User Profile: CafeConservative


Member Since: May 04, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [6] September 14, 2014 at 8:14pm

    Not at all strange. In the end, those folks are simply anti-biblical values. So when Muslims are anti-gay, it’s OK.

  • September 14, 2014 at 5:57pm

    “I also use this video system because in Miami- Dade law enforcement gives tickets for revenue without violations occurring.” Your evidence?

    “If you believe law enforcement addresses all members of society equally you are seriously delusional.” Your evidence?

    “Because of my looks – a large Asian/ Latin/ medium sized dark caucasian it is very infrequently that I pass a license checkpoint that there is a total lack of civility or professionalism.” Your evidence that it’s “because of my looks”?

    “When I point out that I am recording things change.” That proves you have a camera and a cop is more reserved on camera which has nothing to do with race.

    “Perhaps you are right. I must be an ill-tempered profane and hostile person. Funny my wife, family, church, friends, neighbors, customers, and associates due not think so.” Yes, because people all act the same in different venues and with strangers versus the people they love or are begging business from.

    “Unfortunately now days that is a bridge to far for many in the employ of local, state, and federal government.” You can keep whining about racial injustice but all you have is assertions about behaviors and you getting out of tickets. Not sure how that proves you’re a target of racism. By the way you talk, you get out of more tickets than me which only proves that the minority is getting favoritism while the white guy is getting tickets.

  • September 14, 2014 at 5:47pm

    Your source is all over the place. On one hand it wants to go all the way back to the 70s to reference SWAT raids yet it wants to only look at recent years when comparing police shootings and American citizens dying to terrorists. I think if they looked back to 2001, they’d find some big numbers. I also think they need to count those terrorist-related killings the government keeps trying to cover up as workplace violence or other non-terrorist crimes.

    You assert that, “Lethal force was used. It is becoming all too common.” But tell us to prove it by doing our own research. How about you actually support your assertion?

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 4:43pm

    You’re free to carry a weapon as legally defined. Depending on the state, you can be questioned by cops for being a “suspicious” person for simply having that weapon, but if you have the facts on your side and the cops act lawfully, you can simply walk away without showing ID (some states require producing ID) or walking away after showing ID.

    This guy looks for a confrontation and gets it but still walks away when he chooses and the cops can legally do nothing about it.

    There are tons of videos like this on YouTube and you get a variety of people exercising their right to carry and a variety of responses by cops (some legal, some not). You gotta know your state rights and you have to assert yourself. Anything short of that puts you under the whim of the cop who is allowed to lie to you and have you do things you might not wish to do.

    At the end of the day, you have to decide what is worth dying over and what’s worth fighting another day (taking the cop to court).

  • September 14, 2014 at 4:29pm

    Truth hurts.

  • September 14, 2014 at 4:28pm

    You seem to know. You listed your version of the “facts” before. If that fails you, try Google.

    But that’s not the point and you’re simply being pedantic at this point. You know the real argument is that you want to make an argument based on parts of the article while ignoring other parts. You will call facts the parts you wish to defend your position with and disregard as non-fact the remaining elements. Of course, you will refuse to provide the criteria or rationale behind choosing some and disregarding others.

    But please keep playing your game and build that case that you can’t be trusted to engage in honest dialogue. You have your agenda to push after all and that trumps all.

  • September 14, 2014 at 4:24pm

    Still waiting for you to explain what puts you above the Constitution and where you derive your special gun rights from. Please tell me you’re not one of those uneducated sovereign citizen types.

  • September 14, 2014 at 4:19pm

    “If one can walk around with a gun, one should be able to walk around with a sword. 2nd Amendment doesn’t just protect the ownership of guns.”

    Correct. On the other hand, if you lunge at cop with a sword or point a gun at a cop, expect to be shot and for good reason.

    Now if your contention is that he should be able to legally carry a gun down the street and not be harassed by cops, then I would agree with that to. Cops, however, do have the legal right to initiate contact with you while you do so and can ask questions. If you choose to not answer questions, you better learn how to disengage from cops (assert your rights to carry on your way) without being threatening or committing a crime.

    If you’re unlawfully detained while performing a legal activity (carrying your big sword down the street), you do not gain the right to use force to free yourself of unlawful detention from the cop. You have to get your day in court. You then charge the officer with a crime and force him to face the judge for committing a crime. Any other response will involve either felonies (assaulting an officer) or death on your part.

  • [3] September 14, 2014 at 4:12pm

    “The claim that he lunged at cops is an allegation, not a fact.”
    No, it was a formal statement by the police conducted in their official capacity.

    “This is also the allegation from the guy(s) who shot him.” Who have, based on facts available, no reason to be suspected of a crime.

    “Why not give the guy who was shot the same benefit you want to give the cop?”
    Because tens of thousands of cops are on the street each day not shooting folks and often retire from law enforcement never having shot a single person.

    “All we know is that this guy was armed. And as far as I thought I knew, just about everyone here believes in one’s right to “keep and bear arms”. Now he is dead and no one has come forth with an allegation of a crime but the people who shot him.” You meant to say, “the trusted people who shot him”. Give us evidence they are not to be trusted or STFU already.

    “The people who shot him approached him and instigated the confrontation. It would seem to me that they have to explain how this man ended up dead. But here, it seems, a black man must have deserved it.” They did explain it. You dismiss their explanation with NO contrary evidence and then add your own implication that they are all homicidal racists without supporting evidence. Keep being a transparent idiot while we laugh at your terminal stupidity.

  • [3] September 14, 2014 at 3:55pm

    “No I haven’t.” Yes, you have.

    “Either you your being dishonest or you have poor english comprehension skills.” They’re petty superior (still far from perfect), actually. But, for someone who consistently fails to differentiate between “your” and “you’re” (and in this case, simply “you”), I can see how you would project your own poor English skills onto others.

  • September 14, 2014 at 3:08pm

    They are in the article. Unlike you, I accept all the facts as facts and then and only then insert my own perceptions, suppositions, and conclusions. Either I trust the source (as far as I can throw them) or I do not. Since our opinions at this point are simply a mental exercise and have no impact on the world at this point, there is no danger in “blindly” trusting the facts.

    You, on the other hand, pick and choose which of those you wish to believe or promote and disregard the rest and provide no rationale as to why the author would be honest with one fact and dishonest with another.

    Until there is new evidence to the contrary (video showing police SWAT arrive 400 yards away in an MRAP and sniping the young black man without ever confronting him while he calmly walked the street with his legally procured sword and threatening no one, for example), I’m taking the facts at face value and filling the blanks with speculation that is consistent with the facts of article.

    That said, I have ZERO love for bad cops. I’ve seen enough reports of bad cops to wonder if there isn’t a bad streak in a *LOT* of LEO organizations. My experience however is that there are plenty of good cops out there doing their jobs to the Constitution of the US, the constitutions of their states, and to their communities. I refuse to lump them all into the same pot until their entire collective behavior demands otherwise.

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 2:57pm

    Did elsewhere and told you how to find them yourself “Go re-read your own posts .”

  • September 14, 2014 at 2:56pm


    I’m not a troll” Sure you are. Though my definition of troll may be a bit too expansive.

    “and this is not an influx,” Sure it is.

    “I have been here since the beginning” Has nothing to do with other trolls being a part of an influx. I’m not seeing where I said you were a part of the influx.

    “If you think Utah’s knife laws trump my right to keep and bear arms, your a good slave.” They do. 2A was re: federal infringement of the right to bear arms not state or municipal infringement. It takes the 14A to make the 2A universal. Now tell me if the 14A was legally passed. Next tell me where the SCOTUS has applied the 14A to the 2A. Or simply tell me where your rights derive special gun rights and how they supersede the Constitution or SCOTUS. Lastly it’s “you’re” not your in this case.

  • September 14, 2014 at 2:46pm

    “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”

  • September 14, 2014 at 2:43pm

    LMAO, it hurts, doesn’t it?”

    More than you know but at least it offers me some hope.

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 2:42pm

    Excuse the sarcasm kirralin. You didn’t deserve it.

  • [2] September 14, 2014 at 2:40pm

    He lunges, turns, and runs or, he lunges at one cop while a cop behind or off to his side fires. Was it really that hard to figure out a scenario that a guy lunging with a sword could be shot in the back?

  • [6] September 14, 2014 at 2:38pm

    “I know, your public educated slave mind thinks that carrying a weapon is reasonable suspicion while the next sentence will be “Second amendment rules!!!”.”

    “While the mother is saying this is because of race and not sword, this second amendment crowd at the blaze clearly cringes at the idea that a black man is armed on the street.”

    “Just about everyone on this site has already given the cop the innocent verdict. It is disgusting.”

    “Wow, all this from the “keep and bear arms” crowd? I know from frequenting this site that most of you are brain dead this is unbelievable.
    Will one of you suck ficks please explain to me the crime this man was committing 6that got him shot?”

    “Contempt of cop is not a crime. Murder is.”

    “When it comes to black kids getting shot by police, Blaze commenters fill in blanks with every possible scenario to blame the black kid. Even when the story itself leaves a lot of questions, they want it to be the black kid’s fault.”

    You’ve acquitted the kid and convicted the cops either directly or indirectly with your comments while lamenting that we are convicting the kid and acquitting the cop with insufficient evidence and it’s all related to lack of education, an overzealous affection for authority, or simple racism. There’s no evidence for the latter bu plenty of evidence for you hypocrisy and lack of rational thought.

  • [1] September 14, 2014 at 2:03pm

    “The facts of the story are,
    1) man in public with sword
    2) police confront him
    3) Man is shot dead by officer
    Those are the facts agreed upon by those involved as reported in this story. Just about everyone on this site has already given the cop the innocent verdict. It is disgusting.”

    Nice sleight of hand.

    The facts according to the story include the man with the sword lunging at cops but you leave that out. How convenient when you have an agenda to push. You also leave out with all the facts given, you have convicted the cops, paid professionals, solely based on your hatred of cops and/or desire to turn a black man into a victim not responsible for his unlawful and provocative actions that lead to his own death. Based all on the “facts” of the story, of course.

  • [4] September 14, 2014 at 2:00pm

    “While the mother is saying this is because of race and not sword, this second amendment crowd at the blaze clearly cringes at the idea that a black man is armed on the street.”

    Yeah, that’s the problem. So that there is no ambiguity, I WISH MORE RESPONSIBLE BLACK MEN WOULD LEGALLY CARRY WEAPONS.

    Also to remove any ambiguity, I wish dumbazzes like lordidiocy here would use their brains and quit falsely equivocating responsible weapon use with stupid weapon use.

123 To page: Go