words. That is not my objection to Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke. I object to the fact that he lied about what she said in her testimony. I doubt that Bill Maher has read the transcript of her statement and compared it to Limbaugh's false claim that she said she had "so much sex." Limbaugh placed her and her testimony in a false light.

If she were my daughter, I would be absolutely furious.

Sandra Fluke is preparing for a professional career. I can see her walking into a law firm with a mix of liberal and conservative interviewing attorneys. I can hear the jokes. Limbaugh has probably caused Ms. Fluke some real personal and professional damage. She needs to make sure that his misrepresentations to the public are corrected.

Maher does a disservice by focusing on Limbaugh's use of "naughty" words. That is not the real problem. It's the injury to Ms. Fluke that his misrepresentations may cause that are the problem.

So, you agree that Sandra is a 'slut and prostitute," rather than Rush's later undenial denials. How liberal of you.

And yes, while I have not read Rush's transcript, I HAVE SEEN RUSH'S COMMENTS DIRECTLY FROM HIS OWN MOUTH VIA REBROADCASTS OF THE ACTUAL SHOWS. He does say every vile thing that you say is 'not objectionable.'

&quot Linda) needs to make sure that his misrepresentations to the public are corrected." I am not exactly sure to what you are referring to with this statement. Could you please clarify? You may be referring to your statement, "I can see her walking into a law firm with a mix of liberal and conservative interviewing attorneys. I can hear the jokes." A liberal would see Ms Fluke's treatment akin to Rosa Park's or Anita Hill's subsequent treatment in the press as attacking the messenger and not taking a stand for the little person's right to 'rage against the machine.' Ms Fluke, I believe, will use her 15 minutes of fame to maybe ensure she has many years 'of fame.' What ANYONE snickers about behind her back, BE DAMNED!

I feel you are doing Ms Fluke a huge injustice. But that is your right to have any opinion you feel you need to display on DU.

Have a good day.

Limbaugh's terrible name-calling on that basis. But name-calling is a matter of opinion and moral standards about the use of language is an individual thing.

So, the name-calling is objectionable, but it can be argued that the name-calling is free speech.

Lying about Sandra Fluke's testimony, however, is not just morally objectionable, it is a very serious injury to Ms. Fluke because it could cause her a great deal of trouble as she proceeds in her life.

People call each other horrible names all the time. I always figure that the name-calling suggests that the person doing the name-calling does not have very high intelligence and is pretty nasty. But people do not go on national radio and utterly misrepresent what an young student, and extremely sweet, kind young student says before Congress. That is extraordinary and way beyond anything that Bill Maher has ever done. In fact, from what I have seen, Bill Maher tries to tell the truth. Limbaugh wasn't even trying to tell the truth about Ms. Fluke's testimony. Read the transcript of Ms. Fluke's testimony and then listen to Limbaugh's statements about Ms. Fluke's testimony and what he claims she said about her sex life -- and then you will understand why I differentiate that part of Limbaugh's diatribe from the nasty words he uses to describe her.

I am not giving Limbaugh a free pass on either count.

But, picking on comedians for using "dirty" language is a thankless task. It has gotten so that comedians aren't taken seriously unless they are vulgar and use offensive language.

He isn't addressing the content of Limbaugh's diatribe, but the attacks on himself from the left and the right, and the false equivalency that he feels they paint him with due to his use of language. He addressed the content of Limbaugh's drivel last week in his monologue. Not sure if he emphasized your concerns, though.

"That is not my objection to Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke." I may not have the reading comprehension you are able to garner from this quote. However, I still stand on my comment, "So, you agree that Sandra is a 'slut and prostitute," rather than Rush's later undenial denials."

"He addressed the content of Limbaugh's drivel last week in his monologue." I think you may not have meant your pronoun, 'his' to refer to the poster. Rather, 'he' should refer to Limbaugh's monologue. I think I might have constructed a sentence such as '(the poster) addressed the content of the drivel of Limbaugh's monologue of last week' or something similar.

"Not sure if he emphasized your concerns..." I think you may have looked at the 'tree' wrongly. I was referring, and commenting, to the poster's comments. It looks as though you think the poster is commenting to MINE. I think you may have seen that movie with the 'hot tub time machine too many times.

Peace

I agree that Rush Limbaugh is a liar.

usual