You ‘facts’ and arguments were well and truly laid to rest, again.

Therefore, after my 6/30/12, post of 3:42 am, there was no reason to respond to your puerile taunts and name-calling.

Moreover, that opinion does not even address the points I have made regarding the documented shared roots of fascism and progressivism, nor their programmatic similarities, nor the ideological self identification of the principles in the movement, although I shall grant that those varied, depending on circumstances. Mussolini was nothing if not a proponent of the philosophy of pragmatism.

I called your citation above a straw man because I have rarely, if ever, made (or cited) the type of argument you accused me of making…

Are you saying you don’t rely upon the Goldberg book?

I do wish I would have used absurd leaps in logic that I have seen – Hitler was a vegetarian therefore….. or Hitler was an atheist therefore….

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:
Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. … In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. … In elaborating liberalism’s similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. … Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. … Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism… Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. … Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg’s transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.