As if they needed more publicity…

Written by

Well we’re giving them some anyway in light of the dapper gentleman they’ve chosen as their poster child (maybe Andy Samberg helped pick out the picture?). Oh, and their catchphrase is kinda clever in an inadvertently self-negating kind of way…

Also featured on CUCR posters for Friday’s Horowitz visitation: a man hanging from a rope and a woman being buried alive. Reminiscent of Hillel’s people who were active in Hillel but not posting on behalf of Hillel’s posters heralding Ahmadinejad, actually, but less colorful.

Tags: , , ,


  1. ...

    It is about time the Republican party started to stand up for women, homosexuals, and minorities... *cough* in other countries!!!

    Or wait, is it that it's only them who is allowed to do the oppressing?

    • word  

      I wonder if the CRs recognize the hypocrisy in their own propaganda?

    • ugh  

      until republicans support the stoning of women and the hanging of homosexuals, they're not comparable to facists.

      i think the republicans have really been on their game with their flyers this year. pretty darn good heading i say.

      • umm...  

        no one was comparing the republicans to fascists.

        just pointing out the hypocrisy in the republicans rebuking one country's discrimination when they don't exactly promote full civil rights on their own home turf.

        • no no  

          you have to admit that the republican party is better than hitler

        • i get it  

          they're not into the gay marriage and/or abortion thing. but we're talking about different levels of discrimination here. it should tell you something when the republicans are like "man, that guy is really mean to gays and women". haha

          • ...

            "we're talking about different levels of discrimination here"

            So you would admit that the republicans pursue a certain degree of discrimination? Not a lot though, so it's okey dokey?

        • Ok.

          Fair enough. (Of course, you're generalizing to quite a great extent, but let's leave that aside for the moment.) Why don't you then vigorously defend civil rights both at home and abroad? Why must the latter merely be the domain of the "hypocrites?"

          • Anonymous  

            Laffo. Everyone (including liberals) criticized this fine fellow's philosophy when he came to campus. Just because we don't whip out our dicks and start beating off in preparation for a holy war against the great enemy doesn't mean we agree with him.

            Hey wait...I think there's a word for that kind of thinking...you know, where everyone who doesn't want to fight at all times against your enemies is somehow in league with them...

            Nevermind, it escapes me. I guess I'm just some dumb overgeneralizing liberal though, so you can ignore everything I have to say.

            Let's rephrase it in a more reasonable way: Why not worry about the nation you have direct democratic control over before you start criticizing other countries? Especially since the only way that criticism can change things at this point is through a serious embargo or military action, neither of which is feasible. It's both more immediate and easier to change things for the better here than abroad and would also give you the unassailable moral high ground you seem to enjoy treading so much.

        • most fair people

          recognize that any political issue is usually controversial because of somewhat legitimate competing issues--its why you can argue about an issue

          its very easy to argue that the competing issues in america regarding gays/minorities have more even handed or non hate driven arguments as opposed to well hanging or stoning gays/adulterers

          asking for a civil union versus a wedding or claiming they want to protect the lives of fetuses seems to be far more legitimate than just saying 'there are no gays here'

          its an indication of dishonesty or not understanding what your opponents arguments are when you try to compare them to people who openly advocate the death or violence against those who dont agree with them

          • i totally agree  

            its an indication of dishonesty or not understanding what your opponents arguments are when you try to compare them to people who openly advocate the death or violence against those who dont agree with them

            i couldn't agree more!

            now lets get to business, who's coming to speak again? oh yeah, some guy who wrote a book titled: "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left"

            likening an opposing political group to a group you've defined as the source of all evil. POT KETTLE BLACK.

  2. Hmm...

    The front-runner for the Republican nomination is Rudy Giuliani. It's going to be tough for you to keep beating on your Republican bogeyman when everyone can see that you invented it yourself...

  3. correction  

    Chris Kulawik doesn't need more publicity. The other kids who are in College Republicans do since nobody has any clue who they are.

  4. hmm  

    The College Republicans are trying to get as many women, homosexuals, and minorities into one place at one time?

    It's a trap!

  5. Hilary

    Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all AGAINST gay marriage.

    Okay, so (maybe) slightly more Democrats than Republicans are okay with civil unions.

    Wow, good for you Democrats out there - you're mildly less homophobic party.

  6. Is it just me

    ...or do the college republicans seem like little more than the subject of a bukkake porn? I mean, there's only one of them and about a hundred leftist groups who all get really excited anytime the CRs show up.

  7. enlightened  

    I find it funny that the democrats think that the republicans are the one's oppressing women, minorities and homosexuals. As someone pointed out earlier, a great number of democrats oppose gay marriage as well. Also, its the dems who make being gay to be some sort of scandal or crime whenever it comes to public figures being gay, escpecially when its a serving republican that is outed. Furthermore, the republicans are the only ones who seem to have the desire to fight a war against the people who execute homosexuals as criminals, whereas the dems just want to surrender and do nothing except ask them to be nice. In regards to minorities, I guess the dems just ignore the fact that Bush's cabinet is EXTREMELY diverse, consisting of both minorities and women, whereas bill clinton showed his respect for women and minorities by sexually harassing women and avoiding the nomination of any minorities in his cabinet, excpet Madeleine Albright.

    • haha  

      you would be more persuasive in attacking the Democrats (they do deserve it) if you didn't think that "Bush's cabinet is EXTREMELY diverse" and that this is some sort of defense. nominating condi rice doesn't make up for cracking down on contraception and abandoning new orleans. and who's lgbtq on Bush's cabinet, pray tell?

      yes, the republicans' hypocrisy is absolutely disgusting here. and no, the fact that they're not quite as oppressive as some is no excuse at all. especially because i don't recall hearing any calls for cutting off arms supplies to saudi arabia, egypt, or pakistan - only people in the middle east who don't roll over on US command.

      • enlightened  

        umm actually Bush's cabinet really is EXTREMELY diverse, or at least has a history of being diverse: Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Alberto Gonzales can be named of the top of my head. And you cant say that because Bush doesnt have any lgbtq on his cabinet that he isnt diverse because NO ONE has EVER had a cabinet that included lgbtq people.

        I would also like to note that not only did you not provide any examples of the republicans being oppressive, but you didnt even deny or argue against my attacks on the hypocrasy of the democrats in this case. Arguing that just because the president follows these policies doesnt mean that every republican does is pretty weak if not down right pathetic. These policies happen to be, or at least should be, universally accepted yet the dems, as I pointed out in my first post, havent accepted them to the extent that the republicans have.

        • Uhm  

          Wow, strawman much? Just because everybody else had a 100% straight cabinet doesn't mean it's OK to keep doing it. Oh, wait, but you brought up Bill Clinton, so I guess you win. Sigh.

      • enlightened  

        oh I forgot that Bush's cabinet also includes: Secretary Carlos Gutierrez (Dep of Commerce), Secretary Elaine Chao (Dep of Labor), Secretary Margaret Spellings (Dep of Education), Secretary Mary E. Peters (Dep of Transportation), Secretary Alphonso Jackson (Dep of Housing and Urban Development), and Ambassador Susan Schwab (US Trade Representative). He currently has 7, including Condi, minorities/women on his cabinet and has also had Colin Powell and Alberto Gonzales, not to mention his nominations for the supreme court. In light of this information, I would say that he has an EXTREMELY diverse cabinet of both women and minorities. and once again, Bill Clinton had ..... madeleine albright. oh! and those interns that he sexually harassed and was even accused of rape.

    • this is true  

      and also, since when does being a republican automatically mean that you act in accordance with republican policies? didn't the VAST majority of democrats vote for the patriot act? and democrats are the freedom-loving bunch?

    • Well, well.  

      You can't deny that you are averse to express indignation at the most egregious human rights abuses committed these days in the interest, perhaps, of avoiding confrontation. I do not accuse you of "agreeing" with the "enemy." But, regardless of your motivations, you should understand the intrinsic value of "calling a spade a spade."

      • Anonymous  

        What? When did I say I was averse to any indignation? Stop being perversely obtuse. I'm talking about ACTUAL POLICY here, not some magical theoretical world where calling something bad actually amounts to jack shit. Here, let me emphasize things with caps so you might have a chance of understanding. We Americans used to have ACTUAL control over our nation's POLICIES, and even our neighbors' opinions. Just becase we don't string up the gayz from light posts doesn't mean that a Matthew Shepard doesn't get the shit kicked out of him every day.

        If you're trolling, please, by all means, continue disagreeing with me.

  8. Apologies  

    My apologies. The above is a response to #16, not #17.

  9. Again.  

    Not only are you averse to expressing indignation at the brutality of the afore-referenced regimes, but you are averse to the organized expression of such indignation by others. That is the position that you have both implicitly and expressly taken- that is the essence of our disagreement. I believe that it is a valuable and necessary exercise to recognize these entities for what they are. You don't. You seem to believe that doing so would detract from efforts to advocate for greater civil liberties here. I disagree. But don't for a moment insinuate that there is any comparison between the state of human rights here and the state of civil rights there. "Just because we don't string up the gayz from light posts." I could not think of a greater understatement.

    • Anonymous  

      No, friend, you misunderstand. I'm not against your indignation. I just think it's self-righteous, stupid, and ultimately, hypocritical and self-defeating.

      And can you actually not see the comparison? Differences in severity aside, aren't what happens in Iran and the United States different symptoms of a similar mode of thought? Do you think that Baptist Sexual Re-education camps are anything less than brainwashing prisons? I sure think so. If you disagree, that's fine. But if you're trying to defend your right to be indignant, I think it's a bad idea to try and take away mine.

      I also think your indignation would be better focused elsewhere -- closer to home -- where there is still tons of important work to be done on behalf of oppressed and disenfranchised peoples. However, as long as you admit your protest probably convince anyone of anything who didn't already think that way in a country you aren't a citizen of, feel free to do whatever you like.

      But good luck stopping the individual Iranians from hating and killing. I doubt very strongly that a protest in New York City will do that and you'd probably be better off mailing a letter to a single Iranian.

  10. Anonymous

    Islamo-fascism is the stupidest political catch phrase since swiftboating. Who comes up with this stupid shit?

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.