You assert:

- Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes are why Loughner decided to "kill someone gov't related"
- However, Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes are not why Loughner targeted Giffords.

I assert:

- IF Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes are not why Loughner targeted Giffords, THEN "A person's actions [e.g. Loughner's targeting] can not be explained by any prior action [e.g. Loughner's anti-gov't attitudes] that is not the most immediate, the most present [e.g. Loughner's disdain for Giffords re-election]."

What statment is not equivalent to what statment?
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods


MONTHLY TOPIC:

Failed States

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

June 2025

M T W T F S S
       1
2 34 5 678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30