Bush isn't in office

Good point! Your point is obviously, that it's inconvenient for you to be reminded just how supportive you used to be of the president controlling the media through very overt means. Now, when you'd rather focus on a president with a D after his name merely criticizing the media, you don't need to have your own hypocrisy rubbed in your face. Say no more!

so let's talk about obama telling us Fox isn't a news business and that other news companies shouldn't follow anything Fox does.

Yes, let's talk about that. Is there something wrong with Obama giving his opinion? I mean, given that Bush criticized the media too (and his dad still does), can you explain why it's wrong only when the critic has a D after his name?

Also, can you refute the opinion about Fox News? For example, can you point to the millions of examples of right-wing bias in Fox's coverage and show how no bias actually exists?

They want to stifle dissent and all you "progressives" are now all for it

Nice strawman.

Nobody is trying to stifle dissent. There are zero examples of that. Rather, Obama is trying to frame the dissent, in a much milder manner than his predecessor did (remember, back when you thought it was the president's duty to criticize and ignore certain media outlets). Obama is framing the dissent by saying that the dissenter (in this case, Fox News) is merely voicing their opinion, but is not reporting the news. Notice, he's not trying to silence their opinion in any way whatsoever. He's simply trying to eliminate the confusion about Fox, where some people regard it as a valid news source. It isn't. It's more like Air America.

That said, do you have any other fraudulent arguments you'd like to try out? Now's the time.

The common sense limitations to free speech I'm quoting from come straight from The United States Supreme Court, and are the law of the land, and have been for decades.

Can you point to a Supreme Court decision that finds that generally stirring up shit, without specificity or immediacy and using a private medium, is illegal? If so, please provide a link. If not, then it might be time for you to reconsider your claim.

I mean, that whole Obama = Chavez line was probably the most fraudulent conclusion I've seen you reach here, which is really saying a lot. Now, I know that truthfulness has absolutely no place in your comments here, and that your real intent is to play a game where you try and spin anything in a pro-GOP, anti-Obama (and, of course, anti-Orbit Boy) direction, regardless how tenuous the connections.

But this time you kinda let the cat out of the bag. Like a magician who keeps his hands out in front of him so you can see him pass the quarter from one to another. You might want to make your fraudulent reasoning a bit more subtle, so you don't broadcast to every single person here precisely how full of shit you are. Ya know? I mean, while I admit I do enjoy refuting each thing you say in a way that requires you to inevitably abandon the thread, I'm just asking if you could increase the degree of difficulty a tad, just to make it more interesting. You're off your game.

Objectively speaking, Fox News viewers are more ignorant than others regarding objectively recognized facts. Funny how Beck decries ignorance, when ironically it's the cornerstone of his whole movement.

This and the Donohue op-ed make great companions. The take-away for me: if you want to be a republican these days, you need to dispense with facts and just shriek your frustration. What a perfect snapshot of an intellectually defunct movement!

I was not aware that having access to medical marijuana was a right protected by the Constitution.

In fact, it is, right there in the 10th amendement: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

by now it's "our government sliced up someone's dick as part of a torture program" and that will never stop, even if it is proved never to have never happened.

Nice strawman, but I think it needs to be filled out a little more.

No, if somehow in the face of so much evidence, the government proves that it never in fact had a torture program or engaged in it, I will certainly be satisfied, and relieved. However, since the government, rather than proving its own innocence, is focusing its energies on preventing any evidence from coming to light, I'm not holding my breath for this satisfaction. Nor should you be. Nor would any rational adult.

To demonstrate your double-standard, let's look at a comparison. If someone were accused of murder, and that same person prevented the cops from searching his house, and did everything in his power (which, let's say is A LOT) to thwart the investigation, please explain how you would feel about that. That is a serious request: please explain, and then explain how this is different.