Steve, Steve, Steve consistency is the hobgoblin of a little mind. Glen is not bound by the constraints imposed by reality on the rest of us. You haven't the power or right to criticize his greatness. He was right in 08 and he is right today. It is just that he is right for the reasons stated then and he is right for the reasons stated now. He hates himself for supporting Bush then, but he was right then just like he is right now. Glen Beck is never wrong. When will you commie fascist liberal ACORN lovers ever learn.

Oh, you mean he spells his name Glenn Beck. That's different. That's different. Never mind.

Glen Beck soap , for those stubborn facts that just keep coming out , on counters every where .

Beck's a jerk. Move on.

We have always been at war with Eastasia, er.. socialism.

Now, when does the daily hate begin?

Beck's memory is faulty - the institutional memory of the white master class (of which I'm a member by birth) is trained to be as selective as possible.

There's a reason:
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/697/697671/6976716/jpg/active/960x.jpg

BECK BECK BECK BECK BECK BECK all day all the time . Enough already. Betwen here and Salon I've found out more about that asshole and his pronouncments than I ever cared to know. Nooze flash!!!! Beck says something outrageous and stupid everyday . That's why he gets paid $50 mill a year and the rest of us shlumps wake up and go to work.

berk IS a jerk!

What's happening here is pretty durned simple.

First, as a supporter of the GWB, Beck had to go along with the September bailouts in order to try to get McCain elected.

Now, after the late summer angst that he can take a great deal of credit for, Beck is starting to feel powerful. The only problem is that none of his rants have stuck in the mainstream. So, he's setting up the bailouts as the biggest mistake the nation has ever made. He'll throw Bush under the bus and then use the anger at the bailouts he gins up to focus on Obama.

His ultimate goal is to be the Newt Gingrich of the 2010 elections and to take the legislative branch back for Republicans. That means more viewers and more money.

Berk again?!

I told you all a long time ago, either you guys start bashing banks and seriously attacking them, or people like Glenn Beck will.

Too many people are way too angry to care what people said a year ago. Attacking Glenn Beck doesn't give people a better outlet for their anger, and that's what you need to do if you don't want to see this spiral out of control in the next decade.

Beck is becoming the new Palin. Like passing a car crash, it's just hard not to look.

Perhaps though, Beck should be commented on because he is 1) very influential with the base 2) leading the charge on crazy and 3) dangerously whipping up violence.

In a perfect world we wouldn't be talking about Beck, but in a perfect world, a person like Beck wouldn't be co-driving a major political party of the United States.

Well I was for the bailout and now I'm against it. Obama has handled it so badly that now agree with Openleft--better destruction that would enable us to build a more progressive and thus more sustainable system instead of patching what we had, learning nothing, and giving corporations even more power.

It's just like the ruling party in Mexico did for decades. When the president is in power, he is a fearless reformer who should be hailed as a great leader. Once he steps down, he's a corrupt bastard responsible for all the country's ills. Bush has served one purpose; now he serves another.

Now come on fellas. You ain't serious in expecting someone to do the consistency thing when 18 million dead presidents are in play for him. Annually!

Glenn Beck's gonna do this thing as long as it pays so well. Who knows, in a year or two this may be all over for him. Especially if some of his zealous followers take what he's saying too seriously and do something stupid.

Gotta play while you're in the game.

I'd take teabaggers more seriously if they were spent any effort at all on bank regulations.

And if they weren't called teabaggers.

This is the same guy who claimed that our medical system was horrible and out to kill him (while he was hospitalized) before he decided that it was the greatest system in the world.

I don't think we should ignore him or any of the right wing blowhards. Ignoring them is what allowed them to gain power. They need to be exposed under a bright light.

Beck is becoming the new Palin. -oh well

I hope you're right. Couric in interviewing him tonight. If she can pull off the same kind of interview with Beck that she did with Palin, I'd be all smiles tomorrow.

Beck is the teevee's most recent incarnation of "A Face in the Crowd" (look it up on imdb.com). It's why Olbermann keeps calling him "Lonesome Rhodes". Perhaps all that's needed is an open mike and an unguarded moment....but then the sheeple would just follow the next new face.

Steve,
If Beck is such a pimple on the ass of the universe, why does he make your head explode on a daily basis?

Oh, wait ... I see. Your comment count starts to go down and you know that if you throw Beck's (or Palin's/Limbaugh's) name out there, it will bring it back up to about 45 again.

Your readers are soooo gullible.

Someone else said it. This isn't about politics or the good of this country to Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity or others, this is about ratings and money. Poor gas on a fire, exploit ignorance... it worked for Jerry Springer for years.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

WOw, that is major cool dude!

RT
www.online-privacy.us.tc

Ad Hominem: Your argument is flawed. Steve's message here does not appear to be for/against the bailout (Claim X), it's noting that Beck (Person A) hypocrisy. Using your argument form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person A makes claim ~X (Not X).

Did you that in 1990 Beck allegedly raped and killed a girl?

Did you know that 82% of Americans believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered that young girl back in 1990 and that 89% of Americans believe Glenn Beck has not stopped raping and murdering young girls (Twiigs Political Polls)?

Very good, Moses. Now go look up "red herring".

Ring a bell? It should, because what you posted doesn't have anything to do with the criticism leveled at Beck here.

The wingnut spin on this is gonna be hilarious.

If they even acknowledge it.

What confuses me is why we listen to the opinions of these talk show personalities? How are their opinions anymore qualified than mine and why do theirs matter so much?

None of these personalities are experts in their fields and only have the advantage of a bully pulpit to express their own opinions. That is the only difference between normal people and these bags of hot air.

Do yourselves a favor and think for yourselves instead of listening to the morons preach.

On Sept. 24, 2008 exactly two days after these Washington monthly quotes Glenn Beck starts to rethink his support for the bailouts. As more and more details of the bailouts were revealed, a day or two later, Glenn starts to pull his support in an interview with Senator Jim DeMint. NOT one year later as this article may lead you to believe.

GLENN: "We're talking about this bailout package and as I have told you before, I am for the bailout package, however that is getting weaker and weaker as the days go on because it is getting more and more caveats and it is becoming worse and worse."

Read the whole interview here:... Read More
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/196/15602/

^ Rod,

That just supports Washington Monthly's reporting. As the original post laid out, Beck is actually complaining about the bailouts not being _big enough_. You quote him complaining about the weakening of the bailout package - do you actually recall what the original proposal entailed? It was a complete, blank-check power grab and Beck seems to be upset that caveats were added watering that down?