Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Friday, October 26, 2012

Log Cabin Republicans Did a Little Postering Around Our Offices Last Night

Posted by on Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 9:41 AM

powerbottomsforromney.jpeg

 

Comments (58) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
yelahneb 1
Oh snap!
Posted by yelahneb http://www.strangebutharmless.com on October 26, 2012 at 9:49 AM · Report this
2
Seems like these would be the people for the Democrat Establishment should be reaching out to and brining into Obama's camp.

How does ridiculing them help?
Posted by Franklin D. Roosevelt on October 26, 2012 at 9:55 AM · Report this
3
I've never understood this weird hatred amongst gay men of bottoms, and especially power bottoms- it seems like a holdover from hetero male culture against women and assertive ("bitchy") women in particular.
Posted by UNPAID COMMENTER on October 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
rob! 4
I like it! ...Does your art department have Jackpot Regular in their fonts folder, perchance?
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on October 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 5
Nice concern trolling, there @2.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on October 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM · Report this
Cato the Younger Younger 6
@3, Seattle has too many bottoms as compared to the number of tops...well tops anyone would sleep with
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on October 26, 2012 at 10:01 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 7
@2

Because it worked quite quite well to mock and ridicule the Greens who helped elect, and then re-elect, George W. Bush. Notice you don't hear much about them any more? Ever wonder why? Because we kissed their asses? No. Because we called them dupes? Yes.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on October 26, 2012 at 10:05 AM · Report this
Michael of the Green 8
What is it with the bigotry against bottoms? What a shame.
Posted by Michael of the Green on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this
MacCrocodile 9
@6 - I am comfortable with this imbalance.
Posted by MacCrocodile http://maccrocodile.com/ on October 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 10
@ 5, notice the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective?

Not a concern troll, just a normal troll.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
11
@2, it's okay - isn't Nordstrom the closest any Log Cabin Republicans get to the two-block radius?
Posted by gloomy gus on October 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 12
@ 7, actually, they came roaring back. "Ipso Facto" and "dirac" are two of the more regular ones here on Slog. They may not be "Greens" in terms of party membership, but that's where their hearts dwell.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM · Report this
rootwinterguard 13
What distinguishes a power bottom from your run-of-the-mill regular bottom?
Posted by rootwinterguard http://www.askanatheist.tv on October 26, 2012 at 10:18 AM · Report this
14
@7, what states went to Bush instead of Gore or Kerry because of the green party? And can you cite your source? I googled it and can't find one
Posted by Franklin D. Roosevelt on October 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM · Report this
15
@4, I think you nailed it. :^)
Posted by tshicks on October 26, 2012 at 10:27 AM · Report this
16
I've "met" a few of these MCPB's for Romney; enthusiastic folks.
Posted by The fag on October 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM · Report this
17
@2 yes. Because all 280 of those log-cabin dip shits will really put Obama over the top.

We should also stop ridiculing Idaho Neo-nazis. It's so mean. How does that help? You'd think we'd want them in our "camp." Right?

And for Pete's sake, stop ridiculing those poor people who believe the earth is only 8000 years. We need their mighty intellects!

And UFO abductees! STOP MAKING FUN OF THEM! We need that powerful clear-thinking constituency for our coalition.
Posted by tkc on October 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
18
I don't think it's ridiculing power-bottoms whatsoever. The sign merely assumes that anybody who is gay AND supports RMoney does so because they want to get fucked REALLY HARD. (by his policies)(cough).
Obviousman - Away!
Posted by Vitriolforbreakfast on October 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 19
@12

I didn't say internet loudmouth dopes are any less loud. I mean you don't hear much about them being a factor in the election from non-kook sources.

@14

Jesus. Listen to yourself.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on October 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 20
@ 14, Florida did. As you know, the final tally gave Bush a mere 537 vote margin. Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes. While many undoubtedly came from hard lefties who would never have voted for Gore, many thousands also came from progressives who WOULD have, but were angry about the swing to the center that occurred under Clinton and wanted to take the opportunity to let the Dems know this. The fact that these were usually dependable Democratic voters is born out by the fact that the Greens received a much, MUCH smaller number of votes in the preceding and succeeding elections.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 21
@ 19, ah. Understood.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 10:47 AM · Report this
Fortunate 22
Count me as another who doesn't like the use of "bottom" as an insult. May the gods bless all the bottoms; power bottoms, passive bottoms, kinky bottoms, vanilla bottoms, what ever bottoms.

There are plenty of ways to insult Romney with out denigrating bystanders. Particularly the bystanders that the non-bottoms should be praising and treating like gold, because what the hell is the point of being a top if you don't have any bottoms to express that with?

I would have used "willing victim", because that is what these folks are.
Posted by Fortunate on October 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM · Report this
Delishuss 23
Seriously, you guys. You're STILL blaming the Green Party for Bush? What about Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush conspiring to deny minorities right of entrance at the polls and throwing away votes from overseas military personnel? What about the Supreme Court handing away the election to George W. Bush? The biggest goddamn election fraud perpetrated in this country ever and you're still blaming Ralph Nader and the goddamn Green Party?

Ugh. Way to miss the forest for the trees.
Posted by Delishuss on October 26, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 24
and here i was just getting used to calling them 'maggots'
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on October 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM · Report this
despicable me 25
Wait, where are the casual bottoms? We NEVER hear about them!
Posted by despicable me on October 26, 2012 at 11:06 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 26
@10 I dunno.... His disingenuous post @14 seems far more 'concern' than 'troll.'

"I just googled Romney/Ryan, looking for a quote that they would draw & quarter every lgbt person in America, and I just *can't* find it! Then lgbt people should be completely supportive of their candidacy!"

And that moniker, 'FDR'? Puh-leaze...
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on October 26, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
keshmeshi 27
@6,

I've heard the same thing about San Francisco. Maybe there are just too many bottoms in general.

@13,

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that a power bottom is extremely demanding. They may be a "bottom" in the strictest sense of the word, but they control the sexual encounter to such a degree they may as well be a top.
Posted by keshmeshi on October 26, 2012 at 11:32 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 28
@ 23, Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush wouldn't have had the opportunity to steal the election if not for the Greens.

The election was stolen by them and the Supreme Court, but only because of a close vote that wouldn't have been close enough without Nader and the Greens.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM · Report this
mkyorai 29
@ 13 I always understood it to be not just a bottom, but the kind of bottom who that can't get enough, a borderline pathological bottom. But I'm not sure where I got that, and I could be wrong.
Posted by mkyorai on October 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM · Report this
Fortunate 30
@27, basiThe way I always understood it, a power bottom is a bottom who is very aggressive about it. Not necessarily that they want to be in control of the sexual encounter, but rather that they really, really WANT it. The power bottom doesn't see their role as being there to pleasure the top, but rather the top is there equally, or primarily, to pleasure the bottom.

A bottom who likes to be in control is a Bossy Bottom.
Posted by Fortunate on October 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM · Report this
blip 31
Power-bottoms like to get railed really, really hard. There's no shame in that, although I have never heard of this bottom-hatred everyone is talking about here. My first thought was as @18's -- the gay dudes for Romney just wanna get fucked really, really hard. Metaphorically.
Posted by blip on October 26, 2012 at 12:04 PM · Report this
thatsnotright 32
@23, I'm with @28 Ralph (completely unelectable)Nader's ego will be judged by history as a major cause of the War in Irag. Nader's hubris will also be cited as the main reason 3rd parties have such a bad rap in the USA for decades to come.
Posted by thatsnotright on October 26, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
keshmeshi 33
@30,

Thanks for the clarification. I'm thinking Dan should publish a dictionary for these things. It would be so much more useful than Urban Dictionary (blergh).
Posted by keshmeshi on October 26, 2012 at 12:14 PM · Report this
OutInBumF 34
@18, 30 & 31 have the right thoughts re: power bottoms. They just wanna get screwed really hard, those wittle Log Cabinettes.
Me- I'll take my screwing the regular way, thanks.
Posted by OutInBumF on October 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM · Report this
Delishuss 35
Yes, by God, the true outrage here is that some people voted for a third-party candidate rather than choosing to participate in the corruption-ridden dump heap that we all know to be our two-party system. Yes, that's the thing that progressives should get pissy about, rather than the perpetration of a massive scale voter fraud.

Please. Of the whole 2000 Florida debacle, and all of the disparate events that went into it going down successfully, the people who chose to vote for Nader were the only people acting legally and within their rights. And you're going to pin the whole thing on them? Good God, sometimes I feel like progressives deserve to be shat upon by the right-wing assholes of this country. You guys are like the kid who gets beat up on the playground and then goes home and takes his anger out by torturing his little brother.
Posted by Delishuss on October 26, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
thatsnotright 36
Let's get real. There is nothing wrong with wanting an alternative to the two party system entrenched in American politics, but it is ridiculous to think that a 3rd party can win at the national level. Also *which* 3rd party? Libertarian, Green, Good Sapceguy? Any group wanting to build a viable 3rd party could do far worse than work from the neo-con playbook. After all, the ultra-right went from a largely ignored fringe of the GOP to a major force in 2 decades. 1: Start local, start small; run 3rd party cadidiates for seats like school boards, utilities districts, county councils and etc. 2. Build on the name recognition garnered by these candidates to win elections for more powerful positions. 3. Build your constiuency as you go.
Posted by thatsnotright on October 26, 2012 at 1:16 PM · Report this
37
The Republicans loooooooooove the Green Party, that's why they fund Green Party candidates.

When Republicans aren't laughing at the Greenies behind their hands,that is, and running homeless people as Green candidates.

The Green Party: Electing Republicans Since Whenever!
Posted by judybrowni on October 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 38
@ 35, see what you did there? You tried to change this from a discussion about Nader and the Greens to the people who voted for them. You're also very falsely saying that I'm saying something (that it's ALL the Greens' fault) when I very clearly said it wasn't (that the GOP stole it).

The people who decided to vote Green instead of Democratic aren't the issue. They're just the proof of the reality of Third Party politics in America - that they draw votes from the far wings of either party to the benefit of the other.

If you're going to deny the culpability of the Greens in the election of George W. Bush, you're going to have to stick to the realm of fact and make a case. But just refusing to accept it and resorting to goalpost shifting and false attribution of statement is puerile.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM · Report this
39
...I believe that the LCReps are indeed shooting themselves in the foot and that Mr. Savage's term, "House Maggots," is both amusing and resonant. However...

I saw the poster and I thought, "Now THAT is how you take a joke and turn it your way."

Well played, house maggots, well played.
Posted by DRF on October 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM · Report this
40
What on earth is wrong with the person in the receiving position being in charge of the encounter? It seems just as legitimate as the lodging of the agency with the person in the performing position. Insisting on predetermined roles all the time - unless one is wired with absolutely no flexibility - just seems so... dreary?
Posted by vennominon on October 26, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
41
Power bottoms are fucking hot.
Posted by gromm on October 26, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
bennett 42
@32. Oh please. The Greens are not responsible for the war in Iraq. In fact, the war in Iraq has been going on since 1990; during the Clinton years we continued to bomb the shit out of them and imposed crippling sanctions which killed 500,000 Iraqi children. (Remember when Madeleine Albright went on 20/20 to announce the "price was worth it"?)

To suggest that Nader voters are responsible for the plight of the Iraqis is thus bullshit; the whole D.C. establishment--Democratic and Republican alike--is responsible for that.
Posted by bennett http://bennettabroad.wordpress.com/ on October 26, 2012 at 5:16 PM · Report this
43
Nader didn't lose the election for Gore, Gore did. I think having over 200,000 Democrats vote for Bush in Florida in 2000 might have been a bit of a problem.

And I'd like to lament the top to bottom ratio in Seattle as well.
Posted by zanseattle on October 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 44
@ 43, I have seen various Greens and other hard left types make that claim, but I've never seen an objective source confirm this. For example, this link makes that claim but is vague (no hard number, just "over 200,000") and doesn't cite any exit polling or data from vote tallies to confirm it. Instead it crunches numbers from unnamed polls taken in the weeks and months before the election. Not exactly the data source to prove that ANY number of actual votes cast for Bush came from Democrats.

In other words, it should be considered bunk.

Here is what isn't bunk: Nader surged in popularity between in 1996 run for President and 2000. As a Green running under a very progressive banner, progressives/liberals were the only ones voting for him. So his jump drew voters from one pool and one pool only - Democratic voters.

Nader received 97,488 votes in the final, "official" tally. Obviously, we can't say that they all would have voted for Gore if Nader or some other Green weren't a choice. There were then, as today, plenty of progressives and those further on the left who wouldn't vote for a moderate like Gore under any circumstance. But when Florida tallied a total of just 28,518 "others" in 1996 (which would include Nader and every other third party candidate not named Ross Perot), you have to ask how many of Nader's 2000 voters were progressives who WOULD have voted for Gore, whether under the "lesser of two evils" kind of resignation or a hope that the party would go more liberal in the 2000s, but were attracted by Nader's message in contrast to Gore's centrism. It stands to reason to suppose that tens of thousands of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore otherwise. More than enough to give him Florida and keep the opportunity taken by the Republicans from materializing.

Personally, I find the fact that the 200,000 figure is just big enough to completely and safely "prove" that Nader had no effect to be too convenient to be believed. If anyone can show their work at how they reached it, I'll buy it, but until then it just stinks a bit too much.
More...
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 26, 2012 at 7:14 PM · Report this
Andy Niable 45
You sure that's not the work of GOProud? Or are they usually sissy-tops?
Posted by Andy Niable on October 26, 2012 at 11:10 PM · Report this
Andy Niable 46
In the year 2000, two states went to Bush that would have gone to Gore had the Nader voters there held their nose and voted for Gore instead:

Florida (where 97,488 folks voted for Nader, and Gore only needed 600 or more votes)
and
New Hampshire (where 22,198 folks voted for Nader, but Gore lost that state by only 7,211 votes)

Even Noam Chomsky, Patron Saint of the Far Left, said this year if he lived in a swing state, he would vote for Obama:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/01/no…
Posted by Andy Niable on October 26, 2012 at 11:17 PM · Report this
BrotherBob 47
This is an example of bottom less worthy than top sexism and I want you to stop it. Or haven't you read Lysistrata?
Posted by BrotherBob on October 27, 2012 at 6:54 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 48
The simple fact is that our system doesn't allow for the 3rd party option. Everyone here has demonstrated its flaws: 3rd party candidates split the vote. 3rd party candidates are unelectable. The two-party system is flawed.

You're not going to change anything by tweaking the system, or voting 3rd party. The system needs to be completely restructured, like a parliamentary system. Until then, you have to work through the two-party system.

Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on October 27, 2012 at 1:13 PM · Report this
49
@47: The problem is that they're constantly getting fucked and not withholding their sex from the Republicans. Your analogy works perfectly... against the Log Cabiners.
Posted by come the fuck on now on October 27, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
50
The font is what really makes this poster. Brings to mind the 60s and 70s.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on October 27, 2012 at 8:49 PM · Report this
51
If you want to correct the top/bottom imbalance, there's a simple solution: bring back "it's not gay if you're the guy" and get the word out to the mostly-hetero types.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on October 27, 2012 at 9:36 PM · Report this
MythicFox 52
@48 -- And of course, that's not going to happen. The moment anyone tries to rework things so there's a viable third party, both the Democrats and the Republicans will team up and demonstrate true bipartisanship rather than give up the 'home v. away' football team mentality they've fought so hard to condition into us.
Posted by MythicFox on October 28, 2012 at 2:17 AM · Report this
MythicFox 53
@48 -- And of course, the moment anyone tries that, the Democrats and Republicans are going to team up in a show of pure bipartisanship to shut it down. They're not going to give up the 'home v. away' football fan mentality they've worked so hard to cultivate.
Posted by MythicFox on October 28, 2012 at 2:22 AM · Report this
dirac 54
I too wonder why gay-on-gay hate is so fun. But I guess it's just adopting the divide and conquer consciousness of Republicans.

@19 I guess I don't see your internet loudmouth being very effective either--nor do I see your political analysis being correct in any sense.

I see we're still litigating 2000. It's interesting with a huge Party machine, tens of millions of dollars (far more than any marginal party), tons of lawyers, 50% of the voting population checking out of every Presidential election, that Democratic voters are still deflecting blame for the mistakes of their own choices for leadership. Al Gore's problem in 2000 was Al Gore, not the extremely marginal Greens. Like I've ever thought a marginal party would win--but that's not their function in this system (btw, the Progressive Party says, "You're welcome for Social Security.") But what other narrative do you want to live by? That we have a choice? Then you should respect it and you can't claim you're entitled to that vote. If Obama loses, it's his own damned fault.
Posted by dirac on October 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM · Report this
johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt 55
I've known far too many power bottoms and the first rule of power bottom club is not to talk about power bottom club...

I do like the poster though..would love to get a copy of one.

Posted by johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt on October 29, 2012 at 10:59 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 56
@ 54, no one ever said Al Gore didn't hinder his own campaign. That's another cause entirely.

It's simply just an indisputable fact that the Greens took enough votes away from Gore to cause all the problems in Florida that led to Bush's declaration of victory, and it's a concrete example of the only way third parties influence an election. Now, that could be because third parties have a very bad habit of going for the gold (making symbolic runs for the presidency) every time, without actually building a party at the grassroots level, focusing on local issues first with a long term strategy in mind. They all fail because they all exist for one purpose - protest the status quo. They do NOT exist for the purpose of presenting voters with a true alternative.

History matters. Someone smarter than you once said something about how those who don't learn from it go on to repeat past mistakes.
Posted by Matt from Denver on October 29, 2012 at 11:41 AM · Report this
Chris in Vancouver WA 57
We masochistic OUT power-bottoms are voting for Obama.
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on October 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM · Report this
dirac 58
@56 Oh, but it's a very important cause given the relative scales of influence. Yes, I agree that history matters, but ALL of history matters and this " and it's a concrete example of the only way third parties influence an election." is completely wrong, given my obvious example of third parties eventually having influence on major parties' policies.

"They all fail because they all exist for one purpose - protest the status quo." This is the second time tonight I've seen a fallacy of single cause. But "liberals" are so smart, I'm told.

Please don't try to judge intelligence while you argue quite explicitly for false choices and only look at history through the prism of a lecturing pragmatist. I know it suits some intellectually masturbatory need of yours but it doesn't forward you arguments in any substantive or persuasive way.
Posted by dirac on October 29, 2012 at 11:19 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy