The ad shows a dog wearing a collar, of the type that zoophiles use to constrain their victims. The visual had nothing to do with the purported content of the ad, which was the representative’s supposed connections to the pharmaceutical industries. There’s only one possible conclusion: the ad was insinuating that Chambliss fucks dogs.
All you Democrats who defended the acceptance of gifts from crooks are invited to excuse this ad run by the Democratic Party that accuses a man of loving his dog too much. What do you have to say to that?
Yet more proof of the persecution of the Conservative viewpoint. Every single time a Republican candidate has pointed out the zoophilic proclivities of his Democratic opponent, the liberal media was up in arms! How long can we allow this shameless double-standard to continue?
By golly, you are right. As a long time Democrat, I heartily condemn this shocking attempt at insinuation and appeal to prejudice. But I must also condemn Rep. Chambliss. Instead of whining about the ad, he should forthrightly declare that there is nothing wrong with bestiality.
In fact, I also suspect that this entire thread is nothing but an underhanded attempt to accuse all Democrats of bestiality. Which I also condemn. In fact, I condemn all posters to this thread, other than myself of course. Not sure why.
I condem this slander of zoophiles. Zoophiles, by definition, are animal lovers, not rapists. The animal partner in a zoo relationship is a willing partner, treated with love and compassion by their human partner. If your stereotype of zoophiles includes what amounts to S&M with animal partners then you have your own ignorant prejudices to blame.
Non-human partners in a zoo relationship are not VICTIMS. The VICTIM of this ad isn’t the opposing candidate, it’s innocent zoophiles everywhere! When you liken a zoophile to a candidate for political office, you’ve crossed the line!
Clearly this guy had POODLES and he’s a Republican, and he’s hugging the dog and he has more dogs and his doorbell plays Who Let the Dods Out.
Clearly this photo is MORE evidence of the evil Dems showing a man “loving” his dog too much! But not just that, he’s also gay and into multiple partners.
DanielWithrow, I couldn’t access the NYTimes without registering. Was that your goal here? Forcing us to give money and support the continued proliferation of a liberal bias within media outlets? It’s clever, I’ll give you that. But I’m on to you. You’ve gotta be smarter than the fox to see the writing on the walls and I’ve just sunk your battleship.
Enderw24, I’m glad you’re concerned about those Pinko power scams the NYT perpetrates. But here’s a hint: if you’re worried about their regular subscription fees, you can follow this ultra-secret link, which will let you register for free!
Hey, beastiality…big deal? Pretty tame allegation. Now, if anyone ever ran an ad implying that their opponent was a furrie, then it’s time to be outraged. I know I’d be outraged. Especially if it was a furry in a Sea Org uniform. Good thing SomethingAwful.com isn’t in the politics business yet
I am a resident of Georgia, and I have seen the ad of which you speak. Let me just say that the Democrats were not the first to raise the bestiality issue, but were only responding in kind. I direct your attention to an earlier Republican ad directed against Democratic governor Roy Barnes, which featured a frolicking rat. A rat!!!
Now while I do not condone sex with dogs, I can at least understand it. But sex with rats???
Sir, it is the Republicans in Georgia who have no shame!
:eek:
