March 29, 2006

ITMFA
posted by kirkaracha 18 years ago
  • From the wonderful brain of Dan Savage, editor of The Stranger and author of Savage Love.
  • I'd buy one!
  • Nice compact message.
  • My problem with this is the "Mother Fucker" part. I have met Barbara Bush, and she is no MILF.
  • These are awesome. I'm getting one for my mother-in-law.
  • My problem with this is the "Mother Fucker" part All these badges were left over from this guy's campaign against Bill "the Monica Fucker" Clinton. He's a serial troublemaker, actually - it all goes way back ... George Bush I - "the Middle-east Fucker" Ronald Reagan - "the Mindless Fucker" Jimmy Carter - "the Misery index Fucker" Gerald Ford - "the Midterm congressional elections of 1974 fucker-upper" etc. Records show that, at Washington's inauguration in 1789, this guy showed up waving a sign saying "Impeach The Martha Fucker Now".
  • A NSFW (large font profanity) warning would have been nice.
  • "I foolishly neglected to buy the more obvious domain name—ITMFA.com—before I wrote about it in my column. By the time I decided to get a domain name, the good url was gone. Too bad, so sad." Huh?
  • Sorry about that rocket88. I'll try to be more careful in the future.
  • This week's Savage Love column has a better explanation, mare. Someone had registered itmfa.com. They then "sold" it to Dan Savage for a donation to a charitable organization.
  • Tshirts have historically helped in situations such as these.
  • I'm being sarcastic - neither the left or the many graphic designers that compose it will ever have any noticeable effect on our culture other than its continued visual polution. Oh look! I've got a message!! Add that to the 3000 I've already seen today. Idiots.
  • Did it just get smarter in here? Hey look! My balls shrank!
  • Hey look! My balls shrank! Well, Pete, ITMFA! INFLATE the monkey farters already!
  • ITMFA.
  • A NSFW (large font profanity) warning would have been nice. Yeah, because profanity needs a NSFW label when it's on another fucking website, even though this very fucking thread doesn't need the same fucking label for having the same fucking profanity. Fuck.
  • Tshirts have historically helped in situations such as these. "The Revolution is just a T-shirt away." -- Billy Bragg, "Waiting for the Great Leap Forward"
  • I still think "Our Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over" is a better epitaph for this administration.
  • Or OLNPPO
  • Hang on, Dan Savage... wasn't he one of the BIG war supporters before the clusterfuck went down? That's right, he spewed his support for the effort in book tours and talks all around the US before the debacle began. The only thing worse than a person who cannot admit they were wrong are the people who backed the wrong side & change their tune to defect when their side doesn't come up with the goods, making out they were always against them.
  • I win this week's most incomprehensible sentence award AGAIN! Barely beating out fly.
  • Hur hur u stopud cheye i think yu shuld go bak to the mune or wwere yiu cum frum yu !
  • Yeah, because profanity needs a NSFW label when it's on another fucking website, even though this very fucking thread doesn't need the same fucking label for having the same fucking profanity. Size matters, Mr. K.
  • Dan Savage.
  • Holy santorum! Chy, I take back all the bad things I'd planned to say about you.
  • Is it the same Dan Savage? Because his Savage Love column sucks, and this would give me new reason to hate him.
  • It would seem to be, although I would have liked some kind of "Dan Savage is . . ." on the footer of the article.
  • Yeah, it's the same guy, you can click on his name in the by line.
  • Wait a sec. Somebody becoming anti-war is bad thing? Only if you are pro-war.
  • I think he meant something about not sticking to one's guns. So to speak.
  • I can't stand Dan Savage or his column but I'd still buy one.
  • I think he meant something about not sticking to one's guns. So to speak. I still don't get it. It is never, ever wrong to realize your past mistakes. In fact, I'd say the ultimate source of every one of our problems comes from someones inability to admit when they were wrong. Anyways, one could still be pro-war while still wanting to impeach the mother fucker already. He's done plenny impeachable act excluding war on false pretenses.
  • True, but supporting such a horrible idea for a war with every indication the administration was lying to do it and then touting ITMFA is a little more egregious than just changing one's mind. A few mea culpas should be in there at least.
  • I'm sorry, I still have no idea where you are coming from.
  • *Blam!*
  • "I still don't get it. It is never, ever wrong to realize your past mistakes." He's not mentioning his past mistakes, AFAIK. He's acting like he never made a mistake. He's trying to protect his appearance of being smart and ahead of the game. If he admits his grievous error, then he's afraid that people will say 'why should I listen to this guy's sex advice when he was obviously so wrong-headed before?' Of course, that's not a logical argument, because everyone makes mistakes, but the fact that Savage is apparently now on the major anti-Bush front without coming forward with a clear description of how he's come about to this new view, it comes across as phony.
  • So, what you are saying, from what I can tell, is that when someone stops supporting the war, you don't want them to actively start opposing it? If his reversal is as huge as you are trying to make it seem, you should be even happier that it has happened, not upset. It sounds like you'd rather rub someone's nose in it rather than gain a vocal and influential ally, for cause a VERY important cause. No wonder Bush supporters have stayed loyal. When they try to switch, we won't let them. Everyone has been sitting around trying to figure out why people still support Bush, yet whenever someone stops supporting Bush, they get sent back. Our numbers aren't increasing because we are too snotty to let them.
  • If you've argued vociferously and continuously for this war, over the overwhelming myriad ethical, moral, financial, practical, legal reasons against, and only now that those early dire predictions begin to come true, have decided to oppose it . . . I dunno. Putting on a different T-shirt just seems - I dunno. Like a fake. Bullshit. Phony assholishness. Type. (yeah, that's erudite) I'm just speaking to the bigger point you raise Mr. Knick. Not specifically (although perhaps including) Dan Savage.
  • It's not a question of being happy about someone finally coming round to the right side of thinking. When someone says "Let's support the war in Iraq!" and then suddenly turns around and says, "Impeach Bush!" you wonder about the sincerity of either declaration. He offers no explanation for his change of heart, so why should we believe him at all?
  • Where do you think supporters for your side of a cause are supposed to come from? The come from the other side. At the beginning of all this, anti-warrers were in the minority by far (I don't understand why, and I doubt I can understand why, but for some strange reason, we were in the minority). These numbers have changed drastically, for the better. Guess where all the converts came from. The other side. That's why they're converts. If you are opposed to getting converts, you are in effect demanding that the anti-war stance remain a minority. This is what we have been after. I don't know how to put it more bluntly or how to say it any clearer. The whole point has been to get people to stop being pro-war. It's working. This isn't a problem that needs fixing, this is the problem being fixed. This is success.
  • If we're only talking about voters, then yes, this is success. It is good to have more people on our side. If we're talking about someone speaking publicly on an issue, which is essentially what we're doing here, then we need more context. I don't want some crackpot who changes his mind for no discernible reason to be speaking out for my side. I'd rather he stay on the other side, with the other crackpots.
  • At the beginning of all this, anti-warrers were in the minority by far I don't remember it that way, but I'm too lazy to go lookup the numbers. And what Knucklehead Tubbybottom said.
  • /hiss
  • At the beginning of all this, even the anti-warrers thought Iraq had WMDs (sold to them by the US, of course). Seems everyone's opinion has changed since then.
  • "At the beginning of all this, anti-warrers were in the minority by far.." Only in America. "At the beginning of all this, even the anti-warrers thought Iraq had WMDs.." Bullshit. The UN and every expert on the subject said they didn't have WMDs. I was saying in 2003 they didn't, based upon the stuff I'd read about the first Gulf war and what Iraq had been thru during sanctions. If my blog from that period was still up, I'd show you the posts. There was a massive amount of evidence that Saddam was broken, but it was totally ignored in the US press. Of course, the leaders of the US & UK totally lied bold-faced to the public. Normally, people tend to believe what their leaders say. Most people should not be blamed for believing the horrendous lie that Hussein had nuclear capability. Smoking gun, mushroom cloud, 45 minutes, etc.
  • At the beginning of this, nobody had ever heard of a "WMD".
  • The UN passed resolution 1441 to force Iraq to comply with WMD inspections (remember Hans Blix?). They believed he had them, they just wanted a diplomatic solution. Many anti-warrers I came across online and IRL believed it too, blaming the US for being stupid enough to sell them to Iraq in the first place. At the time, I thought they probably had WMDs, but wanted to see a unanimous UN response, preferably something with teeth to force an unconditional compliance to UN inspections. Something like that might have called both Saddam's and Bush's hands and avoided this whole mess.
  • Chy's right. I and everyone I know knew the WMD thing was a smokescreen. But the Dems and the mainstream media, pussies that they are, went along with the charade out of political fear, giving the illusion that "everyone" thought there were WMDs.
  • And regarding Hans Blix, yeah, I remember him. I remember him looking and looking and not finding WMDs. I remember him being pulled out of Iraq before he had a chance everywhere he might have, by the Bushies. I remember him saying when he got home that he didn't think Iraq had WMDs any more. Don't rewrite history.
  • btw the band I was in at the time was called Hans Blix & the Inspectors. Not that that gives me any special insight -- just a funny fyi.
  • "before he had a chance TO LOOK everywhere he might," of course.
  • Yeah, it's irritating when the revisionists try to tell us what we thought.
  • WTF? They told me that they never told me what to think!
  • They only want you to think that, Quid.
  • even the anti-warrers thought Iraq had WMDs The farthest I ever got was exasperatedly hoping that the administration had intelligence they couldn't reveal. Of course, as it has been said earlier, the press and the Democrats were too weak to actively fight for truth. Actually, the press was gung-ho on it because it was high ratings. They were still high from the 9-11 ratings. Now that's evil, folks. Something like that might have called both Saddam's and Bush's hands and avoided this whole mess. But rocket, as the Downing street memo and this latest have made clear - Bush was intent on war. The WMD "hand" he was playing was only one pretense he would have used. It says he even thought about drawing fire on a UN-painted fighter just to force a war. WMDs were just the most expedient route. It could have been "financing the terr'ists" and a big banking scandal or something that lead to invasion. I don't believe that the majority of necessary government officials would have knowingly gone along with a blatant lie for war, hence the WMD angle: it's super-secret by nature, and it scares the hell out of people.