And in the case of Amy Bishop the claim of far left radicalism, and Obama obsession was made by a "family source"

Does that necessarily prove, the one thing is caused by the other?

Could I do what Obama-kid did with this story, and leap to the conclusion Amy Bishop was watching too much MSNBC? Would that still be what you're calling news?

I'm not saying don't post your supposition. I'm saying recognize it for what it is, and expect critique. If your source is dodgy expect critique.

In this case you have a guy with a family history of mental illness, who also appeared to be obsessing on politics. He was suffering from paranoia and depression. He flipped out, and killed his family. How much does the one thing connect to the other? Who knows? It's not like the guy screamed Allulah Akbar, and left a suicide tape .

People who are seriously depressed are subject to being triggered by events that others can let roll off their backs.

I'm sorry to hear of anyone who is that depressed that they take their own life.

Oh I don't mind critique of the story,I do mind rejection of the story out of hand simply because some see the story as disparaging Albert Peterson,a man of similar ideology,without sworn testimony from a family friend of 25 years. Again...I believe the story to be fundamental true. If I were to dismiss out of hand every story that was delivered by a biased source that had no sworn testimony to back it up,I would have to dismiss almost all news articles. I don't like it when MSNBC or FOX use the term "undisclosed sources" or "sources say" but that's the way it is. Some people do not want to go on record. If they had to go on record,people would be reluctant to talk to the press. If sworn testimony was required before any source was given credibility,we would have far less news posted in this forum.

Again: I can also believe that some people fear Obama having a second term. That's very evident from many of the posts that I've read on this site. I'm also sure that some of our members fear Romney winning the presidency but most of us would not kill our entire family to spare them the coming Obama or Romney apocalypse. Could that fear have contributed to this massacre?...it's "possible" regardless of the source, but alas...like many other news stories,I do not have her sworn testimony and I could say the same thing in countless other news articles that lacked identification of the source and had no sworn testimony.

Is MSNBC,FOX,POLITICO,DRUDGE,THE DAILY CALLER,HUFFINGTON POST biased? Sure they are,just like the guys who reported this story. Do we "automatically" dismiss all stories as simply -opinion- by the sources listed above? No...we all like our bias served the way we like it. When we judge a story as accurate or -believable- ,we should use the same criteria that we use to judge a story from a biased source that we disagree with. When some of us hear a story presented by the biased Fox,we are skeptical of it's accuracy. Conversely...when some of us hear a story presented by MSNBC who is biased,we are skeptical. It's good to be skeptical,but we should scrutinize all stories when the source is biased,not just reject all news items from a source that does not fit our ideology. Even sworn testimony would be rejected from a source we didn't trust and you know this is true. Some people take their politics far too seriously,this story clearly demonstrates what -possibly- can happen when that happens.

At this point,we are beating a dead horse,we need to either accept the story as fundamental true or blatantly biased and false depending on how we like our bias served. All I ask is that we use the same measuring stick for any story when we judge it's accuracy.

The measuring stick I use on Obama-kid's vids says "Ridiculous".

There is no connection between the facts of that story of the paranoid, depressed guy who killed his family and Fox news as cause. Obama-kid makes one.

Even comparing him to MSNBC news is a stretch. To a demagogue like say Ed Schultz, maybe, but no his, hysterical leaps of logic don't compare with anything that might be called "news".

You know, there was an actual news story on this...

Pictured: The 'beautiful' family slain hours after church by 'mentally ill father tormented by the prospect of Obama winning the election' | Mail Online

Obama-kid even linked to it. Why didn't you use that one?

Could it be, because the police said they couldn't draw any conclusions as to what the actual firing point of cause effect was. No hysterical claim there. Obama kid had one, so you posted Obama-kid's version.

Good for you, but don't claim his warped version with its wild eyed, leaps of logic was news. No, he is not Politico, the Drudge report, or Fox News - not even close. The difference is political slant, and outright demagoguery.

*

The story was news to me as I am sure it was news to you as well. If it was not news and you were "aware" of the story,perhaps you decided not to post it because it just didn't fit your ideological perspective or you simply could not find the always more accurate Fox version of the story..

Be honest here,you call the reporter the "Obama-Kid",we get that you don't like Obama or anyone who supports him but to deny out of hand that this story has no aspect of truth when it comes to Peterson's strong political views and concerns is very telling. I ran across the "video" news piece by chance and posted it. I am under no requirement or obligation to check all sources for a given story before posting it,nor are you. Yes...it comes from a biased source like so many news items do here from the left and the right.

The man killed his family and himself,that much we know for sure. A family friend of 25 years told us her version as to why. I find that version plausible,people who are unstable and highly partisan are capable of doing terrible things. To deny this is ridiculous, Right wing media is your true measuring stick,but I doubt you would ever admit it and why should you when almost everyone here already knows it.

Did the police in the "original" story know the family for 25 years like Maggie L did? No they didn't. Did the police know his ideology? No they didn't. Did the police know about the emails? No they didn't. Again...even sworn testimony from Maggie would not cut any cheese with you. You refuse to accept that people who are unstable and highly partisan are capable of doing terrible things. Nothing I can say will change your mind on this...nothing! I accept the story as fundamentally true and plausible,you do not.... so we will have to agree to disagree.

it's all you deserve, same as the rest of the liberal *******s here.

__________________
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.

Donald Trump

Another great comeback.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose President Obama's re-election, in my opinion. But what this man did was not about mere opposition, however fervid it might be. Rather, it was clearly the result of mental illness.

And both the mental illness per se and the murder of innocents are, indeed, sad.

But this man's shocking actions should not be viewed as being emblamatic of any larger story...

Of course not, but I'm going to guess they interviewed her, and other family and friends. Show you why in a minute.

Oh yes they did. "Police have confirmed Mr Peterson's feelings toward politics were unusually passionate, but declined to speculate what precipitated the tragedy."

Why do you assume they didn't? They said his "feelings toward politics were unusually passionate."

They were aware of his psychological state. Obviously they got that from somewhere. They investigated. Why wouldn't they talk to Maggie? Why wouldn't they know about the emails? Even you seem to be admitting the obvious in a Freudian manner below when you talk about Maggie's "sworn testimony" Sworn to whom?

Oh but it would though. It cuts a lot of cheese. Unfortunately of the two of us I seem to be the only one that read the whole thing.

Maggie says there was a family history of mental illness, and Albert had been struggling with it himself for at least 5 years. That would be Pre-Obama, right? She did not say Albert shot his wife and kids, because he was worried Obama might win the election. She did mention Albert worried he might lose his job if Obama got in. She did not say Albert was a weapons dealer. She did not say Albert was driven to his madness from watching too much Fox News. In fact she didn't mention him watching it at all.

Obama-kid claimed all that, not Maggie. So what's your point? Mine is Obama-kid and anybody who claims they can make a direct, full blame cause/effect J'accuse suggesting a connection between conservative ideology and violent mental illness is full of crap.

And if that's what you're suggesting in your support of Obama Kid's nutty accusations I'd refer you again to the Amy Bishop story where there's a liberal ideology connection to a triple homicide. Apparently violence in crazy people can be bipartisan. If you'd like further evidence of that I'll refer you to Occupy.

DING! DING! DING!

There you go,the police,eventually got around to interviewing Maggie,a friend of the family for 25 years. How about that and she confirmed there was an Obama "connection",that's what I was saying all along!

Here's what Maggie said in bold....

You dont need to show me why,all you are doing is reinforcing my point. The guys politics were unusually passionate,Albert was struggling with mental illness Pre Obama and it grew worse at the thought of Obama receiving a second term. It only seems logical that he would be concerned about his children's future as well. It took some time for the police to learn all of this for themselves, they had no idea of this when they arrived at the crime scene. Maggie,a friend of the family for 25 years "already" knew about all of this from "day one" but the police did not know all of this and their investigation (later) confirmed what she said.The Freudian lapse is on your part not mine. I thought that it would take a sworn statement on Maggie's part to convince you but all it took was the police to interview her to convince you that her statements were indeed valid. We tried to tell you all along that even a biased story and ...all news agencies are biased...can report news that is fundamentally true. That was the thrust of the argument,we admitted early on that the guys who delivered the news were biased...so what?,all news services are biased but the fundamental aspects of the story seem to be correct and now you can see it for yourself..

No,they would not know about the emails when they first arrived at the scene and they wouldn't know anything about Peterson's political leanings when they first arrived. They needed to talk to Maggie and other friends of the family and that takes time. They learned about these things later,perhaps much later. So the story ended up being true,Peterson killed his family and himself and his political passion was proven to be a "contributing" factor as he was additionally upset with the prospect of another Obama term.

Thank you for going through all that unnecessary work but you could've spared yourself some time by just accepting a story as fundamental true even though the reporting was biased like all news services are. It takes you a while to catch on but I'm glad you now see the fundamental truth of this sad story, that I and others, tried repeatedly to point out to you in this thread.

Now you can just keep on a "spinnen" this story trying to prove some awkward and semantically inane point but most of us accept the stories key points as fundamentally true. Out of courtesy I replied to your post,we've both made our points and to go on would be beating a dead horse. If you want to give the dead horse a few more whacks that's your prerogative but I'm done with this thread..