Pretty solidly sure the book didn’t tell people to go out and murder people. The author, Rutgers Law professor Jay M. Feinman, has refused to comment but given his career probably has a fair bit more faith in the institution of law as an avenue to right wrongs than you or the shooter.
But I’ll bite, what do YOU think the political message is, here? What exactly is going to change, now?
Was the Monopoly Money authorities claim was in his backpack some kind of grand 4D chess statement? What is the master plan for that, the intended response to the monopoly money as a statement?
It was a murder. Mentioning the name of the book gives it a political motive. A political murder is a political message. It’s not that complicated, I’m just pointing this out to you since it evidently flew over your head earlier and the other commenter didn’t spell it out for you.
Shitting yourself in public while poorly doing La Cucaracha doesn’t become political if you yell out “A Higher Loyalty. Truth, Lies, and Leadership!” after the fact. That’s not being political, Deme. It doesn’t present any proposed solutions or represent any ideologies. If anything it’s a bit insulting to insinuate that the people they quoted wanted it to happen.
Damn you went all out with the absurdity of that straw man. Nice one!
Politicians are constantly criticizing their opponents without necessarily presenting alternative solutions. A murder done with a political motive is a political murder. A political murder is a political message. “The system sucks so bad that there are people out there who are willing to take arms because of it.” That’s the message, in case you seriously still had not figured it out yourself.
The book was only referenced in order to emphasize that political motive by bringing up the fact that the health insurance sector is rotten and many have grievances against it. The methods the author would prefer are irrelevant to that fact, as the shooter clearly arrived at a different conclusion.
Pretty solidly sure the book didn’t tell people to go out and murder people. The author, Rutgers Law professor Jay M. Feinman, has refused to comment but given his career probably has a fair bit more faith in the institution of law as an avenue to right wrongs than you or the shooter.
But I’ll bite, what do YOU think the political message is, here? What exactly is going to change, now?
Was the Monopoly Money authorities claim was in his backpack some kind of grand 4D chess statement? What is the master plan for that, the intended response to the monopoly money as a statement?
It was a murder. Mentioning the name of the book gives it a political motive. A political murder is a political message. It’s not that complicated, I’m just pointing this out to you since it evidently flew over your head earlier and the other commenter didn’t spell it out for you.
Shitting yourself in public while poorly doing La Cucaracha doesn’t become political if you yell out “A Higher Loyalty. Truth, Lies, and Leadership!” after the fact. That’s not being political, Deme. It doesn’t present any proposed solutions or represent any ideologies. If anything it’s a bit insulting to insinuate that the people they quoted wanted it to happen.
Damn you went all out with the absurdity of that straw man. Nice one!
Politicians are constantly criticizing their opponents without necessarily presenting alternative solutions. A murder done with a political motive is a political murder. A political murder is a political message. “The system sucks so bad that there are people out there who are willing to take arms because of it.” That’s the message, in case you seriously still had not figured it out yourself.
The book was only referenced in order to emphasize that political motive by bringing up the fact that the health insurance sector is rotten and many have grievances against it. The methods the author would prefer are irrelevant to that fact, as the shooter clearly arrived at a different conclusion.