steve. If you've talked to him on the phone or listened to his interviews, you'd see he is a very intelligent man. 
> 
> A man teaching Ron Paul supporters how to beat the MACHINE is nothing but good.


It's not shocking when you read this thread.  Bradley and I have torn Steve to shreds and his answers are rather weak.

My problem with Steve is not him trying to get people involved and to become a delegate.  

My problem is when he writes things like.

Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention – there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?

Even if this was wrote before any primaries it's a joke.  It's a wishful statement passed off as a fact.  Or

The bottom line is, less than 1/2 of the delegates are bound by state party rules.

Wrong, this number is between 75-80%.  Or

Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.
Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.


At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary.  AL, TN, IL.  There are other states which the candidates picks his delegates and the can only be overturned by the state committee, which we assuredly don't have control of.  Or

The plan needs to be for 2 or 3 states to unbind their delegates and then it wont matter

2 or 3 states, seriously?  There are 10 states left and hundreds of unallocated delegates with McCain already at 1200 and he thinks unbinding 2 or 3 states and then it won't matter.  DELUSIONAL RANT.  All of these scenarios assume that magically ALL of the delegates not going to McCain right now won't go to McCain.  IMO, this couldn't be further from the truth.  Every delegate we don't get, McCain will, including most of the Romney and Huck delegates.  These people will most likely be party hacks and the party hacks will go to McCain.    

Are you starting to see a pattern here.  Dr. Steve isn't the all knowing delegate authority he and others thinks he is.  Not even close.  I think people listen to him because he's super optimistic and they are in denial that Ron Paul won't be President.  Ron Paul is my hero and favorite politician of all time, and yet, I can say with 100% certainty, that RP will not be President or the GOP nominee for President in 2008.  Sorry folks, its the truth

Please focus on Congressional candidates.  Any time spent on this is time not spent on them.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> It's not shocking when you read this thread.  Bradley and I have torn Steve to shreds and his answers are rather weak.
> 
> My problem with Steve is not him trying to get people involved and to become a delegate.  
> 
> My problem is when he writes things like.
> 
> Normally, Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we would have a clear winner if someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention  there is no way around it. Do you see how the Ron Paul campaign strategy will work?
> 
> Even if this was wrote before any primaries it's a joke.  It's a wishful statement passed off as a fact.  Or
> ...


Don't be such a defeatist.  Your rants are damaging the movement.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?


Steve, as I've explained many times and you still don't understand, in primary states (not "primary + something else) it is the primary and only the primary that decides the (elected) delegates to the national convention.  Dr. Paul gave the California Secretary of State his slate of "delegate candidates" to represent him if he had won a plurality in a Congressional District or statewide (we did not).  McCain similarly sent in a list of HIS OWN "DELEGATE CANDIDATES" to represent him.  In those CDs and AL where he won, those people (real people, not your make believe "virtual ones") who were his "delegate candidates" are now "delegates" to the national convention.  All of the (elected) delegates are bound.  There is nothing you can do to release them.  These rules are similar to those in NY, DC, OH, etc.  The processes there are finished, it's over, we lost, the official campaign got us zilch.  

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/uploads/pdf/125.pdf

CALIFORNIA 2008 

Numbers 
173 Total Delegates 
• 3 RNC, 159 CD and 11 AL 
Important Dates 
Delegate list submitted to SOS: 1/07/08 
Primary: 2/05/08 
State Convention: 2/22/08 – 2/24/08 
Alternate list submitted to SOS: 3/06/08 
Selection Method 
Primary 

Delegates Bound for 2 ballots 

o 170 Bound 

o 3 Unbound 
Selection Details 
AL – Delegate allocation:  Statewide winner- 
take-all. 
          Delegate election:  Presidential candidates 
file a slate of AL delegates prior to 
primary. 

CD – Delegate allocation:  CD winner-take-all. 
          Delegate election:  Presidential candidates 
file a slate of CD delegates prior to 
primary.

We did not get the ten percent threshold to qualify for any delegates in NH.  Zip.  Nada.  Your characterizing those results favorably and as part of an official campaign strategy that is working is delusional, if that's what you really believe and weren't just lying to do some artificial cheerleading you thought would be helpful.  Giving out false information has dashed many peoples' hopes and hurt the campaign.

The information on Anson's site you like to promote (and I think authored in large part) has done great harm to our effort to get Dr. Paul delegates to the national convention:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...5&postcount=20

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...3&postcount=30

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...23&postcount=8

and others...

----------


## cjhowe

Out of curiosity, is anyone discussing this thread a delegate to a convention that has yet to of taken place or in a state where they are still eligible to be a delegate for the 2008 cycle (mass meeting has yet to of occurred)?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Out of curiosity, is anyone discussing this thread a delegate to a convention that has yet to of taken place or in a state where they are still eligible to be a delegate for the 2008 cycle (mass meeting has yet to of occurred)?


I was a "delegate candidate" for Dr. Paul in DC on his slate.  We have a winner-take-all primary in DC (which weirdly even binds the three unelected delegates).  McCain got the whole kielbasa.

I was also a "delegate candidate" for Steve Forbes in 1996 for Ohio (CD-1) and worked on both his campaigns there in 1996 and 2000 with the task of ballot petitioning and delegate candidate selection, etc.  This wasn't my first time around this block.  I've been to a few Republican national conventions too (as a guest, never as a delegate since the good guys never won).

----------


## Drsteveparent

What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement. 

I also see that you make suggestions based on things i have never climed to be 100% in any way what so ever and instead of focusing all your energy in to getting people involved in the party and changing the platform you decide to use the same tactics the neo cons use which is to discourage people to even try. 

IT'S OVER - HE CAN'T WIN - WE NEED 3RD PARTY. 

I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time. 

We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame. 

Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined. 

You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement. 

I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed? 

The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU. 

Bradley you keep giving people the discouragment that they are helpless and you should be admired for that. 

Go ahead and supprt this 3rd party crap and waste your money supporting a lost cause instead of getting involved and changing the party from the inside out. 

No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have. 

I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined. 

Good luck all you will surely need it.

----------


## constituent

> The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU. 
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have. 
> 
> I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined. 
> 
> Good luck all you will surely need it.



your attitude is all wrong here.  "the american people"  what a collectivist maroon, and to think, i _was_ trying to hear you out.

let me be the first to say,


GOOD RIDDANCE (it's a shame it's come to this).

----------


## smartguy911

> Dr. Steve Parent,
> 
> People like you are one of the reasons that I don't hang out much here anymore.
> 
> I have just read this entire thread and I cannot make one coherent thought out of your posts.
> 
> I trust that you are neither:
> 
> A. A Doctor of any sort - if you are, remind me not to go to your graduate school.
> ...


I still have no idea what kind of degree he got.  Doctor of what??

----------


## Sandra

Drsteveparent, Bradley is on a great deal of ignore lists so a bunch of us don't understand your rant about him. Quite frankly the reason for it is he believes he is th END ALL of any political discussion. Most of us just ignore him and you should too.

----------


## mdh

> Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined.


Really?  I've known quite a few LP candidates personally who have been elected to local and even state offices.  




> You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement.


$10 says he posts again shortly, possibly under some other pseudonym.  Mods can verify this by IP.  




> I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed?


How does giving people incorrect information help them become involved?  If anything, it leads to time wasted and people even more discouraged.  Assuming your motives are 100% altruistic in nature, you really stink at fact-checking your information, which makes you as untrustworthy as if you were here on some mission from the DNC to disrupt the GOP political process and make the one Republican who could beat Hillary or Obama look even worse in the eyes of the common man.  




> The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.


And here we are with the ad hom attacks that got you booed out of the rpiradio.com chat.  




> No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have.


Spoken like someone who truly lacks the insight to understand the failings in this campaign.  I'm glad I have that insight and was involved at the level that I have been, though, as the lessons learned here will last me a life time as I work to promote freedom long beyond this election cycle.  




> I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined.


I've never seen any proof that you were involved in the DNC.  Furthermore, please explain how your thousands were spent that you "lost".  Also, any proof, even just links to official DNC websites, where we can verify your involvement would set that issue to rest.  A web search for "Steve Parent" only turns up someone murdered by Charlie Manson and an AG Gonzalez aid involved in some scandals.  

Oh, and for the record, claiming (threatening?) that Bradley will soon be banned here is just hilarious.  I truly laughed at that one.

----------


## mdh

> Drsteveparent, Bradley is on a great deal of ignore lists so a bunch of us don't understand your rant about him. Quite frankly the reason for it is he believes he is th END ALL of any political discussion. Most of us just ignore him and you should too.


Hello!  I don't believe we've been introduced, Sandra.  I see you've been appointed spokersperson for "a great deal" of people, and just wanted to congratulate you on that position.

----------


## Sandra

I've been posting since  July, Who the hell are you?

----------


## MelissaWV

The trouble here isn't Bradley, nor anyone's particular opinion of him.  The trouble is the facts do not add up, and when one questions DrSteve one does not receive a verifiable response.  There are many responses along the lines of "trust me" and "I can't reveal the sources for that".  Beyond this, he seems to use any venue he can find to alternately play martyr, then parade himself around as the same thing you believe Bradley to be.

"You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution!"  Is that not a Bush-worthy sentiment?  All sorts of people have had "solutions" they thought were the ONLY one throughout history.  There's no monopoly on knowing what's best, though, so no one on this entire, exhaustive thread has the ultimate answers (because our situations are all unique!).  

And yes, name-calling breeds resentment.  Being condescending to the "masses" one is trying to educate seems a silly way to go about achieving a goal.  Somehow this guy has done everything: doctor, musician, DNC administrative position, party insider... but he hasn't learned to communicate his points succintly.  I haven't learned either, but then again I'm no guru!  I am just a simple person engaged in this process, and I don't need leading, I don't need coddling, I don't need preaching to by some expert.  I think there's far too much of that going on, but it's up to the people preaching and those who do need the hand-holding to decide that.  It's its own market   I do wish the information were correct, and I don't understand the hostility.

I do suspect, also, that we haven't heard the last of Doctor Steve, but peace be with you doc!  Florida misses you: please come home from Canada sometime in the next few months.  Patients don't like having to wait that long to see their doctor

----------


## mdh

> I've been posting since  July, Who the hell are you?


As you can see from my user info box, I've been posting since May.  

If you're genuinely curious, I'm one of the original grassroots organizers in the state of West Virginia, founder of a number of projects, chairman of a PAC which supports Ron Paul, director of rpiradio.com, participant in Operation Live Free or Die, currently running the northern WV Ron Paul HQ out of my house, and... well, the list goes on and on.

----------


## Sandra

Mods, can you please investigate these new posters that are "so in the know" please. They are popping up everywhere today and are probably second ID's.

----------


## Sandra

Heven't seen you post here before.

----------


## MelissaWV

He has 800 more posts than you and he's a new poster?

As for me I'm mdh's wife.  I have said so, never claimed to be otherwise, and have posted here previously.  I'm not sure how that's "new" either.  I just keep quiet until I wish to speak

----------


## Banana

and here I hoped that we would come to reconciliation.... guess it's not as fun as name calling and pissing contests, silly ol' me. 


I guess the best thing we can is not to get too distracted and do our homework for our state and work to get our people elected as a delegate, pass resolutions, and bringing attention to everyone else the fact that they are about to give a criminal the nomination.

----------


## mdh

> Heven't seen you post here before.


That's largely irrelevant.  I do notice that I have signifigantly more posts than you do, for whatever that's worth.  As far as mods go, I've met Josh and Cowlesy in person, and spoken to Bryan a bunch of times as well.  All three of them are great folks.  I've also met Bradley in person and he's one of the greatest assets this community has.  His political knowledge and experience are a tremendous resource to us, and his credentials can easily be backed up, unlike some others around here...

----------


## Sandra

> That's largely irrelevant.  I do notice that I have almost twice as many posts as you do.  As far as mods go, I've met Josh and Cowlesy in person, and spoken to Bryan a bunch of times as well.  All three of them are great folks.  I've also met Bradley in person and he's one of the greatest assets this community has.  His political knowledge and experience are a tremendous resource to us, and his credentials can easily be backed up, unlike some others around here...


And how is THAT relevant?

----------


## Sandra

Have you posted by another ID? You can change ID and keep posting counts on some forums.

----------


## mdh

> And how is THAT relevant?


In my opinion, someone with tremendous real-world political knowledge and experience who is willing to share that with our community is a great asset to us, and that fact is absolutely relevant.  Furthermore, I feel that the fact that his information can be checked and proven correct, and that his credentials can be backed up with facts and not just bold claims by himself and others who originate from his same IP address is also very much relevant in the context of this campaign.  

Would you dispute either of those assertions?

----------


## mdh

> Have you posted by another ID? You can change ID and keep posting counts on some forums.


No.  Neither my userid nor my avatar image (the orly owl) have changed since I signed up in May, shortly after this forum was first created.

----------


## Sandra

> *In my opinion*, someone with tremendous real-world political knowledge and experience who is willing to share that with our community is a great asset to us, and that fact is absolutely relevant.  *Furthermore, I feel that* the fact that his information can be checked and proven correct, and that his credentials can be backed up with facts and not just bold claims by himself and others who originate from his same IP address is also very much relevant in the context of this campaign.  
> 
> Would you dispute either of those assertions?


Yes, I put them in bold text. I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement...
> 
> I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time. 
> 
> We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame...
> 
> You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement. 
> 
> I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed? ...
> ...


Steve, I am questioning your truthfulness or at least grasp of the facts.  I am giving people the right information as best I can so that we can win the maximum number of delegates possible--and encouragement for the upcoming contests.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018

This campaign did poorly not because of any posts on some forum but by the failures of the official campaign staff.  

Here was my post on a Barr third party thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...27&postcount=3




> I've not been shy that I know and have worked with Barr and greatly appreciate all of his hard work defending our rights and liberties through many fights.
> 
> That said, people, it's APRIL!  First things, first, and keep some perspective.  Right now on the calendar there are lots of contests with Dr. Paul still competing.  At this point, no, we're not likely to get the nomination, so why bother right?  Well, for one, delegates contests often affect local parties and they determine the party platform, etc. 
> 
> More importantly, the caveat "at this point" is BEFORE the true McCain comes to light.  IMHO, this man is not personally qualified to be president (yes, he's a natural born citizen, I don't really care about the FEC which we shouldn't even have...).  He is not qualified because of his own, um, "mercurial" personality.


You have NOT answered the questions put to you.  Please take a look at the wiki I started in your honor.  If you were truly interested in clarifying the rules--and were in fact knowledgeable of them, you would work together with the rest of us to win.

----------


## mdh

> Yes, I put them in bold text.


You dispute that it is my opinion?  Well, on that count I can assure you that I genuinely hold that opinion!  

As far as originating from the same IP address, it was proven both on the rpiradio.com chat and here on the forums that "Dr Steve" and several other pseudonyms have been used by the same IP address despite denial by the individual using that IP address in several instances that that was the case.  




> I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.


Way to resort to ad hom attacks.  Typical, though, I suppose I should have expected it.  As far as being Bradley, you can ask any number of folks who have met both Bradley and I in person, including several moderators/admins of ronpaulforums.com.

----------


## Sandra

Your last post confirms my suspicions. All because you KNOW the mods doesn't prove acceptance of you posts.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Oh, and for the record, claiming (threatening?) that Bradley will soon be banned here is just hilarious.  I truly laughed at that one.


Wait, what?  I missed that one.  Details, please.

----------


## milly

O'rly?

----------


## mdh

> Your last post confirms my suspicions. All because you KNOW the mods doesn't prove acceptance of you posts.


Confirms your suspicions of what?  That I am Bradley?  I think he might dispute that too... 

This is silly, and you still haven't responded to what assertions you would question.  It seems like you're only questioning whether or not something is my opinion and I am and can be the only authority on the facts as to what opinions I do or do not hold.

----------


## MelissaWV

You have all proven to me that you are the one-armed man.  Anyone remember that guy we're trying to elect?  The one up there ^^^ in that picture?  Work locally and ignore people who feel "you're doing it wrong".  Seek advice from reasonable sources.  And for pity's sake stop using forums to leap to conclusions about personal lives.  If you stand on the facts, you'll have less room to walk on but you're unlikely to fall over.

Have a good night and a better morning.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Only 2 states have elected state delegates thus far we have a long way to go.
> 
> Most states have not even had a convention nor even a primary yet.


Steve, this is just delusional crazy talk if you really believe it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...82#post1389282





> Bradley responds: 
> State laws do govern part of the delegate process, yes.  Some states bind their delegates until they are release by the candidate no matter what votes you imagine.  
> 
> These states chose their (elected) national convention delegates exclusively by primary: AL (45 bound), CA (149 bound), CT (27 bound), DC (all 19 bound--elected and RNC), OH (85 "morally bound" but chosen by McCain: "Candidates submit a proposed slate of delegates who are directly elected on the ballot."), RI (17 bound: Delegates directly elected on the ballot, in proportion to the number of delegates each candidate receives"), and TN (mixed system: 52 bound, 40 of which "Directly elected on primary ballot" and 12 "elected by State Executive Committee").  Without double checking, I'm pretty sure we don't have any RP national convention delegates in any of these states.  There is no opportunity for a "stealth" strategy.  Game over here, move along, nothing more to see.
> 
> These states, I think, are finished:  AS (9 unbound, all McCain), Guam (9unbound, all McCain), NH (12 bound, all for others, Dr. Paul did not meet minimum vote threshold), NY (110 bound, "Delegates Effectively Bound: selected either by or in coordination with the winning candidate"),  [leaving for others to fill in]
> 
> Some states are just bizarre to me, such as FL.
> 
> Steve, you make the claim that most of McCain's delegates are really Ron Paul supporters who will vote for him once they are unbound.  Now, given the facts, your claim makes you come across as delusional, yes.

----------


## mdh

> Wait, what? I missed that one. Details, please.





> This is one PM I got and will give you the opportunity to respond:
> "Changing the Rules \ Suspending
> Bradley,
> 
> You seem to be a sensible man.. *and you're probably about to get banned for defeatist talk here...*
> 
> These people that talk about changing the rules are confused. Suspending the Rules means suspending Robert's Rules of Order.. not suspending all the rules that exist on the docket.
> 
> They also talk of changing the rules and unbinding delegates at the state levels, yet all the state levels that have convention have rules specifically against adjusting the delegate's stature and status as bound at the convention.. those must be done BEFORE the convention by a meeting of the rules committees in most states.
> ...


The bold is what I was referencing...

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement.


This board is fractured in whether or not to support Bob Barr, yet, that has nothing to do with this thread, so I don't know where you're going with that.  




> I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time.


This is code for:  I have no clue what I'm talking about, so I'm going to stay quiet so I don't make myself look stupid.




> We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame.


Is it that bad to have a defeatist attitude when you've been defeated?  I call that being realistic.  On the flip side a majority of people here are in denial. 




> Here is some reality before i am put in a straight jacket - 3rd parties CAN NOT WIN because of the way the system is set up and if you people have not figured that out yet you need to have your heads examined.


I agree here although a multi-billionaire could run a credible third party campaign.  Again, a third party run is not the issue here, so i'm not sure why you're bringing that up.




> You do not have to worry i won't be back here to as some of said destroying the movement. 
> I didn't know getting people involved in local politics and teaching them how to fight back was how things are destroyed?


Thank God.  Maybe people will see your abysmal performance in this thread and stop believing the jibberish you spew.




> The american people are LAZY and that is why america has failed and why the Government has taken control of your money and your lives but you are either too lazy of too stupid to figure it out and for those of you that have figured it out GOOD FOR YOU.


Pretty sure 99% of RP supporters realize this, otherwise they probably wouldn't support him. 




> No wonder this campaign has done so terrible because most of you have no clue how the system works and will just allow things to keep going as they have. 
> 
> I left my party and spent thousands to help this type of attitude i should have my head examined. 
> 
> Good luck all you will surely need it.


Steve, it appears you have no clue how the system works.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Yes, I put them in bold text. I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.


Wait, Sandra, what?  (if you don't have me on ignore)  

No, I have never had any other screenname here.

MDH was a tech guy extraordinaire  when we broadcast the Republican presidential debate in Baltimore over RPR.com (I was one of the broadcasters who interviewed Dr. Paul, Carol, Lew Moore, some grandchildren of Dr. Paul, other staffers and others).  

I have made an effort to meet and promote and encourage RP supporters when they're in DC (yes, including having MDH, among others, crash on my couch, etc.) and when traveling (including from a wonderful lunch with Rev9 in Atlanta last month to speaking at fundraisers for RP to meeting the NY Meetup last summer).  

Oh, and Sandra, regarding your efforts in LA, how is asking questions trying to understand a sign of my thinking I know it all (your state's politics still confuses me).

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> The bold is what I was referencing...


I think that was a joke.  Previously people would get attacked, including Bradley and myself, when questioning the all-knowing delegate authority Dr. Steve Parent.  Hopefully after this thread that changes.  I believe the person who wrote the PM was on Bradley's side and was alluding to the fact that he got attacked on these forums even though he was right

----------


## Bradley in DC

> The bold is what I was referencing...


Ah, got it.  No, sorry about that.  That was a PM to me from someone frustrated with Steve's supporters shouting down the others of us correcting his misinformation.  I think (!) it was meant to be sarcastic.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Wait, Sandra, what?  (if you don't have me on ignore)  
> 
> No, I have never had any other screenname here.
> 
> MDH was a tech guy extraordinaire  when we broadcast the Republican presidential debate in Baltimore over RPR.com (I was one of the broadcasters who interviewed Dr. Paul, Carol, Lew Moore, some grandchildren of Dr. Paul, other staffers and others).  
> 
> I have made an effort to meet and promote and encourage RP supporters when they're in DC (yes, including having MDH, among others, crash on my couch, etc.) and when traveling (including from a wonderful lunch with Rev9 in Atlanta last month to speaking at fundraisers for RP to meeting the NY Meetup last summer).  
> 
> Oh, and Sandra, regarding your efforts in LA, how is asking questions trying to understand a sign of my thinking I know it all (your state's politics still confuses me).


Bradley, it is not worth trying to reconcile.  Their opinion of you is cast, despite the work you've done for the campaign.

The questions will continue to go unanswered from either SGP or his associates, because they have no answers.  When the facts are stacked against them, there is simply no recourse other than to resort to ad hominem attacks or other inflammatory remarks.

----------


## mdh

> Oh, and Sandra, regarding your efforts in LA, how is asking questions trying to understand a sign of my thinking I know it all (your state's politics still confuses me).


I think I'll take a moment here to go off on a tangent about LA politics... Their former GOP governor, Buddy Roemer, was sent to the WV convention to speak on behalf of McCain and was downright obnoxious.  Every other candidate in the race at the time (Paul, Huckabee, Romney) spoke for themselves, while McCain had this guy speak on his behalf who made a total schmuck of himself.  That's my only personal knowledge of LA politics....

----------


## mdh

> Bradley, it is not worth trying to reconcile.  Their opinion of you is cast, despite the work you've done for the campaign.
> 
> The questions will continue to go unanswered from either SGP or his associates, because they have no answers.  When the facts are stacked against them, there is simply no recourse other than to resort to ad hominem attacks or other inflammatory remarks.


You'll note that Sandra dropped an ad hom attack and then ceased posting on this thread despite my request for clarification of which assertions of mine they were questioning.

----------


## milly

yea mdh...Buddy Roemer was so incoherent I felt sad for him...

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

What ad hominem? I didn't see any from Sandra.

----------


## mdh

> What ad hominem? I didn't see any from Sandra.





> I also believe you're still in Jr. High. or Bradley.


...

----------


## Bradley in DC

> He still needs 1191 hard delegates to be assured the nomination 1191 is the magic number unless we can unbind in a few states such as MO and TX then that changes everything.


*Steve,

No.  You are just factually wrong here on both counts.  No nominee needs 1191 "hard" delegates (that is not even a term, so I'll give you the benefit of the newbie doubt and think you mean "bound" but even with that benefit of the doubt, you are still simply factually wrong).  

McCain (or any nominee) can win the nomination on the first ballot from a majority of any combination of delegates bound or unbound, elected or unelected.  

According to the call of the convention you like to claim you understand, it is TOO LATE by a long shot to change the rules binding delegates.  The rules had to be finalized before September last year.  Changing them now would result in that state losing delegates to the national convention (according to those same by-laws):


Rule No. 15 Election of Delegates and Alternate Delegates 
(11) No delegates or alternate delegates shall be selected pursuant to any 
Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of 
selecting delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state party holds a 
presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a 
presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates to the national convention if such changes 
were adopted or made effective after the first Tuesday in September of the year before the 
year in which the national convention is to be held.
No matter how many times you repeat your canard, it is still a load of crap.*

----------


## Sandra

I can't even posture for an ad hominem attack when you were only asserting what you yourself said were your "opinions".

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I can't even posture for an ad hominem attack when you were only asserting what you yourself said were your "opinions".


You accused him of being in Junior High or being a sock puppet of Bradley.  If that doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack, I don't know what does.

----------


## Sandra

Ad hominem refers to an attack or reference of personal character when debating facts. Only opinions were asserted on both sides. Google it.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> ...


Oh, you're not? I thought RP was bringing out the young people haha

----------


## Cowlesy

Okay.

Steve Parent--- I don't question that you are a Ron Paul supporter, and trying to do your part to help people understand the delegate process.

That being said, when I listened to you on RPI Radio, you mentioned you were in Florida, and when asked about the process in Florida, you completely sidestepped the question.  It's kind of hard to proclaim you're teaching people the delegate process, when you can't explain your own state even when asked on-point.

Further, I went ahead and checked IP's.  You are showing up as originating in Canada.  One of your other biggest fans has an IP showing up in the south of Spain, and the other 3 ardent Steve Parent'rs are all located in a region area right around central Florida.

This in itself proves nothing, but is very suspicious, and frankly I've met mdh and Bradley, and they're very authentic.  Brad has spent a considerable amount of time not just participating in U.S. politics, but a great deal of energy helping those of us who are newcomers (he even traveled to NYC to help our Meetup group).  I've been reading your replies, and you just aren't coming close to refuting anything Brad has to say.

Steve, we're glad you're a Ron Paul supporter. But before you wish people to consider you a credible expert on the delegate process, at least here on Ron Paul Forums, you're going to have provide a lot of clarifications of your background and be able to refute a lot of folks who've done their homework to gain credibility on here.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Ad hominem refers to an attack or reference of personal character when debating facts. Only opinions were asserted on both sides. Google it.


If you are referring to me.  I am offering facts, naming states, naming rules, posting fuller explanations on the wiki I started to debate the facts, posting links, etc.  But yes, I have opinions too.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Ad hominem refers to an attack or reference of personal character when debating facts. Only opinions were asserted on both sides. Google it.


I'm rather sure that rather than addressing the issue at hand, you attacked him instead.  

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

----------


## Sandra

Cowlesy, Bradley has given us lousey advise as well in spite of you being aquainted with him.

----------


## mdh

I said...




> That's largely irrelevant.  I do notice that I have signifigantly more posts than you do, for whatever that's worth.  As far as mods go, I've met Josh and Cowlesy in person, and spoken to Bryan a bunch of times as well.  All three of them are great folks.  I've also met Bradley in person and he's one of the greatest assets this community has.  His political knowledge and experience are a tremendous resource to us, and his credentials can easily be backed up, unlike some others around here...


To which Sandra responded...




> And how is THAT relevant?


My opinions were stated in attempt to discern what Sandra was questioning the relevance of only, as their reply was unclear as to what they were referring to.  I should note that it was never made clear what Sandra was questioning the relevance of.  _My original post, quoted above, states facts._

----------


## Sandra

> Hello!  I don't believe we've been introduced, Sandra.  I see you've been appointed spokersperson for "a great deal" of people, and just wanted to congratulate you on that position.


Apparently you missed his post. Instead he steps in as spokesperson.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Cowlesy, Bradley has given us lousey advise as well in spite of you being aquainted with him.


Sandra,

Sorry for interrupting, but at the risk of returning to the thread and in deference of Steve, is there anything here in this thread I posted refuting him which is factually incorrect?

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Apparently you missed his post.


You came in to this thread and began, right off the bat, to verbally attack Bradley in the name of the masses.  I think his response was entirely called for.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Cowlesy, Bradley has given us lousey advise as well in spite of you being aquainted with him.


Where is the lousy advice?

----------


## Sandra

This really is turning into a pissing contests among so called experts, all of which have a whole lot to learn.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Sandra,
> 
> Sorry for interrupting, but at the risk of returning to the thread and in deference of Steve, is there anything here in this thread I posted refuting him which is factually incorrect?


Are you a lobbyist?

----------


## Sandra

> Where is the lousy advice?



Now we can start a thread with that one!

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Where is the lousy advice?


Not being able to produce evidence seems to be a recurring phenomenon in this thread.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Now we can start a thread with that one!


Thanks for answering my question.

----------


## mdh

> Apparently you missed his post.


That post was in response to your post which stated as fact that "a great deal of people" had added Bradley to their ignore lists, and that "Dr Steve" may wish to do so as well.  I felt you took great liberties in speaking for "a great deal of people", so I called you out on it.  People who speak for others (our politicians speak for us all the time...) very frequently do so because they don't believe people will agree with them when given the opportunity to speak for themselves, and they are afraid of having other or even opposing viewpoints put to the public.  Another reason that people often speak for others is that they wish to give credibility to untrue statements.  

I'd also note that not a single other person has come forward stating that they have Bradley on their ignore list, which further calls into question Sandra's original assertion.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Are you a lobbyist?


Is that meant as an ad hominem attack?  

No, I'm not.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Not being able to produce evidence seems to be a recurring phenomenon in this thread.


Hey!  One side of this debate--the debate on the OP topic at least--are producing evidence.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Hey!  One side of this debate--the debate on the OP topic at least--are producing evidence.


Hey, I got your back, don't worry.  

Still no response as to how we can unbind CA's delegates when their state convention is after the national convention!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Hey, I got your back, don't worry.


Duly noted.  Thanks.





> Still no response as to how we can unbind CA's delegates when their state convention is after the national convention!


It's even more comical than that:  the state convention has NO ROLE in choosing the national convention delegates anyway!

----------


## LibertyIn08

> It's even more comical than that:  the state convention has NO ROLE in choosing the national convention delegates anyway!


Well, I tried telling that to SGP both here and at Daily Paul, but still have not gotten a response, other than an attack on my intellectual capabilities (which perhaps are lacking, but such a discussion does not pertain to the issue at hand).

I just got frustrated after having to tell multiple people in my district that their chances of being delegates in Illinois were slim-to-none, despite the fact that SGP  had told them it was a sure-fire thing.  Their website did not explain the loophole process, and many are expecting to go to the convention with the thoughts of us controlling the full slate.

Sadly, it cannot happen.

----------


## Bradley in DC

Posted at 5.23 pm 



> If you knew what i go through on a daily basis you would know my skin is thick and they will never drive me away. 
> 
> It is very hard to defeat the truth although trouble makers are usually very easy to discredit for these people combine nouns and verbs to illicit prescribed responses which are irelivent to an intellegent mind. 
> 
> I get frustrated sometimes but i will be going nowhere i assure you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve



Posted at 5.59 pm, next day




> What is amazing here is all i see from most are people that want to support a 3rd party run and people that support Bob Barr that is not even close to be someone Ron Paul would ever support but yet many have mad him the saint of the movement. 
> 
> I also see that you make suggestions based on things i have never climed to be 100% in any way what so ever and instead of focusing all your energy in to getting people involved in the party and changing the platform you decide to use the same tactics the neo cons use which is to discourage people to even try. 
> 
> IT'S OVER - HE CAN'T WIN - WE NEED 3RD PARTY. 
> 
> I had written in detail the answers to everyone questions but i can see this is a waste of time. 
> 
> We have 12 states that haven't even had a primary and you people sit here and complain about 3rd party runs. What a bunch of defeatest attitudes here what a shame. 
> ...


So the moral is that you cannot defend your canard so you are taking your marbles and going home?

Steve, I genuinely hope you cool off and return.  However, as a former Democrat, you seem to be falling into a common problem they have of confusing the importance of "intentions" with reality.  Because I point out reality (official campaign incompetence, the factual errors of your posts, etc.), you have to question my intentions.  When the reality of my good intentions (and good facts) are defended here, you can't take it.  

As I've pointed out in this thread and the stickied one, now is the time for us to roll up our sleeves because we have work to do electing more RP delegates.  We can only do that by facing hard-headed reality and working with good information.  Trying to twist reality to fit intentions doesn't work.

----------


## Roxi

good grief this thread has gone in so many directions...


I would only like to comment on the identity of both mdh and melissa.... mdh's real name is Matt and he came to NH for Operation Live Free Or Die. He stayed several weeks in the Hampton house with a group of about 16 people, a few of them are on this forum and could verify that as well. He was also one of the original guys who started Ron Paul Radio and has stated only the facts in his post. I also know melissa is his wife and she also came to NH for OLFD which although i coordinated her arrival i can't remember if she stayed in the london derry house or franks house, but i know she took video of the ron paul igloo/fort that was made there...

anyway i have some pictures of him in NH on my blog im sure which is in my signature below but im sure several hundred people on this forum can verify my identity and that i was the volunteer coordinator in NH for OLFD for 2 months

thats all thanks....

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

How can a question be an ad hominem attack? I was told that virtually every resident of DC is apart of the corruption.

Stop picking on Sandra.

----------


## mdh

> How can a question be an ad hominem attack? I was told that virtually every resident of DC is apart of the corruption.
> 
> Stop picking on Sandra.


Sandra started picking on others, including my friends and then me when I defended them.  _"I don't start fights, I just end 'em."_

----------


## Bradley in DC

> How can a question be an ad hominem attack? I was told that virtually every resident of DC is apart of the corruption.
> 
> Stop picking on Sandra.


I have never picked on Sandra.  And the purpose of this thread is to see whether one should believe Steve or his detractors--one can't believe everything one is told.  If anything, Steve started it to pick on me, as the title and OP should suggest clearly.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> One more thing to add for now.  Dr. Steve, can you prove this statement
> 
> Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts  which is delegates.
> 
> I'm going to guess you can't, because I don't think it's even close to being the truth, and yet you state it like it's pure fact.
> 
> Also, since I posted my criticism of you, you've replied four times in this thread, yet you have failed to reply to my post, any reason for this?


Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Steve, I am questioning your truthfulness or at least grasp of the facts.  I am giving people the right information as best I can so that we can win the maximum number of delegates possible--and encouragement for the upcoming contests.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018
> 
> This campaign did poorly not because of any posts on some forum but by the failures of the official campaign staff.  
> 
> Here was my post on a Barr third party thread:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...27&postcount=3
> ...


The truth is in me telling meetup gropus via phone that each state is different and they must obtain their bylaws and party rule before they try to do anything except register to become a delegate and if i had to write all of this out it will takes months. Perhaps you should just listen to my radio interviews and mdh and melissa should have them for 1 interview was done on their station and in fact after i finished JOEMAC the host of the show QUIT because of their attitudes. You are asking me to spell out in extreme deatil for the people that have not had their meetup group address me directly and i do not have the time to speak to people one on one. 

I have given no one incorrect information only advised them after we researched their state and i even told people from CA, NY, and FL do not put much hope in their process because of how it is fixed and i would of told them that in DC but no one from DC ever contacted me but i assure you when we research their states they know exaclty what they can and can't do. 

You are asking me to write an article on every state and county which will take months and if you have noticed we have very little time to even register to become delegates.

I thought the grassroots were most of the campaign from what i have seen as far as the Ron Paul campign staff i think we are all in agreement on how they did.

You think Bob Barr is a great guy? Have you looked at his voting record?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Hey, I got your back, don't worry.  
> 
> Still no response as to how we can unbind CA's delegates when their state convention is after the national convention!


When did i ever suggest that CA would have success in unbinding anything?  Or any other state for that matter for all i have stated is that if we have the numbers we control the conventions.


That is the problem Alexander this info can be twisted 16 different ways but when i have i hour or more to explain to meetup groups after our research of their state i and they are very clear on what they can and can't do.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> I have never picked on Sandra.  And the purpose of this thread is to see whether one should believe Steve or his detractors--one can't believe everything one is told.  If anything, Steve started it to pick on me, as the title and OP should suggest clearly.


Bradley when you make public attempts to make people think i am insane and need a straight jacket you deserve to picked on. 

I believe i have made everything clear and maybe you people should ask the folks from. 

WA, MO, NV, OK, TX, and any other state that i have addressed personally and ask them if the information and education i gave them helped them to succeed in their conventions. 

I am sure you would be suprised. 

Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.

----------


## Drsteveparent

For any of you that have not figured it out my article was written before super tuesday and had it not been for that article most would not have become delegates and we would of had no shot at this nomination. 

This is why the article changes after every caucus and primary and it will continue to change as we get closer.

If you want my updated info i suggest you look for the ones that say updated and a date of the update.

I have no more desire to be here and many of you do have a defeatest attitude so i say go ahead and quit but get out of our way. 

I will also continue to say this : If you are not part of the solution to bring America back to it's roots then you are part of the PROBLEM.

----------


## nc4rp

myself being totally ignorant before this election, I have learned a great deal from both you guys. BOTH.

its a complicated process, and no one person can know it all, although BOTH have woken up MASSES of people to the process, facts, and details, albeit out of millions of details there will be a few errors.

so just carry on, sort it out as we go, later look back as we all will have learned even more. we've all done the best we can and Dr Paul and teh founders should be proud. we will be able to look back and give an accurate account of where the little errors were and the corrections. overall yall both helped.

theres too many details for one person to know it all.

----------


## Aratus

it looks like the 270 some delegates ALIKE for Mitt Romney and Huckabee
are critical in keeping mcCain from gettin' a voice vote sweeping under 
the rug of all party differences that are deepset! These 550 obvious dissenters
from things going monarchistic and status quo!!!  john mcCain has a core
of support, yes, but there are reasons why people DID not vote for him
totally. even if the voters couldn't quite pull the lever for Ron Paul in
washington state, the fact that people opted to a 20 percentile for Romney
and his suspended campaign indicates that mcCain is not solidly ensconched
amoungst 50% to 60% or 70% of the REPUBLICAN party people out there!!!

----------


## Drsteveparent

> *Steve,
> 
> No.  You are just factually wrong here on both counts.  No nominee needs 1191 "hard" delegates (that is not even a term, so I'll give you the benefit of the newbie doubt and think you mean "bound" but even with that benefit of the doubt, you are still simply factually wrong).  
> 
> McCain (or any nominee) can win the nomination on the first ballot from a majority of any combination of delegates bound or unbound, elected or unelected.  
> 
> According to the call of the convention you like to claim you understand, it is TOO LATE by a long shot to change the rules binding delegates.  The rules had to be finalized before September last year.  Changing them now would result in that state losing delegates to the national convention (according to those same by-laws):
> 
> 
> ...


Yes you are correct they do not need 1191 only the majority however the fact is that if someone obtains 1191 they can not lose the nomination for at that point the election process is over. If someone does not obtain 1191 and does not receive the majority then a 2nd round of voting takes place and so on and so on until someone obtains the majority 50% plus 1 vote.

Bradley this is where you are wrong : The rule is in changing the electing of delegates based on party rules not the way in which delegates are bound or unbound only the way delegates are selected or voted upon : You are feeding people a load of crap and this is why people keep saying you have been giving them bad advice.

----------


## Sandra

> Rule No. 15 Election of Delegates and Alternate Delegates 
> (11) No delegates or alternate delegates shall be selected pursuant to any 
> Republican Party rule of a state or state law which materially changes the manner of 
> selecting delegates or alternate delegates or the date upon which such state party holds a 
> presidential primary, caucus, convention, or meeting for the purpose of voting for a 
> presidential candidate and/or selecting delegates to the national convention if such changes 
> were adopted or made effective after the first Tuesday in September of the year before the 
> year in which the national convention is to be held.


I am from a state challenging our caucus for this reason. Yes Parent is correct, this is for electing state delegates at convention. This is the base rule used for the challenge in that the LAGOP changed the way party delegates were held by changing the date of qualifying deadline (that was not submitted to the RNC) and refusing to count valid provisional votes. Another added factor was the caucus was not called according to RNC rules which may invalidate the entire process.

Check out the Louisiana forum.

----------


## Sandra

Is Louisiana the only state formally challenged before the RNC?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> I am from a state challenging our caucus for this reason. Yes Parent is correct, this is for electing state delegates at convention. This is the base rule used for the challenge in that the LAGOP changed the way party delegates were held by changing the date of qualifying deadline (that was not submitted to the RNC) and refusing to count valid provisional votes. Another added factor was the caucus was not called according to RNC rules which may invalidate the entire process.
> 
> Check out the Louisiana forum.


Correct and that is exactly why that rule is in place and why you people in LA have legal recourse to overturn what happened to them. 

It is like i said people are lazy and if they would just read things in the proper context it would all become clear to them.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Is Louisiana the only state formally challenged before the RNC?



I believe so Sandra although MO could be next.

----------


## Sandra

If we in Louisiana had continued to listened to some people that tried to force their opinion on us we would not have done it. Thankfully we ignored and marched onward.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> If we in Louisiana had continued to listened to some people that tried to force their opinion on us we would not have done it. Thankfully we ignored and marched onward.


Sandra if your meetup group would like my input contact me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and give me a contact number and i will help you in any way i can. 

I am also doing a radio interview Friday from 3-5 EST at www.rprradio.com to talk about the delegate process and rules of order. I suggest you listen to 3-4-08 part 2 that has some great information in it.

You can listen many other radio interviews on the delegate and convention process here  http://www.presidentronpaul.741.com/delegate.html

----------


## Sandra

Thanks! We are still awaiting a decision from the RNC. It's become apparent that the GOP is in the dying stage in states that break the rules to keep certain people out. Even McCain supporters are getting out because of how the party in perceived. Financially it's bankrupt and has to take in new members just to keep it on life support. It is disappearing in LA. Hopefully the RNC realizes that keeping the rules and enforcing them is their only hope.

----------


## ronpaul.republican

> I am new here and i must admit i am also not very web savvy either and i am a terrible typer. 
> 
> I was not trying to be disrespectful i hope it didn't come across that way.


Not disrespectful at all. Your work is critically important.

I think the very best thing that could possibly be done in this educational process is to produce a multimedia training DVD with video.

Americans generally have no clue how their leaders are selected, and it's almost impossible for average people to figure out.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Not disrespectful at all. Your work is critically important.
> 
> I think the very best thing that could possibly be done in this educational process is to produce a multimedia training DVD with video.
> 
> Americans generally have no clue how their leaders are selected, and it's almost impossible for average people to figure out.


I could not agree more and i am working on some of that now only in text and after this election i plan on posting a website that will educate every american on how the process works and i do not care what party they are from. 

My goal is to get people involved in thier local party and effect change for the better.

----------


## LibertyIn08

Retracted.

----------


## ronpaul.republican

> he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room.


Well as long as he doesn't suffer from it in _this_ chat room, I'll believe every word he says!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Bradley when you make public attempts to make people think i am insane and need a straight jacket you deserve to picked on. 
> 
> I believe i have made everything clear and maybe you people should ask the folks from. 
> 
> WA, MO, NV, OK, TX, and any other state that i have addressed personally and ask them if the information and education i gave them helped them to succeed in their conventions. 
> 
> I am sure you would be suprised. 
> 
> Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.


Steve, 

Welcome back.  I thought you would return, and I'm glad about that.  Again, I strongly urge you to take up my challenge to clarify these issues via the wiki, but of course that's up to you.  Such a format, me thinks, would be much less personal (which seems to be a problem on this thread, as I feared, diverting us from clarifying the issues for all concerned--which is, I hope, both our goals.)

Everything clear.  Um, not exactly no.  You make arguments that, as I understand them, are counter-factual.

I know that you misunderstood my explanations of the five state rule to get nominated which I've explained at greater length previously in a thread (brokered convention misunderstandings) on this forum.

You and I have a similar understanding and explanations of the delegates from other candidates being released.  See, this conversation can be useful.  However, some of your claims and logic appear ridiculous and this would be a good place to clarify everything.

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention?  You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates.  If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional.  Or could you clarify your position?

Three, you claim that state party conventions at this date can change rules binding delegates that would go in effect at the 2008 national nominating convention.  By my reading of the RNC by-laws, all of those rules needed to be finalized before September last year or they would get penalized (fewer delegates).   Why would a state do that?

Four, similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates.  Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states?  Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

I'll address the rest of the questions later, but this would be a good start.

Best,
Bradley

----------


## MelissaWV

> Now as mdh has claimed i suppose i should go and take my daily Thorzine and put my straight jacket back on.


This quote --- taken out of context and from a completely different medium, like many of your thinly-veiled attacks seem to be --- refers to an admission by you, or someone posing as you, online.  That chatter claimed to have prescribed the medication for himself.  

What this has to do with answering questions posed to you in this forum is beyond me.  Why you feel a need to reference everything else (which appears to take much more time and effort) rather than answer direct questions is confusing.  I have said your message is sound but that the facts and messenger are in some doubt.  This thread would not exist unless that were an accurate assessment in the views of several people.  I respectfully ask that you cease focusing so much on things that happened outside of this forum a couple of weeks ago, and perhaps go back to educating people, if that was the intention.  I have provided questions, comments, and even advice over the time period I have interacted with you.

The difficulty I think some people have with me is that I seem friendly at times, and hostile at others.  That's how human beings seem, which is to say that when two people agree they feel far more friendly towards each other.  When there is disagreement, there is a tendency to assume it results from some sort of spite.  I will say again: I agree people need to get educated.  If I were to postscript that with some secret delegate numbers which I can't reveal the source to, I would be playing the role of educator, not simply someone spreading the message.  Giving out quantifiable results brings to bear a certain degree of responsibility (imo)... this is the problem we're having right now with the MSM.  They will have the numbers right there, but add projections, assumptions, anything to make Dr. Paul disappear.  We have no way, as the audience, to really scrutinize their "sources".  There is a high degree of spin going on in this post, mostly about things that have zero to do with the questions at hand.  Most of the questions are still not hammered down.  

My advice is genuine.  My questions are genuine.  My suspicions are genuine but have nothing to do with the two prior categories.  The only things my personal suspicion has an effect on are whether or not I'd have you over for dinner, and whether I choose to accept you in a role of educator.  Personal conclusions about why I'm on this forum, about what I do outside of this forum, and especially about who I am, have no relevance except when I have to defend myself when attacked on those fronts.  

I'm not claiming to be blameless, because I react poorly to personal attacks and the snide slandering of various projects I have worked on and people whom I care about.  I have answered personality accusations in kind, but I will stop, because it's my hope that although you have asserted you're quitting from the boards a few times, perhaps some light will be shed in a courteous manner on some of the questions still being posed.  These are not your inferiors, these are The People... more than that these are The People who are involved in the process, and the ones who will do what they can --- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING --- to get Dr. Paul or persons with similar mindsets elected to their positions of power through the next decade and beyond.  

When it comes down to it, that's the point.  We are the People.  Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me.  The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People".  Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement.  It's not defeatest.  We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources.  If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch.  

I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.

----------


## Sandra

Drsteveparent, it does no good to address Bradley... at all. If you noticed only a couple of folks respond to him. He just tries to force those who are more learned fron the boards and does so consistantly.

----------


## Sandra

> When it comes down to it, that's the point. We are the People. Not just the ones that agree with you, not just the ones that agree with me. The people you say not to donate to, or listen to, or put any faith in... they're also "the People". Asking questions and expecting an answer as if one is on equal footing with the person answering is NOT some sign of weakness, naysaying, or discouragement. It's not defeatest. We must each, as individuals, make a decision as to where we focus our efforts, our limited time, our valuable monetary and temporal resources. If you disagree with something I've said here, or something someone else has, it's my hope that you can do so with an equally extended olive branch. 
> 
> I just ask respectfully that we stop bringing every forum, chatroom, radio show, and person into this conversation that never asked to be brought up.


Melissa I kinda have a beef with you opening an account expressly to tag team someone with your husband (mdh). This is considered bad form on boards unless you state who you are.

----------


## Drsteveparent

I know that you misunderstood my explanations of the five state rule to get nominated which I've explained at greater length previously in a thread (brokered convention misunderstandings) on this forum.

Steve : I thought we came to a clear meaning on this already haven't we? 

You and I have a similar understanding and explanations of the delegates from other candidates being released.  See, this conversation can be useful.  However, some of your claims and logic appear ridiculous and this would be a good place to clarify everything.

Steve : show me where and i will explain it.

One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention?  You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?

Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot. 

2: Yes he could obtain enough from bound and unbound at this point which is why it is important to obtain as many Paul delegates as possible. 

Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates.  If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional.  Or could you clarify your position? 

steve : I have claimed no such thing pertaining to state laws and i have not seen one state law that dictates to the party on how they force or not force their delegates to vote. This is the difference between state law and party rule and they are not synonymous except when state laws apply to election procedure in the state.


Three, you claim that state party conventions at this date can change rules binding delegates that would go in effect at the 2008 national nominating convention.  By my reading of the RNC by-laws, all of those rules needed to be finalized before September last year or they would get penalized (fewer delegates).   Why would a state do that?

Steve: no that only pertains to how the delegates are elected not how the delegates are bound or unbound or pledged and those party rules pertaining to the bound unbound issue can be changed at the state convention. 

Steve: It also applies to when a primary must take place and the reason these states such as FL lost delegates was because they moved up their primary agaonst the preset rules in the RNC call. This again has nothing to do with how the delegates are bound or unbound or how the party changes the rules in that regard.

Four, similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates.  Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states?  Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.

Steve: Then they are uninformed or mistaken unless their state already has that set in place in thier bylaws however the bylaws can always be changed as well, which is why i have told everyone to obtain a copy if the bylaws in thier state to see what they can and can't do and to see if the bylaws must be ammended first before moving to unbind the delegates.

The source is in the state party rules and the RNC call 


I am not back Bradley you are wrong about that but before i leave i wanted to make sure i cleared everything up for the people that may have doubted my information dur to the rhetoric that has appeared here. 

Perhaps you should listen to some of my radio interviews and you would get a better perspective of what i have been teaching people in their states. 

Email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will gladly send you a few to listen.

----------


## MelissaWV

I opened this account at the start of the year to tagteam someone in April?  That seems odd.  The people in this thread who I have been addressing do, in fact, know who I am.  DrSteve knows who I am, Bradley's spoken to me before, several other people involved have known me from one place or another.  People in the other threads I've posted on have known who I am as well, because they related to goings on at another project I work on.  I apologize if you were confused as to my identity, but this isn't "tag teaming" and I am posting my own thoughts.  There's a statistical display on each person's name that lets you know when they joined and how many posts they have.  My posting is not exclusive to this thread, hence your observation is false.

Have a good day though

----------


## Sandra

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13

Most of your posts were saved for this thread?

----------


## No1ButPaul08

I ask you to prove this statement

Now I assure you that even though we didn't win the popular vote in many states, WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES. So yes, they won the straw poll, and we won what counts  which is delegates.

And you respond




> Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.


So you won't answer my questions because I made one comment about prefering a Dem to McCain for the sole purpose of keeping the 2012 GOP nomination open.  That makes no sense.  Sounds to me like you can't answer my questions.  I keep attacking you here, and you've yet to respond.  I'm sorry, you do respond with something like, "I'm right and you'rre wrong and since you're a defeatist I'm not going to answer your questions."  Sorry Steve that doesn't work around here.  You're making a fool out of yourself by not answering my questions.




> I have given no one incorrect information


Haha, many of us have pointed out your incorrect information in this thread.  That is just a flat out lie




> When did i ever suggest that CA would have success in unbinding anything? Or any other state for that matter for all i have stated is that if we have the numbers we control the conventions.





> Please show us where the delegates from CA and IL have already been elected or selected all or any other state for that matter to go to the national convention?
> 
> California hs not even had a convention yet so i would love to see what you claim unless you are talking about bonus delegates then that would be very few people from those states and only if those states are alloted bonus delegates and that is a big IF.



You didn't suggest CA would have success, but you did suggest they could have success, which they can't.  The convention in CA has nothing to do with the delegates, as it is after the national convention.  McCain chose his slate of delegates and they are going to the national convention.  Also, in IL delegates are elected directly in the primary.  So you were wrong on both those states




> I believe i have made everything clear


I don't, could you please show me where you did this?




> For any of you that have not figured it out my article was written before super tuesday and had it not been for that article most would not have become delegates and we would of had no shot at this nomination. 
> 
> This is why the article changes after every caucus and primary and it will continue to change as we get closer.
> 
> If you want my updated info i suggest you look for the ones that say updated and a date of the update.


Steve, I been tearing apart the article YOU linked in your original post.  Updated or not, it's been wrong every time it's been posted

----------


## MelissaWV

In general I don't hang out here looking for something to say or someone to pick on.  I posted here because I was informed by someone that my name was mentioned, and I believe in a good fair forum where those mentioned get a chance to refute what's said about them, and try to set the record straight.  Previously, if  you'll notice, I have posted to several other threads which involved me.  I don't feel a need to butt in literal thousands of times in under a year, even if I've a right to.  Mostly I read, and absorb what information there is to offer.

I am not "saving" posts.  I make posts as required to get my point across and to keep disinformation about me, personally, from sitting out there.  It's a failing of mine

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> I am not back Bradley you are wrong about that but before i leave i wanted to make sure i cleared everything up for the people that may have doubted my information dur to the rhetoric that has appeared here.


I really hope people continue to doubt your "infomation" after reading this thread

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> One, do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention?  You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?
> 
> Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot.


Absolutely would have left McCain short to win on the first ballot?  Wrong, Huckabee and Romney could still be in the race and McCain would STILL be marching to the nomination.  It was pretty clear that McCain was going to be the nominee on 2/6 without the brokered convention and they were in the race at that point. 

The idea of the brokered convention was lost when McCain won SC and then won FL ending Guiliani's "campaign" locking up all the winner take all states for McCain in the northeast.  Even after Super Tuesday you were claiming, "IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKERED CONVENTION."

----------


## Drsteveparent

> This quote --- taken out of context and from a completely different medium, like many of your thinly-veiled attacks seem to be --- refers to an admission by you, or someone posing as you, online.  That chatter claimed to have prescribed the medication for himself.  
> 
> What this has to do with answering questions posed to you in this forum is beyond me.  Why you feel a need to reference everything else (which appears to take much more time and effort) rather than answer direct questions is confusing.  I have said your message is sound but that the facts and messenger are in some doubt.  This thread would not exist unless that were an accurate assessment in the views of several people.  I respectfully ask that you cease focusing so much on things that happened outside of this forum a couple of weeks ago, and perhaps go back to educating people, if that was the intention.  I have provided questions, comments, and even advice over the time period I have interacted with you.
> 
> The difficulty I think some people have with me is that I seem friendly at times, and hostile at others.  That's how human beings seem, which is to say that when two people agree they feel far more friendly towards each other.  When there is disagreement, there is a tendency to assume it results from some sort of spite.  I will say again: I agree people need to get educated.  If I were to postscript that with some secret delegate numbers which I can't reveal the source to, I would be playing the role of educator, not simply someone spreading the message.  Giving out quantifiable results brings to bear a certain degree of responsibility (imo)... this is the problem we're having right now with the MSM.  They will have the numbers right there, but add projections, assumptions, anything to make Dr. Paul disappear.  We have no way, as the audience, to really scrutinize their "sources".  There is a high degree of spin going on in this post, mostly about things that have zero to do with the questions at hand.  Most of the questions are still not hammered down.  
> 
> My advice is genuine.  My questions are genuine.  My suspicions are genuine but have nothing to do with the two prior categories.  The only things my personal suspicion has an effect on are whether or not I'd have you over for dinner, and whether I choose to accept you in a role of educator.  Personal conclusions about why I'm on this forum, about what I do outside of this forum, and especially about who I am, have no relevance except when I have to defend myself when attacked on those fronts.  
> 
> I'm not claiming to be blameless, because I react poorly to personal attacks and the snide slandering of various projects I have worked on and people whom I care about.  I have answered personality accusations in kind, but I will stop, because it's my hope that although you have asserted you're quitting from the boards a few times, perhaps some light will be shed in a courteous manner on some of the questions still being posed.  These are not your inferiors, these are The People... more than that these are The People who are involved in the process, and the ones who will do what they can --- WHETHER OR NOT IT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING --- to get Dr. Paul or persons with similar mindsets elected to their positions of power through the next decade and beyond.  
> ...



I do agree with some of your points although i disagree with many as well so let me just address what i need to and be done with this please. 

1: I do not work for the campaign and it is not my job to spell out every detail from every county, state and district. I have told everyone i have worked with to educate themselves and the people that attack me for not being clear seem to think i have unlimited time and that my bills get paid somehow by me writing articles on every detail.

2: I have told these people exactly what they need to do : Get your bylaws - roberts ruls of order- register to become a delegate - and i have called many meetup groups at my own expense even while in Europe on business which is why my damn phone bill is over $6000 but instead i get people saying are you and idiot why is your phone bill so high? You need to get skype! You need a different cell phone plan! I am sick of this for my efforts have been to do nothing more than help as many as i can and spent my own money to do it which is hurting me financially. People wanted to set up a chip in for me and i said NO because this is not about the money and i didn't do it for that reason. But yet i am and idiot because i let my phone bill get that high? Shame on me for spending my own money helping people be prepared to enter their convention so that had a chance to make a difference. If that makes me an idiot so be it.

The personal attacks are the problem Melissa as your husband proudly came in here and stated that i admitted to being treated as a scitzofrantic WHICH IS A LIE and does constitute libel which i have not decided yet if i will pursue legal ramifications for this blatent action of libel as to attack my mind set and my integrity as well as my level of intellegence and my mental state of mind.

It is not my job to explain myself to you or anyone else for that matter and in a chat room i was trying to answer 6 people at once and everytime i answered someone elses question someone else would claimed i attacked or belittled them even though my answer did not even pertain to them or their question. 

You heard my interview and you and your husband own the station so why not make the interview public for all to hear exaclty where my position was on the issues which will surely put everything into perspective of what my motives are for everyone to hear.

I did not come here or get involved to fight and argue i only wished to educate those that needed it and then allow them to continue to educate themselves but when people ask me a specific questions about a state they assume like magic i have the answer right away which i can't possibly know every bylaw in every county and state and which is why i TELL EVERYONE research it first then i can better help you prepare. 


This is what you refer too in your first sentence and this came from your husband or so he claims you are his wife : Please fact-check any statements made by Drsteveparent. Not only did we debunk many statements he made when he visitted rpiradio.com, but he also loaded sock puppets (from his same IP address in Winnipeg, Canada) in our chat to back him up and then deny doing so despite the obvious proof which everyone was witness to, he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room. 

Debunked? Really? Sock puppets? he has also admitted to suffering from schizophrenia in another chat room. 


I cam here to address legit questions and this is the same crap i have put up with from you people since DAY 1 and i will not stand for it and i will YES be sarcastic to anyone that makes such claims and it is well warranted. 

I wish this could of been different but it has not started that way. 

I do appreciate the advice you gave me on daily paul ragarding the phone calls and that was very nice of you and i thank you for that but it came just a little that but is still appreciated.

I will also continue to say to everyone that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem END OF STORY. 

All i can do is give people the information i have massed over the years and prepare them as much as possible so they have a fighting chance and that is all i am trying to do nothing more nothing less.

----------


## Sandra

So now we know what happened to rpradio.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Absolutely would have left McCain short to win on the first ballot?  Wrong, Huckabee and Romney could still be in the race and McCain would STILL be marching to the nomination.  It was pretty clear that McCain was going to be the nominee on 2/6 without the brokered convention and they were in the race at that point. 
> 
> The idea of the brokered convention was lost when McCain won SC and then won FL ending Guiliani's "campaign" locking up all the winner take all states for McCain in the northeast.  Even after Super Tuesday you were claiming, "IT'S GOING TO BE A BROKERED CONVENTION."


It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math as i stated you are a waste of time for your first claim was IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. 

No i will not respond to your ignorance. But i see you will be voting for Hillary in NOV.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> 2: I have told these people exactly what they need to do : Get your bylaws - roberts ruls of order- register to become a delegate - .


I agree with all of this.  What I don't agree with is the delusional statements I've already questioned in this thread of which you have yet to clearly respond.  You say something like, "that info is old read the updated info."  Like I've said previously the info was wrong then and it is wrong now.  You also accuse me of "trying to get people to go third party."  Could you please point out where I've done this?  I'm going to guess you can't.  That's because it hasn't happened.  You will also notice my signature encouraging people to sign up to be a delegate through Ron Paul.




> I cam here to address legit questions and this is the same crap i have put up with from you people since DAY 1 and i will not stand for it and i will YES be sarcastic to anyone that makes such claims and it is well warranted.


I've asked you many legit questions and you've yet to respond to them.  Instead, you come up with a silly reason and make up things that aren't true to dodge my questions

----------


## Drsteveparent

> I agree with all of this.  What I don't agree with is the delusional statements I've already questioned in this thread of which you have yet to clearly respond.  You say something like, "that info is old read the updated info."  Like I've said previously the info was wrong then and it is wrong now.  You also accuse me of "trying to get people to go third party."  Could you please point out where I've done this?  I'm going to guess you can't.  That's because it hasn't happened.  You will also notice my signature encouraging people to sign up to be a delegate through Ron Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked you many legit questions and you've yet to respond to them.  Instead, you come up with a silly reason and make up things that aren't true to dodge my questions



Search the thread you will find the answer to those qustions you asked and i will not respond to you again.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math as i stated you are a waste of time for your first claim was IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR A DEMOCRAT TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE. 
> 
> No i will not respond to your ignorance. But i see you will be voting for Hillary in NOV.


No it wouldn't have.  McCain had 70% of the delegates 2/6, when they were both in the race.   With all the momentum he had (the media declaring him the winner), what makes you think that trend wouldn't continue.  The odds on the betting exchange for the brokered convention is the same then as it is now, 20-1.  I'll remind you that Huckabee did stay in and got crushed in every state besides Kansas.  

You will not respond to my "igonorance."  If I was so ignorant, couldn't you just prove me wrong quickly and move on.  That's right, you can't, so you just resort to calling me ignorant and hope people believe you while you leave my questions unanswered.  

I will not vote for Hillary, Obama, or McCain.  I live in Indiana it doesn't really matter who I vote for as the GOP hasn't lost the state since FDR.  Who I prefer to win in Nov. out of those 3 really has nothing to do with this thread.  I made a simple point that keeping McCain out of the WH will help us in 2012, and you keep using that as a crutch by making me out to be a Dem so therefore, according to you I'm ignorant.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Search the thread you will find the answer to those qustions you asked and i will not respond to you again.


Huh?  You've hardly responded to anything I've posted in this thread, most of which is asking you questions or proving you're wrong.  You're standard response to me has been




> Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.
> .


So, instead of answering my questions, you call me ignorant and put words in my mouth. But you've addressed ONE point I made this entire thread




> The brokered convention issue was when Romney and Huck were still in the race dividing delegates all over the country and my article about the delegates had changed although people have copied the old and continue to send it out which i have little control over which is why i say if you want a questions answered email me and i will answer you directly based on your state considering i have the info i need in your state.


Which is funny because your article YOU linked was what I was attacking.  You also went on to say about the brokered convention




> It would have if Huck and Mitt stayed in just do the simple math


And I responded, No it wouldn't have. McCain had 70% of the delegates 2/6, when they were both in the race. With all the momentum he had (the media declaring him the winner), what makes you think that trend wouldn't continue. The odds on the betting exchange for the brokered convention is the same then as it is now, 20-1. I'll remind you that Huckabee did stay in and got crushed in every state besides Kansas. 

So really, as far as I can tell, you really haven't addressed any of the questions I've asked of you, or the places where i've pointed out that you were wrong.  But hey, you're Dr. Steve Parent, the all-knowing delegate authority, so you must be right.

Would you mind showing me where you've addressed my questions, because as far as I can tell you haven't.  Just saying you have when you haven't doesn't really get the job done

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Bradley: Do you still think that there HAS to be a brokered convention?  You have claimed that McCain can't win on the first ballot because he won't have enough bound delegates--but he COULD have enough votes from bound AND UNBOUND delegates to win on the first ballot, right?
> 
> Steve : 1: Has to be and forced are two different things however My claim about Mccain has since been updated and my comments on this were when Romney and Huckabee where still in the race and therefor it absolutely would have left Mccain short to win on the first ballot. 
> 
> 2: Yes he could obtain enough from bound and unbound at this point which is why it is important to obtain as many Paul delegates as possible.


Ok, so let's be clear.  When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. *The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate.* So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. *NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal* now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
*You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional:  As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count.  As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot.  If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.*  Let's be clear: you admit now that I was right, and you were wrong.

Let's look at your claims in a little more depth:

First stop looking at who wins each states [sic] popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee.
Well, as I point out in greater detail in the wiki, the primary vote is the ONLY factor deciding the (elected) delegates from many states, including California, etc.  In addition, the primary vote is the only factor in other states in determining _some_ of the (elected) delegates.  In many other states then it is their "straw poll" vote that picks the state convention delegates that pick the national nominating convention delegates (which does in fact have a "real bearing on will become the nominee) and, in addition in many states, a candidate must meet a minimum threshold to be awarded any delegates.

So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing
So, by your reasoning in this explanation to all of us who don't understand how the system works, we should not bother trying to be delegates to the national nominating convention unless Dr. Paul reaches 1191 delegates or we would "mean nothing" according to you.  I call shenanigans.

keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters.
I sincerely hope you prove me wrong and Dr. Paul is the GOP nominee, but at this point, yeah, my money would be on you being delusional.




> Bradley: Two, you claim that state party conventions can change state election law binding delegates.  If that characterization is correct, yes, it is delusional.  Or could you clarify your position? 
> 
> steve : I have claimed no such thing pertaining to state laws and i have not seen one state law that dictates to the party on how they force or not force their delegates to vote. This is the difference between state law and party rule and they are not synonymous except when state laws apply to election procedure in the state.


DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan.  There are others as well.





> Bradley: similarly, others tell me that state conventions CANNOT change the rules binding national convention delegates.  Could you please cite your sources and make of list of relevant states?  Obviously in states that choose their delegates by primary only (including California, etc.--see the wiki), your tactic couldn't work.
> 
> Steve: Then they are uninformed or mistaken unless their state already has that set in place in thier bylaws however the bylaws can always be changed as well, which is why i have told everyone to obtain a copy if the bylaws in thier state to see what they can and can't do and to see if the bylaws must be ammended first before moving to unbind the delegates.
> 
> The source is in the state party rules and the RNC call


So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others.  Wow, that really put everyone in their place.  Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Ok, so let's be clear.  When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:
> 
> I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.
> 
> First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. *The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate.* So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. *NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal* now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
> *You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional:  As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count.  As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot.  If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.*
> 
> Steve : The comment was clear as i said "MOST OF THE STATES" is it my job to write a thesis? you ahve taken the comment out of context with the end of the context of that statement which clearly is : Obtain a copy of your bylaws to see what you must and can change so you can obtain the advantage when you enter your convention.
> 
> ...



Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context as i stated i never said it was a thesis and as i have said many times i have encouraged everyone to research their own state so how many times do i have to repeat that?

You can take things out of context all day long and that will not change the actual meaning when put in context here is a perfect example. 

Mathew 19:24 : Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When you put this in context IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RICH OR POOR OR MONEY. 

Set alone like that it is easy to assume that it is harder for a rich man to get in to heaven that someone poor. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I also want to see the law that claims what you state or is it one of those laws from the IRS CODE?

----------


## mdh

lol.  So I just got back from handing out about 500 slimjims on the WVU campus.  What have you all been doing for the cause today?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> lol.  So I just got back from handing out about 500 slimjims on the WVU campus.  What have you all been doing for the cause today?


Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there--oh, and exposing Steve as a liar or delusional so RP supporters would know to look for good information elsewhere.

----------


## Drsteveparent

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. *The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate.* So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. *NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal* now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
*You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional:  As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count.  As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot.  If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.*

Steve : The comment was clear as i said "MOST OF THE STATES" is it my job to write a thesis? you ahve taken the comment out of context with the end of the context of that statement which clearly is : Obtain a copy of your bylaws to see what you must and can change so you can obtain the advantage when you enter your convention.


DC "state" law legally binds ALL of our 19 delegates (the 16 elected delegates as well as the 3 unelected delegates); ok, to be fair, DC is (as you would expect) weird, but they simply require that they follow the DC GOP plan.  There are others as well.

Well that doesn't suprise me considering DC doesn't obey the 2nd ammendment why should they obey anything else. 

Show me any other state that has this law for as i have stated i have not seen one yet and i haven't seen the law in DC either we are just talking your word for it. 




So, it's your word with no specific citations to back up your claim versus others.  Wow, that really put everyone in their place.  Especially since you are on public record on this post as being outed as either delusional or a charlatan (see above).[/QUOTE]


Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context as i stated i never said it was a thesis and as i have said many times i have encouraged everyone to research their own state so how many times do i have to repeat that?

You can take things out of context all day long and that will not change the actual meaning when put in context here is a perfect example. 

Mathew 19:24 : Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

When you put this in context IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RICH OR POOR OR MONEY. 

Set alone like that it is easy to assume that it is harder for a rich man to get in to heaven that someone poor. WHICH IS NOT TRUE.

I also want to see the law that claims what you state or is it one of those laws from the IRS CODE?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there--oh, and exposing Steve as a liar or delusional so RP supporters would know to look for good information elsewhere.


Actually Bradley it is becoming quite clear you can't read.

----------


## MelissaWV

I drove you to the University campus to do so and have had our house and garage taken over by campaign materials   I share the same yard where we have the two signs up right now, and the two windows where we have two additional signs.  I also babysat the chatroom, sent out some more relevant emails, and communicated in a friendly manner with people.

lol  not much else I can do today, but tomorrow is another story!

----------


## mdh

> Lots of preparations to put Vern McKinley in Congress as our best hope for the next Ron Paul Republican there


Rock on, Bradley!  

It just happened to be our first 80+ degree day of the year here too... lots of beautiful girls scantilly dressed to hand slimjims to.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Yes i guess i need that straight jacket. All you have to do is read the article in context


Here is the context:

PLEASE EVERYONE COPY AND SEND THIS TO THIER EMAIL LIST AND MEETUP HEADS AND ANY OTHER RON PAUL FORUM THERE IS. 

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry.

I am going to go into some depth of how this all works so read and then read again if you need to.

The MSM is not reporting how to become the nominee in a situation like this so i will tell you to stop getting your info from the MSM.

I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.

Normally Convention Delegates do not matter because the convention is not brokered and we have a clear winner because someone has 1191 delegates. BUT THIS YEAR IS DIFFERENT. This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it. Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.

When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.

What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the particular state at the national convention. We call these people convention delegates

The actual delegates are voted on (in most states) at a statewide delegate caucus after the Primary (which is just a giant preference poll) Who can be delegates? Anyone. In closed Primary states they must be registered Republicans, in Open Primary states they can be Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

And we have lots of delegates.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Steve: *This will be a brokered convention there is no way around it.* Do you see how the ronpaul campaign strategy will work.


That was wrong, period.  Yes, either delusional rantings or fraudulent.




> Steve: When a candidate wins delegates by winning a primary that does not mean there are actual people that won acting as delegates- these are virtual delegates.
> 
> What do I mean by virtual delegates: A virtual delegate is just a number - there are no actual people YET that will go and vote for the candidate who won the part.


No, in primaries, it generally means that there are actual people that won as delegates.  I go into more detail in the wiki.  The candidates file their slate of "delegate candidates" with the state Secretary of State.  Voters choose one slate of NAMED DELEGATE CANDIDATES to represent them as delegates.  In some states, the delegate candidates' names are publicized in the voting guide and in others the names of the actual delegate candidates themselves appear on the ballot.  "Virtual delegates" only exist in your virtual reality.

----------


## Drsteveparent

Bradley DO YOU NOT SEE THIS? 

First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate

MOST STATES - MOST STATES - MOST STATES- Did i say every state? where did i ever say that as i said it is not my job to right a thesis ON THE ELECTION PROCESS.

MY job in that article was the basics of the delegate process i went into extreme detail with every meetup group acording to their state. 

You are a lost cause man.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> That was wrong, period.  Yes, either delusional rantings or fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> No, in primaries, it generally means that there are actual people that won as delegates.  I go into more detail in the wiki.  The candidates file their slate of "delegate candidates" with the state Secretary of State.  Voters choose one slate of NAMED DELEGATE CANDIDATES to represent them as delegates.  In some states, the delegate candidates' names are publicized in the voting guide and in others the names of the actual delegate candidates themselves appear on the ballot.  "Virtual delegates" only exist in your virtual reality.



Steve : I was not wrong : If huck and Romney stayed in it would have been a brokered convention when they dropped out i chaged the content to address that. 

Yes Bradley in some states they do but at the point they have won they are not actual people yet they must be registered then elected then filed by the candidate. Why are you so dense to see the context of my article? 

I believe it is very clear and 100% correct.

----------


## Sandra

Do you understand why Bradley is on so many ignore lists now? And no, he does NOT read posts in reply to his questions, never. Even spoon fed he misses his mouth.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Do you understand why Bradley is on so many ignore lists now? And no, he does NOT read posts in reply to his questions, never. Even spoon fed he misses his mouth.


What a waste of time this has been and i am done with this thread.

Explaining the same thing over and over and they still don;t understand it? 

This guy was a legislator and worked for the campaign? Good GOD

----------


## milly

take 2 Thorzine and call me in the morning...

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate. So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.


Let's look at the context.  Yes, you did say most states.  And the popular vote in most states does determine who the delegates are bound for, so you are wrong anyway.  But then you go on to say they need 1191 "bound" delegates, which is untrue.  You also say McCAIN WILL NOT GET TO 1191, which is false.  You also say there is no possible way anyone in the race can achieve that goal.  Are you really trying to defend this?

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> What a waste of time this has been and i am done with this thread.
> 
> Explaining the same thing over and over and they still don;t understand it? 
> 
> This guy was a legislator and worked for the campaign? Good GOD


This is now the third time you've been done with this thread.  Yet you continue to come back.  Not sure what you've explained in this thread.  You've yet to answer any of my questions.  

This thread hasn't been a waste of time, we now have a place to send people when they try to reference Dr. Steve Parent. 

We can just point to this thread and people will hopefully see you for the fool that you are and stop believing the crap you spew.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Do you understand why Bradley is on so many ignore lists now? And no, he does NOT read posts in reply to his questions, never. Even spoon fed he misses his mouth.


Is this all you have to add to this thread, attacking Bradley?  Bradley is right on this issue and you are just making yourself look like a fool by defending Dr. Steve Parent, while adding nothing to the topic of conversation

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Let's look at the context.  Yes, you did say most states.  And the popular vote in most states does determine who the delegates are bound for, so you are wrong anyway.  But then you go on to say they need 1191 "bound" delegates, which is untrue.  You also say McCAIN WILL NOT GET TO 1191, which is false.  You also say there is no possible way anyone in the race can achieve that goal.  Are you really trying to defend this?


Yes, you did say most states.  And the popular vote in most states does determine who the delegates are bound for, so you are wrong anyway. 

Steve : tell me how i am wrong. 

But then you go on to say they need 1191 "bound" delegates, which is untrue.  You also say McCAIN WILL NOT GET TO 1191, which is false.  You also say there is no possible way anyone in the race can achieve that goal.  Are you really trying to defend this?[/


Steve : no need to Defend? as i stated before if Romney and Huckabee stayed in the race for delegates would have been split all the way through with possibly Mccain having the most states and possibly not but he would NOT of had 1191 delegates and been the over all winner. 

Why is this so hard for you few to understand? 1191 is the magic number and then the race is over THAT IS A FACT not fiction. 2180 total delegates - 1191 = 50% plus 1 is that really that hard to understand?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Is this all you have to add to this thread, attacking Bradley?  Bradley is right on this issue and you are just making yourself look like a fool by defending Dr. Steve Parent, while adding nothing to the topic of conversation


Bradley has been wrong on 85% of what he has said because he can not read properly or he just takes it out of context to suit his purpose.

----------


## milly

No1ButPaul08 

Don't even bother with this fool...I asked him the most basic questions about RNC Convention rules and he was totally clueless...I had to bite my lip to stop from laughing.  And then he pulls these crazy stunts logging into chatrooms with multiple nicks to cheer himself on.  You are dealing with either a plant or a very sick individual.  He is not a Doctor and he doesn't even live in the US.  Anyone who follows him needs to question their own set of values...good luck

----------


## Drsteveparent

> No1ButPaul08 
> 
> Don't even bother with this fool...I asked him the most basic questions about RNC Convention rules and he was totally clueless...I had to bite my lip to stop from laughing.  And then he pulls these crazy stunts logging into chatrooms with multiple nicks to cheer himself on.  You are dealing with either a plant or a very sick individual.  He is not a Doctor and he doesn't even live in the US.  Anyone who follows him needs to question their own set of values...good luck


Milly all of you people from rpi have the same attitude and what question do you ask me? 

All your lies will not distort the truth now go back to your pathetic rpi radio chat room where you are a op and enjoy your little power trip.

Have you become a delegate yet milly?

----------


## No1ButPaul08

I thought you were done with this thread because it was a waste of time?  Guess not




> Steve : tell me how i am wrong.


In most states the popular vote determines who the delegates are bound to.  That makes it much more than a straw poll.  So therefore, you are wrong.




> Steve : no need to Defend? as i stated before if Romney and Huckabee stayed in the race for delegates would have been split all the way through with possibly Mccain having the most states and possibly not but he would NOT of had 1191 delegates and been the over all winner.


This is just wrong.  Like i said before, McCain had 71% of the delegates alloted on 2/6 when they were both in the race.  With all the momentum what makes you think that trend would not continue.  the odds on the betting exchanges were 20-1 then and 20-1 now.  And it's only 20-1 because McCain is 72 and has a scandalous past.  




> Why is this so hard for you few to understand? 1191 is the magic number and then the race is over THAT IS A FACT not fiction. 2180 total delegates - 1191 = 50% plus 1 is that really that hard to understand?


Where has anybody not acknowledged that the magic number is 1191.  Nobody in this thread to my knowledge.  Not sure what you are trying to get us to understand

----------


## Sandra

Milly is someone secondary account.

----------


## milly

don't make me break out the chat logs (with all IP addresses) showing your twisted attempts to make up fictional characters to pump yourself up...one more piece of misinformation and that will be what you have to deal with...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Bradley has been wrong on 85% of what he has said because he can not read properly or he just takes it out of context to suit his purpose.


85% huh

Could you point out his 85% that was wrong and the 15% that was right.  Just because you say 85% doesn't make it so.  Just creating numbers and spouting them as fact does not make it so.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> No1ButPaul08 
> 
> Don't even bother with this fool...I asked him the most basic questions about RNC Convention rules and he was totally clueless...I had to bite my lip to stop from laughing.  And then he pulls these crazy stunts logging into chatrooms with multiple nicks to cheer himself on.  You are dealing with either a plant or a very sick individual.  He is not a Doctor and he doesn't even live in the US.  Anyone who follows him needs to question their own set of values...good luck


The only reason I bother is because people do believe the crap he spews.  Especially on these forums.  I'm not going to that happen anymore

----------


## Sandra

> Bradley has been wrong on 85% of what he has said because he can not read properly or he just takes it out of context to suit his purpose.



+1000! The Louisiana forum had to run Bradley out. He intentionally gave the most injurous advice I've ever seen. I don't believe he is who he says he is or has but what little experience he gained on this campaign. I believe wholeheartedly he was a mole.

Check out the crap he posted in the LA forums.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> don't make me break out the chat logs (with all IP addresses) showing your twisted attempts to make up fictional characters to pump yourself up...one more piece of misinformation and that will be what you have to deal with...it would be funny if it wasn't so sad


Please do

----------


## MelissaWV

milly isn't an op.  

Imposing one person's behavior or ideas, or your opinion of those, upon an entire group is generally not the most diplomatic way to get through life.  There's no "power trip", only rules, and we're on this forum now as all equals.

You're welcome for pointing you in the direction of VOIP, and I said that a $6000 phone bill was insane.  Not that you were insane, or that you were an idiot.  Just a reminder: I'm one person.  If you want to continue with some sort of strange quirky vendetta against me go ahead, but I did want to correct the error in your post.

*** Sandra :  The bulk of your posts seem to simply be attempts to question why people have even set up an account.  At least Dr. Steve is speaking to the subject at hand.  milly is someone I've known for many months through other projects, and his account (if you'll notice) was created some time ago.  You appear to have some sort of automatic suspicion that every account which doesn't have post numbers in the thousands is a puppet account.  This may shock you, but some of us post elsewhere, or spend our time on other pursuits a great deal of the time.  It's even a beautiful day out today!  I went outside and drove mdh downtown and had to pick him up early because he ran out of slimjims to pass out   Should have taken more boxes!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> This guy was a legislator and worked for the campaign? Good GOD


Fact checking you:  No, I was never a legislator I never worked for the RP campaign, I have never said otherwise.

----------


## m72mc

Ron Paul want´s YOU to be a delegate and support his campaign. That´s really the bottom line.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Fact checking you:  No, I was never a legislator I never worked for the RP campaign, I have never said otherwise.



Well someone named RYAN from CO called rpr radio and said you were so who is lying? 

I can send you the interview if you give me your email for it was a direct attempt to discredit me by usuing your name from here.

----------


## JeffersonAndLiberty

I would just like to point out that Steve's knowledge and commitment are one of the many reasons for the delegate-related successes we've had so far ... And of course the delegates themselves who took the info to heart and made it work. Much of the info is on DP, including links to Steve's radio interviews and posts.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> I would just like to point out that Steve's knowledge and commitment are one of the many reasons for the delegate-related successes we've had so far ... And of course the delegates themselves who took the info to heart and made it work. Much of the info is on DP, including links to Steve's radio interviews and posts.


I don't doubt that Steve has helped some people with the delegate process.  That doesn't excuse the delusional statements for which he has been called on in this thread and his subsequent I'm right, you're wrong, refuse to answers questions, number-creating attitude.

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> I don't doubt that Steve has helped some people with the delegate process.  That doesn't excuse the delusional statements for which he has been called on in this thread and his subsequent I'm right, you're wrong, refuse to answers questions, number-creating attitude.


I hang out here and on the Daily Paul forums, but rarely post.  Because of Steve Parents' encouragement I looked into the rules for my state and decided to become a delegate - and now I'm off to my state convention in late May and hoping to go to national.  I don't care if you call him "delusional" - he has done a lot to wake people up to the power of delegates.  It's unlikely that we will have enough delegates to overturn the MSM "ordained" candidate McCain, but many of us are sure going to do our best to make it happen.

Regardless of who Steve is or isn't, where he lives, his title of Dr., I don't care.  The bottom line is he has awoken many to the power of being a delegate.  You can nit pick him all you want, but all most of us see is negativity and defeatism.  I realize the odds are small of obtaining short term victory (Paul for President), but they are not impossible.  I know many supporters who are in it for the longer term as well, starting at a local level.  It is possible to support both goals.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> I hang out here and on the Daily Paul forums, but rarely post.  Because of Steve Parents' encouragement I looked into the rules for my state and decided to become a delegate - and now I'm off to my state convention in late May and hoping to go to national.  I don't care if you call him "delusional" - he has done a lot to wake people up to the power of delegates.  It's unlikely that we will have enough delegates to overturn the MSM "ordained" candidate McCain, but many of us are sure going to do our best to make it happen.
> 
> Regardless of who Steve is or isn't, where he lives, his title of Dr., I don't care.  The bottom line is he has awoken many to the power of being a delegate.  You can nit pick him all you want, but all most of us see is negativity and defeatism.  I realize the odds are small of obtaining short term victory (Paul for President), but they are not impossible.  I know many supporters who are in it for the longer term as well, starting at a local level.  It is possible to support both goals.


I have never attacked Steve for encouraging people to become delegates, it's the way he goes about doing it.  Every article he has wrote gives this false illusion that we are close to victory, when in fact, we never were.  He's guaranteed a brokered convention, claimed, "WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES", among others  

So my point is, when should I believe Steve and when shouldn't I.  He's been proven wrong many times in this thread.  Why people would continue to believe him is beyond me.  His behavior in this thread has been less than stellar. 

Just searched "Steve Parent" on here.  His first article popped up 2/6, right after Super Tuesday and long after forming any delegate organization would have helped.

----------


## Sandra

> I have never attacked Steve for encouraging people to become delegates, it's the way he goes about doing it.  Every article he has wrote gives this false illusion that we are close to victory, when in fact, we never were.  He's guaranteed a brokered convention, claimed, "WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES OVER ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST STATES", among others  
> 
> So my point is, when should I believe Steve and when shouldn't I.  He's been proven wrong many times in this thread.  Why people would continue to believe him is beyond me.  His behavior in this thread has been less than stellar. 
> 
> Just searched "Steve Parent" on here.  His first article popped up 2/6, right after Super Tuesday and long after forming any delegate organization would have helped.


When did you prove him wrong? YOU DIDN"T! We in Louisiana proved him right. You are presenting a nebulous argument , while WE HAVE DONE IT. Proof through action! What do you have?

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> I have never attacked Steve for encouraging people to become delegates, it's the way he goes about doing it.  Every article he has wrote gives this false illusion that we are close to victory, when in fact, we never were.


I recall hearing someone saying "It's about the message."  Oh yeah, that was Ron Paul.  Put aside your petty criticism and appreciate the positive things.  All of us have flaws and if being overly excited and optimistic is Steve's flaw, more power to him.  Steve can be a little over the top for some, but for others his optimism can be very encouraging.  

I understand you are not encouraged and don't believe Ron Paul can win, but you don't need to drag others down with that attitude.  A movement begins by people believing in something, even if it may not seem achievable to "realists" at the time.  This election cycle I finally found a man who agrees with me on most issues and I'm not going to stop supporting that man because people tell me he can't achieve victory.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> When did you prove him wrong? YOU DIDN"T! We in Louisiana proved him right. You are presenting a nebulous argument , while WE HAVE DONE IT. Proof through action! What do you have?


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...2&postcount=41

Here's he claims only two states have elected delegates.  I resonded
At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL.  There are more, but there's 3.  Proof from the GOP
http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf

Another, the number of bound delegates is 1821/2380, or 76.5%.  Shown here on the far bottom right.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml

I proved him wrong on that here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=158

It's more of him refusing to answer my questions asking him to prove his delusional statements he spouts as fact.  These are littered throughout the thread.  But you've asked me to show where I've proven him wrong, so I did

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> All of us have flaws and if being overly excited and optimistic is Steve's flaw, more power to him.  Steve can be a little over the top for some, but for others his optimism can be very encouraging.


He's not overly excited and optimistic, more like manipulating and misleading.  Good for him that he's getting people involved, but he can do that while not misleading people and giving them false hope.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> +1000! The Louisiana forum had to run Bradley out. He intentionally gave the most injurous advice I've ever seen. I don't believe he is who he says he is or has but what little experience he gained on this campaign. I believe wholeheartedly he was a mole.
> 
> Check out the crap he posted in the LA forums.


Sandra,

aside from highjacking this thread, what on earth are you talking about?  

[EDIT: ok, it's been a few hours and you've posted several other times but not responded here, so I'll try again.  What Louisiana forum "ran me out"?  The subforum here?  Would you like me to cross-post this question there to disprove you?  Wow, you know my intentions with such certaintly.  Impressive.  "Injurious [note correct spelling] advice"?  Examples, please.  Or just one.  You can believe whatever you like, but my public record is there.  Mole for whom?  based on what information from whom?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Well someone named RYAN from CO called rpr radio and said you were so who is lying? 
> 
> I can send you the interview if you give me your email for it was a direct attempt to discredit me by usuing your name from here.


Um, so you are saying here that you just believe everything you hear from some random person on an internet radio show as Gospel truth?  


We're getting to the bottom of your assurances of what you know.

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> So my point is, when should I believe Steve and when shouldn't I.


From the information I've read, Steve always encourages you to review your local and state GOP by-laws/rules.  You have internet access - verify how things work in your state.  Surely you can't expect one person to summarize all 50 state processes and spoon feed everyone.




> He's been proven wrong many times in this thread.  Why people would continue to believe him is beyond me.  His behavior in this thread has been less than stellar.


He is being attacked in this thread, and like most humans respond to attack, he became defensive.




> Just searched "Steve Parent" on here.  His first article popped up 2/6, right after Super Tuesday and long after forming any delegate organization would have helped.


I found out about Ron Paul about 1 week before my state's popular vote took place so I didn't have very long to get educated.  The point is that no matter when someone became involved or first heard the message, they can still contribute to a good cause.  I understand that sooner would have been better, but complaining about Steve's timing is weak.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Um, so you are saying here that you just believe everything you hear from some random person on an internet radio show as Gospel truth?  
> 
> 
> We're getting to the bottom of your assurances of what you know.



He sure believed it and went on for 20 minutes about it.

It was simple question but i take it he was lying?

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> From the information I've read, Steve always encourages you to review your local and state GOP by-laws/rules.  You have internet access - verify how things work in your state.  Surely you can't expect one person to summarize all 50 state processes and spoon feed everyone.


Yes, but he's also guaranteed a brokered convention and said we have most of the delegates in most of the states.




> .He is being attacked in this thread, and like most humans respond to attack, he became defensive..


Does that make it right?  Why doesn't he try to prove his statements or admit it was delusional thinking.  Instead he justs ignores it or resorts to personal attacks




> I found out about Ron Paul about 1 week before my state's popular vote took place so I didn't have very long to get educated.  The point is that no matter when someone became involved or first heard the message, they can still contribute to a good cause.  I understand that sooner would have been better, but complaining about Steve's timing is weak.


I was only somewhat questioning the timing, the greater point was that Steve was not the great delegate influence he's made out to be.  People were talking about delegates on here long before anybody here had ever heard of Steve.  I was not one of those.  Bradley was, as he posted in every state forum the 2004 rules asking people to update them.

----------


## undergroundrr

Dr. Paul often says that it's foolish to express absolutes in politics.   

I will always trust a delusional optimist before a realist naysayer.   The delusional guy is better equipped to exploit an unexpected opportunity.   Even if I were 99.99% sure RP will not be the Republican nominee, like a hostage chained to a wall, with my own execution imminent, I would still hang onto that small gap of possibility.

I'm now a delegate to my state convention   Even for a resolutely secular person like me, every step forward in this process seems miraculous.   But it's really just persistence.

The Steven Bradbury video says it all.   If you haven't watched it in a while, you owe it to yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfQMJtilOGg

----------


## mdh

> Milly all of you people from rpi have the same attitude and what question do you ask me? 
> 
> All your lies will not distort the truth now go back to your pathetic rpi radio chat room where you are a op and enjoy your little power trip.


lol, milly isn't an op.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Dr. Paul often says that it's foolish to express absolutes in politics.   
> 
> I will always trust a delusional optimist before a realist naysayer.


Delusion > realism 

I guess in reality when HillBamaCain gets elected your world will be much better when RP gets elected

----------


## Sandra

> Does that make it right?  Why doesn't he try to prove his statements or admit it was delusional thinking.  Instead he justs ignores it or resorts to personal attacks
> 
> 
> 
> I was only somewhat questioning the timing, the greater point was that Steve was not the great delegate influence he's made out to be.  People were talking about delegates on here long before anybody here had ever heard of Steve.  I was not one of those.  Bradley was, as he posted in every state forum the 2004 rules asking people to update them.



NoOneButPaul08, Your post is the most hypocrytical lying mess I've ever read. It's OK for you to do all of the above

As far as Bradley, he wasn'y trying to help, he was trying to be an expert at everything.

----------


## mdh

Bradley's done an awful lot to help - I've seen some of it with my own two eyes, in fact.  

Dr Steve on the other hand has gone around making unsubstantiated claims on the internet and generally saying things that have been proven time and again to be false - and now he's on dailypaul talking about needing $6000, but _begging_ people not to setup a chipin for him.

----------


## Sandra

Birds of a feather.

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> He's not overly excited and optimistic, more like manipulating and misleading.  Good for him that he's getting people involved, but he can do that while not misleading people and giving them *false hope*.


False hope according to you.  I thought I addressed this when saying "A movement begins by people believing in something, even if it may not seem achievable to 'realists' at the time."  If that's false hope, then you can chalk me up as a believer in false hope.




> Here's he claims only two states have elected delegates. I resonded
> At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL. There are more, but there's 3.


I read through this thread previously but don't recall how the exchange of words happened between you and Steve, but I'm sure there's a constructive way to help shape his message as opposed to discrediting his method of delivery and enthusiasm.

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> Yes, but he's also guaranteed a brokered convention and said we have most of the delegates in most of the states.


The MSM has also guaranteed that McCain is the presumed nominee.  But I won't believe them until the convention is over.

I realize it may be perceived as foolish to press on and fight for Paul delegates, but I also realize that no man knows the future and a lot can happen before now and the convention.  Foolish, perhaps.  Optimistic, absolutely!

----------


## mdh

OK, let me put a few more facts out there for everyone.  

*http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45397* is the first.  Our pal "Dr Steve" is seen here clearly soliciting donations.  Not to a legitimate organization.  Not for campaigning activites.  For himself.  
He also goes on to say he's off, however we've seen that said before.  In this very thread, no less!  

*http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505* is the second.  In this, "Dr Steve" calls for people who have put "his info" to work and had success to come here and say as much.  So where are they?  "El_buggo" (whom you'll remember shared DrSteve's IP address in Manitoba) stated that he participated in the Missouri process thanks to DrSteve's advice.  But if DrSteve is a resident of Florida currently staying in Canada, how was he legally able to take part in the Missouri process?  None of this adds up.  Furthermore, this guy just showed up on the scene recently.  Unlike Bradley and I who have been active for about a year in the Ron Paul activism community (and a quick google search readily proves it), I can't find anything about DrSteve going back very far at all - and there's nothing about his supposed involvement in the DNC, which you'd think would be out there.  In fact a google search for Steve Parent turns up nothing political in nature that I could see at all except for recent posts on Ron Paul related sites, and some information about a form AG Gonzalez aid who was involved in some investigations of that office.  

*Strange...!*

----------


## Sandra

mdh, did you ever ask for donations?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Bradley's done an awful lot to help - I've seen some of it with my own two eyes, in fact.  
> 
> Dr Steve on the other hand has gone around making unsubstantiated claims on the internet and generally saying things that have been proven time and again to be false - and now he's on dailypaul talking about needing $6000, but _begging_ people not to setup a chipin for him.


I begged no one to do no do nothing you liar. 

I thanked the people that wanted to set one up but declined and there is a big difference. 

You have proven me wrong on anything.

By the way MDH what happened to all the money from the donations to your crappy little neo con station people are asking about? 

Why do all your hosts keep quiting your station? 

WAIT UNTIL THE TRUTH COMES OUT ABOUT RPI RADIO PEOPLE.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> NoOneButPaul08, Your post is the most hypocrytical lying mess I've ever read. It's OK for you to do all of the above
> 
> As far as Bradley, he wasn'y trying to help, he was trying to be an expert at everything.


No, I actually prove my statements and then come with a slight personal attack, instead of personal attacks all the time.  

You have added nothing to this thread but personal attacks or questioning people's post count.  When you can prove Steve's statements right or prove me wrong and can add something to the topic at hand, please do, otherwise I'm not really sure what you are doing in this thread

----------


## undergroundrr

> Delusion > realism 
> 
> I guess in reality when HillBamaCain gets elected your world will be much better when RP gets elected


reality > realism

Sorry, but some of your past speculations on the benefits of a Democrat president make your dig ring a little hollow.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> The MSM has also guaranteed that McCain is the presumed nominee.  But I won't believe them until the convention is over.
> 
> I realize it may be perceived as foolish to press on and fight for Paul delegates, but I also realize that no man knows the future and a lot can happen before now and the convention.  Foolish, perhaps.  Optimistic, absolutely!


I have never said it was foolish to get delegates.  Something can happen to McCain and then it's anyone game.  I am calling some of steve's ridiculous statements foolish of which he has yet to answer for instead he resorts to putting words in my mouth resulting in him not answering my questions because I'm, "ignorant."

----------


## mdh

> mdh, did you ever ask for donations?


For myself personally?  No.  

For legitimate organizations with legitimate goals?  Absolutely.  

There's a *big* difference.  "Dr Steve" is asking (despite the actual wording of the post, the tone just seems to scream "send me money" - feel free to disagree with me on it, I really don't care) for people to send him $6000 for his own personal use.  He's also asking them to do it via a relatively anonymous method (paypal).  

I am sure the comedy of this whole fiasco (guy shows up out of nowhere claiming credentials without any proof, guy spews a bunch of half-true BS but develops a following by being upbeat while playing the ever-so-popular victim card, a few weeks later guy asks for $6000) is not lost on the more intelligent among us.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...2&postcount=41
> 
> Here's he claims only two states have elected delegates.  I resonded
> At least 3 states that have already voted directly elected delegates at the primary. AL, TN, IL.  There are more, but there's 3.  Proof from the GOP
> http://www.gop.com/images/Press_State_Summaries.pdf
> 
> Another, the number of bound delegates is 1821/2380, or 76.5%.  Shown here on the far bottom right.
> http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-PU.phtml
> 
> ...


Here is what I posted on the wiki. 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...82#post1389282
(We should all work together to get all of the correct information out right.)

These states chose their (elected) national convention delegates exclusively by primary: AL (45 bound), CA (149 bound), CT (27 bound), DC (all 19 bound--elected and RNC), OH (85 "morally bound" but chosen by McCain: "Candidates submit a proposed slate of delegates who are directly elected on the ballot."), RI (17 bound: Delegates directly elected on the ballot, in proportion to the number of delegates each candidate receives"), and TN (mixed system: 52 bound, 40 of which "Directly elected on primary ballot" and 12 "elected by State Executive Committee"). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure we don't have any RP national convention delegates in any of these states. There is no opportunity for a "stealth" strategy. Game over here, move along, nothing more to see.

----------


## Drsteveparent

yes mdh you people came you have proven me wrong and if you would bother to read people here are discouraging people to become delegates and even staying in the fight and i will not tolerate that. 

I also as you can clearly see i told them to tell the truth.

----------


## mdh

> By the way MDH what happened to all the money from the donations to your crappy little neo con station people are asking about? 
> 
> Why do all your hosts keep quiting your station? 
> 
> WAIT UNTIL THE TRUTH COMES OUT ABOUT RPI RADIO PEOPLE.


Contributions to rpiradio are spent to keep rpiradio alive.  This includes hardware, bandwidth, and PSTN termination bills.  

As for hosts leaving, who are you referring to?  The last time anyone left was warelock and that was like a month ago.  I see no reason to go into his personal reasons for leaving to you.  

But yes, do wait until the truth comes out about RPI Radio!  I sincerely urge everyone to.  The truth will shock you!  The new content being added will be enjoyable!  You'll love the new shows, talent, and the great live event coverage we'll be bringing you in the future.  That's the shocking truth about RPI Radio!

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> OK, let me put a few more facts out there for everyone.  
> 
> *http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45397* is the first.  Our pal "Dr Steve" is seen here clearly soliciting donations.  Not to a legitimate organization.  Not for campaigning activites.  For himself.  
> He also goes on to say he's off, however we've seen that said before.  In this very thread, no less!  
> 
> *http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505* is the second.  In this, "Dr Steve" calls for people who have put "his info" to work and had success to come here and say as much.  So where are they?  "El_buggo" (whom you'll remember shared DrSteve's IP address in Manitoba) stated that he participated in the Missouri process thanks to DrSteve's advice.  But if DrSteve is a resident of Florida currently staying in Canada, how was he legally able to take part in the Missouri process?  None of this adds up.  Furthermore, this guy just showed up on the scene recently.  Unlike Bradley and I who have been active for about a year in the Ron Paul activism community (and a quick google search readily proves it), I can't find anything about DrSteve going back very far at all - and there's nothing about his supposed involvement in the DNC, which you'd think would be out there.  In fact a google search for Steve Parent turns up nothing political in nature that I could see at all except for recent posts on Ron Paul related sites, and some information about a form AG Gonzalez aid who was involved in some investigations of that office.  
> 
> *Strange...!*


I can't vouch for who Dr. Steve Parent is or isn't, but I don't care.  His frantic messages in the Daily Paul forum caught my attention and convinced me to check into the delegate process.  As far as I'm concerned, mission accomplished.  I'm sure there are others who have also contributed greatly, but there are other sites besides ronpaulforums.com where people can contribute to Dr. Paul's candidacy.  I choose to recognize Steve Parent because his message had the greatest impact on me.  He has spent a lot of his own time and expense supporting this cause - I hope you can respect that without trying to rip him to shreds.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Here is what I posted on the wiki. 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...82#post1389282
> (We should all work together to get all of the correct information out right.)
> 
> These states chose their (elected) national convention delegates exclusively by primary: AL (45 bound), CA (149 bound), CT (27 bound), DC (all 19 bound--elected and RNC), OH (85 "morally bound" but chosen by McCain: "Candidates submit a proposed slate of delegates who are directly elected on the ballot."), RI (17 bound: Delegates directly elected on the ballot, in proportion to the number of delegates each candidate receives"), and TN (mixed system: 52 bound, 40 of which "Directly elected on primary ballot" and 12 "elected by State Executive Committee"). Without double checking, I'm pretty sure we don't have any RP national convention delegates in any of these states. There is no opportunity for a "stealth" strategy. Game over here, move along, nothing more to see.


wow bradley i missed 1 state sue me.

I am still waiting for that DC law that binds your delegates

----------


## constituent

> Here is what I posted on the wiki. 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...82#post1389282
> (We should all work together to get all of the correct information out right.)


lol, the wiki.  this thread has been a blast.

::hello, milly.  good to see you again!::

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> reality > realism
> 
> Sorry, but some of your past speculations on the benefits of a Democrat president make your dig ring a little hollow.


So you would rather have McCain?  All three of them are pretty much the same, and this really has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  In reality, HillBamaCain will be President, and in delusional SteveParentLand Ron Paul will be President.  I live in reality, so I will plan accordingly.

----------


## mdh

> yes mdh you people came you have proven me wrong and if you would bother to read people here are discouraging people to become delegates and even staying in the fight and i will not tolerate that. 
> 
> I also as you can clearly see i told them to tell the truth.


No one has discouraged anyone from becoming delegates.  That's just a silly statement for you to make to try and smear your opponents to those who jump in and don't read the whole thread.  

If you are who you say you are, how about some proof?  I've asked time and again for a link to any official DNC website that talks about your involvement with them.  Can we at least get to the point where we know who you *are*?  I think that'd go an awfully long way for you to be at all trustworthy to the folks here.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Contributions to rpiradio are spent to keep rpiradio alive.  This includes hardware, bandwidth, and PSTN termination bills.  
> 
> As for hosts leaving, who are you referring to?  The last time anyone left was warelock and that was like a month ago.  I see no reason to go into his personal reasons for leaving to you.  
> 
> But yes, do wait until the truth comes out about RPI Radio!  I sincerely urge everyone to.  The truth will shock you!  The new content being added will be enjoyable!  You'll love the new shows, talent, and the great live event coverage we'll be bringing you in the future.  That's the shocking truth about RPI Radio!


Joemac quit after he had me on the show that very night because of your defeatest attitudes and that was a little over week ago maybe 2 weeks.

----------


## Cowlesy

Dr. Steve Parent -- where are you located?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> No one has discouraged anyone from becoming delegates.  That's just a silly statement for you to make to try and smear your opponents to those who jump in and don't read the whole thread.  
> 
> If you are who you say you are, how about some proof?  I've asked time and again for a link to any official DNC website that talks about your involvement with them.  Can we at least get to the point where we know who you *are*?  I think that'd go an awfully long way for you to be at all trustworthy to the folks here.


People here defending you and bradley saying it's over and Ron Paul will not be president isn't discouragment?

That's rich mdh.

----------


## constituent

> Joemac quit after he had me on the show that very night because of your defeatest attitudes and that was a little over week ago maybe 2 weeks.


did joemac ask you to post that?


that's the real question.

this has gotten too personal.

the "aura" is defeatist.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> No one has discouraged anyone from becoming delegates.  That's just a silly statement for you to make to try and smear your opponents to those who jump in and don't read the whole thread.  
> 
> If you are who you say you are, how about some proof?  I've asked time and again for a link to any official DNC website that talks about your involvement with them.  Can we at least get to the point where we know who you *are*?  I think that'd go an awfully long way for you to be at all trustworthy to the folks here.


I should point out here that Steve is yet to respond to this

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...&postcount=107

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Dr. Steve Parent -- where are you located?


Now or my main residence?

----------


## mdh

> Joemac quit after he had me on the show that very night because of your defeatest attitudes and that was a little over week ago maybe 2 weeks.


JoeMac also has personal issues in play far beyond what "Dr Steve" alludes to here, but I'm not going to go into it in a public forum.  You are correct though in that JoeMac quit hosting more recently than my other example.  OK, one host in a month's time.  It happens, and it's hardly problematic for us.  We've dealt with worse in the past and continued to be just fine.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> did joemac ask you to post that?
> 
> 
> that's the real question.
> 
> this has gotten too personal.
> 
> the "aura" is defeatist.


Joemac doesn't care and made it public to everyone go ask him yourself. 

He wants everyone to know why he left.

----------


## Sandra

> Dr. Steve Parent -- where are you located?


if it's Canada, what does it matter?

----------


## Cowlesy

> Now or my main residence?


Well you've said you're in Florida, you show up as Highway 32/Railway Ave S in Winkler Canada, your biggest cheerleaders are in a small area of Florida and one in the south of Spain.

So...Canada, Spain, or Florida?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> JoeMac also has personal issues in play far beyond what "Dr Steve" alludes to here, but I'm not going to go into it in a public forum.  You are correct though in that JoeMac quit hosting more recently than my other example.  OK, one host in a month's time.  It happens, and it's hardly problematic for us.  We've dealt with worse in the past and continued to be just fine.



Oh is Joemac a scitzofrantic as well mdh? 

You have a excuse for everything and they are all boring.

I was going to be on your station friday and i just cancelled with Ted for i can not support your network any longer.

----------


## constituent

> Well you've said you're in Florida, you show up as Highway 32/Railway Ave S in Winkler Canada, your biggest cheerleaders are in a small area of Florida and one in the south of Spain.
> 
> So...Canada, Spain, or Florida?


QUICK.  GRAB YOUR TIN-FOIL!!!!!!


::sorry::

----------


## Bradley in DC

> He sure believed it and went on for 20 minutes about it.
> 
> It was simple question but i take it he was lying?


Steve, of the two of us in this conversation, you are the only one who knows anything about your exchange with "Ryan."  To the best of my knowledge, I don't know any Ryans in Colorado.

That said, you and I both know who things get confused in the game of telephone, etc.  That is why I'm glad you started this thread here.

----------


## mdh

> People here defending you and bradley saying it's over and Ron Paul will not be president isn't discouragment?
> 
> That's rich mdh.


Anyone who thinks that Ron Paul can win the GOP nomination in 2008 is being foolish.  Anyone who would go to ends that would be construed as unethical by the GOP establishment to get a few more delegate votes at the RNC in September is terribly damaging our movement's chances to put forth a contender in 2012 with a real chance at getting the GOP nomination.  I oppose short-sighted foolishness that makes "those Ron Paul people" look bad.  Enough of it goes on as it is at the ground level, if we do it at the convention, we will really harm this movement's longevity and long-term impact on the political affairs of this nation.

----------


## Cowlesy

> if it's Canada, what does it matter?


It matters because he said on RP Radio he's in Florida, and then couldn't explain any of the specifics of Florida.

Sandra --- as I've said in my previous posts in this thread, I have nothing personal against Dr. Parent, but someone has to be a sheepdog against mis-information (not DIS-information, I don't think he means any harm, in fact I think he's trying to help) about further confusing people.

----------


## mdh

> Well you've said you're in Florida, you show up as Highway 32/Railway Ave S in Winkler Canada, your biggest cheerleaders are in a small area of Florida and one in the south of Spain.
> 
> So...Canada, Spain, or Florida?


Well, I can vouch for Orlando from FL being a real unique person.  I even kind of like the guy, most of the time.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Well you've said you're in Florida, you show up as Highway 32/Railway Ave S in Winkler Canada, your biggest cheerleaders are in a small area of Florida and one in the south of Spain.
> 
> So...Canada, Spain, or Florida?


It depends on the week 

Sometimes canada sometimes florida sometmes europe sometimes indiana and California. 

Do you have a point to make?

----------


## undergroundrr

> In reality, HillBamaCain will be President, and in delusional SteveParentLand Ron Paul will be President.  I live in reality, so I will plan accordingly.


And if Ron Paul even remotely bought into your concept of reality, he would never have run for POTUS.   You're expressing that this is over for you.   

Whatever Steve Parent's shortcomings (I don't know him from Adam), his delusional optimism that it ain't over until inauguration day is decidedly more rational than your delusional finality.

Again,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfQMJtilOGg

----------


## Drsteveparent

> It matters because he said on RP Radio he's in Florida, and then couldn't explain any of the specifics of Florida.
> 
> Sandra --- as I've said in my previous posts in this thread, I have nothing personal against Dr. Parent, but someone has to be a sheepdog against mis-information (not DIS-information, I don't think he means any harm, in fact I think he's trying to help) about further confusing people.


what do you want to know about florida?

----------


## Sandra

> It matters because he said on RP Radio he's in Florida, and then couldn't explain any of the specifics of Florida.
> 
> Sandra --- as I've said in my previous posts in this thread, I have nothing personal against Dr. Parent, but someone has to be a sheepdog against mis-information (not DIS-information, I don't think he means any harm, in fact I think he's trying to help) about further confusing people.



This is the internet, you can travel with a laptop. I don't understand your reasoning.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> This is the internet, you can travel with a laptop. I don't understand your reasoning.


That he may not be who he says he is?

Or that he even knows what he is talking about?

The burden of proof is not on the moderators and skeptics, it is on SGP.

----------


## Cowlesy

> It depends on the week 
> 
> Sometimes canada sometimes florida sometmes europe sometimes indiana and California. 
> 
> Do you have a point to make?


The point is no one can seem to authenticate you.  Lots of people have talked to you on the phone, but no one has met you.  I have been watching since the beginning of Steve Parent'ness on the board, and I am sorry but I don't buy it, not one bit.  Even in this thread you start advocating the greenpapers website after it was mentioned that to get real information in one of your threads where people tried to clarify where you were wrong.  Frankly I am glad you are learning and pointing to more credible sources of information.  

I listened to that Ryan in Colorado guy point out to you that you were using realclearpolitics or some other garbage site to get your information, you denied it and pointed to the RNC National Convention website when the subject at hand was State Conventions.  I am sure you have the audio of it so hopefully you can post it.

And then when asked where you lived, you said Florida. The following question was what are the rules like there, and you completely punted.  

Steve I tried and tried to discount the naysayers, because you do talk a good game in motivating people.  I've cited that each time I've posted on your threads.  But you are not a credible source of information regarding delegate information as was previously conveyed on your daily paul posts.  I've watched your storyline evolve from the beginning where you cited no sources, to citing the RNC National Convention rules, to just saying that you advocate people look up their own state specific rules.

The story keeps changing.  You're now an "international man of mystery" apparently.

I am sorry, but for all the crazy stuff I've been forced to pay attention to on this board due to being a Moderator, I have zero faith in your credibility.  You seem like yet another well-spoken person seeking out attention.

I hope you continue to motivate people to seek out state specific rules.

----------


## Cowlesy

> what do you want to know about florida?


Absolutely nothing.  The point was when asked on the phone call, you completely punted and then questioned the authenticity of the caller like he was some dis-info agent.

I can sit here and google the Florida state rules and sound like I know my stuff.  Any of us can.

----------


## szczebrzeszyn

> This is the internet, you can travel with a laptop. I don't understand your reasoning.


Or user TOR and similar software that would make IP logging at sites like this useless (in terms of 'geo-ip')

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Or user TOR and similar software that would make IP logging at sites like this useless (in terms of 'geo-ip')


Why would someone legitimate feel the need to spoof their IP in the first place?

Not to mention his support bases are all very close, both on this forum and other chat rooms.

----------


## constituent

> The story keeps changing.  You're now an "international man of mystery" apparently.




/\ dr. steve, is that you?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> The point is no one can seem to authenticate you.  Lots of people have talked to you on the phone, but no one has met you.  I have been watching since the beginning of Steve Parent'ness on the board, and I am sorry but I don't buy it, not one bit.  Even in this thread you start advocating the greenpapers website after it was mentioned that to get real information in one of your threads where people tried to clarify where you were wrong.  Frankly I am glad you are learning and pointing to more credible sources of information.  
> 
> I listened to that Ryan in Colorado guy point out to you that you were using realclearpolitics or some other garbage site to get your information, you denied it and pointed to the RNC National Convention website when the subject at hand was State Conventions.  I am sure you have the audio of it so hopefully you can post it.
> 
> And then when asked where you lived, you said Florida. The following question was what are the rules like there, and you completely punted.  
> 
> Steve I tried and tried to discount the naysayers, because you do talk a good game in motivating people.  I've cited that each time I've posted on your threads.  But you are not a credible source of information regarding delegate information as was previously conveyed on your daily paul posts.  I've watched your storyline evolve from the beginning where you cited no sources, to citing the RNC National Convention rules, to just saying that you advocate people look up their own state specific rules.
> 
> The story keeps changing.  You're now an "international man of mystery" apparently.
> ...


I have added links as i had time just tell me what you claim is false and i will gladly answer to you but other people i refuse to answer for it is obvious they have no desire to do anything. 

Mdh has made it clear Ron Paul will not win the nomination why should i bother answering anyone like that? 

If you asking me every rule about every state i have made it clear i can not possaibly cover every county and every state and that would be a lie if i said anything different even my articles say MOST STATES and as people give me the information on their state and their bylaws i help them the best i can with the information i have. 

I just refuse to argue with the same people over and over that have all claimed either it is good for a democrat to be in the white house or that Ron Paul can't win it is a waste of time and i will not even entertain that thought.

Ryan in CO has since retracted his comments on me and he has stated he agrees with 90% of eveything i have said now.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I have added links as i had time just tell me what you claim is false and i will gladly answer to you but other people i refuse to answer for it is obvious they have no desire to do anything. 
> 
> Mdh has made it clear Ron Paul will not win the nomination why should i bother answering anyone like that? 
> 
> If you asking me every rule about every state i have made it clear i can not possaibly cover every county and every state and that would be a lie if i said anything different even my articles say MOST STATES and as people give me the information on their state and their bylaws i help them the best i can with the information i have. 
> 
> I just refuse to argue with the same people over and over that have all claimed either it is good for a democrat to be in the white house or that Ron Paul can't win it is a waste of time and i will not even entertain that thought.
> 
> Ryan in CO has since retracted his comments on me and he has stated he agrees with 90% of eveything i have said now.


So you admit you gave out false information and mislead people as to Ron Paul's chances?

----------


## Drsteveparent

> The point is no one can seem to authenticate you.  Lots of people have talked to you on the phone, but no one has met you.  I have been watching since the beginning of Steve Parent'ness on the board, and I am sorry but I don't buy it, not one bit.  Even in this thread you start advocating the greenpapers website after it was mentioned that to get real information in one of your threads where people tried to clarify where you were wrong.  Frankly I am glad you are learning and pointing to more credible sources of information.  
> 
> I listened to that Ryan in Colorado guy point out to you that you were using realclearpolitics or some other garbage site to get your information, you denied it and pointed to the RNC National Convention website when the subject at hand was State Conventions.  I am sure you have the audio of it so hopefully you can post it.
> 
> And then when asked where you lived, you said Florida. The following question was what are the rules like there, and you completely punted.  
> 
> Steve I tried and tried to discount the naysayers, because you do talk a good game in motivating people.  I've cited that each time I've posted on your threads.  But you are not a credible source of information regarding delegate information as was previously conveyed on your daily paul posts.  I've watched your storyline evolve from the beginning where you cited no sources, to citing the RNC National Convention rules, to just saying that you advocate people look up their own state specific rules.
> 
> The story keeps changing.  You're now an "international man of mystery" apparently.
> ...


Yes you have pegged it i am an attention seeker. 

Let me ask you this do you know ray from ronpaulradio.com are rayzer? 

Why don't you ask him about me i have spoken to him and his group on several occasions. 

Why not speak to the people from www.rprradio.com and see where they reseqarched my information and then asked me back because i was correct. 

How about you asked the meetup groups from WA, GA, OK, NV, TX, LA, OR, FL, CA, and so on and ask them if i gave them false information instead of listening to 5 people here that clearly are wrong or twist what i have said or are confused about the way the rules read. 

Then maybe we can get beyond this i will tell you what email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and give me your phone number and i will call you personally and end all doubt.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> So you admit you gave out false information and mislead people as to Ron Paul's chances?


I said no such thing.

----------


## Cowlesy

> I have added links as i had time just tell me what you claim is false and i will gladly answer to you but other people i refuse to answer for it is obvious they have no desire to do anything.


I didn't claim anything is false.  I claimed when put on the spot, you could not cite any of the rules/guidelines for the state you are purportedly from.  That's all.




> Mdh has made it clear Ron Paul will not win the nomination why should i bother answering anyone like that?


I wouldn't answer that question either.  Please be honest, that's not his only question.




> If you asking me every rule about every state i have made it clear i can not possaibly cover every county and every state and that would be a lie if i said anything different even my articles say MOST STATES and as people give me the information on their state and their bylaws i help them the best i can with the information i have.


Good.  Continue to make that clear.  It's a big improvement from the start of this saga.




> I just refuse to argue with the same people over and over that have all claimed either it is good for a democrat to be in the white house or that Ron Paul can't win it is a waste of time and i will not even entertain that thought.


People who claim it would be good to get a Democrat in the White House -- can you quote anyone on this board who says that?  If so, I'd be with you in giving them a tall, cool glass of Shut the Hell Up.

Ron Paul CAN win, if John McCain completely implodes.  The purpose that most of us are cheerleading so hard for the delegate process is to get more Ron Paul supporters to be active Republicans, to learn the process itself and if by a stroke of luck McCain drops out, we'll be ready to raise our voices.  No one should have the illusion that if things continue as they have been, that we can mount any sort of delegate takeover at the National Convention.  People who point to that sentiment and call those people defeatists, are idiots.




> Ryan in CO has since retracted his comments on me and he has stated he agrees with 90% of eveything i have said now.


Can you cite evidence?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> People here defending you and bradley saying it's over and Ron Paul will not be president isn't discouragment?
> 
> That's rich mdh.


Steve,

If you would please stop saying I say things I don't, you wouldn't look quite the fool and it'd be easier for us to work together to put out all of the right information:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...87327#poststop

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Steve,
> 
> If you would please stop saying I say things I don't, you wouldn't look quite the fool and it'd be easier for us to work together to put out all of the right information:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=128018
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...87327#poststop


Many of us defeatists, as your supporters call us, SGP, have been working hard to get as many people as delegates as possible.

However, we do not spill out platitudes about a convention takeover or McCain not having enough to clinch.  Rather, we approach this as both a short-term and long-term development.

----------


## Cowlesy

Dr. Steve --- In this post below, you cite you will discuss the delegate process in detail.




> As I am sure many of you are aware, there is still a chance for Ron Paul to win the GOP nomination at the National Convention.
> 
> If you are a precinct leader or a member of a Ron Paul meet-up group and do not understand the delegate process, please contact Dr Steve Parent (SGP) of the Daily Paul Forum who is willing to hold conference calls with your group and explain the delegate process in detail with you.
> 
> You can contact Dr. Steve Parent (SGP) at the following e-mail address. newspaper4paul@hotmail.com
> 
> Don't delay, contact Dr. Steve Parent today.


So based on your message above, did you mean the national delegate process, or a state specific process?

Thanks.

----------


## Cowlesy

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr....+Steve+Parent





> Quit freaking out!
> There is a plan, NO 3rd PARTY!!!!
> By LK | February 6, 2008
> 
> 
> PEOPLE PLEASE READ THIS SO YOU CAN
> UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN WIN THE NOMINATION AND STOP LISTENING TO THE MSM FOR YOUR INFO!
> 
> Posted February 6th, 2008 by SGPI hope someone will put this on the front page so it doesn’t get lost.
> ...


Dr. Steve --- do you see the post above?  I highlighted the areas that are complete follies.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> People who claim it would be good to get a Democrat in the White House -- can you quote anyone on this board who says that?  If so, I'd be with you in giving them a tall, cool glass of Shut the Hell Up.


He's going to said I did, but I did not.  What I said was, 

"What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up."

This is strictly in a McCain vs Dem match up.  Now reasonable minds can certainly differ on who they prefer, but one can certainly have an opinion on the match up.  I prefer a Dem for the reasons stated.  If McCain is in the WH the GOP nomination could be locked up for 8-16 years, something certainly not preferable to us.  I don't think any result of this election is going to be, "good."

For this, he refuses to answer my questions labeling me "ignorant"

----------


## mdh

> Steve I tried and tried to discount the naysayers, because you do talk a good game in motivating people.  I've cited that each time I've posted on your threads.  But you are not a credible source of information regarding delegate information as was previously conveyed on your daily paul posts.  I've watched your storyline evolve from the beginning where you cited no sources, to citing the RNC National Convention rules, to just saying that you advocate people look up their own state specific rules.


I've been advocating this for close to a year.  I also learned the stuff in WV and subsequently Ron Paul is the only candidate still in the race who has national delegates from WV so far.  We would not have had the turnout to create that bargaining power if I hadn't spend quite a bit of time holding peoples' hands while they filled out paperwork, and that's a simple fact.  Yet it seems that despite that, those who rise to prominence are often people who advocate nationwide efforts.  With the mess of different rules and laws that vary widely from state to state, I see anything at a higher-than-state level as being suspect - if peoples' intent was simply to have an impact, why not learn their own state really really well and then try to do well there?  Why march onto the national stage when it's clear that there ain't enough time in a lifetime for one person to adequately research and then explain in laymens terms the governing rules and laws for every state plus territory?  Much less to keep up with changes (WV changed some rules in September, when we had deadlines in September... fun stuff!)

----------


## Cowlesy

> He's going to said I did, but I did not.  What I said was, 
> 
> "What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up."
> 
> This is strictly in a McCain vs Dem match up.  Now reasonable minds can certainly differ on who they prefer, but one can certainly have an opinion on the match up.  I prefer a Dem for the reasons stated.  If McCain is in the WH the GOP nomination could be locked up for 8-16 years, something certainly not preferable to us.  I don't think any result of this election is going to be, "good."
> 
> For this, he refuses to answer my questions labeling me "ignorant"


Yeah I think we're boned either way.  We'll go into debt faster with McCain, and our taxes will skyrocket with Obama.  If a Dem wins the White House, it's going to be on us to smack our fellow conservatives around to try them to realize what a ridiculous mistake it was to nominate McCain.

Let's just keep our fingers crossed he drops out for some reason between now and then, and we do everything humanly possible to get Dr. Paul on center stage.  Either way, we all need to be relentless in securing more positions in the Republican Party and keeping our supporters active in the Party.  On that note I'm off to the gym, and then am going to watch my DVD that just came in the mail, directed by and starring a Mr. Aaron Russo

----------


## MelissaWV

Some general statements to mull over:

I do no good to advertise one thing, and be another.  I do no good to diminish someone's efforts, no matter how I am treated, or who they are.  I do even less good to let pass, without question, their factual inaccuracies and their behavioral inconsistencies.  I meddle at my own peril: upping my post count at the expense of dignity and the movement, picking at people because I must marginalize them by calling them a puppet or a dummy account.  I harm my cause by simply begging for trust instead of providing citations, and bringing others into the argument who are not here to tell their side.  

If I twist the truth to suit me, and discard its shell when it doesn't fit my needs, then I am a disservice to those I choose to educate.  My time is precious, and my ego does not need feeding.  I should be an enforcer of truth to the best of my abilities.  I should admit my faults and seek to rectify what I have done wrong.  I should attempt to walk a mile in my "opponent's" shoes and wonder if, in fact, they are my enemy.  I should be able to walk my path whether there are groupies adoring me, or I am alone.  My principles are worth standing up for.  I am no greater than another human being unless they seek to place themselves beneath me by petty attacks.  I do not elevate myself by participating in same, or by mentioning myself, or by patting myself on the back.

The war is not over and preparing for the worst (but hoping for the best) has truly no downside.  I gain nothing by putting down those who choose to prepare in a different way.  I should not contradict my own words without an apology or admission that I am wrong on the one hand or another.  I should take all this force and focus it towards my goal.  I should not assume reasons for something taking place, but only be skeptical of persons whose stories seem false, and whose information is misleading.

I should not discourage others from walking their own path, no matter if it's to folly.

I should realize that unsolicited advice is seldom heeded, and even less seldom appreciated.

Ron Paul can win... what he wins is up to us, and the sum of our individual efforts.  Good luck on *your* path.

***And yes a great deal of this applies to me.  I wonder if anyone else will get anything out of this.  Doubtful, but I feel better!***

----------


## walter

I have a question, I heard that BOUND delegates could opt to simply set out the first round and NOT vote, and come in later when they are unbound, is this true?   Does anyone know?   Thanks

----------


## spacehabitats

> Some general statements to mull over:
> 
> I do no good to advertise one thing, and be another.  I do no good to diminish someone's efforts, no matter how I am treated, or who they are.  I do even less good to let pass, without question, their factual inaccuracies and their behavioral inconsistencies.  I meddle at my own peril: upping my post count at the expense of dignity and the movement, picking at people because I must marginalize them by calling them a puppet or a dummy account.  I harm my cause by simply begging for trust instead of providing citations, and bringing others into the argument who are not here to tell their side.  
> 
> If I twist the truth to suit me, and discard its shell when it doesn't fit my needs, then I am a disservice to those I choose to educate.  My time is precious, and my ego does not need feeding.  I should be an enforcer of truth to the best of my abilities.  I should admit my faults and seek to rectify what I have done wrong.  I should attempt to walk a mile in my "opponent's" shoes and wonder if, in fact, they are my enemy.  I should be able to walk my path whether there are groupies adoring me, or I am alone.  My principles are worth standing up for.  I am no greater than another human being unless they seek to place themselves beneath me by petty attacks.  I do not elevate myself by participating in same, or by mentioning myself, or by patting myself on the back.
> 
> The war is not over and preparing for the worst (but hoping for the best) has truly no downside.  I gain nothing by putting down those who choose to prepare in a different way.  I should not contradict my own words without an apology or admission that I am wrong on the one hand or another.  I should take all this force and focus it towards my goal.  I should not assume reasons for something taking place, but only be skeptical of persons whose stories seem false, and whose information is misleading.
> 
> I should not discourage others from walking their own path, no matter if it's to folly.
> ...


One of the great tragedies of the forum system is that this post (and its wisdom) will languish largely unread in the backwaters of a thread like this. 
Kudos for the effort!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Bradley DO YOU NOT SEE THIS? 
> 
> *First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee.* The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate
> 
> MOST STATES - MOST STATES - MOST STATES- Did i say every state? where did i ever say that as i said it is not my job to right a thesis ON THE ELECTION PROCESS.


Steve,

I have read your posts.  I have refuted your posts.  I urge you to go to the wiki and we'll clear this all up state by state.  Where we agree, where you misunderstand, where you're just flat out wrong.

How about this?  Name some states where our votes for president "have no real bearing on who will become the nominee."  In the minority of primary states (listed on the wiki and in this thread), it is the only thing.  In other states (simplified), it is our votes that pick the state delegates that pick the national nominating convention delegates.  Ergo, while it is indirect, our votes DO have "a real bearing on who will become the nominee."




> The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate


Steve,  why do you keep repeated this obviously factually incorrect statement that you recanted on earlier in this thread?  Repeating now implies that you are either delusional or a fraud.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1391511




> Ok, so let's be clear.  When you previously wrote your oft-repeated claim:
> 
> I know many of you are bummed about yesterday BUT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE ELECTION SYSTEM WORKS : Let me explain to you the reality of how to become the nominee.
> 
> First stop looking at who wins each states popular vote for most of these states the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and have no real bearing on who will become the nominee. *The only way this matters is if 1 person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be commited to that candidate.* So if a candiate like Mccain has 600 delegates now and IF he doesn't reach 1191 WHICH HE WILL NOT most of the delegates the state awarded him mean nothing and keep in mind in most of the states most of the people that represent the 600 for Mccain are actually Ron Paul supporters. *NOW there is no possible way that anyone in the race can achieve this goal* now because of the major split in state wins by the candidates.
> *You either didn't know what you were talking about or were either lying or delusional:  As you admit now, votes of bound and unbound delegates count.  As you admit now, there IS a possible (and in fact probable) way that McCain will have a majority of delegate support on the first ballot.  If you are NOT delusional then you are a charlatan, a fraud.*  Let's be clear: you admit now that I was right, and you were wrong.
> 
> Let's look at your claims in a little more depth:
> 
> ...

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I have a question, I heard that BOUND delegates could opt to simply set out the first round and NOT vote, and come in later when they are unbound, is this true?   Does anyone know?   Thanks


The rules binding delegates (or not) are set by the several states.  Sorry, that's the best I got.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I begged no one to do no do nothing you liar. 
> 
> I thanked the people that wanted to set one up but declined and there is a big difference. 
> 
> You have proven me wrong on anything.
> 
> By the way MDH what happened to all the money from the donations to your crappy little neo con station people are asking about? 
> 
> Why do all your hosts keep quiting your station? 
> ...


Steve, how does this prove the veracity of your delusions?  

You repeatedly say things that are verifiably false.  When confronted you resort to questioning intentions (standard leftist response) and personal attacks to obfuscate.

----------


## MelissaWV

Retracted under my own advice.

----------


## mdh

When I worked for the government, we used to do [redacted] to middle eastern terror suspects.  Furthermore, we were often introducing the chemical [redacted] into the [redacted] supply often delivered to citizens of [redacted].  

OK, just kidding.

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

Guys, give it up.  The bottom line to anyone observing this thread (but not having anything to prove) is that Steve introduced a lot of people on the Daily Paul to the importance of the delegate process.  I don't care if he's Canadian, Floridian, or Oompa Loompan - he still convinced people to get involved.  Kudos to the rest of you who have also encouraged delegates at a local level!  You are all important and should pat yourselves on the back.  Group hug.

I heard Steve on a conference call tonight and he is certainly inspired to help folks understand the importance of delegates and assist where necessary.  There's no need to attack him - it will prove nothing except you are attempting to be divisive.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Guys, give it up.  The bottom line to anyone observing this thread (but not having anything to prove) is that Steve introduced a lot of people on the Daily Paul to the importance of the delegate process.  I don't care if he's Canadian, Floridian, or Oompa Loompan - he still convinced people to get involved.  Kudos to the rest of you who have also encouraged delegates at a local level!  You are all important and should pat yourselves on the back.  Group hug.
> 
> I heard Steve on a conference call tonight and he is certainly inspired to help folks understand the importance of delegates and assist where necessary.  *There's no need to attack him - it will prove nothing except you are attempting to be divisive.*


Attempting to put forth correct information to make the process less convoluted is not being divisive.  It is beneficial and necessary.

I don't think anyone here is questioning his intentions, but rather his method of execution and attitude.

----------


## humanic

This just gets more and more bizarre.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505




> URGENT : I need everyone right now for people on Ron Paul forums are trying to discourage or confuse the delegates.
> Posted April 8th, 2008 by SGP
> 
> I need everyone that has seen first hand the information i have given them work and right now go to this thread and tell these 3 or 4 people that have twisted and spun what i have said to discourage people from becoming delegates to call them out.
> 
> Go here : http://www.ronpaulforums....
> 
> I do not know who these people are or what their motives are but if i have given anyone here the wrong information i want you to tell than i gave you the wrong info but if i have been correct i need you to educate the people in that forum please NOW!
> 
> Just tell them the truth nothing more please!

----------


## LibertyIn08

> This just gets more and more bizarre.
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505


Oh no, Bradley, they've found us all out!

----------


## MelissaWV

How can someone not know who we are but be talking to us and about us for this many exchanges?

----------


## LibertyIn08

> How can someone not know who we are but be talking to us and about us for this many exchanges?


Making sense or properly answering direct questions does not seem to be a prerogative of Steve's.

----------


## orlandoinfl

Steve, I wish you would not induldge these cretins in useless exchange. You are a man trying to empower a group of people and that is very threatening to some. The more you work yourself up, the more that encourages them.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> need everyone that has seen first hand the information i have given them work and right now go to this thread and tell these 3 or 4 people that have twisted and spun what i have said to discourage people from becoming delegates to call them out.
> 
> Go here : http://www.ronpaulforums....
> 
> I do not know who these people are or what their motives are but if i have given anyone here the wrong information i want you to tell than i gave you the wrong info but if i have been correct i need you to educate the people in that forum please NOW!
> 
> Just tell them the truth nothing more please


Twisted and Spun?  We're just trying to get you to prove or revoke your ridiculous statements.  Where has anybody in this thread discouraged anybody from becoming a delegate?  Looks like you're the one doing the twisting and spinning.  

Anybody who read that article you gave wrong info to so if they all follow your advice they would all come over here. 

Educate us on what?

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Steve, I wish you would not induldge these cretins in useless exchange. You are a man trying to empower a group of people and that is very threatening to some. The more you work yourself up, the more that encourages them.


Some arguing against Steve's misinformation have done much more for the campaign than he has.  Bradley in particular.

I do not have an issue with his motive, but rather his method.  When a fallacy is pointed out in his procedures, rather than adjust it or admit he was wrong, he results to ad hominem attacks and other diversionary measures.  These are not the actions of a mature adult or political activist.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Steve, I wish you would not induldge these cretins in useless exchange. You are a man trying to empower a group of people and that is very threatening to some. The more you work yourself up, the more that encourages them.


Another personal attack while adding nothing to the conversation from one of Steve's minions.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Some arguing against Steve's misinformation have done much more for the campaign than he has.  Bradley in particular.
> 
> I do not have an issue with his motive, but rather his method.  When a fallacy is pointed out in his procedures, rather than adjust it or admit he was wrong, he results to ad hominem attacks and other diversionary measures.  These are not the actions of a mature adult or political activist.


This is what it all boils down to.

----------


## countrykidz4freedom

Hey you all,
If you read what Dr. Steve Parent says it makes sense. Come on people, I am just average IQ and it's easy enough for me to understand. He did say to check in your own state for your rules, our group has, and we are following the rules, yet doing our part to try to help Dr. Ron Paul. Stop the stupid bickering, and if there are those of you who are just trying to cause problems, either get over it, or please do us all a favor and go elsewhere. Dr. Ron Paul does NOT need this junk going on right now, and neither does Dr. Steve Parent, who has worked so hard on this campaign. What is it with you guys anyway? Remember United we stand, divided we fall. Lets not get ourselves so worked up over technicalities that we lose sight of our main goal. Also, know your laws, so you will not be intimidated by the wrong people. Please do not fall for tricks of those who do not want Ron Paul's campaign to win. Remember ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is POWER!!!! We are going to persevere, we are going to continue doing it legally, and we ARE going to win-now lets get back to the business of promoting Ron Paul!

----------


## billyjack

Hi Dr Steve! It's great to see you here!  Your level of knowledge in the delegate process could never be overstated and I never cease to be amazed at how effective your delegate advice has been and continues to be.  Thank You!  Ron Paul FTW!

----------


## orlandoinfl

It's obvious that inflated egos are at work here. People find any excuse to not focus on the real matters at hand and rather engage in character assassination. Sad, sad, sad.

----------


## constituent

> This just gets more and more bizarre.
> 
> http://www.dailypaul.com/node/45505





> Oh no, Bradley, they've found us all out!





> Steve, I wish you would not induldge these cretins in useless exchange. You are a man trying to empower a group of people and that is very threatening to some. The more you work yourself up, the more that encourages them.





> Another personal attack while adding nothing to the conversation from one of Steve's minions.





> Hey you all,
> If you read what Dr. Steve Parent says it makes sense. Come on people, I am just average IQ and it's easy enough for me to understand. He did say to check in your own state for your rules, our group has, and we are following the rules, yet doing our part to try to help Dr. Ron Paul. Stop the stupid bickering, and if there are those of you who are just trying to cause problems, either get over it, or please do us all a favor and go elsewhere. Dr. Ron Paul does NOT need this junk going on right now, and neither does Dr. Steve Parent, who has worked so hard on this campaign. What is it with you guys anyway? Remember United we stand, divided we fall. Lets not get ourselves so worked up over technicalities that we lose sight of our main goal. Also, know your laws, so you will not be intimidated by the wrong people. Please do not fall for tricks of those who do not want Ron Paul's campaign to win. Remember ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is POWER!!!! We are going to persevere, we are going to continue doing it legally, and we ARE going to win-now lets get back to the business of promoting Ron Paul!





> Hi Dr Steve! It's great to see you here!  Your level of knowledge in the delegate process could never be overstated and I never cease to be amazed at how effective your delegate advice has been and continues to be.  Thank You!  Ron Paul FTW!





> It's obvious that inflated egos are at work here. People find any excuse to not focus on the real matters at hand and rather engage in character assassination. Sad, sad, sad.


my nomination for best thread page EVER!

----------


## ButchHowdy

> Why would i answer any of your questions considering you made it clear your intentions which is that putting a democrat in the white house would be a good thing. Yes that comment deserves for me to explain nothing to you for you have already quit or you are going to try to get people to go 3rd party either way i will not waste my time on you.





HALLELUJAH!!!

----------


## Sandra

> HALLELUJAH!!!


+1000!

----------


## Sandra

I'm questioning a certain "moderator's" position as well. Cowlesy definitely has put a slant on this.

----------


## Cowlesy

What slant? 

Sandra, I am getting pretty tired of this, as you are probably too, and many others who've posted on this thread.  I posted all sorts of stuff Steve has released to the internet that is completely inaccurate.

Now it's too bad that if someone doesn't agree with you Sandra that you think they're "slanted" or have alterior motives, but for heaven's sake have you read what he's posted!?  Have you shed your pre-conceived notions about the validity of Bradley/No1ButRonPaul/mdh, looked at what Steve has written from a completely objective viewpoint, and think it makes any resemblance of sense?

Good grief I don't think he's even refuted any of the occasions where a statement of his has been presented with a countervailing *fact*, and he's gone on to set the record straight.  He just goes off with a rant saying people are "defeatists" or that they're misinterpreting what he's said. *That's the only bad part about the internet, is if you are going to post something on it, it lasts forever.*
I wanted to believe the guy, but I've been watching this since the beginning when it hit this board, and honestly Sandra, there is something not right about him. See below one of his old posts.




> Quit freaking out!
> There is a plan, NO 3rd PARTY!!!!
> By LK | February 6, 2008
> 
> 
> PEOPLE PLEASE READ THIS SO YOU CAN
> UNDERSTAND THAT WE CAN WIN THE NOMINATION AND STOP LISTENING TO THE MSM FOR YOUR INFO!
> 
> Posted February 6th, 2008 by SGPI hope someone will put this on the front page so it doesn’t get lost.
> ...

----------


## Drsteveparent

> I didn't claim anything is false.  I claimed when put on the spot, you could not cite any of the rules/guidelines for the state you are purportedly from.  That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't answer that question either.  Please be honest, that's not his only question.
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  Continue to make that clear.  It's a big improvement from the start of this saga.
> ...


I will happily answer any questions you have for you obviously see the value to what i am doing and have not asked for people to put me in a straight jacket or called me a scitzofrantic so your questions will be welcomed. 


no1butpaul08 said this : What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.

After that comment i had no desire to answer any of his/her questions 





No one should have the illusion that if things continue as they have been, that we can mount any sort of delegate takeover at the National Convention.  People who point to that sentiment and call those people defeatists, are idiots.



It is one thing to claim it isn't probable to happen and another to say stop wasting your time Ron Paul will not be president. 

I have also made it clear that if we have the numbers Dr. Paul can win the nomination but if we do not have the numbers the of course we can't win for the delegate process first is about having the numbers then it is about following the bound votes for Mccain. If we can get a few key states to unbind our delegates we have a real shot at this. 

I have also made this clear to every person i have spoken and that is that just being involved in your local party can make an extreme difference in the future in your local community and if you have the numbers your control the party platform and can effect real change. 

My goal and i explain this all the time is to get everyone involved for America was left to the people not the Government and the sooner we wake up to that the sooner we can get our country back on track. 

It is also easier to explain my positions live because trying to answer some questions is like asking Ron Paul to explain getting rid of the department of education in a 30 second sound bite. I have no desire to write a thesis on the issues and have encouraged everyone to research their own state for as i stated before i can not possibly cover every bylaw in every state myself before September. 

As far as Ryan in CO and his comments about bradley i can send you a copy of the radio interview where he refers to the things i stated. Email me at newspaper4paul@hotmail.com and i will send you an mp3 of that interview.

If you have any more questions i will glady answer them.

----------


## Drsteveparent

Cowlesy : What are you claiming is incorrect? This is what you highlighted but what do you dispute?

This means that all of the people that registered to become a deligate for Dr. Paul can go to the convention and cast thier vote for Dr. Paul, now think about what i just said : Do you think for one second that all the people that voted for Dr. Paul and filed to become a deligate will not show up at the convention to vote for the good Doctor? Of course they will just like they battled the rain and the sleet and the 15 below zero winter weather to knock on doors and wave signs spreading our message.
Now i assure you that even though we didn’t win the popular vote in many states WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES THAN ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST EVERY STATE EXCEPT A FEW. So yes they won the straw poll and we won what counts which is delegates.
Doesn’t Dr. Paul need to WIN 5 states to be on the ballot at the convention for the nomination?

NO THIS IS NOT TRUE for people were just confused on how it actually works.







Good grief I don't think he's even refuted any of the occasions where a statement of his has been presented with a countervailing fact, and he's gone on to set the record straight. He just goes off with a rant saying people are "defeatists" or that they're misinterpreting what he's said. That's the only bad part about the internet, is if you are going to post something on it, it lasts forever.
I wanted to believe the guy, but I've been watching this since the beginning when it hit this board, and honestly Sandra, there is something not right about him. See below one of his old posts.


I have answered many questions here with fact but only those where i could give facts : When i am asked about a state i know nothing about how can i possibly answer until i research it? I will not chase down every state just to answer someones question unless i know these people are delegates and really need my help but just to answer because someone wants the answer is a waste of time for they should research the state for themselves.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> I will happily answer any questions you have for you obviously see the value to what i am doing and have not asked for people to put me in a straight jacket or called me a scitzofrantic so your questions will be welcomed. 
> 
> no1butpaul08 said this : What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.
> 
> After that comment i had no desire to answer any of his/her questions 
> 
> 
> No one should have the illusion that if things continue as they have been, that we can mount any sort of delegate takeover at the National Convention.  *People who point to that sentiment and call those people defeatists, are idiots.
> 
> ...


Where has anyone said that delegates are not worth getting?  Bradley and I, and I assume MDH and No1 also, both support getting as many people involved in the process as possible.

As for the questions I've asked earlier in the thread, they've yet to be answered.  Perhaps put these questions to rest and you'll be able to salvage some good will here, but this thread was not a good beginning impression.

As I've said before, I'm behind your mission completely.  However, the information needs to be clear and concise, and actually correct.  Providing misinformation does not help, and has hurt many people in my state who wanted to become delegates.

If you are truly willing to edit your information and work with us, I know I would be glad to help you in anyway compiling a new site that is factually correct from the district level of each state all the way up to the national convention.

None of us are out to get you or discredit you.  We only want answers, and the best possible resolution to this conflict.  I think we can all agree that the more time we work on delegates, the better.  So let us attempt to at least resolve the conflict, answer these lingering questions, and move forward together.

----------


## SteveMartin

Dr. Parent,

My suggestion would be to just agree to withdraw this claim:




> WE DID PICK UP THE MAJORITY OF DELEGATES THAN ALL THE OTHER CANDIDATES IN MOST EVERY STATE EXCEPT A FEW.


...and show your willingness to admit your over-exuberance from time to time, and all will be well.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Dr. Parent,
> 
> My suggestion would be to just agree to withdraw this claim:
> 
> 
> 
> ...and show your willingness to admit your over-exuberance from time to time, and all will be well.


   I call it optimism because i see what we can actually do and what we have been doing and i will not ever take that back. I am still convinced we can win if we continue to fight and get involved and nothing of that opinion will change until September.

How can i retract what is true  for you people are either not seeing the information i get from the meetup heads in the states or you are just not paying attention. 

We have the majority of delegates in several states already that have had a convention from what the people on the ground are telling me but that does not mean this is over and we have won hands down but it does mean we have a fighting chance. 

Do not even ask me to post hard numbers because i will not show our hand until every delegate election is over. 

What most of you don't know is the number of meetup groups i have called persoannly and walked them through things step by step and prepared them for their conventions. Ask around and you will see i am telling the truth. 

I do not know of they are here but the daily paul people send the message out to all the meetup groups and i received email after email requesting me help which i gladly offered. 

Does anyone know ray from ronpaulradio.com? [rayzer] ? I addressed his group several times already ask him if i am lying or giving false information considering i am sure some of you know who he is.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> *How can i retract what is true  for you people are either not seeing the information i get from the meetup heads in the states or you are just not paying attention. 
> *
> _We have the majority of delegates in several states already that have had a convention from what the people on the ground are telling me._


No, that is not true.  It is an unverifiable statement.

And now you're changing the statement.  You said most, or many, earlier.  Now it is some that have had conventions?  I think we'd better figure out where we're going with this, Steve.  Inconsistency is not the route to go.

No response to my post above?  I want to work with you on this project, and make the information better.  I'm sure there would be many others here who would gladly work with you in developing such a site and strategy.  

Are you willing to admit you made some mistakes in this process and move forward?  Or would you rather keep up the diversionary tactics and not address the legitimate questions brought forth.

----------


## Mister Grieves

> What most of you don't know is the number of meetup groups i have called persoannly and walked them through things step by step and prepared them for their conventions. Ask around and you will see i am telling the truth.


I just wanted to thank you for all the work you are doing. People like you are making the difference.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> No, that is not true.  It is an unverifiable statement.
> 
> And now you're changing the statement.  You said most, or many, earlier.  Now it is some that have had conventions?  I think we'd better figure out where we're going with this, Steve.  Inconsistency is not the route to go.
> 
> No response to my post above?  I want to work with you on this project, and make the information better.  I'm sure there would be many others here who would gladly work with you in developing such a site and strategy.  
> 
> Are you willing to admit you made some mistakes in this process and move forward?  Or would you rather keep up the diversionary tactics and not address the legitimate questions brought forth.



Is it possible i made mistakes? I do not believe they were mistakes i would consider them to vague of an statement which i will gladly admit guilt on. 

I have said most many times and it is still most from what reports i have from the people on the ground contacting me. I have also made this clear that the information as far as numbers will continue to change but the meat and potatoes of the article stays the same with a minor tweak here and there based on new data. Lie is a strong word and i have no desire to lie to anyone nor would i ever encourage such a thing. 

If you want to work with me great i could use the help i could of used the help 3 months ago and i will gladly welcome your help and anyone else that truely wants to help. I will not accept the help from anyone that has stated Ron Paul will NOT be President though for their help is not needed or wanted. 

I will look at your above post now.

----------


## ronpaulhawaii

> Where has anyone said that delegates are not worth getting? Bradley and I, and I assume MDH and No1 also, both support getting as many people involved in the process as possible.
> 
> As for the questions I've asked earlier in the thread, they've yet to be answered. Perhaps put these questions to rest and you'll be able to salvage some good will here, but this thread was not a good beginning impression.
> 
> As I've said before, I'm behind your mission completely. However, the information needs to be clear and concise, and actually correct. Providing misinformation does not help, and has hurt many people in my state who wanted to become delegates.
> 
> If you are truly willing to edit your information and work with us, I know I would be glad to help you in anyway compiling a new site that is factually correct from the district level of each state all the way up to the national convention.
> 
> None of us are out to get you or discredit you. We only want answers, and the best possible resolution to this conflict. I think we can all agree that the more time we work on delegates, the better. So let us attempt to at least resolve the conflict, answer these lingering questions, and move forward together.


+1

Steve, it is obvious you face a credibility issue. Deserved, or not, it exists. As you say, time is short; howabout just playing ball and working together. 

Unsubstantiated claims are firestarters, if you don't want to be flamed, don't make them.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Where has anyone said that delegates are not worth getting?  Bradley and I, and I assume MDH and No1 also, both support getting as many people involved in the process as possible.
> 
> As for the questions I've asked earlier in the thread, they've yet to be answered.  Perhaps put these questions to rest and you'll be able to salvage some good will here, but this thread was not a good beginning impression.
> 
> As I've said before, I'm behind your mission completely.  However, the information needs to be clear and concise, and actually correct.  Providing misinformation does not help, and has hurt many people in my state who wanted to become delegates.
> 
> If you are truly willing to edit your information and work with us, I know I would be glad to help you in anyway compiling a new site that is factually correct from the district level of each state all the way up to the national convention.
> 
> None of us are out to get you or discredit you.  We only want answers, and the best possible resolution to this conflict.  I think we can all agree that the more time we work on delegates, the better.  So let us attempt to at least resolve the conflict, answer these lingering questions, and move forward together.



I agree with most of what you said here but this s why this post was titled the way it was. 

Instead of Bradley contacting me personally he would rather tell people i need to be in a straight jackey or i am delusional and every meetup group i helped that has had great success all wanted me to clrify again every thing i told them weeks earlier and this did not help and in fact it hurt and wasted valuable time. 

I came here to address Bradley personally out of courtesy but for people to say i am delusional and a scitzofratic pisses me off considering they could of addresed me personally. 

The host from MDH and Mellissa's radio station quit the night after my interview because of the way i was treated and do you know what he stated his reason was? Becuase he was no longer going to be part of the problem any longer and become part of the solution and what does MDH do he claims Joemack has other problems and that in my book is low down and dirty to make statements like that about a person that is trying to help the Ron Paul movement. 

I was going to do a radio interview there on Friday night with Ted from ronpaulpainting.com and cancelled it yesterday after mdh made his comments and what really is bad is i alread had around 50 emails confirming they would be there and that was with only 1 day of advertising it then told them to only come to my afternoon show interview because i will not support a station with the attitude that RON PAUL CAN'T WIN. Yes that is a defeatest atttitude no matter how you look at it.

You people want to help do so but as for me i have made it clear after my calls on friday with the exception of one on tuesday with the people from MO i am done because i will not deal with the bickering and this dividing. 

I could also need a few weeks to get my finances back in order then i will come back and help out again from time to time.

You can believe what you want but i have spoken to thousands of people over the last 3 1/2 months and they are prepared and will do well if they just show up and continue to learn Parliamentary procedure as i have instructed them. 

Believe what you want but i have motiviated thousands to become involved and am very proud of each and every one of them even if they fail this time i will still be extremely proud.

----------


## Sandra

The moderators here are not moderating! You are tag teaming! and it's the same two that gang up on anybody except the ones you should be getting on to.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Is it possible i made mistakes? I do not believe they were mistakes i would consider them to vague of an statement which i will gladly admit guilt on. 
> 
> I have said most many times and it is still most from what reports i have from the people on the ground contacting me. I have also made this clear that the information as far as numbers will continue to change but the meat and potatoes of the article stays the same with a minor tweak here and there based on new data. Lie is a strong word and i have no desire to lie to anyone nor would i ever encourage such a thing.


Steve,

Since we seem to have caught you in a rational mood  , I'd like to suggest some positive ways to wind down this enlightening thread.

When you say we won "most" or "majority" of the delegates in states I suspect in your mind you mean "of the states from which you are getting reports" and not "of ALL states" that have voted.  Would that be right?  In which case (and I'm still dubious ), could you tell us "most" of how many states? (just the number so as not to tip your hand which ones )

Would you please clarify (again) that you got caught up in irrational exuberance  when you've made claims that there HAS to be a brokered convention and that there is no way McCain can win on the first ballot? (I suspect because you had the caveat of Romney and Huckabee continuing to split the delegate totals in your head but didn't annunciate it)

Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?

Would you please clarify (again) that you now understand that I never said we needed to win the popular vote in five states and that we are on the same page on the five state rule to get nominated?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384

Would you please clarify (again) that we are on the same page regarding the released delegates of candidates who have dropped out?

Would you please clarify (again) that you and I BOTH are doing all we can in the best ways we know how to get Dr. Paul the nomination and elected?  That is, stop the "defeatist" charges.  (you didn't respond to my post with links on this, so I'm making a leap here)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1389834

And most importantly, we agree that there are many variations among the different state rules and laws and that it is best for everyone to learn their state's rules.  With that in mind, I suggest that you stop using the term "delegate" without a qualifier: casual readers are confusing your terms between "national convention delegate" with "state convention delegate" etc.

Once we've clarified where we agree, we can then, hopefully, discuss dispassionately and respectfully the areas of disagreement.

----------


## mdh

Hey Cowlesy, I'm curious... the two new guys, with 1 and 4 posts here respectively... Manitoba, or Spain?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I agree with most of what you said here but this s why this post was titled the way it was. 
> 
> Instead of Bradley contacting me personally he would rather tell people i need to be in a straight jackey or i am delusional and every meetup group i helped that has had great success all wanted me to clrify again every thing i told them weeks earlier and this did not help and in fact it hurt and wasted valuable time. 
> 
> I came here to address Bradley personally out of courtesy but for people to say i am delusional and a scitzofratic pisses me off considering they could of addresed me personally.


As I've explained repeatedly, I posted on a website I understood to be yours correcting the factually incorrect information that was posted at the time.  My post was deleted with no effort to correct the misinformation or contact me.  I took that as a clear sign.

I have welcomed your effort to create this thread.

When you repeatedly promote statements that are verifiably false and urge others to post them everywhere, even after being corrected repeatedly, yes, you come off as delusional.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> no1butpaul08 said this : What I think to be the most important, is keeping McCain out of the White House. We absolutely need to have GOP nomination open in 2012. Also, putting a Dem in the White House will wake conservatives up.
> 
> After that comment i had no desire to answer any of his/her questions


So you will answer people who call you schizophrenic or say you belong in a straight jacket but you won't answer me because of that.  Great logic

That was in a strictly in a Dem vs. McCain matchup.  I take it you prefer McCain, since you've already ruled out third party and the Dems.  Reasonalbe minds can differ on who they prefer, but one can have an opinion on this nearly inevitable matchup

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Is it possible i made mistakes? I do not believe they were mistakes i would consider them to vague of an statement which i will gladly admit guilt on.


THIS WILL BE A BROKERED CONVENTION

That is not vague Steve, it's wishful thinking spouted off as fact.

Please do not go the route of George W. Bush, admit your mistakes and this will be over

----------


## Drsteveparent

I will address these one by one for you. 

When you say we won "most" or "majority" of the delegates in states I suspect in your mind you mean "of the states from which you are getting reports" and not "of ALL states" that have voted. Would that be right? In which case (and I'm still dubious ), could you tell us "most" of how many states? (just the number so as not to tip your hand which ones 

Steve : Of course it is where i have received reports how could i possibly give information on a state i have know knowledge of yet however i do have numbers on states where people have filed to become delegates as well and the numbers are fantastic with many states filling a full slate of alloted delegates and this is extremely encouraging.



Would you please clarify (again) that you got caught up in irrational exuberance  when you've made claims that there HAS to be a brokered convention and that there is no way McCain can win on the first ballot? (I suspect because you had the caveat of Romney and Huckabee continuing to split the delegate totals in your head but didn't annunciate it)


Steve : I would not call that irrational at all it was reality if Huck and Mitty stayed in it and it was clear at that point in time there would be a brokered convention which has since been updated shortly after huckabee dropped out considering he was the last one to suspend his campaign. 



Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?


Steve : I have never denied that for of course it is possible which is why i have said many times if we do not get our number of delegates registered and elected we will have no shot at winning at all and i have never tried to hide the fact that we could lose and this would be a battle to win either way.




Would you please clarify (again) that you now understand that I never said we needed to win the popular vote in five states and that we are on the same page on the five state rule to get nominated?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384



No i can't say that you NEVER said we had to WIN delegates because that is the truth and is what you said however you have since corrected it and maybe you just worded it the wrong way which i have done myself but we are both i believe on the same page that we only need to obtain the majority of delegates in 5 states to be on the ballot. 




Would you please clarify (again) that we are on the same page regarding the released delegates of candidates who have dropped out?




Steve : I do not know if we are on the same page but the clear facts are there are two choices for those delegates : 1: They will be released and can vote for whom they wish or 2: they could keep their delegates which will be bound by the state party rules of that state to vote for them on the number of votes they are required to be bound by unless said state is able to unbind their delegates  at their state convention.




Would you please clarify (again) that you and I BOTH are doing all we can in the best ways we know how to get Dr. Paul the nomination and elected? That is, stop the "defeatist" charges. (you didn't respond to my post with links on this, so I'm making a leap here)




Steve : I can not speak for you Bradley and i am not claiming you aren't because i do not know enough about you to make such a claim however i am doing all i can to the best of my ability to educate people on the delegate process and Parliamentary procedure in their state. I would hope that we have the same goal and i believe we do i just can not speak for your intentions and that doesn't make me right nor wrong just not informed enough to make an opinion.




And most importantly, we agree that there are many variations among the different state rules and laws and that it is best for everyone to learn their state's rules. With that in mind, I suggest that you stop using the term "delegate" without a qualifier: casual readers are confusing your terms between "national convention delegate" with "state convention delegate" etc.



Steve : We would be in agreement on this and i have stated this on many occasions to every group i have spoken and thus urged them to obtain a copy of the bylaws and/or party rule in their couny and their state before they did anything other than register to become a delegate before their timeline to register expired.


Delegate is the term and i have explained this as well that some states have many conventions prior to the state and national convention and have urged to these people that have multiple meetings to show up to every single one of them.

----------


## MelissaWV

*sighs* On the radio issue (which keeps coming up, no matter how many times we attempt to flush):  from what I could understand, it's being implied that the host in question only left because of Dr. Steve.  He has subsequently said more times than I can count that he couldn't care any less about Dr. Steve, that he doesn't vouch for him, and that the rift is about an "overall aura".  Despite our obvious dislike for Dr. Steve's *ATTITUDE* (note: not him personally, not putting him down, haven't done it yet and am not going to) and our suspicions about his *BEHAVIOR* (again, as an op, we need to look out for cloned IPs, sock puppets, duplicate chatters, ghost listeners), no one was stopping him from doing the interview, no threats were made, no ridicule of Ted's efforts (another person who never asked to be in this thread, dragged into it by Dr. Steve).

If fifty people are interested in hearing you at this point, why not tell them in the sarcastic tone  you've used here that they should've been around three months ago?  That's interesting.  

Why is our chatroom and our station, which is unaffiliated with this forum, and is only loosely affiliated with your efforts by virtue of the fact we've been saying "become a delegate" since before the first money bomb... why is it such an issue to you?  We not only SAID "become a delegate", we helped people in our state get to the GOP Convention, participated in it ourselves, and covered the event.  

I still have yet to hear an answer to this little contradiction:  I've never said "don't listen" to people who say Dr. Paul is going to get the nomination (and that IS what's been said, in CAPs, in bold, over and over again... not might... not we could... WILL)... I haven't cursed or called anyone who wants to go another path a "neo con" or any sort of ridiculous label.  I guess if I sat there and thought about it I could come up with some sort of witty label for people within the movement who're a part of another method, but what would that do?  I did not kick or ban you from the chatroom you're so up in arms about.  You could, in fact, go back there at your discretion.  If you cited facts instead of blurting out repeatedly that "the people" are lazy and ignorant, and that you are qualified and we are not... if you did that, you'd find a receptive audience full of people who have given their money, their time, and their expertise to the cause.  In fact  you'll even find JoeMac still there most times.  He must truly hate it to still be chatting there?  

The contradiction is that I cannot expect the same respect from someone else that I give them.  I asked you direct questions that were not answered in this "unfair" chat format, the same way that people ask you precise questions here and you will not address them point by point.  "How many RNC delegates were gained by the MO process that you helped in, Dr. Steve?" was my first question that was labeled pathetic.  I asked and was told "1/3", but when I asked "One third of what?" there was silence.  Then a "do your own research".  You stated that marching on Washington accomplishes nothing.  My response was that someone should tell that to Dr. Paul, since he is allegedly going to be participating in at least one of the marches.  

You continue to state that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.  That statement assumes that you are the final authority on who's "with you" and who's a "problem".  While that's fine on a personal level, I will continue to question your need to divide the movement further and further into groups based on what path and method they choose to continue working on.  You are marginalizing people who are working on things you have no idea about, by your own admission.  Each of us lives in a territory where we are working damned hard to get things done in our own way.  Our "pathetic" radio station has helped people as well, despite your assertions, and "the money" has been spent to keep it going to allow people to speak in real time about their issues.  Instead of being happy there are all sorts of censor-free venues out there that will give *EVEN THOSE THEY DISAGREE WITH* a chance to speak and face those whose views are both similar and different, you have spent literally THREE WEEKS whining about poor treatment.

It's your right to be disrespectful, scornful, and go for "backup" on other boards.  It's your right to spread partial information, then claim "I'm no expert" when someone questions the specifics.  It's perfectly your right to have a following of people to which you can do no wrong.  I'm proud that a lot of people I interact with KNOW that I can do PLENTY of wrong; it means they have their own minds and can make them up.  Those are the people who take a bit from every corner of the internet, from their lives, from television, and process it and arrive at their own conclusions.  THOSE people are working already, and don't need a phonecall from me, you, Bradley, Sandra, mdh, or anyone else.  They've been working for months, mostly locally, to get things accomplished.  Perhaps they didn't leap onto the main stage and scream "I have done it!  RON PAUL WILL BE THE NOMINEE!", but that does not discount the work that's been done.  

It's also my right to be annoyed that what HAS been done is buried under the big pile of what CAN be done, and that it further has to be splintered by some people into what SHOULD be done, with zealous fist-banging and claims that the "other side" (which is an odd way to look at people trying to do the same thing you're doing) is a problem.  It's interesting in its own way.  Dr. Paul accepts money, help, and opinions from people of all sorts.  One of the delegates at the WV GOP Convention was an admitted ex-prostitute from the DC area who'd recently moved, and she assured us that Dem or Rep they were all equally filthy in every single way.  She isn't part of the problem, she was part of the solution that day, and will likely be again in May (which is when we next have our chance to do something great here).

In answer to the thread topic?  The truth of the delegate process is that we each have a responsibility to get educated, not wait for someone to help us out, and immerse ourselves in our own efforts.  The truth of the delegate process is that there is no guru online who has all the answers.  That SOUNDS like Dr. Steve, too!  He says those same things!  But the difference is, there will be no assurance here of a nomination win, and I will not post some assertion that x delegates are stealth delegates or Dr. Paul confirmed bound delegates or virtual delegates.  It's going to end with:

r*3V0_|*ution : Be a Part of it.

----------


## RonPaulGuyEastWA

> Attempting to put forth correct information to make the process less convoluted is not being divisive.  It is beneficial and necessary.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is questioning his intentions, but rather his method of execution and attitude.


Again, you've missed the point.  The point I took away from all Steve's posts was "Go investigate the process in your locale/state and become a delegate."

Nothing less, nothing more.  The folks who are attacking Steve's delivery are in no way "making the process less convoluted" or doing anything "beneficial and necessary."  I'm sure it's fun to team up with your buddies and tear someone down, but it's not beneficial.

Steve, I encourage you to stop responding.  This thread has gone nowhere and the only way you'll satisfy their quest for destruction is admitting to them that you know nothing and are humbled by their supreme knowledge.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I will address these one by one for you.


Thank you for that.




> Bradley: When you say we won "most" or "majority" of the delegates in states I suspect in your mind you mean "of the states from which you are getting reports" and not "of ALL states" that have voted. Would that be right? In which case (and I'm still dubious ), could you tell us "most" of how many states? (just the number so as not to tip your hand which ones 
> 
> Steve : Of course it is where i have received reports how could i possibly give information on a state i have know knowledge of yet however i do have numbers on states where people have filed to become delegates as well and the numbers are fantastic with many states filling a full slate of alloted delegates and this is extremely encouraging.


So, when your critics (myself included) read your claims that, without this current qualification, Dr. Paul won a majority of (the implied ALL) states, the source of the confusion was not our misreading but your not clarifying (well, and I suppose, our inability to read your mind ).  Yup, there have been some encouraging reports.




> BradleyWould you please clarify (again) that you got caught up in irrational exuberance  when you've made claims that there HAS to be a brokered convention and that there is no way McCain can win on the first ballot? (I suspect because you had the caveat of Romney and Huckabee continuing to split the delegate totals in your head but didn't annunciate it)
> 
> Steve : I would not call that irrational at all it was reality if Huck and Mitty stayed in it and it was clear at that point in time there would be a brokered convention which has since been updated shortly after huckabee dropped out considering he was the last one to suspend his campaign.


Again, here you are making qualifications that you did not make previously.  Your previous statements were categorical--and factually untrue--(that there would have to be a brokered convention and that McCain could not win on the first ballot) without the conditional "if" then...

Without that qualifier and your conditional statement you explain now, the actual words you wrote previously were, as I put it, a "load of crap."  If they were not what you meant, we can't read your mind--and since you repeated it so forcefully so many times in different ways, you were quite clear.

Thank you for clearing that up.  (and yes, if Huck and Mitt had stayed in the race, a brokered convention would have been more likely)




> Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?
> 
> Steve : I have never denied that for of course it is possible which is why i have said many times if we do not get our number of delegates registered and elected we will have no shot at winning at all and i have never tried to hide the fact that we could lose and this would be a battle to win either way.


Steve, I'm sorry, but you have said repeatedly--including in this thread--that McCain cannot get nominated on the first ballot because he will not get a majority of hard/bound delegates on the first vote.  It was that denial I considered delusional.  




> Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that you now understand that I never said we needed to win the popular vote in five states and that we are on the same page on the five state rule to get nominated?
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
> 
> Steve: No i can't say that you NEVER said we had to WIN delegates because that is the truth and is what you said however you have since corrected it and maybe you just worded it the wrong way which i have done myself but we are both i believe on the same page that we only need to obtain the majority of delegates in 5 states to be on the ballot.


There is a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here on your part.  I did--and do--say we need to "win" a majority of five states to qualify to be nominated.  Like you, I understand that "winning" means delegates.  If you look at the link to my thread here on RPFs that first raised the five state rule (actually, I had raised it here on a previous thread), I am quite clear and never said the "popular vote" as you mischaracterize what I think you meant as my argument (since I don't know of anyone else in our rEVOLution that made the point):

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

Q: Doesn't Dr. Paul need to WIN 5 states to be on the ballot at the convention for the nomination?
A: NO, THIS IS NOT TRUE for people were just confused on how the process actually works.

We only need the majority of delegates from 5 states to be put on the ballot, NOT THE POPULAR VOTE OF 5 STATES, and I assure you we have picked up the majority of uncommitted delegates for Dr. Paul in more than 5 states!
So, I was not, and am not, confused.  But yes, if you want to create a straw man and argue with him, well, you're inviting the delusional tag again.  




> Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that we are on the same page regarding the released delegates of candidates who have dropped out?
> 
> Steve : I do not know if we are on the same page but the clear facts are there are two choices for those delegates : 1: They will be released and can vote for whom they wish or 2: they could keep their delegates which will be bound by the state party rules of that state to vote for them on the number of votes they are required to be bound by unless said state is able to unbind their delegates  at their state convention.


We are.  That's good.




> Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that you and I BOTH are doing all we can in the best ways we know how to get Dr. Paul the nomination and elected? That is, stop the "defeatist" charges. (you didn't respond to my post with links on this, so I'm making a leap here)
> 
> Steve : I can not speak for you Bradley and i am not claiming you aren't because i do not know enough about you to make such a claim however i am doing all i can to the best of my ability to educate people on the delegate process and Parliamentary procedure in their state. I would hope that we have the same goal and i believe we do i just can not speak for your intentions and that doesn't make me right nor wrong just not informed enough to make an opinion.


Thank you.  I have started many, many threads here to encourage and cheerlead--which is I suspect your main motivation--as well as many, many more with good, accurate information on becoming a delegate with state-specific information.  

You seem to feel over-burdened that you can't get all of the rules for all of the respective states together and publicized in time for us to make a difference.  It would have been better--and would still be better--for you to stop trying with unqualified, too general statements.  Look to the spontaneous order of this forum--and the state-specific subfora--for inspiration.  By the RPFs community working together here, and in the group Google docs, we are together doing what you fear can't be done.  

Stop fighting us, cut the defeatist charges, roll up your sleeves and work with us here in this forum to put out--in each state subforum--the right rules for each state as we have been working on together, updating and correcting each other, for many months before any of us heard of you, no offense.




> Bradley: And most importantly, we agree that there are many variations among the different state rules and laws and that it is best for everyone to learn their state's rules. With that in mind, I suggest that you stop using the term "delegate" without a qualifier: casual readers are confusing your terms between "national convention delegate" with "state convention delegate" etc.
> 
> Steve : We would be in agreement on this and i have stated this on many occasions to every group i have spoken and thus urged them to obtain a copy of the bylaws and/or party rule in their couny and their state before they did anything other than register to become a delegate before their timeline to register expired.


See my comment on the question above.

----------


## billyjack

> What about loophole primaries?  As national delegates are elected separately, no matter how many delegate slots Ron Paul supporters fill, these delegates will vote for who they wish.  In Illinois, we elect delegates individually, and their preference is listed on the ballot.  Pennsylvania is much alike, but without the preference listed.
> 
> How do you suggest unbinding helps in this case? What about states without a traditional state convention system?


What is a loophole primary?
Just so you folks know, I have watched Dr Steve working on this since Feb and I've seen alot of delegates come in because of his education efforts.  I have also seen him interact with meetups successfully in furthering this goal.  I have also seen him educate people about Robert's Rules of Order to the point where we won simply because we heeded his words.  True, every state is different but I have seen him asked about individual states and I always see him come back with an accurate answer.  This can work....it's been amazingly successful thus far....please give it a shot.  We Have to get our good doctor elected and this strategy gives us a chance of doing that.  Thank you for your time and consideration of my words....we all want the same thing here so let's go get it!
Peace

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> What is a loophole primary?
> Just so you folks know, I have watched Dr Steve working on this since Feb and I've seen alot of delegates come in because of his education efforts.  I have also seen him interact with meetups successfully in furthering this goal.  I have also seen him educate people about Robert's Rules of Order to the point where we won simply because we heeded his words.  True, every state is different but I have seen him asked about individual states and I always see him come back with an accurate answer.  This can work....it's been amazingly successful thus far....please give it a shot.  We Have to get our good doctor elected and this strategy gives us a chance of doing that.  Thank you for your time and consideration of my words....we all want the same thing here so let's go get it!
> Peace


Again, everyone here is glad Steve is helping people out and getting them involved.  Our problem lies with some of the delusional statements he's made, and his refusal to retract them or admit he was wrong.

From green papers
The "LOOPHOLE" type of primary, in essence, is an updated version of what is the oldest form of the Presidential Preference (as opposed to DELEGATE SELECTION) primary - dating back to when Oregon enacted the very first statute authorizing just such a primary for the 1912 election. In this, what is really the original form of the ADVISORY primary, there was both a presidential preference "beauty contest" vote and a separate DELEGATE SELECTION primary held at the same time: the voter had the opportunity to indicate a preferred candidate from among the list of names of presidential contenders on the top ballot but actually elected the delegates to the National Convention as individuals or on slates listed on a separate ballot directly beneath the presidential preference one.

----------


## Bradley in DC

Steve,

Please correct your DailyPaul post you link to from here:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42901

_Now with this part, I think you are just being unnecessarily vague to the point of being wrong:

I know many of you are new to the election process but don't worry, as I am going to go into how this all works. So read and then read again, if you need to.

Did you know that the delegates can actually vote to unbind their delegates that are bound by state rules?

Did you know that delegates can actually overturn any previous vote?

Did you know the delegates have control of the entire process?_
Let's take DC and the other primary states:  There are no state conventions, the only "delegates" we have are the national nominating convention delegates who have no ability nor opportunity to do anything like what you say we could do.  

Since we're all agreed you have gone a bit overboard with generalizations, etc.  Correcting "details" that are factually inaccurate--at least in some places--with qualifiers would help avoid the confusion you are causing.

Now with this selection:

_First, stop looking at who wins each state’s popular vote. For most of the states, the vote by the people is really nothing but a straw poll and has no real bearing on who will become the nominee._ 
Votes do count--either directly electing national nominating convention delegates, meeting thresholds to get delegates, or choosing state delegates that choose the national nominating convention delegates.


_The only way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are bound by state rules to be committed to a candidate._ 
Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate.  Either delusional or a lie.  Period.  A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.  


_So if a candidate like McCain now has 586 HARD DELEGATES but if he doesn't reach 1191, WHICH HE MAY NOT, most of the delegates the state “awarded” him mean nothing._ 
Now, thank you for changing the factual error that McCain could not reach 1191 votes to "may not."  It would help if you used the correct terms that cause confusion and replace "hard delegates" with "bound delegates."  


_Keep in mind that in most of the states most of the people that represent the 1200 for McCain are actually Ron Paul supporters, Romney and Huck people._
I sincerely hope you're right, I really do, but yes, I'm dubious.

----------


## LibertyIn08

Retracted.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Hello Bradley, 
> 
> I must come out and now defend my positions again on another forum because people do not take the time to look at the facts but rather just say i am a nut and i need to be put in a straight jacket and i am wrong on every account. 
> 
> This has to do with my information about the delegate process and how Dr. Paul CAN obtain the nomination in September at the RNC convention.
> 
> Bradley i do not recall everything you said so if i missed something bring it up and i will gladly answer it. 
> 
> 1: You are confusing the fact of winning delegates with obtaining delegates as in most states these delegates are elected to go to the state and national convention to support their candidate and the fact is Dr. Paul does not need to win the majority of delegates in 5 states but only obtain the majority in 5 states and there is a HUGE difference between winning and obtaining the majority. 
> ...



Steve,

When you started the thread, you posted that you are here to teach me and correct the confusion, but you have not refuted anything I've said.  When I have shown that what you have said is unquestionably factually wrong, you claim it was taken out of context or that you made generalizations that got "details" wrong.

So, I'm now challenging you to stop arguing with the straw man you've created in your head: arguing with yourself makes you look delusional.

I have never said that Dr. Paul needs "to win 5 primary votes to obtain delegates" and have clarified this point with you repeatedly on this thread.  I have shown you threads where I address that one issue at length.

So, if you are not delusional, then please stop lying and correct the OP.  Given the discussion, I suggest you simply add an edit correcting your misinformation and admit you are wrong.

Thank you.

----------


## jointhefightforfreedom

Well i can tell you if it comes to voting Mcain  I have not WILL NOT and NEVER WILL regardless of the "party" or laws!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Well i can tell you if it comes to voting Mcain  I have not WILL NOT and NEVER WILL regardless of the "party" or laws!


I'm waiting for Dr. Paul's personal endorsement.

----------


## orlandoinfl

Everyone give a big round of applause for Bradley, mdh, and melissa for destroying a positive element of the Revolution. 

If only you spent the same effort bringing people together as you have pushing them away. Then again, this might be your intent in the first place.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Everyone give a big round of applause for Bradley, mdh, and melissa for destroying a positive element of the Revolution. 
> 
> If only you spent the same effort bringing people together as you have pushing them away. Then again, this might be your intent in the first place.


Oh, please.  I would argue those three have contributed equally, if not more so, to the campaign than Steve.

Asking someone to be forthcoming and admit their mistakes is not something that should be frowned upon.

----------


## mdh

> Everyone give a big round of applause for Bradley, mdh, and melissa for destroying a positive element of the Revolution. 
> 
> If only you spent the same effort bringing people together as you have pushing them away. Then again, this might be your intent in the first place.


lol.  
Seriously though, I don't see how putting out misinformation and launching personal attacks when people call him out on lies qualifies as a "positive element."

----------


## humanic

> Everyone give a big round of applause for Bradley, mdh, and melissa for destroying a positive element of the Revolution. 
> 
> If only you spent the same effort bringing people together as you have pushing them away. Then again, this might be your intent in the first place.


What thread are you reading?  I've read through most of this thread and these statements just make no sense.




> Asking someone to be forthcoming and admit their mistakes is not something that should be frowned upon.





> lol.  
> Seriously though, I don't see how putting out misinformation and launching personal attacks when people call him out on lies qualifies as a "positive element."


QFT.  Jeez.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> lol.  
> Seriously though, I don't see how putting out misinformation and launching personal attacks when people call him out on lies qualifies as a "positive element."


+1

----------


## LibertyIn08

Steve will be on RPRadio today from 4 to 6 PM CST.

----------


## spacehabitats

Since I am a doctor (as in a doctor of medicine) I thought  it would be helpful if some people became familiar with a personality type called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".  It is not a disease. It is a type of character disorder which causes interpersonal problems and disruption within organizations where people with such personalities work. Some very powerful and successful people may have this type of personality, but it is best if those around them recognize this and take this into account during their interactions with that person. (the following from Wikipedia):


A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:has a grandiose sense of self-importanceis preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal lovebelieves that he or she is "special" and uniquerequires excessive admirationhas a sense of entitlementis interpersonally exploitativelacks empathyis often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or hershows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudesIt is best not to antagonize these people. Usually they should just be given a wide berth and let them have their way.

----------


## Sandra

> Since I am a doctor (as in a doctor of medicine) I thought  it would be helpful if some people became familiar with a personality type called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".  It is not a disease. It is a type of character disorder which causes interpersonal problems and disruption within organizations where people with such personalities work. Some very powerful and successful people may have this type of personality, but it is best if those around them recognize this and take this into account during their interactions with that person. (the following from Wikipedia):
> 
> 
> A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:has a grandiose sense of self-importanceis preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal lovebelieves that he or she is "special" and uniquerequires excessive admirationhas a sense of entitlementis interpersonally exploitativelacks empathyis often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or hershows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudesIt is best not to antagonize these people. Usually they should just be given a wide berth and let them have their way.


Doctor, I think your patient is in the ghemminger thread.

Nice copy and paste.... "doctor".

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Doctor, I think your patient is in the ghemminger thread.
> 
> Nice copy and paste.... "doctor".


Wait.  So you believe that SGP is a doctor, with his tenuous claims, but this guy posts medical facts and he's a fraud?

----------


## Sandra

> Wait.  So you believe that SGP is a doctor, with his tenuous claims, but this guy posts medical facts and he's a fraud?


.....and why aren't YOU questioning this latest doctor's credentials?  At least Parent gave you his name.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Wait.  So you believe that SGP is a doctor, with his tenuous claims, but this guy posts medical facts and he's a fraud?


I guess I could take a snapshot of my license (its Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Iowa #02434, BTW), but I don't really care if anyone believes me.  

I am not out to gather a hoard of fawning admirers or I guess I would have called myself "*Dr.* spacehabitats". 

I am also not claiming to diagnose anyone over the Internet.
You didn't think I was referring to anyone on this thread, did you.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> .....and why aren't YOU questioning this latest doctor's credentials?  At least Parent gave you his name.


Which I can find no record of outside of Daily Paul.  It could even be an anagram.

Space at least gave the perception of being knowledgeable about his topic.

His license and location check out, by the way.

----------


## humanic

So we learn of space habitats specific credentials 1 hour and 11 minutes after he first makes the claim that he is a doctor, but "Dr." Steve has still not produced any such information after months of people asking?

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> Since I am a doctor (as in a doctor of medicine) I thought  it would be helpful if some people became familiar with a personality type called "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".  It is not a disease. It is a type of character disorder which causes interpersonal problems and disruption within organizations where people with such personalities work. Some very powerful and successful people may have this type of personality, but it is best if those around them recognize this and take this into account during their interactions with that person. (the following from Wikipedia):
> 
> 
> A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:has a grandiose sense of self-importanceis preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal lovebelieves that he or she is "special" and uniquerequires excessive admirationhas a sense of entitlementis interpersonally exploitativelacks empathyis often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or hershows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudesIt is best not to antagonize these people. Usually they should just be given a wide berth and let them have their way.


Excellent Post




> Which I can find no record of outside of Daily Paul.  It could even be an anagram.
> 
> Space at least gave the perception of being knowledgeable about his topic.
> 
> His license and location check out, by the way.


Correct, his license does check out.  Which really doesn't matter he just informed us of the disorder and is allowing people to judge for themselves.  He didn't diagnose anyone.  Anyone could have went to wiki and did the copy and paste, it doesn't take a doctor to do that.  I'm not really sure what she's getting at.

----------


## Revolution9

> ...unless it precludes the only thing that will eventually work in THIS ELECTION cycle: An Independent run.
> 
> Some of you believe we have more cycles to save this country.  Others of us do not.


Flippitty floppitty Zippetty do
Independent or republcan
Which one are you

Randy

----------


## Sandra

> Excellent Post
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, his license does check out.  Which really doesn't matter he just informed us of the disorder and is allowing people to judge for themselves.  He didn't diagnose anyone.  Anyone could have went to wiki and did the copy and paste, it doesn't take a doctor to do that.  I'm not really sure what she's getting at.


HE DIDN"T SHOW ANY PROOF, YOU MORONS! He gave you some Doc's license #. Still no name. An osteo is making a psych-diagnosis online? Proof he ain't no MD!

----------


## LibertyIn08

> HE DIDN"T SHOW ANY PROOF, YOU MORONS! He gave you some Doc's license #. Still no name. An osteo is making a psych-diagnosis online? Proof he ain't no MD!


Some of us actually do research on these things before spouting off.  Do a search on the license, the location, and then put two and two together.

By the way, SGP doesn't support his claims about his identity OR his supposed facts about delegates.

----------


## mdh

> YOU MORONS!


I'm still of the opinion that the first one to resort to name-calling and ad hom attacks automatically loses.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> HE DIDN"T SHOW ANY PROOF, YOU MORONS! He gave you some Doc's license #. Still no name. An osteo is making a psych-diagnosis online? Proof he ain't no MD!


Again, he never made a diagnosis.  He just put the information out there and is allowing people to judge for themselves.  Like I said, anyone could have copied that, it didn't take a doctor.  I would have found the information very relevant to this thread, whether it came from a doctor or not.

----------


## Sandra

> Some of us actually do research on these things before spouting off.  Do a search on the license, the location, and then put two and two together.
> 
> By the way, SGP doesn't support his claims about his identity OR his supposed facts about delegates.


This post makes you a liar.
Most of us have read your spew.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> This post makes you a liar.
> Most of us have read your spew.


What the hell are you talking about?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> HE DIDN"T SHOW ANY PROOF, YOU MORONS! He gave you some Doc's license #. Still no name. An osteo is making a psych-diagnosis online? Proof he ain't no MD!


Sandra,

He said explicitly that he was NOT making a diagnosis.    You shouldn't use "Dr." Steve Parent's reasoning and logic...




> I guess I could take a snapshot of my license (its Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, Iowa #02434, BTW), but I don't really care if anyone believes me.  
> 
> I am not out to gather a hoard of fawning admirers or I guess I would have called myself "*Dr.* spacehabitats". 
> 
> *I am also not claiming to diagnose anyone over the Internet.*You didn't think I was referring to anyone on this thread, did you.

----------


## LibertyIn08

Sandra, if I may ask, what is my 'spew'?

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Sandra, if I may ask, what is my 'spew'?


You pointed out that Steve is either delusional or a liar.

----------


## pepperpete1

Holy Crap! 36 pages of inferences, name calling, and sometimes outright slander. And we are all on the same team?

I am new to how politics works. Until I found out Ron Paul was running for President, all I ever did was go to the polls and vote for who I thought was the best candidate in the general election.

When I went to the RP2008 site and saw "Sign up to be a precinct captain", I did. I did the normal stuff. Calling people, drove ,miles putting up slim jims on mail boxes. Erecting 4 x 8 s and 2x4s and yard signs. I began researching my state rules and state election laws.

I sure wish Dr. Parent was around then. It would have saved me a lot of time. I usually do my own research anyway, but it would have been nice to have him as a sounding board.
I went to State convention in MI, cold. Ignorant as to what I may find there. I did manage to NOT listen to our state hq about putting RP as a candidate preference on the candidate preference form I filled out to run for national delegate. Uncommitted was what was needed to run for the delegate positions that Romney left open.

Being unaware, that I would be given speaking time, I had no speech prepared. No flyers to hand out. I did not know that just filling out the PPF that I would automatically be on the list of delegates to be voted on, along with the other names that were already there. How they got there without a nomination is something I still do not know. I did not get elected. Darn. Anyway I could have used SP's advice.

I waded thru all these pages and at times you guys were saying the same thing, different words.

Steve Parent is not wrong in what he has had to say. (By the way No1ButPaul08, McCain had as of Feb.6,08 only 58.43% of the delegates that were chosen , as long as we are making corrections.)

You guys, sure know how to beat a dead horse. How many times does he have to say that the brokered convention statement was when Romney and Huck were still in the race?

You only sounded like you wanted to play nice on the 3rd page back and even then your statements were veiled judgements as to the sanity of Steve.

We have enough protagonists with the GOP, lets all get this show on the road and win some more delegates, and I will keep my rose colored glasses on til the fat lady sings.

----------


## mdh

> Holy Crap! 36 pages of inferences, name calling, and sometimes outright slander. And we are all on the same team?
> 
> I am new to how politics works.


This is how politics works.  Welcome to politics.  




> We have enough protagonists with the GOP, lets all get this show on the road and win some more delegates, and I will keep my rose colored glasses on til the fat lady sings.


I am a protagonist in the GOP.

----------


## greywolf

I agree with Pepper.  Thirty-six pages of being a "house divided" will not work. A "house divided" will not stand.  Ron Paul is as much of an ideal as he is a candidate.  I am a citizen of the sovereign state of Missouri.  My son and I did attend our county caucus on March 15.  It was a shame.  Very few people showed up.  We both managed to become delegates to the congressional convention as well as declaring the desire to go to the state convention in May.  We did not attend with the intent of overrunning the caucus or changing the required vote for McCain (although it does pain me that this has to happen in the first round).  As Missouri Republican party rules dictate that for the moment we are bound to vote for the "winner take all" primary winner.  However, a lot can happen between now and the state convention.  Our congressional caucus is on April 19th and it will be exciting to say the least.  If I had as many "motions" as good ol' Robert, I would never have to be worried about becoming irregular when I grow old.

However, our main intent was to become delegates with the hope of working on the Missouri Republic party platform.  We are concerned about issues affecting the sovereignty of the state of Missouri as well as other states.  We are openly opposing NAIS (National Animal Identification System) and REAL ID.  Both of these are definite infringements of our guaranteed Constitutional rights. 

We are closely watching the McCain campaign and its possible violation of campaign financing rules.  We are also checking on the Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain website and watching the ads and videos placed by them.  The district court in California is to decide on his legality to even be president (born in Panama in a hospital that was not in the U.S. territory at the time of his birth--definition of the "natural born" clause ).

Dr. Steve brings out many good points and should be applauded for all of the work that he has done and the time and effort he has spent.  Many others should also be applauded.  This is not a "one man show" and Dr. Steve should not have to carry the burden alone.

So, like I said earlier, a lot can happen between now and the National GOP convention.   Am I going to give up on Ron Paul and his ideals because McCain is a "shoe in"?  NEVER!!!!!!  Am I going to give up on the ideal of freedom, just because Ron Paul doesn't win the presidential election?  NEVER!!!!!!  Am I going to quit reading this forum, because it has just spent 36 pages of ranting, raving, back-biting, and pulling apart?  NEVER!!!!

If need be,  we can all agree to disagree.  That is the wonderful thing about being a Citizen of the United States of America.  We all have the right to think as individuals and express our opinions and beliefs.  We must learn to research things and make our own decisions accordingly.  However, never should we try to trounce on someone else's interpretations without having a full understanding of what the individual is trying to state and then working to achieve a mutual understanding of the facts.  We are all granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as we do not infringe on the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of another.

Proudly will I state "God bless America", "In God We Trust", and "One Nation Under God".  And the God that I am talking about is the God of the Christians.


Thank you for reading this post and allowing me the "area" to post in.  No part of this post was meant to "flame" or "in-flame" anyone unless it is to light a fire under you to quit bickering and get along with the business at hand..GO RON PAUL!!!!!

Greywolf - Citizen of the Sovereign State of Missouri, and Citizen of the United States of America.

----------


## LibertyIn08

Steve brought the division by spreading misinformation, not those who wish for proper information to be listed.

It is not an either-or proposition.  He can still do good spreading information, it should just be correct.

----------


## greywolf

Mr. Drummond, please do not use my post for a springboard to continue the fighting.  The information about delegates provided by Dr. Steve has proven true in our state.  I am not sure what state your are from.  Are you a delegate as well?  I hope so, and also hope to get the chance to meet you at the National Convention.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Mr. Drummond, please do not use my post for a springboard to continue the fighting.  The information about delegates provided by Dr. Steve has proven true in our state.  I am not sure what state your are from.  Are you a delegate as well?  I hope so, and also hope to get the chance to meet you at the National Convention.


I cannot become a delegate, but I will hopefully be at the National Convention as a volunteer or a liaison for our branch of the Teenage Republicans.

The information provided about delegates voting while bound could lead to either civil suits brought by the state or national GOP.  I have been, and continue to will be, a fervent supporter of everyone becoming a delegate.  However, I cannot, in good conscience, allow misinformation to be posted and regarded as gospel. 

It is not a bad thing to question, and by working together, we could all produce a much better listing of rules and our best way to utilize them.  However, as long as Steve continues to ignore these (legitimate) concerns, there will be a degree of detriment created by his recommended procedures.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> This is not a "one man show" and Dr. Steve should not have to carry the burden alone.


Hi Greywolf and welcome to RPFs.

No one asked Steve to carry anything.  I have been on this forum explaining the rules to be a delegate since last May.  In conjunction with many others here, we have been working well together updating and correcting each other respectfully for the benefit of all of us--we found that the best way to move the rEVOLution forward.

On the other hand, Steve has carried on his one man show by his own choice (deleting the posts of many of us correcting his factually incorrect information that has hurt the efforts of many Ron Paul supporters).  

I have asked him on this thread to correct on his Daily Paul post the wrong information.

He challenged me in the OP by lying about my statements.  I have called him on it.  He has not corrected any of his lies (or is maintaining his delusions).  He has not corrected anything I have said but has been proven wrong here on multiple posts by multiple people.  

It would be better if he contributed to the wiki I established here in his honor to work together as you suggest.  His "one man show" of delusions is by his own choice.

----------


## greywolf

Bradley, thanks for the welcome.  Mr. Drummond, I too look forward to meeting at the National Convention.  I am glad to see the youth getting involved in political affairs of our country.  I am getting old enough (hence the name 'Greywolf') to realized that bickering will not get anyone anywhere.  Again, I re-iterate, it is for each of us to research the facts and find out for ourselves how it affects us as delegates and as Citizens of the United States of America.  Everyone is bringing out good facts and discussions and I think we all have a common goal...FREEDOM!!!

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Bradley, thanks for the welcome.  Mr. Drummond, I too look forward to meeting at the National Convention.  I am glad to see the youth getting involved in political affairs of our country.  I am getting old enough (hence the name 'Greywolf') to realized that bickering will not get anyone anywhere.  Again, I re-iterate, it is for each of us to research the facts and find out for ourselves how it affects us as delegates and as Citizens of the United States of America.  Everyone is bringing out good facts and discussions and I think we all have a common goal...FREEDOM!!!


Hi Greywolf,

I may be catching up with you on that score! 

Please take a moment to look around the forum.  You'll find that in the state subfora many of us have been working together to contribute to the best most up-to-date state-specific information we can.  

Of course, we welcome everyone else--including Steve--to join our efforts!

----------


## Lord Xar

I am noticing alot of mail coming to me, as a delegate, in hopes of me voting"mccain". Why am I asked and being somewhat "courted" as a delegate for McCain for a vote. I live in Los Angeles and since my distrcit didn't win for Ron Paul, my delegate status is moot. YET, why am I being sent things as delegate with some nods to "vote for Mccain". Is this just "junk/spam mail" that I am getting from the RNC and such?

----------


## greywolf

Xar, it would be interesting to see the headers on those email messages and find the source of the mail.

----------


## Drsteveparent

Bradley you and the few of you are a real piece of work. 

Now i am a liar? 

How many meetups have you called and educated on rules of order? 

How many bylaws have you read to address each state? 

How many people have you spoken to personally? 

I have spoken to thousands and if you look at the states that have dominated at thier conventions you ask them who they received their adice from and i assure you it was not you or anyone else here posting negative comments about me. 

As far as my medical background and license or license number is none of your business or anyone elses ana has no bearing on what i have done or is willing to continue to do. 

You people can try to cut me down all you want i really do not care. 

You can post online all you want it does not change what i have accomplished with the delegates and the education i have given them that have won major victories in many states and will continue to win victories in many other remaining states.

How many of you dividers are delegates? 

You dividers will never convince anyone that you have done anything more than blog here or motivated anyone on anything that has made a difference.

And your glorified massage therapist can critisize me all he wishes for it will change nothing.

I will be on www.rprradio.com Tuesday 4pm central time call in and debate me and then we will see the truth and if you do not show to debate me well that will speak for itself.

I will gladly yield to the gentleman for an open debate.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> I am noticing alot of mail coming to me, as a delegate, in hopes of me voting"mccain". Why am I asked and being somewhat "courted" as a delegate for McCain for a vote. I live in Los Angeles and since my distrcit didn't win for Ron Paul, my delegate status is moot. YET, why am I being sent things as delegate with some nods to "vote for Mccain". Is this just "junk/spam mail" that I am getting from the RNC and such?



Are you sure they're courting you as a delegate?  I'm getting non-stop McCain spam from the RNC.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Bradley you and the few of you are a real piece of work. 
> 
> Now i am a liar?


Steve,

In the OP you say I said things I never said:

Hello Bradley, ...

Dr. Paul only needs the actual people that are elected to be the majority of delegates in ANY 5 states to be placed on the ballot at the RNC in September and *he DOES NOT have to win 5 state primary votes to obtain the delegates.*
But in fact I have never said any such thing.  In this thread I pointed out my discussion of the issue here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384

Lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
I have nothing confused.  You are lying now since you know what you say is factually wrong, an untrue statment with the intent to deceive, since I have explained it here in this thread and here you are obviously reading that what you say is wrong.  

I have asked you to correct your misstatements both here when you lie about what I say and on Daily Paul and your other posts where you deceive others with false information about the delegate process:

Steve: The *only* way this matters is if one person receives 1191 delegates that are *bound by state rules* to be committed to a candidate.
Bradley: Now, as we've discussed here, this statement is factually inaccurate. Either delusional or a lie. Period. A candidate can get the nomination on the first vote and avoid a brokered convention with the votes of BOUND AND UNBOUND delegates.
You know it is not true even while you deny saying it:

Bradley: Would you please clarify (again) that McCain (or anyone else!) can get the nomination from the majority of votes of bound AND unbound delegates at the national nominating convention (at the first or subsequent votes)?

Steve : I have never denied that for of course it is possible which is why i have said many times if we do not get our number of delegates registered and elected we will have no shot at winning at all and i have never tried to hide the fact that we could lose and this would be a battle to win either way.
So yes, liar or delusional, but I'd defer to a real medical doctor...

Bragging about how many you mislead is less impressive than unfounded professional claims.





> I will be on www.rprradio.com Tuesday 4pm central time call in and debate me and then we will see the truth and if you do not show to debate me well that will speak for itself.


I have a previous engagement with McKinley for Congress and the Granny Warriors rally on the Mall.  The truth is that I'm working to promote the rEVOLution in positive ways.  Your record here speaks for itself.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> Steve,
> 
> In the OP you say I said things I never said:
> 
> Hello Bradley, ...
> 
> Dr. Paul only needs the actual people that are elected to be the majority of delegates in ANY 5 states to be placed on the ballot at the RNC in September and he DOES NOT have to win 5 state primary votes to obtain the delegates.
> But in fact I have never said any such thing.  In this thread I pointed out my discussion of the issue here:
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=104384
> ...




Actually Bradley why don't you call the show on tuesday and explain where i lied please and also explain where i have given misinformation to many states where they have dominated their convention and explain that for all of us please?

As i said ask the meetup groups and heads who they received their information from.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> How many meetups have you called and educated on rules of order?


Zero, I'm not really educated on the topic.  I didn't see where anyone criticized you for this.




> How many bylaws have you read to address each state?


15-20




> How many people have you spoken to personally?


Not many, but I did help some people in NE 
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=118868




> You can post online all you want it does not change what i have accomplished with the delegates and the education i have given them that have won major victories in many states and will continue to win victories in many other remaining states.


Again, nobody is mad that you are trying to educate potenial delegates.  It the delusional statements that you've made and your attitude.  




> How many of you dividers are delegates?


Bradley was and Alex is too young.  I'm not sure but I'm going to guess MDH and MelissaWV were too.  I was, but my county election board determined i wasn't, "a Republican in good standing," so they threw my candidacy out.  I could have appealed, but for numerous reasons ($ for lawyer (not sure if i needed one, but i'm rather clueless on these matters, almost 0% chance of victory, and others), chose not to.




> And your glorified massage therapist can critisize me all he wishes for it will change nothing.


I'm going to assume you're talking about spacehab, but I didn't see him criticize you.  He just informed us of a medical condtion, that's all. 




> I will be on www.rprradio.com Tuesday 4pm central time call in and debate me and then we will see the truth and if you do not show to debate me well that will speak for itself.


I'll probably be able to join, but since I'm "ignorant," you will probably block my call or have me cut off in short order

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Actually Bradley why don't you call the show on tuesday and explain where i lied please and also explain where i have given misinformation to many states where they have dominated their convention and explain that for all of us please?
> 
> As i said ask the meetup groups and heads who they received their information from.


Steve, can't you read what you quote?  I made my own plans before your silly challenge.

Please feel free to address the factual discussion here for all to see--especially the ones you invited.

----------


## cjhowe

Again, I ask: How many of you are still delegates or eligible to be delegates to an upcoming convention or caucus? 

So far there has been one reply from Bradley who said that while he was a 'delegate candidate', he is not a delegate to an upcoming convention or caucus.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Again, I ask: How many of you are still delegates or eligible to be delegates to an upcoming convention or caucus? 
> 
> So far there has been one reply from Bradley who said that while he was a 'delegate candidate', he is not a delegate to an upcoming convention or caucus.


Actually, I am an alternate to the 5th district convention here in Iowa. (Practicing physicians make notoriously unreliable delegates.)
My wife is a full delegate and we both will be going to Carroll, Iowa on the 19th. She is the one that we are trying to get through to the RNC

BTW, Dr. Steve, if you happen to be driving through southwest Iowa in a couple of weeks be *very* careful not to get in a car accident.
I hear that the local hospital is going to have a "glorified massage therapist" staffing their emergency room!  
I hear they even have him supervising all *three* of the  Physician Assistants who cover the emergency room full time.
But what would you expect from a hospital that would let that same "glorified massage therapist" be their Chief of Staff last year?
And while he isn't a psychiatrist (and does NOT claim to be one) he *was* the medical director for the geriatric psychiatry unit for a couple of years.

And if you are interested, he does *know* some *excellent* psychiatrists.

(Personally, I just think you need to cut down on your caffeine.)

----------


## greywolf

> Again, I ask: How many of you are still delegates or eligible to be delegates to an upcoming convention or caucus? 
> 
> So far there has been one reply from Bradley who said that while he was a 'delegate candidate', he is not a delegate to an upcoming convention or caucus.


Thanks for bringing this back on track.  I am a delegate to the congressional district caucus on April 19 in Missouri.

----------


## cjhowe

> Thanks for bringing this back on track.  I am a delegate to the congressional district caucus on April 19 in Missouri.


I have a difficult time believing that those that are still involved in the mechanical process of being a delegate are only in it to secure Ron Paul a nomination.  They should at this point understand the power and influence they will have within the party and among their fellow delegates.  Your fellow delegates are people.  Talk with them.  Let them know that you understand what Republican values are built upon.  

Regardless of what a fellow internet surfer pontificates as his understanding of the rules, if some scenario unfolds that results in McCain not receiving the nomination,  I think we'd do well to ensure that as many liberty minded people are in St. Paul to make the decision on behalf of the Republican party in accordance with their conscience.  In the meantime, there are hearts and minds to enlighten on the subject of the false choices of American politics.

----------


## greywolf

Well spoken, cjhowe.  We must show a unified front.  This thread has be viewed over 6,000 times.  You can bet there are Republicans, Dems, Libs, etc. viewing this thread.  I also became a delegate because I believe in the Republican ideals and want to see them return to the grassroot Conservative platform.  We can provide valuable insight, and it is the duty of all Americans to stand up for what is right and to protect our personal freedoms.

----------


## SteveMartin

I am a delegate to the State Convention in Augusta on May 2, 3.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Again, I ask: How many of you are still delegates or eligible to be delegates to an upcoming convention or caucus? 
> 
> So far there has been one reply from Bradley who said that while he was a 'delegate candidate', he is not a delegate to an upcoming convention or caucus.


I am not a delegate to an upcoming convention or caucus because unlike Anson's site that lies about the official campaign's approval and is chock full of bad info that Steve keeps promoting--WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONVENTIONS OR CAUCUSES HERE!!  THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

One does have to be a delegate to see that Steve is either lying or delusional.

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Well spoken, cjhowe.  We must show a unified front.


Exactly why it would be to EVERYONE'S benefit if Steve apologized for lying and simply corrected his misinformation and would work WITH the rest of us who have been putting out good, state-specific information since last May before anyone heard of him.

----------


## spacehabitats

"It is best not to antagonize these people. Usually they should just be given a wide berth and let them have their way."

As hard as it is not to rise to their bait,
And as much fun as it is to poke at their inflated egos, 
you should realize that they are not going to change.
They will never make a significant admission of guilt or inadequacy because, in the final analysis, it is....
ALL ABOUT THEM.

----------


## undergroundrr

I'm a delegate.   Every step of the process opens up new possibilities.   Every step introduces me to more dedicated Republicans who detest a McCain nomination.

Whatever accuracies there are in the OP, and whatever the personal qualities of the original poster, his message is still more accurate (and infinitely more useful) than those who state (or even insinuate) that the RP nomination effort is finished.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> "It is best not to antagonize these people. Usually they should just be given a wide berth and let them have their way."
> 
> As hard as it is not to rise to their bait,
> And as much fun as it is to poke at their inflated egos, 
> you should realize that they are not going to change.
> They will never make a significant admission of guilt or inadequacy because, in the final analysis, it is....
> ALL ABOUT THEM.


Don't forget Schizophrenia

Thank you it is appreciated

----------


## Bradley in DC

> Whatever accuracies there are in the OP, and whatever the personal qualities of the original poster, his message is still more accurate (and infinitely more useful) than those who state (or even insinuate) that the RP nomination effort is finished.


Since it is an eponymous thread, where so you think I said the effort is finished?  In fact, in this thread, I link to MY threads giving people good updated information urging everyone in upcoming states to get involved.  Look at the Roll Up Your Sleeves stickie.

That tactic is another of Steve's deceptions or delusions.

----------


## Bossobass

> Since it is an eponymous thread, where so you think I said the effort is finished?  In fact, in this thread, I link to MY threads giving people good updated information urging everyone in upcoming states to get involved.  Look at the Roll Up Your Sleeves stickie.
> 
> That tactic is another of Steve's deceptions or delusions.


Don't instruct people to look up your sweet spots, Brad. Just reading your posts in this thread is plenty to have led me to the decision to stay home tomorrow instead of attending our district convention.

I could use the sleep-in day, and what use is it to trudge on in battle after battle when the war is lost.

Thanks for letting me know that people like Steve Parent are straight jacket worthy delusionals who keep using deceptive means to give people like me false hope through misinformation.

And don't give me any last minute pep talks like "Roll up your sleeves, I wasn't talking about you, only certain little tiny things that don't pertain to you. You should attend the convention. I've always been your cheerleader."

I'd also like to say how much we in North Carolina appreciate all the hard work you and your fellow American political process debate team have done to help us in so many other ways. You know, all the donations, phone banks, canvassing, signage, literature, mailings, event planning and, well, just your cheerful and winning dispositions.

Bosso

----------


## MelissaWV

Yes I was a delegate to the state GOP Convention, as was mdh.  I say "was" because it already took place, which seems to be a fact largely ignored by those who want to call me a defeatest.  If you would care to look up Mon County, WV, or even just the overall news regarding the state GOP Convention, there was a strong Paul showing.  The idea that someone who appeared after the fact is somehow the savior of the delegate process is odd, considering many of us have been saying to get involved --- and actually going around helping people sign up and get educated in person --- for many months.  

The rules in our state changed very last-minute.  I cringe to think what would have happened in our county if we'd been sitting around on a forum or waiting for a meetup group to inform us that we had to register to vote online for delegates or risk missing a one-day vote for delegates to the state Convention.  Instead, this large, voter-rich county was *decidedly* for Ron Paul.  

It's unknown what will happen as far as potentially being an RNC delegate at this point.  There is still some voting to occur in May for which we are continuing the on-the-ground effort in our state.  I couldn't imagine for a moment pretending to hand out numbers on a national scale right now, when there is so much to be done locally!  There are Paul-friendly candidates to prep and get into the public eye, there are people who still need to hear the message, and there is the rising tide of the MSM saying "Paul has dropped out" to do battle against.  On top of that, there are those out there who will spread numbers and assertions without any real backing, and that does tick me off.  

We're individuals, and frankly the background of each individual isn't what is at stake for me.  It's what they're saying.  Is it accurate?  I will say again: telling people to get educated is awesome, but when you follow it up with *numbers* and alleged *facts*, you are putting yourself out there as an expert... an educator.  Please have the forethought to proofread those facts, and the decency to retract those which are incorrect.  Gracefully.

As for the "personal" attacks, some of them are out of the blue, some of them are based on things that have been said by the poster themselves.  Dr. Steve if you are not schizophrenic then please be aware there is someone parading around on IRC with your same IP address stating that he prescribed himself Thorazine.  If it was you joking around, that would be a much easier way to resolve this than to simply act as if the people saying it were just pulling the information out of their butts.  If you are schizophrenic I fail to see how that's an insult, personally, despite how people are characterizing it.  I'm bipolar.  Nice to meet you.  I'm sure a jab from someone will soon follow!

Everyone gets a clean slate from me every time I see something from them, believe it or not.  That's why when I saw your post regarding the phone bill I did endeavor to help, and even brushed off your first response where you told me I do nothing to help anyone.  I hope that in the future you look into the variety of options available on all fronts, and that it can save you money and streamline  your message. 

Anyhow, to recap: yes, mdh and I *were delegates* at our Convention which *passed* and produced an official 18 bound delegates to Huckabee (but unofficially 15 bound for Huckabee and 3 appointed Paul-supporters).  The hard work on mdh's part prior to that produced enough delegates to that state convention that we were courted as leverage.  Huckabee could not have won without us, whatever you think of that.  Paul's voice was heard, and he had an impact on the first decision of Super Tuesday.

*That* is what I've been a part of.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Bradley you and the few of you are a real piece of work. 
> 
> Now i am a liar? 
> 
> How many meetups have you called and educated on rules of order? 
> 
> How many bylaws have you read to address each state? 
> 
> How many people have you spoken to personally? 
> ...


First, another great post Melissa!

I have both personal and professional reasons to be sympathetic to anyone who does, in fact, have a mental illness. I also do not believe that anyone should be judged on these forums based on anything other than the quality of their written contributions. I don't care how old someone is, their gender, race, occupation, education, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, etc.
This is *not* political correctness. (I happen to *hate* that whole PC, "Newspeak", "thought police" thing!) I simply respect human beings to much to discount what they say based on same lame prejudice.


Which leads me to my main point.

I don't care what kind or even if Dr. Steve is a "real" doctor. At least from the stand point of respecting his ideas and recognizing his contributions to the movement.

I obviously don't place too much stock on credentials, or I would not have waited until my 200th post to mention that fact that I am a doctor.

When I made my original post about narcissistic personality disorder, I intentionally did a cut and paste so people would *not* have to rely on unverified credentials or a degree. I honestly did not think too much about the fact that I was "outing" myself as a physician. In retrospect I can see how naive I was to think that this was not going to be a "big deal".  I can see now how much stock these "Dr. Steveites" place on his professional status. I guess in their minds being a doctor gave him some type of special status within the movement; a link to Dr. Paul that transcended the average supporter. I can honestly say that it never occurred to me that people like "Sandra" would question *my* professional status. Again, I can see now that I was inadvertently encroaching onto the sacred (and to that point, unique) territory of her guru.

Now to the man.
I won't claim any special love for Dr. Steve.  Since I first saw his posts on Daily Paul I will admit that I was more than a little put off by his "IF YOU CARE ANYTHING ABOUT FREEDOM AND THE FATE OF OUR REPUBLIC YOU WILL KEEP THIS BUMPED EVERY DAY AND IF YOU DON'T YOU ARE ALL SCUM THAT DESERVE TO LIVE IN CHAINS" hyperbolic style. I didn't mind so much that he called himself "Doctor" Steve. I guess I assumed that he had a PhD in Early Aztec Basket Weaving and was one of those guys that got off on being called "Doctor". And I don't think any less of someone if they don't happen to feel like me that it kind of goes against the egalitarian atmosphere of this movement.

Within the last couple of days, I will admit he got me ticked off when he and his sycophantic groupies on DailPaul accused me of fabricating an email from a national campaign staff member advising RP delegates that they probably should not expect to be able to vote for Ron Paul at the RNC.

Wowee, talk about shooting the messenger. Within minutes I was called everything from a troll to a CFR infiltrator to a liar. I reposted adding even more chunks of the email, explaining meticulously and as clearly as possible that I WAS NOT ENDORSING OR CONDONING THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE EMAIL but that I thought it was worth knowing what some within the campaign were advising.

That made them even madder. 
I was a liar. I made the whole thing up.

I had my wife come on to confirm that she had in fact received the email.
Either they ignored her or thought she was a CFR plant (I honestly don't know what is going on inside that gelatinous mass they use for brains.)
But at least I could count on the good doctor to add a note of dignity, right?

He came on and without commenting at all on the changes, clarifications, replies, and added comments by my wife asked, "Why hasn't this post been flagged?"

"Sorry, Your Highness. We'll get on it right away! We won't let it happen again!", said his lapdog fanboys, as they scurried to do his bidding.

I offered to forward the email in question to Steve if he would promise me not to divulge the author's name or post excerpts out of context.
Nada. No rebuttal. No acknowledgment. No apology and no retraction. 

No, Steve is strictly a hit and run kind of guy.

So now that he has thoroughly befouled the atmosphere over at DailyPaul, Steve announces grandly (everything he does is always done in dramatic fashion) that he is going to come over to the RonPaul Forums to root out the infidels and could he have some of his groupies come with him? (They almost always travel in packs, safer that way.)

And this thread was the result.

And still I would have given him some benefit of the doubt. That maybe he has actually helped some of the people that he says he has helped. And maybe some of the people that think *he* has helped *them*, actually aren't deluded or suffering from intellectual Stockholm Syndrome.

And then he gave THIS quote above.

When I first read his smear about the "glorified massage therapist" I was actually amused. I am used to some lay people confusing DO's (Doctor of Osteopathy) with chiropractors or whatever simply because in *addition* to *all of the courses that any MD medical student* has to take the Osteopathic medical student *also* must learn manipulative therapy. True, in the early 20th century there was a sometimes not all that friendly rivalry between the two schools of medicine. But by the time I entered medical school that was all ancient history. Today's DO's and MD's share residency programs and populate every specialty from Pediatrics to Neurosurgery and sometimes work with a doctor for a years before they realize which one he is.

All doctors know this. Patients may not, especially if they come from some areas of the country where DO's aren't as numerous. But ALL *doctors* know this.
So it never occurred to me that Steve was anything but a PhD taking a cheap shot out of ignorance.

That's when I made this response:

 " BTW, Dr. Steve, if you happen to be driving through southwest Iowa in a couple of weeks be *very* careful not to get in a car accident.
I hear that the local hospital is going to have a "glorified massage therapist" staffing their emergency room!  
I hear they even have him supervising all *three* of the  Physician Assistants who cover the emergency room full time.
But what would you expect from a hospital that would let that same "glorified massage therapist" be their Chief of Staff last year?
And while he isn't a psychiatrist (and does NOT claim to be one) he *was* the medical director for the geriatric psychiatry unit for a couple of years.

And if you are interested, he does *know* some *excellent* psychiatrists.

(Personally, I just think you need to cut down on your caffeine.)" 

More out of amusement than anger.
A little sarcastic? Sure. A little condescending? Guilty.
But you can see why I might have been a little fed up with this self-righteous stuffed shirt.

But then I stumbled back across his note and noticed for the first time his claim to be a *physician* --

 As far as my medical background and license or license number is none of your business or anyone elses ana has no bearing on what i have done or is willing to continue to do. 

Wait a minute, I had been cutting him some slack because I thought he was just ignorant. Spiteful, self-promoting, conceited, deluded, and petty, sure, but not malevolent.

But now all of a sudden my view of "Doctor" Steve made a paradigm shift. He was claiming to be a *medical* doctor. All of this grandstanding and posturing was coming from an MD, not some PhD with an inferiority complex?!? All of this childish, unprofessional behavior from a colleague?

Now he no longer had an excuse. I have practiced medicine and trained in states from Nevada to Pennsylvania; Iowa to Virginia. I have worked with DO's and MD's trained everywhere from Botswana to the Mayo Clinic; but I have never, NEVER met a doctor who would debase himself to call a DO colleague a "glorified massage therapist". I know you may not understand this but, this just isn't done. Not on our worst days. Not even in gest. And Steve was most certainly NOT joking.  He wasn't calling me a liar this time, he was insulting my profession (actually OUR profession) and taking advantage of YOUR ignorance to take a cheap shot at someone he KNEW really WAS a doctor.

Now all the misspelled, ungrammatical, disjointed posts were more sinister. This is a guy that will stop at nothing, will stoop to anything to win his point. I know now that whatever else he is, he is not the dedicated servant to this movement that he claims to be. I don't care how many hours he spends talking to delegates or how many phone bills he racks up; Steve Parent cares about only one thing -- Steve Parent.

I don't know, nor do I care if he is a doctor or not. Either he is a bold-faced liar, or a professional who has lost any semblance of ethical or professional dignity.

 I now know that I have only heard him say one thing that is absolutely true, 
"i really do not care. "

How true. How true.

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> First, another great post Melissa!
> 
> I have both personal and professional reasons to be sympathetic to anyone who does, in fact, have a mental illness. I also do not believe that anyone should be judged on these forums based on anything other than the quality of their written contributions. I don't care how old someone is, their gender, race, occupation, education, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, etc.
> This is *not* political correctness. (I happen to *hate* that whole PC, "Newspeak", "thought police" thing!) I simply respect human beings to much to discount what they say based on same lame prejudice.
> 
> 
> Which leads me to my main point.
> 
> I don't care what kind or even if Dr. Steve is a "real" doctor. At least from the stand point of respecting his ideas and recognizing his contributions to the movement.
> ...


Great Post

----------


## Sandra

Spacehabitat, I am convinced your post as a "doctor" is as fake as hell. I also think you came here to be a nemesis to Drsteveparent by adoptng an equal yet opposite personna. Couldn't you have chosen a cop or fireman instead? Your first post on this thread and the other threads you started serve as a self diagnosis.

You are truly your own patient.

----------


## Drsteveparent

> First, another great post Melissa!
> 
> I have both personal and professional reasons to be sympathetic to anyone who does, in fact, have a mental illness. I also do not believe that anyone should be judged on these forums based on anything other than the quality of their written contributions. I don't care how old someone is, their gender, race, occupation, education, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, etc.
> This is *not* political correctness. (I happen to *hate* that whole PC, "Newspeak", "thought police" thing!) I simply respect human beings to much to discount what they say based on same lame prejudice.
> 
> 
> Which leads me to my main point.
> 
> I don't care what kind or even if Dr. Steve is a "real" doctor. At least from the stand point of respecting his ideas and recognizing his contributions to the movement.
> ...


Excuse me Doctor but here is why i took a cheap shot at you for it was to return the favor and you accomplished your goal which was to illicit a prescribed response which succeeded however you decided to question my mental state of mind not knowing who i was or what i have done for this movement or my profession by stating and i know that comment was aimed at me to claim i was a narcissistic Disorder. 

You claim this never happens in our profession and you are some what correct doctor however the correct statement would be is rarely happens for it does in fact happen although you did attempt to take a cheap shot at me and i only returned the favor. 

I have no desire to argue here for it is a waste of time for if people are going to make claims it is over and Ron Paul will not be president or why am i wasting peoples time it is worthless to change the minds of such people so i simply claim to them just get out of our way instead of trying to discouraging people to quit. 

In September after the convention doctor i will surely disclose as to my medical background is for all to see and until September only a select few know although many meetup heads know what my medical professional background is. 

As to your email request for me to answer you i have not seen it and i would entertain any email you send to me. 

I will use my title 

Dr. Steve Parent

----------


## No1ButPaul08

> I have no desire to argue here for it is a waste of time for if people are going to make claims it is over and Ron Paul will not be president or why am i wasting peoples time it is worthless to change the minds of such people so i simply claim to them just get out of our way instead of trying to discouraging people to quit.


I'm not the best writer, but do doctors what a run-on sentence is

----------


## Sandra

You say you are an osteopathic doctor, quit trying to give psychology lessons.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...69#post1395169

----------


## constituent

> Excuse me Doctor but here is why i took a cheap shot at you for it was to return the favor and you accomplished your goal which was to illicit a prescribed response which succeeded however you decided to question my mental state of mind not knowing who i was or what i have done for this movement or my profession by stating and i know that comment was aimed at me to claim i was a narcissistic Disorder. 
> 
> You claim this never happens in our profession and you are some what correct doctor however the correct statement would be is rarely happens for it does in fact happen although you did attempt to take a cheap shot at me and i only returned the favor. 
> 
> I have no desire to argue here for it is a waste of time for if people are going to make claims it is over and Ron Paul will not be president or why am i wasting peoples time it is worthless to change the minds of such people so i simply claim to them just get out of our way instead of trying to discouraging people to quit. 
> 
> In September after the convention doctor i will surely disclose as to my medical background is for all to see and until September only a select few know although many meetup heads know what my medical professional background is. 
> 
> As to your email request for me to answer you i have not seen it and i would entertain any email you send to me. 
> ...


i read this and i think, "this guy can't be for real."

are you a native english speaker?  not that being *or not being* has any bearing
on your intellectual capacity or mental state, i'm just wondering.

one sentence:  

Excuse me Doctor but here is why i took a cheap shot at you for it was to return the favor and you accomplished your goal which was to illicit a prescribed response which succeeded however you decided to question my mental state of mind not knowing who i was or what i have done for this movement or my profession by stating and i know that comment was aimed at me to claim i was a narcissistic Disorder. 

....

"to claim i was a narcissistic Disorder."

...


what i find particularly bothersome (perhaps even disappointing) is the use of "doctor" over and over again, as if you were wagging your finger or something.

----------


## LibertyIn08

Sandra, explain to me, once again, what is wrong with wanting correct information put out?

I don't understand your opposition to have a factual base for one's comments.

----------


## Cowlesy

Okay I have to run out and get some dinner, but I think it's getting close to time to just lock this thread up and kill it.

I think we've breached the baseline and are entering anti-productivity.

I'm close to getting a bruise mark on my forehead for how many times I've slapped it reading some of the absurd stuff, and I feel it has no bearing anymore on the Grassroots movement.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> Okay I have to run out and get some dinner, but I think it's getting close to time to just lock this thread up and kill it.
> 
> I think we've breached the baseline and are entering anti-productivity.
> 
> I'm close to getting a bruise mark on my forehead for how many times I've slapped it reading some of the absurd stuff, and I feel it has no bearing anymore on the Grassroots movement.


Sounds fair.

I apologize to anyone I may have offended with any of my comments, but I assure you that my intentions were only to have the correct information available to anyone interested in becoming a delegate.

----------


## spacehabitats

> Spacehabitat, I am convinced your post as a "doctor" is as fake as hell. I also think you came here to be a nemesis to Drsteveparent by adoptng an equal yet opposite personna. Couldn't you have chosen a cop or fireman instead? Your first post on this thread and the other threads you started serve as a self diagnosis.
> 
> You are truly your own patient.


This is all an elaborate hoax to trash your idol. I lifted the license
Do you *really* want to know if I am a doctor, or would it shatter your world view?
I could give you the link to my hospital's website, but I hate my picture. And you would have to find some way to restore you mental equilibrium. 
I would hate to be the one who made you turn to drugs or alcohol.

Personally, I was happier when I believed that Dr. Steve was "just" a self-promoting jerk. Now I have to face the fact that there are a significant number of well-meaning people (like you?) that are following a conscienceless impostor on his path to divide and conquer this movement.

Sorry, but it is true.

----------


## JosephTheLibertarian

> Is that meant as an ad hominem attack?  
> 
> No, I'm not.


ok. There are many lobbyists for good causes, you know. Ever hear about the marijuana lobbyists? Not very effective though lol.

----------


## LibertyIn08

> ok. There are many lobbyists for good causes, you know. Ever hear about the *marijuana lobbyists*? Not very effective though lol.


I wonder why.

----------

