Dokes was certainly out to bash Paul supporters (who frequently bash themselves via their philosophy, but that's a different story), but I think the article was fair.

The actual article was just quoting Dokes. Read it again after a few deep breaths. Try to avoid becoming knee-jerk defensive, and I think you'll see it's a fair article.

Because the establishment will do anything to save face, even if it costs them face at a later time.

I just wanted to say that I would have talked to the Ron Paul supporter as well if I had his name. As it was, I included all information that supported his point of view -- from Officer Melissa Doss and Brent Stafford. I certainly included Dokes' side of the story to be fair to everyone. As for the caucus, we certainly reported on that, and we'll have another report on Brent Stafford once the trial is finished.

WM1860

That doesn't sound conspiratorial at all. Why can't folks just stick to what they know and what is true. When you say things like that, you sound like a nut.

Based on what I know about Dokes, he doesn't sound like "establishment" at all. He sounds like a selfish human being who's out for himself. I think he'd join the Democrat Party if that would advance himself.

I support Ron, but you are definitely one of those that give the rest of us a bad name by being wound up so tight you think the whole world is against you. I fail to see how this article was bias in anyway, the author was simply quoting what was said. You need to calm down, it's your attitude that turns people away from us.

Sounds like a bunch of rednecks in a scuffle. This article was clearly meant to bash Ron Paul supporters. There are idiots in all parties, from all walks of life, in every group. But regarding these people, politics should have been left out of the article. It should have simply said, "Female Redneck A assaulted male Redneck B, Redneck B began hitting Redneck A with a sign until Redneck A's husband arrived, also a redneck. Redneck A's husband has been getting death threats from his wives families for calling the cops and not standing up to the rednecks who were picking on her. Police made no arrests but escorted them back to their respective trailer parks and asked them to stop drinking for the morning. It was reported that the police also asked them to pick up the beer cans and hubcaps from their yards."

Too Too Too Funny Wade.....

Matt.. you hit the nail right on the head with your comment.. I like some of Ron Paul's ideas.. but want nothing to do with the campaign because of the attitude of some of his supporters. He's lost my vote because of it.

Please tell me how you KNEW the signs were stolen. I can't stand Ron Paul, but I support Stafford on this issue. In terms of how Dokes and his wife could know that someone was carrying a "stolen yard sign", I just don't understand how you can know that.

Then, to confront someone over a campaign yard sign. It's just unbelievably stupid from top to bottom.

Which neo-con were you? You all sound/look alike to me.

WM1860

Okay, now you're off the deep-end. You don't even know what the word neo-con means. You think it sounds like an insult, so you use it. That makes you a genius, clearly.

I was standing 5 feet from the man and Mrs. Dokes and she hit him in the face with the sign when she was trying to aggressively pull the sign from the man. She cut his chin and he was bleeding. He only pushed back with the sign but never touched the woman or hit her with the sign or his hand. She did not have a single mark on her. I was there when the police officer ask if she was hurt or had any marks and she could not show that she had been injured. Dokes hit the man repeatedly, once with a football type rush forearms crossed and several times pushing him with a flat hand to the mans throat and chest. He also repeatedly threatened to kill the man, pushing him backwards several feet as he yelled and threatened him.

Do you have evidence that the signs were stolen and not just plucked out of a MODOT dumpster, which is where MODOT places political campaign signs that are in their easements and areas they are responsible for mowing? Accusations without evidence--yeah, that's the ticket.

All 4 of us? There are hundreds in the facebook group, hundred+ elected at the second caucus from SCC and who attended the State convention. There were hundreds of us there at the State Convention, about 40% percent.

Considering the ROmney support group is mostly hobbled together go-along types wh oused to support someone else, and the Paul camp is people who supported Paul all along, its clear to me who has the stronger following and the largest grassroots base.

You elitist small-tent small-minded establishment lovers have a limited time in this party.
Better find the door before we show you it.

Ad hominem name-calling makes you look like the jerk, Always Truth. What an ironic name for someone who opens a comment with name-calling.

I vehemently disagree with many of Paul's positions, especially where he calls himself a Constitutionalist, but I don't walk into the conversation suggesting his supporters are retarded.

That sounds like a Progressive Socialist tactic to me. Tell me again who you're supporting? Dokes? Oh yeah...

You seem to make alot of accussations there based on absolutely no facts. I saw the Youtube videos of the convention and unless you have some info that I don't the RP supporters were following the rules to the letter and it was the GOP regulars who tried to bully them. As for the yard signs or what not, none of us can say for sure on that either way. I'd say your argument loses all credibility when you make baseless accussations about things you didn't witness.

Always truth, it was the central committee that trashed that caucus, mostly Bryan Spencer, Matt Ehlmen, and Cheryl Bates. Eugene did what he was told by them, he ignored Paul supporters and made a ban on recording devices because they did not want people to have proof of what they were about to do. No one stole any signs, Eugene has been placing his on private property, so taking them off of your own property is not illegal. He did not hit a woman, she hit him in the face and he shoved her back.

Four of us? How does that equate to majority at the local caucus and 47% at the state convention? The numbers of liberty-minded people who are sick and tired of the establishment political parties (BOTH sides) are growing. Get used to it.

I don't know where she was, but I've read the accounts of what happened during the caucus. Dokes seems out of control. He certainly doesn't belong in the Republican Party.

Standup, you don't even use your real name to post. Then you go off on a rant to attack someone with whom you disagree. Your behavior is deplorable.

If Tina is lying, then say that and let it end there. Launching into the personal attacks doesn't help your case in the least.

Not sure if the Rupaul comment is good or bad,,,, and as for you looking at me you creeper don't, I know I am awesome so yea for me as to what happened, get the facts strait, she does not weight 125 maybe 145 and she hit the big guy when she ripped the sign from him, what is she the sign police, and as for their signs being stolen dont go blaming everyone alot of times they are removed, so stop whinning about it,,, and who r u really, this is probly Spencer or Dokes, hhhaaa scared to use your real names, well bring it big boy, I dont lie or at least try not to, maybe you all should just come clean so you can stop wasting tax dollars, ,,,,,,,

WE make our own rules? You really haven't been paying attention to this primary at all have you? The GOP changes the rules everytime the vote doesn't come out the way they'd like, and you're accussing the RP crowd of dishonesty?

Matt,

The GOP does indeed make their own rules. Their party, their rules. Don't like it? Become a Precinct Committeeman, just like Dokes did. I plan to run the next time around for my Precinct. Then I'll work my way through the system and I'll get to make the rules.

The specific rules for each caucus do indeed change from caucus to caucus. That's what Stafford was trying to establish this last time when Dokes made a mockery of the proceedings.

You're upset over how the caucuses have always worked. Don't like it? Get involved.

I am involved Jaycen, I am a delegate, and I attend every meeting. I live in MI and there currently is no chance for me to become a chair (our rules were a bit different than most) but I am supporting the RP candidate for that position, beyond that I'm not sure how much more involved you want me to be.

StandUp

Obviously you weren't there. Stafford's trial did not begin until 2 hours later when the traffic docket was done. Stafford was, like Dokes and others, waiting in the lobby outside the courtroom, both saw it. Your accusation that Stafford is a liar is based on fabrication.

Just as untruthful are your following statements. "thieving fat man". Did you ever actually see this man? Muscle, no fat. Thieving? Assertion by proven liar Dokes. "hit a woman"? More from proven liar Dokes.

"He needs to fight a real man like Dokes. I bet that in a boxing ring... he would never even show up. He only likes hitting women who won't hit back"?? You obviously weren't there, but I was. Dokes ran, RAN into him full steam. Now Dokes is a bit pudgy, but also very strong. The man did not hit back - he stood his ground as Dokes jammed his finger into the man's face and repeatedly SCREAMED "I WILL KILL YOU!" Dokes did not "push" the man, he aggressively and violently slammed him with both hands on the man's chest and shoulders. At one point Dokes actually jammed his finger into the man's sunglasses at the bridge of his nose. If that man were not wearing sunglasses to prevent Dokes's finger from going into his eye, I wonder what your claim would be? "Man's eye attacks Dokes's finger"?

The man WAS in a fight that Dokes created - without giving it back. He shoved Dokes away a few times, but never struck him. In a boxing ring, he could fight back. Dokes would lose.

I have to agree. Everything I've read or heard from bloggers and reporters indicates to me that Dokes violated the Republican Party's own rules. His behavior seems more in line with a Progressive Democrat than a Republican of any stripe.

It wasn't just Ron Paul, but Romney's people who got shafted during the caucus.

Jaycen Rigger,

It wasn't just Ron Paul and Romney people who were shafted. When civil proceedings are violated this also leaves the honest Santorum and other supporters in the cold. Dokes and Spencer are both dishonest, and they are obvious about it. Dokes gave a true account of himself by committing assault prior to the trial. Could Santorum be proud that this was the way that he was represented?

Always Truth, are you the same person as StandUp? And are both of you Dokes' wife?

I'm just asking, because you sound similar in your writing and you seem focused on Mrs. Dokes and her weight.

The word neocon was first coined by a Progressive Socialist to bully other Progressives out of their hawkish stance on the Iraq war.

It always worries me when someone uses it inappropriately. Maybe you really mean to use the word "RINO". That seems to accurately describe Dokes.

Jaycen Rigger - interesting comment on terminology. Dokes is a Republican In Name Only. A "neo-con" is a philosophy of sorts, at least a set of ideas. From what I've learned about him, Dokes is a pragmatist with an "R" on his lapel, he has no core beliefs of philosophy.

Joe Scott

To be fair, it was Stephanopoulos and Brian Ross. Both were responsible for that bit of d-baggery.

I don't recall writing any articles on the Aurora shooting. Actually, I think you're referring to George Stephanopoulos.

You're correct, Jaycen. I should have included Brian Ross. I just don't like being lumped in with poor reporting.

I can understand that Joe, but I was also feeling this was an anti-Paul piece as I first started reading. When I got 2/3 through your article, I relaxed.

As stated, I'm anti-Paul, but the opening tone bothered me considerably, especially when you consider my criticism below. Please take it as intended, as constructively as possible. I don't think you have an agenda, but the technical construction of your article could certainly lead someone to believe there's an agenda.

As I stated in my post, I was responding to "Always Truth" and his/her statement about "Main Stream Media." I was not referring directly to this article or the writer, but Main Stream Media in general. I believe Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos are representatives of MSM, are they not?

It'd be nice if they'd reply to each other, too, instead of always starting a new thread. That's just a lack of internet-sense.

If "what you heard" is true, you're right. If we're going to live our lives based on what we hear, instead of what we know, then we're in for a lot of trouble.

The GOP.....Honest? Really? Seriously?

Jay Brooks

What a nasty thing to say. I'm honest, and I'm a member of the Republican Party.

Frieda probably made too broad a stroke, but hers was flattering. Yours was decidedly not. God forbid you should let us know the names of any groups to which you belong.

So nice to know you base you opinions in life on things you "heard". Statements like these make me cringe for an innocent man facing a jury.

The dept of hwy said they have quite a few signs of Dokes, so maybe he should go get them and stop blaming inoccent people.... Paul people dont steal signs, we correct them, just sayin,,,,,,,

Great comment. Spot-on.

Gotcha. Sorry, I wasn't aware of that situation.

I still wish you guys had the guts to use your real names, and I wish the discussion would move back to Stafford. From my perspective, he's the real story here.

There is video

Please, don't wave the "we're all non-violent" flag at me, especially if you're going to back it up with Ron Paul videos or web pages.

Plenty of Paul supporters were also OWS people. Moreover, how typical is it that a Ron Paul supporter turns every discussion into a campaign piece for Ron Paul. The fervor I get from you folks feels like you're in a cult.

This article does not attempt to associate violence with Paul supporters, though the tactic used in the headline is questionable. It's possible Joe Scott doesn't know that most American's don't read past the headline, and those who do rarely read past the 6th paragraph.

Had he known that, he might have tried to avoid quoting Dokes so heavily at the beginning of the article without making it explicitly clear that this is all Dokes' word against everyone else.

But, what're you gonna do?

Brent, which site did you post it to? St. Peters, St. Charles, O'Fallon or Wentzville?

As far as I know it was this one.

Jim, you and I know each other. I assume you are speaking of the sign incident and not what occurred on March 17th or my defense of my actions in court yesterday.

Respectfully, Jim, when I hear your argument, I can't help think how ignorant Americans are of history. Based on your picture, a man your age should know better.

Certainly, sir, you are aware that as early as the Founding Father's time the political language was at least as nasty as it is today, and perhaps worse. Jefferson's campaign called Adam's wife an adulterer. The two broke up their friendship over it and didn't reconcile until the end of their lives.

Serioulsy, the "it's never been this bad before", or "we're facing unprecedented X, Y, Z" is pure B.S. Spend some time investigating political campaigns prior to 30 years ago before you tell me "this all started when".

I'd tell you it all started the first time two human beings began to discuss who should make the next decision.

Jim Frain, you BET I'm angry! Although I am middle-aged, for the first time I attended a caucus (actually two) and the state convention and am now more involved in the process than ever before. When I witnessed the actions of the establishment Republicans at the first caucus in attempting to shut out those with whom they disagreed but who held the majority, my eyes were opened. They actually PLOTTED beforehand (as evidenced in recordings of both Spencer and Dokes) to block a majority group of voters because they could not pull in a majority for their side to swing an actual vote. Funny thing is, when I arrived at that caucus, I was really on the fence about which candidate I would support because I liked and disliked bits and pieces of what each stood for. Those actions helped me realize who I did NOT want to align myself. At the state convention, I witnessed the establishment machine on the move again and unfortunately, they held the majority albeit, only slightly. We did not riot, we did not call police, we only pledged to keep on moving our ideals forward. Now, because I fall on the side of liberty and upholding our constitution and not on the side of career or establishment politicians who stopped representing the people long ago, I am called Paultard, neo-nazi, and numerous other names. The VERY SAD thing is, it's not always the Democrats/Progressives saying those things...IT'S MY VERY OWN PARTY! Yes, I AM ANGRY!

I agree Jim. It's up to people who are fed up with it to speak out against it.

I wrote the post, over 1,700 words and had to edit it down to the 1,500 word limit, and when I went to post it, I had to register. After I registered it never appeared. I'm not inclined to rewrite the whole thing. The Dokes sign incident should be a separate story. The story about my trial is a multifaceted issue of constitutional rights, attempted rigging of a political process, and what happens when people stand up for what is right.

Hello Brent,
Has the Ron Paul campaign offered to pay for your legal fees? In an email yesterday they said they are using the $2.8 million they have in the kitty for legal fees and asked for new donations to help delegates get to Tampa.How much of the $2.8 ,million have they offered you?

Good deal, Jim.

Then you're already living the concept. Why then would you post the opposing belief on the internet?

Any debate has the potential to turn into a shouting match. Certainly you understand that. To pine for a utopia where that never happens is unrealistic. It distorts the issue.

You can only control you, Jim. You can hope others would control themselves, but ultimately, it's up to them. So what? If others shout and say hateful things what will you do?

Whatever you do, don't tell me it's worse today than ever before. That's not truth. Don't tell me "we have to do something about it", because that path leads to stripping people of their freedom to be giant d-bags. In America, you have the freedom to be as big a d-bag as you like, unless and until it infringes on the rights of your neighbors.

Shouting and saying hateful things is not an infringement on anyone else's rights. So, what now? Re-focus on the critical points? Stick to the facts and continue the discussion/debate/argument/hate-filled rant? Yep.

I've known plenty of people who support both OWS and RP. I don't think its a majority, but to categorically state that RP supporters are non-violent is as silly as if I stated all Tea Partiers (the movement with whom I directly identify) are non-violent.

Undoubtedly, there are some Tea Partiers who'd happily get violent. Unfortunately, there are Tea Partiers who support RP. I think it's nonsense, but it's not a monolithic movement, just as supporters of Ron Paul are not monolithic drones....seriously, don't call me out on that last one you guys!

Jaycen, I applaud you for being more of a cool head than most, however you continue to make the snide jabs at Ron Paul, suggesting he isn't a constitutionalist, and that "ufortunately some of the Tea Party supports him", I'm just curious, first, how do you rationalize Ron doesn't follow the constitution (and for god's sake please have something better than the earmark thing), and second, if Ron is not up to your standards than by all means, tell me - who is?

I liked the TP at first, but after seeing them rally behind Cain - who worked for the Fed - then Gingrich - who worked for Fannie/Freddie, then Santorum - who voted for NCLB and Medicare part D, and now........ROMNEY, seriously, how can anyone still say the TP has any legs to stand on.

There was no order to disperse, lawful or otherwise. Do you even know what you are talking about? Also, the caucus is very much on trial as it would determine whether or not Mr Stafford should or should not have been arrested. He can't be arrested for tresspassing if he was not tresspassing. I'd say you are the one missing the point.

Matt there are several videos on youtube of inside the caucus which clearly show Brent and another gentlemen who may or may not be the guy on stormfront pacing back and forth on the basketball court in a menacing fashion. At one point the second gentleman can be viewed reaching into his back pocket in a threatening manner while advancing on Dokes. This is NOT rational, diplomatic behavior. The sequence can be viewed at approx 00:40 seconds here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVTt8A9t1_w

Hatewatch,

I was not "pacing back and forth in a menacing fashion". I was walking back and forth between my seat and a distance from the podium where I could make parliamentary motions. There were no microphones provided so it was necessary to approach the podium in order to be heard by the temporary chairman.

The other man you refer to I do not know personally. I do know that he was a Mitt Romney supporter and that what he reached for was his wallet and he showed everyone his drivers license. He was shouting something about being a registered voter.

It seems you were not there that day. I would recommend watching the full video with audio and not some small piece with music playing over the audio.

HateWatch2012, Where is Brent on this video, he is not pacing with the other guy, who is not a Ron Paul supporter, who BTW pulled out his wallet. "Pacing back and forth"?? Or video clip of once and back, repeated? You have no clue what you are talking about. And this video is lame.

Frieda,

If you actually believe this, you need to ask why ONLY Brent was arrested. There were hundreds of others who were not leaving - why were none of them arrested?

Brent here is the full video that's available.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM-K9PpMi2w

Here is your "recollection" of events on Daily Paul that hopefully will be introduced as evidence:
"He then opened the floor for nominations. I immediately started nominating myself multiple times."

You nominated YOURSELF Brent. Your words. Not "someone else" nominated you as is normal fashion. You nominated yourself and got angry that your self appointment to King wasn't recognized so you began throwing a tantrum. That's really how it went down. Or are you going to say you lied in your testimony to the folks at the Daily Paul?

oops! Here is the link to YOUR testimony on the Daily Paul Brent. Remember this:

"He then opened the floor for nominations. I immediately started nominating myself multiple times."
http://www.dailypaul.com/221346/this-is-brent-stafford-from-missouri

Actual witness Brent has testified on Daily Paul that he appointed himself Chairman. APPOINTED HIMSELF! He was the only one who was attempting to live out his delusions of grandeur.

HateWatch, if you would post the rest of what I wrote... "He then opened the floor for nominations. I immediately started nominating myself multiple times. He recognized a woman, who was obviously preselected, who nominated Matt Ehlen. At that point about 2,000 people started chanting my name to be appointed. Eugene Dokes ignored those attempts to nominate me and called a hasty voice vote and declared the one nominee, Matt Ehlen, as the Chair.

Hundreds of people started calling for Division of the vote. Eugene Dokes ignored them all."

You can see this on the video link you provided at 31:50 I begin attempting to nominate myself. This is entirely permissible. Floor nominations do not require the motioner to have prior recognition by the chair and do not require a second. A few seconds later in the video you posted you can hear the gymnasium chanting my name in an attempt to nominate me. The people attempting to nominate me were supporters of Ron Paul AND Mitt Romney. These two groups account for about 2/3 of those in attendance. I will admit my initial statement of how many people were there was based on early estimates of the crowd by police. Eugene Dokes ignored valid nominations for me to be considered for chairman. He also ignored calls for division of the vote for the one nominee he had a vote on.

HateWatch, Rules for Floor Nominations

As soon as the president opens nominations from the floor, any member can bring forth a nomination.

When the nomination is from the floor:

A member does not have to get recognition, and often in small assemblies, a member can call out a name while still seated.

A person can nominate himself or herself.

A nomination does not need a second.

A member can be nominated for more than one office.

A member can't nominate more than one person for an office until everyone has had the opportunity to make nominations.

Nominees do not have to leave the room during the nominations, when the vote is taken, or when the vote is counted.

The presiding officer can continue presiding, even if he or she is one of the nominees for the office.

A member can rise and decline the nomination during the nominating process.

After each nomination, the president repeats the name to the assembly. For example, the president says:

President: Denise Harmon, for president. Are there further nominations for president?

The Chairman can make nominations (RONR (11th ed.), p. 431, ll. 21) and can enter the first name into nomination if desired (see option in script above). Closing nominations cannot be used as a way to limit the number of nominations for consideration.

Everyone desiring to submit names for nomination must be given the opportunity to do so. Should someone move to close nominations, “it is out of order if a member is rising, addressing the chair, or otherwise attempting to make a nomination” RONR
(11th ed.), p. 288, ll. 32–34. Also stated, “the motion to close nominations cannot be used as a means of moving the election of the candidate” in reference to prematurely closing nominations following the nomination of a single candidate RONR (11th ed.), p. 443, ll. 12–13.

I was nominated for Chairman at the reconvened caucus, I did not nominate myself. I was elected Permanent Chairman for that caucus. I even allowed a motion challenging my election and my election was upheld.

I was nominated for Chairman at the 2nd Congressional Convention. I did not nominate myself. I rose and declined that nomination.

I was nominated for Chairman at the State Convention. I did not nominate myself. I received about 45% of the vote.

If the rules were followed on March 17th, I would have been elected chairman and none of what followed, or what is still going on, would have happened.

It's safe to say the alleged "2,000 people" screaming your name had never heard it until you began yelling it , in your own words, "multiple times." Thank you for confirming my suspicions Brett. This was never about trying to win delegates for Ron Paul. This has always been about Bret,Bret,Bret. Congrats. You got what YOU wanted. Too bad for Ron Paul.

By the way Brett the fact that as you point out you can be heard on the video camera situated high in the stands negates your claim "it was necessary to approach the podium in order to be heard by the temporary chairman. " The acoustics of a basketball court are such you can hear what the ref is saying during a game and sneakers crossing the court from nearly anywhere in the room. Hard to believe you on this one buddy.

HateWatch, I don't care what you believe. I know the truth and the people there that day do as well. You were not there. I did indeed need to approach the chairman to make motions. I was not inclined to scream and yell and I never did. I know proper procedure and decorum and I was making proper motions in a proper fashion. Others may have been loud and out of order, but I do not control anyone.

I have backed up my statements with facts. You believe what you want. Your statements about me have been repeatedly dis-proven and I am tired of your grasping at straws.

‘Fair’ caucus avoids controversy and arrests of March 17 event
http://www.newsmagazinenetwork.com/2012041117721/fair-caucus-avoids-controversy-and-arrests-of-march-17-event/

"Throughout the night numerous motions, points of order clarifications, parliamentary discussions, and public disputes slowed the meeting. However, it generally ran smoothly and afterward attendees wearing stickers for other presidential hopefuls swarmed Stafford to thank him for fairly managing the meeting."

Why not turn your focus to the ones that admitted to rigging the process? Where I was standing to make motions is a ridiculous thing to focus on.

Mr. Hate:
You said: "Brent has testified on Daily Paul that he appointed himself Chairman. APPOINTED HIMSELF! He was the only one who was attempting to live out his delusions of grandeur." What a sick attempt at character assassination.

You obviously have a problem with literacy. There is a huge difference between 'nominate' and 'appoint'. You may think you can fool us, but you won't. Self nomination is perfectly within the rules, if not common. "multiple times" because Dokes refused to acknowledge any of them. APPOINTMENT of a chairman is illegal, and Dokes, who later (next morning interview on Allman) pretended ignorance of RRO, (then why was he chair?) attempted to have ONLY his choice nominated (because that was the ONLY nomination he acknowledged), then announce the close nominations against the will of the body. This is effectively the APPOINTMENT of a perm chair, and it is illegal. The body makes the decisions, not the chair, and Stafford understands this completely and has demonstrated it "multiple times" under all kinds of circumstances, even when it worked against him and he knew it would, but he did the right thing anyway because he is an honest man. Don't try to combat me on this, Mr. Hate, because I know the rules and I know Stafford. He is honest. Dokes on the other hand, showed his true bully self Tuesday, by assaulting a man in broad daylight, in front of many witnesses, based on an obvious lie.

How interesting that you side with Dokes.

Nice that you mention the do-over, Brent. Had you waited until the do-ever you might never had been arrested. The video is clear. You anointed yourself King by inciting people to chant your name by calling it out "multiple times" and your pride, pumped up by not only hearing your name chanted but by the rush of adrenaline caused by needlessly pacing back and forth put you in a position where you were out of control, incapable of all rational thought.

AH ha, AH HA HA HA HA HA OH WOW, AH HA HA, you guys. This is the WEAKEST troll I have ever seen, 0/10

Get a life.

HateWatch2012, you know nothing of which you speak. The only hate I see is coming from all groups who disagree with the Ron Paul philosophy and those who believe in it. What many don't realize it that the liberty-loving RP supporters are the most tolerant of all. Wear what you dig, do what you want (that doesn't involve hurting others), get the government out of our way and live and let live. Yeah, real threatening.

I offered proof . Follow the links.Or are you that deep in denial?

Click on the links I posted. It's clearly combing from the Ron Paul side of the aisle. Here's one called "Let's work hard & get Ron Paul Elected" with lot's of links to Ron Paul's official fundraising apparatus for money bombs:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t836078-43/

I am telling you C Warren, I have never seen so many police at court either. You should come up Tuesday for the circus. I don't live in St. Peters, but I know they have high taxes, I think they like playing cops and tresspassers at the tax payers expence. Just sayin......

I would love to tell you all about them, 6362330089 see I don't hide behind a fake name, Its those liars that hide things, if Dokes and Spencer and Hickey(thecop) would just come clean, then we could move on with our lives, o'wait, I think they are getting suited, to bad you can't suit cops for being uneducated.....Nothing like a cop that don't even understand the constitution, and i think they are SWORE to protect and serve not inslave and PUNISH>>>>>>>>>>>>

Tina: Try "TOO bad you CANNOT SUE a cop for being uneducated." Pot....meet kettle.

Silly Simon why bring color into this and dont asume I like to cook either, your a twitt, hhhhaaa just sayin....

Thank you for not only acknowledging RP has these supporters, which your run of the mill Ron Paul pawn refuses to admit, but also embracing them. Unlike your Obama comparison this isn’t “guilt by association” — first, the argument isn’t that Paul is a racist per se, but that he is an extremist who shares a belief system held not just by racists but other anti-government zealots as well. Paul is identified with their causes not simply because he speaks to them, but because he elucidates ideas and positions — especially regarding the IRS, the UN, the gold standard, and education — identical to theirs. This is why he has their rabid support. There is an underlying reason, after all, that Paul attracts backers like David Duke and the Stormfront gang: he talks like them.

White Supremacist Stormfront member endorses Mitt Romney
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t883918/

Romney Celebrated MLK Day with White Supremacist
http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/2012/01/17/romney-celebrates-mlk-day-with-white-supremacist/

Not a Romney supporter, Mitt Romney himself.

Waiting for your next ad hominem HateWatch2012... Or is your name really Kenyota?

Can you even make a single critical comment concerning the actions of Dokes, Spencer, and company on March 17th? Go ahead, I dare you.

You might want to actually stop and read the posts in that thread whose title is tongue -in cheek and actually anti-Romney . Here are a few :
"He is no friend.He considers himself a mexican!"
"Romney IS the evil in many places his hands have touched."
"Ron Paul is the only one who will do their best to make the changes
necessary for our Nation and our People to survive."
"I will never vote for Mitt Romney. Just like I would never vote for McCain. What is wrong with you guys? Why would you vote for someone who is owned by the jews?"

Nice try .Epic Fail.

Hey TruthHurts remember when Ron Paul hired KKK organizer Randy Gray to work on his campaign and took some pictures with him? Happy times.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12011158-ron-paul-and-the-white-power-movement

How about when Ron Paul twas implicated in a white power takeover of Dominica with stormfront founder Don Black in the early 1980's?
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/14/us/judge-denies-connally-subpoena-in-trial-of-3-alleged-mercenaries.html

How about when RP used Congressional stationary in 1979 to thank someone for a copy of the neonazi magazine American Mercury?
http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/Aug79Let.PDF

Where is the defamation lawsuit against neonazi Bill White who claimed Ron Paul is a "white nationalist of the stormfront type" who was " invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy."? Don't tell me RP is above filing lawsuits because in February of this year he sued an unknown maker of a Jon Hunstman video for defamation. So if what Bill White is saying is untrue where is the lawsuit? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html

You sir have very low reading comprehension skills.

When your station managers (and sponsors) read the book do you think you will still be on the air when they learn your true agenda?

You are clearly what is called a "pawn." Even Ron Paul himself acknowledges his following is a "small irate minority" and never once , NOT ONCE, did he challenge the election results anywhere. No, the extremists are a majority of his following along with, as I mentioned before, "pawns" who either deny who supports him or attempts to downplay their numbers. As I said. This isn't guilt by association. He talks like them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt0VWC7gjno

Sill no comment on the actions of Dokes, Spencer, and company on March 17th?

Very telling.

Wow. Another Ron Paul supporter with poor reading skills. I already gave my thoughts about March 17th in a discussion with Brent Stafford himself above.

So Dokes, Spencer, and the others that tried to rig the process escape your criticism, but those of us that wanted a fair process are subject to endless ad hominem attacks.

I read all 25 of your posts and the ONLY time you mentioned Dokes name was the one time you tried to say he was afraid of a man, a ROMNEY supporter, who took out his wallet to show his drivers license to the entire gym.

How about telling us your opinion of the action of Spencer, Dokes, and Ehlen that day? How about the others involved in rigging the process? Any thoughts on them?

TruthHurts I already gave my opinion on Brent Fest 2012. Sorry it's either not what you want to hear or that your comprehension level is so low you can not comprehend it.

So, Mr. Hate, you do not think Dokes, Spencer, etc did anything wrong? Is that what you are saying?

It's clear you are not the sharpest pencil in the box so I forgive your attempt to put words into my mouth because at this point it is clear that it is the only thing you can do aside from attempting to comprehend what i have already said.

TruthHurts wrote:
"the person who was probably the only one there that day that knew how "

That's not saying much for the intelligence of St Charles Ron Paul supporters when a hothead who clearly didn't have the self-control to wait for the do-over caucus (or obviously know the rules well enough to know there's be one) is the smartest person in the bunch.

You failed to mention what exactly is the incentive for answering all these questions. Are you a reporter? Or are you a kooky tin-foil hat wearing radio talk show host phishing for a 'scoop' for your kooky tin foil hat wearing fans?

Funny I've read all of Brent's public statements and comments on the internet and listened/watched his interviews with all of the Liberty propaganda outlets and never once did I hear him say he had a permit to conduct a meeting in that parking lot. Frankly I'm surprised a "holding an unlawful assembly" charge was not tagged on. He wasn't simply standing around minding his own business when they arrested him.Rather than simply go home , contact the State party and request a redo which is clearly acceptable under party rules as we saw he decided to take the law into his own hands, so to speak. Again from his testimony on the Daily Paul:
"I had also hire the President of the Missouri Association of Parliamentarians who I intended to appoint for that role."
http://www.dailypaul.com/221346/this-is-brent-stafford-from-missouri
Obviously he had money on the line. And he wasn't about to lose it. As I've said before the March 17 caucus had nothing to do with trying to conduct party business and assign delegates. This was all about Brent. He had premeditated his own coronation as we see by the above statement "who I intended to appoint for that role."

Please post a copy of Brent's permit to hold an assembly on public property. Thank you in advance.

Here are his permits.

U.S. Constitution - ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Missouri Constitution - Article I, Section 9

Rights of peaceable assembly and petition.
That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance.

So you think the Constitution should trump the safety of the public?
OWS nutters in my town attempted to use the same argument and learned the hard way that municipalities are within their right to intervene in the interest of public safety. The caucus was shut down in the interest of public safety. On the video there are obviously a lot of senior citizens inside the gymnasium and also a lot of young people, egged on by Brent's antics on the basketball court floor, screaming and yelling at Brents' command. How well do you think those seniors would have fared if a full scale riot had broken out as appeared to be Brent's intention of inciting? If you've ever been caught in a riot you'd know it only takes a split second for one idiot to do something stupid. What if it where your grandparents on that floor?
But as a Paul supporter we all know already you don't give a damn about public safety ,which is why the Missouri Information Analysis Center has classified "Supporters of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul" as domestic terrorists. I hope the St. Peters district attorney brings in an expert from MIAC on Tuesday.

I didn't write the report, Ma'am. You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists.html