Jump to content

Iamfascism

Member
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-78

About Iamfascism

  • Rank
    Banned
  • Birthday 09/08/1988
  1. baudrillard has alot of nietzsche in his works and not being very knowledgable about nietzsche i have to say that its a difficult question to say that he is a nietzschean or a bataillian or a mausian or what not. He is a singularity if you will. For instance, economic exchange and symbolic exchange, excess. Also, baudrillard references nietzsche in regards to the chameleon. He says that this is the age we now live, the constant injection and creation of difference that bars radical otherness. I also found an interesting argument after reading and re-reading some works by baudrillard and some of his "followers" (no pun intended). It deals with the notion of the eternal return and causality. He says that there are two kinds of eternal returns "There are two kinds of eternal return. The statistical kind neutral, objective and insipid - where, given that the combinations, however numerous, in a finite system cannot be infinite, probability demands that the same arrangement eventually recur, according to an immense cycle. A thin metaphysics: it is a natural eternal return, in accord with a natural, statistical causality. The other vision is tragic and ritual : it is the willed recurrence, as in games, of an arbitrary and non-causal configuration of signs, where each sign seeks out the next relentlessly, as in the course of a ceremonial . It is the eternal return demanded by rules - as in a mandatory succession of throws and wagers. And it makes no difference whether they be the rules of the game or the universe itself". Just thought that was interesting.
  2. i was definately not sarcastic.... ONE GOD ONE WORLD ONE NATION! LOL notice the sarcasm. Maybe Obama will give me a stimulus for being a poor college student. i should get a job a mcdonalds first i guess and then work there for 4 years and then become retarded and praise the lord that Obama speaks to me and then ask him if he has an idea or anything that could be used to make somthing thats been there for as long as its been there more inclined to that. lol. Atleast i wont have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car.
  3. yup. completely isolate the US from the world. Make our own shit and eat it too. Thats what i say. Make the world see the significance of the US. For years militant extremists have condemned the US and yet ignore the money and aid that we dump into their dirt living countries. Either nuke them or isolate ourselves lol. That would be awesome.
  4. The only cool thing i think Obama said he was gunna do was go over the yearly budget and cut the things we dont need right now. I have been sayin that for years. Whether its realistic or not is besides the point. I think someone of a high position should make a law prohibiting our yearly budget to be in the negatives for however many years until our deficit is significantly lower. Lower deficit I say this because to me, regardless of the economic situation we are in now, knowing that everytime we spend money, its money we dont have, that we dont even come close to having! How about Obama get support to prevent congress from going into a deficit for the year and maintain that law for however many years. i understand that a deficit somewhat is a good thing because it shows that you can spend money you dont have to pay for stuff but i think we have been across the line for a long time and someone needs to reverse that trend.
  5. The difference is Rush and others (not all) have never been truly supportive of the republican party, they support conservatism and criticize the republican party of NOT sticking to the principles in which they were voted into office supporting. a) how the hell did you come to that conclusion?! his popularity dropped nearly thirty percent already, the biggest bill in the history of the US that Obama is the front runner for has a 50 percent approval rating. His entire administration is being looked at because of fraud and other deception. Pragmatic reform? are you joking? thats laughable at best. i guess i should let you explain although i doubt you will. i think you only hear what you want to hear when its not a liberal point of view. Lets not forget that the Republicans had a stimulus bill too! Obama wouldnt have it even though it was cheaper and was arguably more intuned to the creation of jobs. It had more tax cuts aswell. c) you say there is sgnificant improvement in how the money is going to be spent. Im sorry this doesnt make sense to me. Bush spent money, yes we got that. Obama is spending money. we got that. conservatism isnt about government intervention unless its reduction of taxes. conservatism isnt about an enlarged government spending money on the creation of jobs and government takeover of american businesses. Bush at the end of his term WAS Obama. there is little ideological difference from Bush and Obama when it comes to government intervention in the market. Lastly, your argument saying that the republicans were the cause of the deficit is irrelavent. the large deficit isnt the cause of the times we are in, not to begin with anyway. It was liberal politics attempting to run the country and mandate businesses to act a certain way that shot the american economy. The market falls everytime Obama speaks and yet its this confidence in the market that we need to recover. The market doesnt like Obama because Obama doesnt like it and i think that shows since obama took office.
  6. correction, Rush is not a nut job, he just sticks to the principles that he believes in. Its amazing that most people on here just stick to the liberal left wing without really understanding what they want the government to do about the economic downturn. 1. Obama said he was going to end the business as usual part of washington and yet he has employed people that dont pay taxes. 2. Obama said he was going to stop the "politix of fear" yet all he talks about is the pain and suffering of millions of americans if we dont pass the stimulus bill. 3. Obama had the majority and yet he was still attempting to get conservatives on board. Why? Maybe so he has plausible deniability? 4. The stimulus package is considered pork because the bill was originally for helping infrastructure. This is obviously not the case now. 5. Obama i believe sincerely wants to help alleviate the tension of the middle and lower class but, why tax the upper class more when you could just decrease taxes on the lower and middle class? Taxing one class more doesnt seem "FAIR" to me. 6. Obama is against the first amendment as well as the 2nd amendment. ex. fairness doctrine and numerous votes on limited gun control as well as a vote in favor of a bill that would allow people to sue gun manufacturers if there product was used in an illegal manner. The last thing i will say is that above all else remember, within 2-3 months, the liberal elites in washington have spent or are spending around 3 trillion dollars and yet they said Bush was crazy! Throwing money at the problem has and will never work. Tax cuts are an intricate part of bringing us out of this downturn. Historically proven.
  7. it was kinda, i asked for a better explanation of heideggers alt so that i could understand maybe where b and h go there seperate ways.
  8. i dont think so entirely although it does seem to make sense. I think the argument isnt about choosing this over that but choosing particular political actions over another according to a particular ideology. having not read zizek i really cant say for sure. either way, the ballot would be an endorsement of the alternative, not of the team. its not choosing a side, its choosing not to pick a political ideology to agree with. think of the ballot in this instance as making a statement towards our refusal of action and not of picking a side.
  9. i meant how its deployed in the debate room, and i seriously doubt heidegger believed there was no endpoint to meditative thinking. Seems like meditative thinking is just rethinking our technocratic way and opening ourselves up to possible alternative thought processes.
  10. i understand the gens of heideggers argument about technocratic thinking and standing reserve. Maybe a better explaination of his alternative of meditative thinking and how it functions could help. As i said last post, i believe (and from what ive read) that the differences between them doesnt seem to be enough to get good offensive args against him but minimal defense about how his alt fails, but this begs the question of the perm debate. I want to find an baudrillardian link for a heidegger aff that would allow for some wiggle room. I wonder if there is a link from baudrillard about the drive to uncover or discover the real that heidegger believes is hidden behind the dispersal of dasein.
  11. http://www.ghostinthewire.org/2007/03/baudrillard_and_heidegger_2.php this article really does a good job describing a point of departure between the two authors. From what i can understand, its seems that Heidegger believes that the real is masked by the dispersal of Dasein, reflective thinking is a way of enabling a sound ontology necessary for a proper dasein. Baudrillard on the other hand belives that the real is over and done with and that there can be no reconstitution of dasein, all we can do is push its dispersal towards is conclusion. In part, could it be that Heidegger uses subjectivity in dasein where baudrillard believes that this only fuels simulation which reproduces itself through the production of meaning? If anyone has more to add it would greatly be appreciated. Right now, this is the only main article or book i can find that seperates the two as a main point for the article. Others i found only hint at the similarities between the two.
  12. true dat! and everyone knows that heidegger was a nazi. French is pretty much the only logical indict of baudrillard.
  13. Can anyone explain the difference between these two that would be help with links for baudrillard to a heidegger aff?
  14. once again your guilty of taking things outa context lol. Read entire sentences before you cut pieces to refute other things ive said. Its amazing how dumb your being. For instance, "Hitler was good at killing people!" and you would only see "Hitler was good". Ill just say to learn to read from the beginning of the sentence to the end (thats where the period is).
×
×
  • Create New...