John Dibble vs. jmfcst

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obviously I disagree with Dibble on much.

However there is no question I'd vote for him in this scenario.

[Gabu]

dibble plzkthx

[adam]

Both a good guys, but Dibble is closer to me ideologically.

[Josh/Devilman88]

jmfcst is closer to my views

[Nym90]

Dibble. I disagree with him on economics, but at least I can understand his rationale for things, and I think he'd make good decisions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Forced to choose between reason without faith and faith without reason, I'll pick the former as at least the conversations are more productive.  I prefer faith with reason, but that's not what's on this ballot.

[MaC]

a moderate v. someone who eats the bible for breakfast and sh**ts out passages on the forum...

Dibble

[MasterJedi]

John Dibble

[Joe Republic]

Dibble by a mile.

[opebo]

Both a good guys, but Dibble is closer to me ideologically.

You think a vicious, hatefilled, homophobic/closeted, intolerant theocrat is a 'good guy'?  What are you, a religious?

[afleitch]

I would give up my wages for a year if it would stop help Dibble win, not because he's 'not jmfcst' but because I do share amny of his views and ideologically we are close.

[adam]

Both a good guys, but Dibble is closer to me ideologically.

You think a vicious, hatefilled, homophobic/closeted, intolerant theocrat is a 'good guy'?  What are you, a religious?

I have never seen jmfcst go on a personal attack, and usually debates his points in a constructed and considerate manner...unlike some people around. That makes him a good guy in my book, despite the fact that I disagree with him on a lot of social issues (especially sex related ones). And to answer your question, no I am not religious...I am an atheist.

[Joe Republic]

I have never seen jmfcst go on a personal attack

I have, frequently.  Although in fairness, many of those occasions were ones where he was provoked.

[© tweed]

I was the second vote for jmf

[jokerman]

As much as I respect Dibble and his intelligence, my admiration of jmfcst because of his perserverence in the face of what can often be a very anti-religion forum gives my vote to him.

[Gabu]

As much as I respect Dibble and his intelligence, my admiration of jmfcst because of his perserverence in the face of what can often be a very anti-religion forum gives my vote to him.

As far as I know, at least a majority of the members of this forum are religious... I'm not sure how a forum could be "anti-religion" when only a minority are not religious.

[afleitch]

As much as I respect Dibble and his intelligence, my admiration of jmfcst because of his perserverence in the face of what can often be a very anti-religion forum gives my vote to him.

As far as I know, at least a majority of the members of this forum are religious... I'm not sure how a forum could be "anti-religion" when only a minority are not religious.

Quite

[opebo]

Both a good guys, but Dibble is closer to me ideologically.

You think a vicious, hatefilled, homophobic/closeted, intolerant theocrat is a 'good guy'?  What are you, a religious?

I have never seen jmfcst go on a personal attack, and usually debates his points in a constructed and considerate manner...unlike some people around. That makes him a good guy in my book, despite the fact that I disagree with him on a lot of social issues (especially sex related ones). And to answer your question, no I am not religious...I am an atheist.

He constantly engages in personal attacks, particularly against homosexuals.  Of course the nature of his religion is a constant attack upon anyone different from him.

I was the second vote for jmf

That's disgusting!  I know Dibble is a poor choice, but he's better than the fascist/theocrat.  Are you a religious, Tweed?

[Beet]

Dibble. jmfcst is a man of God, but I wouldn't vote for him for political office.

[© tweed]

I was the second vote for jmf

That's disgusting!  I know Dibble is a poor choice, but he's better than the fascist/theocrat.  Are you a religious, Tweed?

I'm hardly a religious, opebo.  But the sledgehammer jmf would take to the poors carries far less weight than Dibble's prospective weapon of choice.

[adam]

Both a good guys, but Dibble is closer to me ideologically.

You think a vicious, hatefilled, homophobic/closeted, intolerant theocrat is a 'good guy'?  What are you, a religious?

I have never seen jmfcst go on a personal attack, and usually debates his points in a constructed and considerate manner...unlike some people around. That makes him a good guy in my book, despite the fact that I disagree with him on a lot of social issues (especially sex related ones). And to answer your question, no I am not religious...I am an atheist.

He constantly engages in personal attacks, particularly against homosexuals.  Of course the nature of his religion is a constant attack upon anyone different from him.

I've never seen this. Can you show me an example?

[jokerman]

As much as I respect Dibble and his intelligence, my admiration of jmfcst because of his perserverence in the face of what can often be a very anti-religion forum gives my vote to him.

As far as I know, at least a majority of the members of this forum are religious... I'm not sure how a forum could be "anti-religion" when only a minority are not religious.

I don't care what a majority of members may happen to call themselves, I'm talking about the general climate of the forum.

[opebo]

I was the second vote for jmf

That's disgusting!  I know Dibble is a poor choice, but he's better than the fascist/theocrat.  Are you a religious, Tweed?

I'm hardly a religious, opebo.  But the sledgehammer jmf would take to the poors carries far less weight than Dibble's prospective weapon of choice.

Nah, the poors are already experiencing the worst.  Nothing libertarians could do would make their situation any less awful, as at their level it is already pure capitalism (slavery).

[Alcon]

Nah, the poors are already experiencing the worst.  Nothing libertarians could do would make their situation any less awful, as at their level it is already pure capitalism (slavery).

I'm just curious, but why do you so rarely present objective stances in political debates?

[opebo]

Nah, the poors are already experiencing the worst.  Nothing libertarians could do would make their situation any less awful, as at their level it is already pure capitalism (slavery).

I'm just curious, but why do you so rarely present objective stances in political debates?

I didn't make any value judgement there, I was just making the political observation that workers (poors) have no power now, so libertarianism wouldn't be much of a change for them.