Um ...
Is it just me or could we have had some fact-checking on some of Paul Broun's claims?
I mean, as Hillary notes, a monarchy and socialist state are two distinctly different types of government ... thus meaning it's logically impossible for us to be moving toward both forms of government concurrently. Likewise, there are a considerable amount of factors to consider when evaluating the success (or lack thereof) of The Surge (such as increases in security have actually come in places where an influx of U.S. troops didn't occur).
It just seems like he was permitted to say a lot of things and present them as fact simply because he invited some folks over to his house, when actually there are several possible rationales or inaccuracies in his statements.
I mean, as Hillary notes, a monarchy and socialist state are two distinctly different types of government ... thus meaning it's logically impossible for us to be moving toward both forms of government concurrently. Likewise, there are a considerable amount of factors to consider when evaluating the success (or lack thereof) of The Surge (such as increases in security have actually come in places where an influx of U.S. troops didn't occur).
It just seems like he was permitted to say a lot of things and present them as fact simply because he invited some folks over to his house, when actually there are several possible rationales or inaccuracies in his statements.
posted by Jmac at 2:19 PM
2 Comments:
Actually, they're not necessarily two different forms of government, although he's presenting them as such. Socialism is an economic system, meaning it's compatible with monarchy. Not likely, but possible. Paul Broun = still crazy, though.
Right, if the monarch exercises command-style control over economic affairs, then it would be a socialist monarchy.
Post a Comment
<< Home