• news
  • SUNDAY MARCH 12 2006 9:00 AM

Impeach the Motherfucker Already!

Submitted by Shal

Edited by Shal

Dan Savage, writer of the weekly sex column Savage Love, has some experience with coining terms. He and his loyal readers are responsible for the widespread use of the terms "pegging" (the act of a woman fucking her man with a strap-on), "santorum" (as he puts it, "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex," named after anti-gay senator Rick Santorum), and the acronym "DTMFA" ("dump the motherfucker, already" -- advice frequently given in his column).

Dan's got a new term he's trying to get people using: "ITMFA," which is short for "Impeach the motherfucker, already!"

I approached the idea cautiously. While Savage Love readers have successfully popularized two terms— pegging and santorum—I was apprehensive about ITMFA. Did the world need another anti-Bush slogan? Did we need another anti-Bush website? Instead of launching the campaign, I punted, asking my readers what they thought.

Well, they thought we should go for it—and my readers are usually right about this stuff.



The website at impeachthemotherfuckeralready.com is still in its early stages, but Savage is asking supporters to make their own "ITMFA" buttons and tshirts and send in pictures to be displayed. He also plans to link to any interesting news or websites that discuss impeaching President Bush.

I wish him luck in getting the phrase -- and the sentiment behind it -- into the realm of public discourse.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8

Next

Comments
skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

MAR 19, 2006 12:58 AM

bones_708 said:

oyaji said:


Are you seriously trying to argue that the united states citizens, present in the united states who are being surveilled in the NSA program "planned, authorized, committed or aided" in the 9/11 attacks?

If so, why aren't they under arrest?


Why would I argue that? I'm no legal scholar, never said I was, but the persons under surveillance are the know terrorist contacts overseas. We can listen to them all we want. As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening? Just doesn't make sense to me that it would be wrong. Now if the scope or details were different I might feel different but I'm OK with it as we have been informed

Also while Hamdi may of only been a half a win for the Gov. lets not forget that many said that the military couldn't do what Hamdi allows.


Actually, no - the persons under surveillance under the disputed NSA program are not known terrorist contacts overseas, and the dispute is not over whether "As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening."

The dispute is over the eletronic surveillance of "American persons" in the U.S. - that is, American citizens or aliens legally in this country. And it is not over whether we should "stop listening," but whether we need a fucking warrant as FISA requires.

Jesus fucking Christ!!

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

MAR 19, 2006 01:00 AM

skeptik said:

The dispute is over the eletronic surveillance of "American persons" in the U.S. - that is, American citizens or aliens legally in this country. And it is not over whether we should "stop listening," but whether we need a fucking warrant as FISA requires.

Jesus fucking Christ!!


Have you ever tried arguing with bones before?

Welcome to a world where 1 + 1 = lampshade.

bones_708

bones_708

Houston, TX
December 2004

MAR 19, 2006 02:41 AM

skeptik said:

bones_708 said:

oyaji said:


Are you seriously trying to argue that the united states citizens, present in the united states who are being surveilled in the NSA program "planned, authorized, committed or aided" in the 9/11 attacks?

If so, why aren't they under arrest?


Why would I argue that? I'm no legal scholar, never said I was, but the persons under surveillance are the know terrorist contacts overseas. We can listen to them all we want. As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening? Just doesn't make sense to me that it would be wrong. Now if the scope or details were different I might feel different but I'm OK with it as we have been informed

Also while Hamdi may of only been a half a win for the Gov. lets not forget that many said that the military couldn't do what Hamdi allows.


Actually, no - the persons under surveillance under the disputed NSA program are not known terrorist contacts overseas, and the dispute is not over whether "As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening."

The dispute is over the eletronic surveillance of "American persons" in the U.S. - that is, American citizens or aliens legally in this country. And it is not over whether we should "stop listening," but whether we need a fucking warrant as FISA requires.

Jesus fucking Christ!!



So you think we are not already listning? The taps are only when a person in the US calls known numbers so why wouldn't we be listening?
Get real

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

MAR 19, 2006 08:18 AM

Roughly half the point is that we have no idea who they're listening to because there isn't any oversight.
The other half is that there is a procedure in place for exactly the sort of thing they're doing, and Bush chose to skip it. Maybe that procedure was not flexible enough for the situation (although I've never heard a persuasive argument why), but in that case Bush has had five years to get the law changed and did not, so far as we can tell, make any attempt whatsoever.

Dead_Ringer

Dead_Ringer

I'm lost
September 2004

MAR 19, 2006 08:32 AM

bones_708 said:

skeptik said:

bones_708 said:

oyaji said:


Are you seriously trying to argue that the united states citizens, present in the united states who are being surveilled in the NSA program "planned, authorized, committed or aided" in the 9/11 attacks?

If so, why aren't they under arrest?


Why would I argue that? I'm no legal scholar, never said I was, but the persons under surveillance are the know terrorist contacts overseas. We can listen to them all we want. As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening? Just doesn't make sense to me that it would be wrong. Now if the scope or details were different I might feel different but I'm OK with it as we have been informed

Also while Hamdi may of only been a half a win for the Gov. lets not forget that many said that the military couldn't do what Hamdi allows.


Actually, no - the persons under surveillance under the disputed NSA program are not known terrorist contacts overseas, and the dispute is not over whether "As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening."

The dispute is over the eletronic surveillance of "American persons" in the U.S. - that is, American citizens or aliens legally in this country. And it is not over whether we should "stop listening," but whether we need a fucking warrant as FISA requires.

Jesus fucking Christ!!



So you think we are not already listning? The taps are only when a person in the US calls known numbers so why wouldn't we be listening?
Get real


Amazing. You really do not see the issue at all. "Get real?" How do you know that the taps only apply when a person in the US calls "known" numbers overseas? How do you know that the program isn't catching totally innocent persons? "Known" to whom? The god damn point is that legislation exists to make sure that the allegedly "known" numbers are ACTUALLY legitimate targets for surveillance, i.e. the god damn FISA Court.

The process for obtaining a warrant is EXTREMELY lenient, and executive discretion is given substantial weight. If they need a warrant, they get one, absent outright fraud or fabrication. So why the fuck are they bypassing the court if the targets are "known" targets, when warrants for "known" targets are remarakably simple to obtain?

Jesus Fucking Christ, indeed!

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

MAR 19, 2006 10:55 AM

bones_708 said:

skeptik said:

bones_708 said:

oyaji said:


Are you seriously trying to argue that the united states citizens, present in the united states who are being surveilled in the NSA program "planned, authorized, committed or aided" in the 9/11 attacks?

If so, why aren't they under arrest?


Why would I argue that? I'm no legal scholar, never said I was, but the persons under surveillance are the know terrorist contacts overseas. We can listen to them all we want. As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening? Just doesn't make sense to me that it would be wrong. Now if the scope or details were different I might feel different but I'm OK with it as we have been informed

Also while Hamdi may of only been a half a win for the Gov. lets not forget that many said that the military couldn't do what Hamdi allows.


Actually, no - the persons under surveillance under the disputed NSA program are not known terrorist contacts overseas, and the dispute is not over whether "As soon as they receive a call from the US we should stop listening."

The dispute is over the eletronic surveillance of "American persons" in the U.S. - that is, American citizens or aliens legally in this country. And it is not over whether we should "stop listening," but whether we need a fucking warrant as FISA requires.

Jesus fucking Christ!!



So you think we are not already listning? The taps are only when a person in the US calls known numbers so why wouldn't we be listening?
Get real


Bullshit. The taps can be, and in many cases already are roving wiretaps. In fact, that is a big part of the administration's supposed justifications.

One more fucking time, the dispute is not over accidently listening to an American's conversation when he calls a tapped phone. It is about intentionally wiretapping Americans, in America, without getting the required fucking warrant!

Get real, my ass.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8

Next

featured interviews