Wordforge qualifications

We always seem to be wondering how to get more posters. I think that Scott Adams has some wisdom to help us in that area...

Scott's dead on!

I think the clique of pretentious and posturing bad asses on this forum is your biggest draw.

They live to "play the scary bad guy" <<<< sarcastic observation

I get it and like to "play" when I want.. But as far as "new members"?

Why would they want to ; after reading some of the tripe of that passes for discussion?

Just sayin' .. I been on here 8-9 years.. and really just skim around on the surface for fun.

When I joined Wordforge, I was more moderate Conservative. Over time, I've become much more liberal, and I noticed a serious decline in desire to post. To get over that issue, I had to remind myself that this isn't life or death, isn't serious to the point where it's worth the time to worry over opinions, and now I just post whatever I feel like posting. I don't get into major arguments, because I know it's pointless now, that few if any persons will change their minds based on my statements, so I accept that and just try to have fun instead.

If you're not having fun, or learning, there's really no point to being here. I'm sure there are people who take it as seriously as they do their jobs, but if it ever gets to that point for me, I'll just leave, because I don't need more things to worry about, or to cause me stress. I never want to take this place so seriously that it causes stress just to visit.

^
You were conservative? When was this? I wasn't a part of the original exodus from TNZ/TBBS, but I've been here long enough and I never remembered that about you, even before you became atheist.

This.

Well, by 2004 I was a more moderate Conservative, but when I joined TBBS back in late 2001/mid 2002 (damn server crash), I was a fundamentalist Christian, and very conservative. I remember Nova welcoming me to TrekBBS (when she was General Chang, IIRC).

By the time I got to Wordforge, I was still conservative, but those views were somewhat tempered by the influx of deprogramming. I was discovering that the views I long held weren't really what I truly believed, and so over time that began to crack and splinter as I figured out who I was, and learned to understand and accept it.

But yes, I was once staunchly conservative.

That's one of the reasons why I don't like generalizations toward political stances as a whole. When I was conservative, it made sense in its own way; as a liberal, it makes sense in its own way. At either time, I was never out to hurt anyone, and I felt that my stance was the most helpful; the most reasonable. So when people say "all liberals..." or "all conservatives...," I generally ignore it, because I know it's likely untrue or grossly exaggerated.

Yeah, that's what all you liberals say!

hell, four years ago, I was conservative by Canadian standards-after a dozen years of the federal Liberals it was hard not to be so. Of course, that sort of (lack of) thinking is what got my country Stephen Harper and my city Rob Ford.

somehow I dug my head outta my ass and remembered that it wasn't about teams or even holding onto the past. certainly not about the "pride" of being "party faithful". I see what passes as "conservatism" in the 21st century and it's changed into something mean and ugly, like the setting of a Dickens novel.

Yep. It's the same way in the States.

Of course, in the States, at least, it always did have that "mean and ugly" side. Before the Civil War, the conservatives (the Democrats; the Republicans were the progressives back then) were justifying slavery. After the Civil War, they were still using every means at their disposal to discriminate against "them darkies" (which can mean anyone who is not lily-white, from the blackest Africans to slightly tanned Mediterranean peoples).

What has changed recently is that the conservatives have also become the war party (WW2, Korea and Viet Nam were all wars started under Democrats, who by that time had become the progressives) as well as favorable to huge budget deficits. Not quite as big as the liberals, but still very big.

So I never could subscribe with a whole heart to the conservative program, and today I can do so even less. In fact, with the abandonment of what used to pass for conservative economics (never really applied all that well, but at least it was a good theory), there isn't much left to "conservatism" that is worth bothering with. That's when I became somewhat libertarian (though I am much more limited in my libertarianism than some of the posters here). My socio-political preferences simply do not correspond to the policies of either of the major American political parties.

I was probably slightly more radical back in my TNZ days. My overall opinion of myself though has not changed that much.

i guess that's what I'm going for with not being beholden to a team. just because of the name doesn't mean you can rely on the past-good or bad.

thsi morning on FB there were two images about syria. One was posted by a Canadian Afghanistan vet of a patch saying "Operation Enduring Clusterfuck". Again, this cat was in Afghanistan.

The other was applying the "I can see Russia from my house" meme to the Obama/Putin spat. Possibly the worst reapplication/rebuttal ever. All to assign a false position to the other team.

We don't even have coke or pepsi anymore (plus RC in Canada). Rather the choice has become Coke, Diet Coke, or every now and then Vanilla Coke.

I miss Smore's candy bars, Summits and Bar None's.

Bar None was that like a Bar 6 up here?

But the point is simple. Obama has proven to be nothing more than the third and fourth Bush terms. Policy hasn't changed other than to get worse both domestically and foreign, yet fools are too busy playing team loyalty.

As pointed out elsewhere, this sort of attitude is just as simplistic and wrong as slavish devotion to the "teams" you dislike.

Not true. In order to make turkey's statement you at least need to make a rudimentary assessment of Obama's promises versus his actual actions in office, whereas the contrast is simply disliking someone because they are Democrat or Republican. I agree with turkey that Obama has proved himself particularly ineffective and ultimately more of a centrist than what he claimed to me. I mean, why is Gitmo still open? Why have drone operations increased tenfold since the Bush years? Why is America still in Afghanistan? Why did he go into Libya? Why is he saber rattling over Syria and so on? These issues are ones that are legitimately open to debate compared to his election promises.

In contrast, when it comes to simply taking sides, it's laughable that you see the very same people laying into Obama for going in Libya and contemplating strikes on Syria who supported Bush's jaunts to "smoke 'em out" and liberate the world from the evildoers in Afghanistan & Iraq. That isn't about using one's brain to form an assessment it's just sticking to you side because that's what you've always done. Just replace the same type of Republican with a Democrat who opposed Bush but now endorses Obama's foreign policy and the very same is evidenced.

So no, it's not comparable at all.

Whatever one's political persuasion there is a clear and very real argument that he has been substantially ineffective in many areas of his own promises.

The statement made was not in regards to Obama's fidelity to his promises, but in regards to him being the same - "nothing more than the third and fourth Bush terms".
To take the two most important policy areas to voters - healthcare and the economy, his approach (Obamacare and his attitude to deficit reduction) has been markedly different to what a Republican would have done. And that is the case whether you agree with him or not, and whether the strategy is qualitatively better or not.

Mindless fatalism is just as bad as mindless cheerleading.

He's worse than a 3rd and 4th Bush term. That's the problem. He's actually succeeded in being worse than Bush or Carter.

For all the things Bush did wrong, he managed to at least display strength. Obama is weak and it shows.

A difference in degree, not nature.

"Obamacare" is pretty much the logical extrapolation of the medicare drug benefit - signed by whom?
It contains several basic c9ncepts first proposed by Republicans and the extent to which it is radically different than what conservatives would have (while bitching and moaning) signed off on is a matter of degrees (like using the IRS as an enforcement mechanism for instance)

Likewise, Obama's "stimulus" policies are a extrapolation of the Bush Administrations reaction to the crisis which began in his last year in office. Both parties cater to the concept that "the government has to act!"

The major difference in the parties is the demographic they choose to cater to - one side it's minorities and unions, the other side it's Traditionalist Christians and hawks.

That is so much window dressing, an elaborate puppet theater which disguises the reality that the fundamentals of how they "make the trains run on time" are not really radically different, just variations on a theme.

Obama HAS been considerably better than his predecessors (including Clinton) on social equality issues, for which he deserves praise IMO. It could have been even better, and it has the appearance of not being so much true belief as pandering, but it's progress.

On the other hand, on foreign policy he's been arguably worse - which is a nifty trick given the various missteps of the Bush Admin.

Domestic economic policy? More stylistic differences than actual distinction.

Oh, and Wordforge?

Wordforge is a virtual neighborhood pub populated by "the regulars" who stop off, have an e-beer and shoot the shit for a while before heading home.

That's why you don't have a lot of new folks coming and going, it's not that kind of venue and it would be difficult for it to be otherwise.


And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

Different does not imply different in a way you would like.
I don't agree with Obama's policies either, but these things and others have real effects on real people, for good or ill. Yeah, there is overlap and some cross-contaimination of ideas, but it is foolish to think that the same policies are implemented whoever holds power. And catering to different interests is the nature of politics - to hold that out as evidence of similarity is not remotely logical.

These things are not "window dressing" and to pretend that that's the only difference or that nothing can ever be done is to abdicate responsibility as a citizen of a democracy. It does just as much to ensure bad policy as do the cheerleaders.

Fair enough...but even still, the most recent "new" member this place has seen in the last three years is Captain X...who registered here years ago but didn't start posting here until Bonzie banned him.

Some new blood won't hurt.

Except that posting has declined by over 40% in the last 5 years. Although the raw numbers actually camoflauge the membership declines as the high post count members haven't been hit as hard as the more medium count guys.

Let me use an example. You have 10 posters. 5 post 1k a month, the other 5 100. You could loose all of the 100 post a month guys (50% of your posters) but your post count has declined less than 10%.

Now, obviously it isn't that pronounced, and we HAVE lost some high post count members, but the point is that figures are pretty bad.

Not so. Bickenden is the most recently added prolific poster. And yes, there is a dearth of others, and no, it wouldn't hurt to have some...but if not, oh well. As long as i enjoy the company, for the most part, I'll keep stopping by.

where do find access to those stats? Not disputing you but i'd love to look them over.

I don't argue they are the AME policies, just that the differences in SOME areas are marginal.
For instance, look at all the ways Obama bashed Bush on his policies with regard to things like the "war on terror" - and how many of those policies are essentially unchanged or even worse.

True, but that was not my argument. my argument was that in the areas where there IS in fact noticeable differences, those are not the areas mentioned in the post/comment to which i was responding.

I'm not an advocate of doing nothing, just disheartened that so few of my fellow citizens seem motivated to TRY to do something that's actually different from the "lesser of two evils" mindset.

Then we're basically in agreement, it seems.

Well I know I went from being overall more conservative to overall a lot more libertarian due to WF.

I guess it was worth something in the end.

Here's the deal though, in a place like this it is the people that make it worthwhile. While the people you might come here for might not have left, the people you enjoy might have lost people they like and thus start to wander off. The longer this goes on the more of a spiral it becomes.

No I'm not saying WF is dead, but I am saying that unless something(s) change it is on a terminal decline.