Voting for Ron Paul is a no-brainer, since he's done all the good thinking for you.

Now I just wish I can be a US citizen for like a month or something.

Yes. Both are on a personal level, but as for government, I think RP is anti-abortion in some form or factor (probably states rights).

Didn't realize you were a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

I think the man is a crackpot.

Though admittidly he does have a good sense of humor.  I still can't believe he played himself on family guy.  One of the few "newer" episodes that I enjoyed.

I just wanted to say that this made me laugh pretty hard. Well played, sir.

To say something on topic... I like Ron Paul and I have infinitely more respect for him than virtually any other politician. He says what he believes, and that's something that's pretty darn rare, it seems. I would like to see him win the election, but in all honesty, I don't expect him to. I am very irritated by the two party system we have now. It's either A or B, and if both suck, too bad. You just have to try and pick the one who sucks less.

1. He did say where it's illegal. The 10th Amendment, which says that any powers not specifically given to the Federal government and not prohibited from State governments is reserved for the State governments (or the people). Nowhere is education specified as a Federal power; therefore, it is a State one. Also, the "obsession with a 225 year old document" is because that is the very foundation of the government in the US. It is the document that created the federal government, and the document from which it is supposed to derive all it's power. It can be altered through the Amendment process.

As for the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it seems pretty clear to me. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Regardless of the "well regulated militia" part, it specifically states the right of the people. As to it's relevance today; all of the data that I have seen indicates that gun bans do not lower crime, but make things worse. Getting rid of gun bans decreases crime. As it is, I don't see a problem with allowing law abiding citizens to have one. Plenty do now and there aren't mass shootings taking place all the time because of it. I would even go as far as to say that most of those people sincerely hope that they never have to use those guns against another person. Banning guns will never eliminate guns. They will always exist, and making them illegal only creates a black market for them (like we have with illegal drugs now), so that only criminals will have them. It may deter some criminals, but not all.

I do not believe that most people deny the changes that have occured since the writing of the Constitution. The Constitution has been changed, through Constitutional Amendments, to reflect the changing times. Perhaps one of the best examples is the ending of slavery in the 13th Amendment, whereas originally, slavery was basically allowed (3/5ths of a person).

I believe that schools run at the state level would be better. If the states run schools, then in a sense, you have 50 different choices. That promotes competition. Each state would (at least in theory) want to be better than the rest. Parents want the best education for their kids, and having the best educational system could draw in more people to the state, which would benefit local business, etc, etc. I would also like for there to be a voucher system allowing you to send kids to a private school instead. As for the rest... I don't believe I know enough to comment on the matter, so I'll leave that to people who are smarter than me.

2. Global warming: I think the biggest issue a lot of people have is whether or not humans really have a large effect on things. The climate of the planet has been changing over thousands of years. Sometimes colder, sometimes warmer. There was a (geologically) recent ice age, so the Earth warming up would make sense. I won't pretend to know the data, because I don't. But again, I think the issue that many people have is whether or not humans actually have a significant effect on the change.

3. Yes, he would allow them to segregate. Chances are, people would be upset by that and the business would get a lot of bad press for doing it. The idea is to let the general public disgust with racism to enforce racial equality. I would also argue that many things the government does to protect minorities is a form of discrimination. It singles out a specific group of people based on color and excludes people who are not of that ethnicity. That is discrimination against everyone who is not of that minority.

(I feel like I missed something in this post... please let me know of any mistakes). ^_^

1. We can argue for hours over the exact meaning and importance of the Constitution. There might also be better platforms for this than a gaming forum.         Of course, there is the possibility of amending the document. However, there have arguably been very few so far. You mention the issue of slavery, I just wanted to remind you of the failure to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. So basically, sexism is constitutional. If people cannot even agree on one of the most basic things, how do you expect there to be any further meaningful amendments? What truely meaningful and revolutionizing amendments have there been in the last 50 years?

To open the whole new disussion on the 2nd amendment: Yes, if I lived in the 17th, 18th century with wild animals, the possibility of Native American raids, no indpendent police force and under a corrupt regime, I would want to carry arms and defend my family. However, things have changed. People should be allowed to bear arms, I do not challenge this right. But how do background checks etc. infringe on this right? Why is it necessary to get machine guns? Do you really need your gun so bad, so that you couldn't wait until your demand has been approved? Again, I do not have a problem with people having guns for sport, hunting or in their homes but why carry it in malls, schools or on-campus? I am honestly scared by the idea that any person regardless of his or her state of mind or psychological problems, can just enter a store in Texas and by a semi-automatic weapon.

2. You're actually (partly) right on this point. There always has been climate change even before humans developed any meaningful industry.                                 However, the issue here is that human activity has considerably accelerated this natural process. This is a problem, as there is little time for the people who are most affected to adapt and live a meaningful life.

@Samuel: Yes, nature does decarbonize. However, please take a look at rise of pollution compared to the decline of forests. There is no way that all these pollutions can be made up. Regarding the economics, there is (more or less) a common understanding among economists that externalities are not fully internalized, just as the market can never be fully efficient. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong if you believe that the most profitable route is always the most efficient route. Recent developments should convince you otherwise.

3. @Samuel: It actually is a discussion about property rights. I do believe there a certain limits to it and you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate even if it your store. Back in the 60s (and sadly still today in some parts) in the South, Racism was common and widespread. The general public was not disgusted by Racism. So the Civil Rights Act really was very much ahead of its time. But what is government for if not to actually lead and educate people in some areas? I do not know how long it would have taken to really get rid of discrimination if not for the CRA.

Yes, I know that externatilities are not internalized (hence the name), but, forced climate change rules also have other externalities. What of the families in China and India who won't be able to feed their families because of our green policies? Why do we spend so much time worrying about people in the future when there are people suffering today? This is my main problem with climate change, no action can be made without consequences, and climate change actions tend to lead to bigger problems than the destruction climate change could cause. Bangladesh will be under water by 2100 if we don't do something? Well, if we continue on our current path, Bangladesh will be as wealthy as the Netherlands by 2100, and they've been dealing with the problem of being below sea level for a long time.

Which recent developments will convince me otherwise? Lots of companies have started going "green" recently. If you look beyond the PR statements, and see what they say to the investors, it's because they know that by cutting waste, they can reduce costs. When Tesco started replacing the freezers in their stores, they didn't do it for the environment (although their PR said this), they did it because the reduced energy costs were going to save them millions in the long run. Cars are constantly getting more energy efficient, because that's what the market dictates (and hybrids, natural gas, electricity cars are already starting to carve niches), because energy costs go up.

The fact of the matter is, the West have now reached a point where the amount of carbon emitted per dollar generared is on the decline. This is a fundamental cornerstone, but it would have been reached no matter who was in charge, as its a product of economic development. The same is true of other environmental issues, as countries get richer, they get more efficient, and they can pay to treat waste. As a result, things like water and air pollution in developed countries are starting to improve.

Basically, if you're worried about climate change, let the world grow rich. It's not moral to say to countries that they must stay poor, and produce nothing, so we have to engage in policies that let them get as rich as possible. Forcing us to buy energy-efficient lightbulbs, and having a swath of unnecessary environmental regulations don't solve this issue.

---

"What is government for if not to actually lead and educate people in some areas? "

The role of the (Federal) Government is to protect our rights, nothing more, nothing less. 

Ron Paul is pro-life, Gary Johnson is pro-choice.

Ron Paul does believe that it should be a state issue to deal with the crime of abortion. He points out that murder is illegal, but it's not dealt with by the Feds, but by state governments. I believe he wants an amendment to the constitution which defines life as post-conception. However, he would not include a federal ban on the morning-after pill, as he thinks this a state issue, and that it'd be impossible to enforce.

Gary Johnson is pro-choice, however, he believes it should be down to the states. Gary Johnson will, however, veto any bill allowing late-term abortions.

Ron Paul is obviously more constitutionally based than Gary Johnson, but as the Constitution is a Libertatian document, anyway, Johnson finds himself agreeing with most of it.

Samuel I have no idea why you think the department of education is something to look up to or actually think has something to do with the education of our children.  At best it is an unneeded entity that works as a middle man, but at it's worse it is an agency like any other exists only to grow.  Not that you can blame it for what it has become, anything that is created will always work to grow,it is a basic function: grow, create, increase spending to compensate for growth and creation, and so on and so on. 

The true solution to better education lies at the state and city level where local solutions to problems can be implemented.  What will work in a large city will be uneeded in a rural community and the federal goverment is incapable of handling those micro issues.

Oh, and try not to sound like a talking point for two seconds when you say someone is against the civil rights amendment. The very concept that you need the government to tell you how to treat others on your property is an absurd concept. As others have clearly explained a private business has the right to conducts its business as it sees fit and if that business model includes not allowing a particular race to patron it's establishment then so be it. I would chose not purchase products from that business as would many others and the business model would fail. Do you think Wal*mart would be successful if it decided to no longer allow white people in the doors? Would target be in business if it said black people can't spend their money here? And let's say for argument sake that a company was able to create a business model based on client restriction and accepted no government funds or tax breaks in the creation and operation of that business. Who am I to interfere with their right to prosper?