I never said it works its way back to the host economy. I said they're better off than without the corporations. These people wouldn't have the jobs that they have now if it weren't for globalized corporations. Sure, they pay shit wages and don't provide benefits, but it's better than what they had before (nothing).

Globalization is very good and probably one of the few ways that government will never be able to truly regulate the market.

Many people use the globalized market because it's more efficient for them. Less taxed (if any) and less regulated. Poorer countries receive access to modern medicine and technology and actually receive work from a business that is efficient.

Nations with tensions remain allies or neutral because of their business together. In the end, it always comes down to how much technology, information, and money they're willing to give up just to settle a grudge.

Many people attack globalization for two main reasons:

1. Corporations are evil beings who are destroying the planet and manipulating the citizens, and this is just some evil scheme to take over the world. For children and hippies in college, this is a popular reason to hate Globalization. But for people who are pass the whole "let's rebel against rich people" phase, it's a naive argument that obviously holds no ground.

2. Outsourcing and mistreatment of foreign workers. Yes, mistreatment is possible and must be stopped, but I do not advocate a minimum wage or benefits for employees. The whole reason why outsourcing is much more efficient is because benefits are not necessary. Plus, these people had no jobs or extremely shitty jobs with horrible work conditions that you couldn't imagine before big business came and put them in their employment. Are they well off? Probably not, but they surely are BETTER off than without the corporations. As for outsourcing; fuck them. If they want a job so badly, either do more work or work for less pay. Other people, who have shittier lives than you, don't have jobs and the corporations are giving them what they need. If you wanna bitch and moan because you're some union asshole, fuck off.

If teachers are forbidden to recommend a book, I guess that can be debatable. Teachers must be capable of telling children to make good decisions, and it's possible that reading a certain book can be bad (like those "how to" books).

But a student should be able to read any book he wishes. First Amendment. No reason to limit knowledge (books enhance knowledge).

and another one.

really now, how dumb could someone possibly be?

a down vote with no rebuttal. This means that a stupid disagrees with me.

Well, depends on our spectrum of logic.

If we look at it from a mathematical point of view, everything in existence is illogical for existence should have never happened in the first place. how we are here is incomprehensible. So Atheism vs. Theism doesn't apply here. Theism is ALWAYS illogical, and Atheism is a concept that shouldn't exist because nothing should exist because of my earlier statement.

If we're just going by a scientific term... than Atheism is completely logical. now, if you're an extreme Atheist who says that there is, without a doubt, no God, that's illogical. But if you're (as Dawkins says) a de facto Atheist, than you are simply not believing in something that has no evidence behind it. Perfectly logical.

It is quite unfair that, once again, government is limiting the American's right to choose.

the US postal service is slightly efficient, and necessary as seen through history. But, as always, allowing the private sector to have their own delivery service (for first class mail) will create competition, thus, creating more efficient means of service. Not to mention that prices might even get cheaper (more mail for less money, with express and shit).

Okay, so us stopping the Nazis from killing Jews wasn't justified because we did it violently...

so what you're saying is the killing of others is violent if you can somehow justify it...

that's a weird definition of violence.

According to the dictionary definition of violence:

: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage

3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance

4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

killing Nazis would be considered violent, no matter what (unless we use your non-dictionary definition, of course).

Well, let's say there's this guy (for the sake of this story, his name will be Hidler). And he hates a race of people (The Joos) and he decides to kill them all in a holocaust (about six million).

We stop him with violence (War is pretty violent, right?). I would say saving all the Joos from Hidler through violent means is justified.