Rick Perry - "should have done was one of two things: We either destroy it, or we retrieve it. He took a third route, which was the worst and the weakest, and that is to do nothing."

You might be right about the rest of the field though.

anyone with knowledge of iran, knows they are dangerous. they have a militant religiously fanatical government, have a number of armed groups under their direct control around the region and are part of successful terrorist attacks as far away from iran as argentina.

What bullshit.

This is Ron Paul's last election cycle. He's said so himself. If he doesn't win, he's retiring. Because of that, the face and hope of liberty will change if he doesn't win. There is another man that is running for president, Gary Johnson, that holds the same views as Ron, but has executive experience (governor of New Mexico), and is in his mid-50's. One of the coolest, best stories ever - started a handyman company in NM, then turned it into a multi-million dollar enterprise, then ran for governor as a Republican and won in a state that is 2/3rds Democrat. He's essentially a younger Ron Paul.

I am voting for him *if* he's a viable candidate. Otherwise, I will indeed vote for Ron Paul. Supposedly, Gary is going to seek the Libertarian Party's nomination since the media has abjectively screwed him out of the race.

You can read up on Gary at: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com

He wants to eliminate the FED and various departments like education! 

The Federal Reserve is one of the main players in the economic crisis. They set interest rates too low, and print too much money, which results in a vast expansion of credit and high inflation, which leads to greater mal-investments, and, thus, larger recessions/depressions.

The department of education has a terrible track record, and is illegal. Under the constitution there are no provisions for such a department, and the department also violates the 10th Amendment. Ron Paul wants to give the ability to educate back to the states. You will still have your public education systems, but they'll just be run a lot better, and your local schools won't be dictated to by some pencil-pushers in Washington. 

Ok, I get that you have some very liberterian view points. But please explain to me why this obsession with a 225 year old document?              It was visionary and bold at the time but the world has changed since then. Nowhere, does it explicitly deny the department of education. And don't you think the founding fathers had other concerns than setting up a school system in a world which was hugely different than the one we are in today? There are so many issues to discuss in this context (e.g the 2nd amendment). It just escapes my mind how people cling to the constitution and deny all the changes that have taken place since then (reminds me of the literal interpretation of the Bible, these documents were never meant to be taken literally/serve as the law for the next millenia)

Do you really believe the states would do better when fighting for themselves? How would the overall school system be better if it was handled by the states? There are already vast differences in terms of quality. No doubt, the system has to be improved but you have to explain to me how the quality of education can be improved by giving the "right to educate" back to the states? Btw, why stop with state level? Why not give the authority to counties?

 He doesn't believe in Climate Change (granted, the whole Republican Party hates science)

What does it matter if he doesn't believe in climate change? The free market naturally decarbonizes, anyway, so let it be. I'm not going to get into this, anyway, as the point of Ron Paul's philosophies is that it doesn't matter what he believes in.

The whole issue is that Climate Change is nothing you can believe in or not. It's just a fact and science. If you have ever taken any economic classes, you would know that the market fails to take into account so-called externalities, for the simple reason that there impact is hard to measure and usually affects the whole population.

  He is against the Civil Rights Act!!!

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

I know his position. It's the same as his son's. He argues that it's a violation of free speech, government interference etc.                                   I'm sorry to be inpolite but this is just BS. He would allow private businesses to segregate their costumers if they wish to or deny service to any minority if they feel like it. Of course, he is against racism but his position would open the door once again for open racism with the excuse of free speech and personal liberty.

I have heard a little about Gary Johnson already considering I have lived in Texas for the past 10 years.  Anyways, I consider him equal if not better than Ron Pual.  I believe he even has a pro marijuana stance.

Pro-pot, pro-gay marriage (not unions), pro-choice. Would balance the federal budget on year-1, and would veto any legislation that would increase spending above revenues. Also anti-interventionist, but maybe not quite as far as RP or Kuchinich.