Right-Winger Records Himself In His Bunker Before He Kills His Wife And Daughter.

If he is a conspiracy theorist type guy that does not make him a right winger nut job. As for guns I'm not a fan of them, yes you need them sometimes, and since when is Woodinville the crime capital of the Northwest? Specifically which part of woodinville.

Then why are you spouting the left wing talking point diversions and division?

While you are from the area, probably the ideological area, and say that he is easily identifiable with the right, there is nothing by which to identify him with the right.

NRA Membership. Militia Associations, Obama conspiracy theories - all seem my idea of fringe right (and main right) causes

You are wrong. If Obama had not locked up his records, there would be no conspiracy theories.

The Black Panthers and La Raza are militias, SEIU behaves like a militia, ACORN, several radical environmental groups have caused more damage than any militia.

Also, the Obama administration refused to investigate the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation. If it were the KKK, they would have been on them like ugly on Obama.

Exactly,
Yesterday, I read where Planned Parenthood is being sued because it bilked Medicaid out of millions of dollars.
The PP head is saying it is just harassment because Obama has already said he won't sue.
That is quite the defense.

At least he won't be voting for Romney! Too bad about his family though!

He was voting for Obama. Sorry.

Proof?

Where's your proof? You accuse this person of being a right wing nut with no proof what so ever, and you have the nerve to demand proof! WTF

Like all NRA member, militia supporting, birther Obama conspiracy theory dudes - right... This PARTICULAR loon would probably vote Romney if he voted but that's not to say that we on the left don't also have our criminal and insane element - just not this one.

Actually, you are are sicker than the individual in the story.

Where in this article does it say that this guy is a Right Winger? You have turned a truly tragic incident into a political statement.

A gun tot'en survivalist with bunker... not much of a stretch to figure out he's a right winger.

Not true! Unless you have proof it's nothing,but an opinion or an outright lie. You have stretched plenty.

Well this is an opinion site. Never the less there certainly appears to be sufficient information to draw a logical conclusion. Not with 100% certainty, but with a high degree of probability.

Nothing but speculation on your part. Not everything is about politics, and to twist this into something else is pretty pathetic.

Does it really need to? Guns, bunker, and a murder=left-winger. Look at all these left-wingers running around yelling gun control and then getting arrested for weapon violations. Not very high at all, if you consider all factors.

Incorrect. Inductive logic requires a basis in facts and probabilities. For example from the little I know about you I can induce that you are a religious right wing conservative, you do not believe in evolution, but readily accept the advantages of modern biology which are based on evolutionary and genomic knowledge. You probably deny the fact that the universe is 14 billion years old, without considering that the general theory of relativity and the Standard model of particle physics demand it, and all of modern science depends on those theories. I could go on, but you are probably apoplectic and in denial by now, so you've probably stopped reading.

As all liberal idiots, your reasoning is not logic. I am a Christian, but do not participate in the religious cults that now call themselve religions, no real God would do the things they promote. I do believe we have no clue how old the Earth is and until you can prove (Prove , not theorize.) I prefer to believe God started life. Until science can stop claiming that theories are fact, until they prove them without any doubt, I will continue to doubt scientific theory. Or when you can prove that they have never made a mistaken claim.

Ha ha ha ha ha... Snort. Oh, you were serious? Without a doubt, that is hysterical the universe doesn't work that way. Everything is a matter of probabilities, though some are highly probable. I know that you don't understand any of this, so there is really I point in continuing this discussion. Your just too ignorant to even bother talking to.

That's why scientist many times end up getting burned and look like fools. If you are not 100% sure it is not fact.

Yup, you are so fundimentally ignorant of scientific principals that I wouldn't even know where to start. So, never mind. Have a blissfully ignorant life.

I see how fundamentally ignorant of reality principles you are, it is time you realized that scientist aren't always right. In fact they are usually wrong more often than right, it's part of the scientific process.

You might want to go back to school for spelling and word usage.

Reevaluation of any principal given additional data is indeed part of the scientific process, but that does not mean that well established science is "usually wrong". The recently established existence of the Higgs boson is a perfect example. The evidence certainly doesn't reach 100%, so by your definition it doesn't exist. But the evidence exceeds five sigma, very VERY probable! So it does meet the scientific criteria of proof.

I take it that since you have chosen to attack my "spelling and word usage" you are admitting that you cannot effectively attack my arguments.

No, just pointing out more of your inadequacy.

Thanks so much. I often post from my phone and it can make edits difficult. Besides I've always said that people who can only spell words one way are limited.

Wouldn't even bring it up if you didn't get so nasty.

I will appologize for getting nasty. I just get exasperated with people who deny the results of well established science and pretend that fringe made up crap has equal validity.

You have to realize that not everyone trust scientist like you do. That doesn't make either of us wrong.

That is a really interesting point. I'm really interested in understanding your perspective on this.

I can certainly understand not trusting a particular scientist, and even doubting the validity of a particular study, but I don' think that is what you are saying. I believe I'm hearing that you have a fundamental distrust of the scientific community as a whole.

I don't think that you dismiss all the results of modern science, for example, if you were diagnosed with cancer, I'm pretty sure you would choose to have medical treatment. Further, I expect that you would be very glad for studies that showed what treatments were most effective for your cancer. It's also clear that you use a computer, and I'm willing to be that you also use a cell phone. Odds are pretty good that you also accept the fact that the earth is indeed not flat.

*My* perspective on this is that you probably stop accepting scientific evidence when it conflicts with your religious beliefs or political positions. I'll admit that have a hard time not seeing that as hypocritical and short sighted. I would very much like to hear your perspective and rational for what scientific prinicipals you accept and those you reject.

Thanks. I am looking forward to continuing this discussion.

Most cancer drugs do as much harm as they aid the victims, and why is this so? Because the doctors, scientist and drug companies all make a tremendous amount of money off of them. You can go back in history and find so many cases of fraud that it makes me wonder why anyone would trust them. A recent example was the Global Warming doctored data, present the facts as they are, let the scientist and the public make informed decisions.

Funny how you mentioned the scientific error of the Earth being flat, it was just another scientific error.

The discovery that the earth is not flat, and is not the center of the universe was one of the very first discoveries by Galileo Galilei, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton and others who initiated the scientific revolution. They were persecuted by the church for their discoveries.

If you are referring to the CRU data "tampering", that entire event was debunked. The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to all of the origional data and recreated all of the results. They confirmed that the results were correct and that no data was hidden, changed, or falsified. http://skepticalscience.com/C...

Some cancers are very hard to cure. Others are readily curable with modern medicine. Some chemo therapies are just about as hard on the patient as they are on the cancer. It is sometimes a race between the chemo killing the cancer first or killing the patient first. So, are you saying that if you diagnosed with cancer you would not even consider medical treatment?

My guess is that there are lots of other products of science, like electricity, that you are happy use without reservation.

So is this your way of saying that your distrust of science goes beyond conflicts with your religious beliefs? Can you quantify in any way what areas of science you consider valid and which you don't.

My religious beliefs are that I believe in a God (Creator), other specifics are arguable. No I would not use cancer drugs whose side effects would end up killing me anyway.

There are many scientific inventions that I enjoy the use of, but I also realize that to get the results there may have been hundreds or thousands of failures.

I was just reading an interesting article, and it seemed appropriate to pass it along.

http://www.sciencenews.org/vi...

It wouldn't have anything to do with the Sun's recent activity huh?

Absolutely, that's what these studies are all about. They are working to isolate the contributing factors. They are not claiming that human caused climate change is the only cause, but they have been able to show that it is a contributing factor to the extent of the heatwave.

Funny thing is these Cons. think anything they spew is a fact or the truth..

youASSume incorrectly

I don't assume, I induce.