Homosexual Agenda Is Greatest Threat To Liberty

[Vandalshandle]

The RW fundamentalists are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. In view of the fact that their war on the LG community is all but lost, they soldier on. it is kind of pathictic, actually. Kind of like that Monty Python sketch:

 

[GreenBean]

That's a good point, and one I've voiced before. There really is no such thing as "gay marriage". They can go through the motions and they can play make believe, but true marriage is a spiritual union that can only occur between a man and a woman. The materialist Left disregards the spiritual aspect or that marriage involves a 3rd party, that is God. They go for surface appearances and think they've achieved parity with the real thing.

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

SCOTUS decide in your favor ... hmmmm... but when they decide against you, as has been the case many a time, they are "kangaroo courts" . Let me remind you sweety -Dred Scott was once the law of the land.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm so glad you little ******-haters have this forum, and others like it, because the rest of society has grown up and turned their backs on you. Guess who is headed for the closet now my little homophobes? It ain't the fags...

Obviously most of this board has turned its back on you little fella - you are irrelevant and have had nothing useful to add, other than canned rhetoric which you continuously rephrase and repost. Do yourself a favor phallic fella - stop embarrassing yourself and STFU - this is a grownup conversation.

More projection. My side owns this debate and all you can do is whine my little ******-hater. I'm just wondering how long you are going to piss into the wind before you want to put on dry magic underpants?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, that's called reality so suck it up and be a man for once. And answer the question, how do we tell the real gender of a human being?

Oh! So we must accept reality?

Huh...

So then when the reality was that where you declared your love for other men, you were ostracized, and where evidence was presented that you have engaged in sexual behavior with other men, you were sent to prison... you accepted THAT?

But... if you accepted that, then how did those laws get changed?

You're not making any sense. It appears that you need your opposition to accept that which you failed to accept.

Basically, your demanding that which we can't accept and we're demanding that which you can't accept. But you can't show any reason which justifies your behavior... you can't cite a morality which would provide for any reason that such should BE accepted... you just need for your demand to suffice.

Which I gotta be honest is the formula that has produced every war that has ever come to pass in the history of the human species.

Now, when the war comes, let me assure you that you will accept what comes from it... to your last breath. And life will go on, absent your reasoning.

 

[Seawytch]

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

What is being forced on you? What changes in YOUR belief system if you have to call her a her? Do you still disagree with her choices? Yes. That hasn't changed has it? You still get to be all oogied out by her, you just have to call her a her. Nothing about what you think or believe is changed by your having to call her a her is it? No.

 

[007]

Wow... this thread sure brought out the homo mafia and the butt brothers club.

What a bunch of bigots.

 

[GreenBean]

You don't have a "right" to that job if you can't follow the rules or if you create a hostile work environment. That's on YOU, not the person you're an asshole to.

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

 

[Seawytch]

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

Wrong again. Those laws violated the constitution because it was applied unequally, by means of race, which is illegal. Today's marriage laws don't do that. You're distracting by trying to make this an interracial marriage issue when it's not. You cannot demonstrate that today's marriage laws are being applied in a way that doesn't render to everyone equal protection under the law.

Actually, you're the one who is wrong. The argument that lasted 85 years was that the law was applied equally. It punished both blacks and whites equally, just as YOU are arguing.

You wish to discriminate based on gender. The racist bigots wanted to discriminate based on race. Please help me understand the difference in your world?

Wrong yet again. Today's state marriage laws do not discriminate based on gender. They give the right to marry, not the right to marry whoever you want. Please show me where the gender discrimination is...unless you really do think you have the right to marry whoever you want...then we can conclude that what you're pushing for has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Of course some (only about 15 now) discriminate based on gender. I cannot marry the gender I want to in those 15 states just as, prior to Loving v Virginia, some could not marry the race they wanted to. That's exactly the same.

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want". You can marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of race or gender. I can, you can, we all can in about 35 or 36 states now. Do catch up.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, that's called reality so suck it up and be a man for once. And answer the question, how do we tell the real gender of a human being?

Oh! So we must accept reality?

Yes, because the longer you don't the dumber sound. You lost. It's over, long over. Either deal with it like a man or move to where people hang the homos from the trees, your kind of place only Jesus isn't Lord there so you are truly fucked.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

Tolerance stops at intolerance. Thought you would have figured that out by now.

 

[GreenBean]

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

What is being forced on you? What changes in YOUR belief system if you have to call her a her? Do you still disagree with her choices? Yes. That hasn't changed has it? You still get to be all oogied out by her, you just have to call her a her. Nothing about what you think or believe is changed by your having to call her a her is it? No.

How about being forced to cater a Gay Wedding even though it's against your beliefs.

Or a young girl being forced to share a bathroom with a boy dressed in drag .

here's a few cases for you ...

Douglas Manchester owner of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Diego donated $125,000 in support of Proposition 8. and found his Hotel boycotted. Terry Caster , the owner of A-1 Self Storage in San Diego , and a friend of Douglas Manchester persuaded him to make the donation and also made a hefty donation himself - he found his business boycotted as well.

Marjorie Christoffersen, a manager for El Coyote Restaurant in Los Angeles, and the niece of El Coyote founder, daughter of its current owner. Christoffersons family ties saved her job, but she was heavily pressured after her restaurant was targeted because she had donated a measly $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Richard Reep, an employee of Home Depot. Home Depot was extensively harassed for employing Richard Reep, it is uncertain whether he was forced out or not, but Home Depot is known for being overly Gay Friendly at the expense of Family People. The same for Ace Hardware which was attacked for employing Prop. 8 donor Robert Frost. There were and continue to be many many more victims , both big and small

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So I AM being forced to accept your lifestyle. Got it. Thanks for admitting you were lying.

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

What is being forced on you? What changes in YOUR belief system if you have to call her a her? Do you still disagree with her choices? Yes. That hasn't changed has it? You still get to be all oogied out by her, you just have to call her a her. Nothing about what you think or believe is changed by your having to call her a her is it? No.

Now you're just being stupid. Forcing people to profess something they don't believe is forcing your beliefs on them. This is how evil you people are, being guilty of the VERY CRIMES you insist everyone else is guilty of. You don't want tolerance, you demand unmitigated acquiescence to your agenda. You people are bigots and assholes, and with your circular logic, you perpetuate on others what you claimed they perpetuated on you. Blind and depraved! How will you escape eternal judgement?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't have to "accept" anything. Acceptance equals agreement and you don't have to agree. You do have to tolerate. We all have to tolerate things in our lives we don't agree with...in employment especially. If you work for someone else, you're going to be required to do something you don't agree with, you still do it if you want to continue to be employed there, yes? This is no different.

Oh, but I DO have to accept your deviant, immoral lifestyle. In that situation, I would have to refer to a man as a woman even though my faith informs me that a man cannot become a woman, that we are created male and female. That's forcing your beliefs onto others. It's amazing how you see it when it happens to you, but not when you do it to others.

That's called Leftist hypocrisy.

No, it means you tolerate it...you still don't have to agree. You don't have to "accept" it, just tolerate it. I caught my boss picking his nose and wiping it under his desk. He didn't see me. Guess what? I still had to call him "Mr." and "Sir" even though I didn't agree with his disgusting "lifestyle". I had to tolerate not calling him "booger wiper". My rights are violated!!!!

Now you' re just mincing words. Why does not the transgender need to "tolerate" my beliefs, that I cannot in good conscience go along with him thinking he's a woman? It seems in your warped, twisted little world, "tolerance" only goes one way. Being forced to refer to him in a female context isn't tolerance, it's being forced to accept it.

And all you on the demonic Left LOVE to use force, don't you?

What is being forced on you? What changes in YOUR belief system if you have to call her a her? Do you still disagree with her choices? Yes. That hasn't changed has it? You still get to be all oogied out by her, you just have to call her a her. Nothing about what you think or believe is changed by your having to call her a her is it? No.

How about being forced to cater a Gay Wedding even though it's against your beliefs.

Or a young girl being forced to share a bathroom with a boy dressed in drag .

here's a few cases for you ...

Douglas Manchester owner of the Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Diego donated $125,000 in support of Proposition 8. and found his Hotel boycotted. Terry Caster , the owner of A-1 Self Storage in San Diego , and a friend of Douglas Manchester persuaded him to make the donation and also made a hefty donation himself - he found his business boycotted as well.

Marjorie Christoffersen, a manager for El Coyote Restaurant in Los Angeles, and the niece of El Coyote founder, daughter of its current owner. Christoffersons family ties saved her job, but she was heavily pressured after her restaurant was targeted because she had donated a measly $100 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Richard Reep, an employee of Home Depot. Home Depot was extensively harassed for employing Richard Reep, it is uncertain whether he was forced out or not, but Home Depot is known for being overly Gay Friendly at the expense of Family People. The same for Ace Hardware which was attacked for employing Prop. 8 donor Robert Frost. There were and continue to be many many more victims , both big and small

Welcome to keep your ***-hating thoughts in the closet, where they belong.

As for the caterer, business is business. Keep your faith for Sundays at church.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How will you escape eternal judgement?

Eternal judgment? God the Christians are ******* dumb.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The far right is told that homosexuality is either an immoral choice or disease

First... there's no such thing as a 'far-right'.

Second, the Right, OKA: the Americans, are not being "TOLD" anything... we conclude, through sound reasoning, that homosexuality inarguably deviates from the human physiological norm. Therefore homosexuality is a deviant sexuality.

We further conclude that the deviancy, lacking ANY genetic component, wherein the behavior would otherwise be founded upon a half-gender, that such is the result of perverse reasoning which lends to the individual, the justification that it should accept the base craving for sexual gratification through sexual interaction with people of the same gender. This stemming from an impulse, toward a decision to accept the impulse and to take action to satisfy the perverse impulse.

It's the same general process that leads to murder, theft, deceit... the three biggies of the "no-no" rules of nature.

Rules which you may recall provide for humanity's viability as a species of higher reasoning.

Where we reject the higher aspect of our reasoning, we fail to meet the threshold which provides for our 'higher' status, thus we relegate ourselves to the lower-threshold of the animal world.

SO... as a general rule, 'we' the adults... discourage that sort of reasoning.

LOL! But there's no way you could have known that... is there?

 

[GreenBean]

You're right that there is no gay marriage, but not for the reasons you believe. There is only marriage. In more than half the states, marriage means that same sex loving partners can also civilly marry. Your belief about what constitutes a "real" marriage is irrelevant. We still get issued the same exact marriage license as those you believe have a "real" marriage and we still get all the same rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with a civil marriage license.

Two fags being married will never be the same as my real marriage no matter how badly they get their panties in a wad about it.

The "fags" don't care what you believe...as long as we're treated equally under the law. In 36 states and counting we are. Hmmmm, whose "panties" are in a wad I wonder?

Wrong. Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it true. You were always treated equally under the law. State marriage laws allowed any person to marry any other unrelated person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race, religion, or even sexual orientation. That's called equal protection under the law.

What you now claim is that you don't have equal rights until you can marry whoever you want, a concept that has no legal precedent in this country or in any civilization in human history.

So your claim of being treated with disparity is pure bullshit.

Do you know where that argument came from?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

See, they argued (just like you are) that there was no discrimination because whites could marry whites and blacks could marry blacks. You're using the same argument but replacing race for gender. I don't want to marry a man, just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry someone who was black. The discrimination, bigotry and attitudes are exactly the same.

There is legal precedent. The SCOTUS has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. Dozens of Federal judges have struck down anti gay laws in court after court. You can't swing your purse without hitting legal precedent, sweetie.

Wrong again. Those laws violated the constitution because it was applied unequally, by means of race, which is illegal. Today's marriage laws don't do that. You're distracting by trying to make this an interracial marriage issue when it's not. You cannot demonstrate that today's marriage laws are being applied in a way that doesn't render to everyone equal protection under the law.

"Some homosexuals have gone beyond the plane of defensiveness and now argue that deviancy is a noble preferable way of life"

~NY Academy of Medicine Committee on Public Health~

The Linacre Quarterly - Google Books

 

[Seawytch]

I think this is the most up to date...I'd say the "agenda" is working.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I think this is the most up to date...I'd say the "agenda" is working.

It's much better than that: National Maps - MEUSA

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The far right is told that homosexuality is either an immoral choice or disease

First... there's no such thing as a 'far-right'.

The hell there isn't. Most of this board is nothing but mindless little reactionaries, such as yourself.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The RW fundamentalists are on the wrong side of history, yet, again. In view of the fact that their war on the LG community is all but lost, they soldier on. it is kind of pathictic, actually. Kind of like that Monty Python sketch:

I never seem to tire of the Dark Knights of Debate trotting out their home videos and claiming that their opposition is them.

ROFLMNAO! It's a CLASSIC!