At one point I thought he was trying to expose the liberals in the audience by making them bust out laughing.

Then I realized that would require a level of intelligence and foresight that he could not begin to imagine.

You know, if you want to pull something else out of history, aside from Porsche.

A good question for Jonah (in person or via e-mail) “Can you explain, in 100 words or less, what is meant by the term “argument in good faith”?

One of his complaints was that critics didn’t address every page in the book. I.e. the review that appeared in the NYT didn’t say anything about pages 1 – 120. (Swear.) He also accused his critics of not being able to address every single point in his book (Yglesias is “lame” because he couldn’t give a satisfactory answer about Woodrow Wilson and the National Review says he’s a liberal, so he’s a liberal). Finally (get ready for splody head) he accused critcs of just looking things up on Google and not doing any real research as he had.

Plus you have to be nice. Really nice.

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

That’s something socialists do.

Although fascism an communism are both off-shoots of socialism.

Look! Hilary Clinton!

I swear to God, that pretty much sums up the evening. I didn’t stick around for the signing though. Maybe the real, witty and intelligent Johan came out for those who were truly worthy.

Overheard at Jonah’s talk at Borders earlier this evening. While waiting to hear him, the two guys in front of me had this conversation after identifying each other as fellow conservatives. (I swear I am not making this up.)

Guy 1: Man, I am suprised there weren’t protesters outside or something–knowing this town.

Guy 2: Yeah, but if there were we could bring out the baseball bats and show them some real fascism.

Guy 1: uh, yeah…

Posted by David B. | January 15, 2008 10:17 PM

They were the reactionaries. Monarchists, Manchester Liberals, Catholic traditionalists, et al. These groups wanted to restore the past.

and

This is why even today nationalism is still viewed by many as a rightwing phenomenon, even though that is not warranted by the intellectual history of nationalism.

what, eh, please….

Something similar was at word with Mussolini. He was not claiming to speak for the reactionaries of classical liberalism or for the reactionaries of tradition and monarchy, when he said he was of the Right. No, he was speaking for the Nietzschean right of will, action and national power.

My god, its just the epitome of dumb. He finishes off with this sad little boast:

And, if you can get beyond my critics cherry-picked quotations from texts and speeches they never read until last week, and look instead at the anatomy of fascism, it becomes most clearly part and parcel of the collectivist, leftist tide during the first half of the 20th century.

Cherry picking, us, Jonah, pleaaaaase…..

A million bucks an episode while it lasts, years of coasting afterward without worrying about rent? Yeah, I can get behind that. As long as I don’t have to be what’s-his-name.

We got goose-stepping, animal-loving, tree-hugging, health-conscious … have we missed anything that could be used as a characteristic of fascism?

Hang on, gotta check my notes:
1. A desire to be part of a group.
2. Being interested in the welfare of young people/children.
3. Saying “If you’re not a part of the solution, you’re part of the problem” (the most fascist thing eva!)
4. Declaring a crisis in order to force everyone to behave in a certain way.
5. Being a compassionate conservative.
6. Wearing a military uniform and smoking a cigar.
7. Suggesting that there by unity between different social classes.
8. Being a US president from 1913 – 1974.
9. Being a member of the Supreme Court.
10. Hilary Clinton.
11. Questioning the brilliance of teh JoLoad.

Oh, I doubt that seriously. It’s not terribly hard at all.

See, if he states a fact, then he’s lying. It’s gravy from there on.

Heh. Jonah:

(Besides, as I’ve said a million times, nationalism and socialism are almost always synonymous terms. Hugo Chavez is a nationalist who is nationalizing his country’s industry. Or you could say he’s a socialist who is socializing his country’s industry. The two words are interchangeable: socialized medicine is nationalized medicine.)

Almost always!

Goldberg just hit the lottery of ignorance and incoherence. I don’t think he knows the origin of the political terms Right and Left. He also doesn’t seem to understand that there can be left and right wings within various political ideologies or movements (not just the one he insists includes liberals and fascists, i.e, socialism) and that these confront each other internally at the same time that the ideologies or movements to which they belong confront other ideologies or movements.