he may personal be against abortion, but he still believes it shouldnt be illegal/left up to states. 

i can not support someone who supports murder being legal.

as for the bolded. NO. he was is and has been a terrorist, in fact he's killed more of his own people. it doesnt matter what the US does, the terrorist dont need reasons, they create their own, it wouldnt matter to them, as terrorists arent logical. and that still doesnt defend the stupidity of if he were in charge, we would not have killed Osama, or other high value terrorists. they would still be at large, and still mass murdering. Iran would also be well on its way to be getting a nuclear weapon (even more so than right now) and he wouldnt do anything about it. Even though they want nothing more than the destruction of US and Israel, or any other infidels, even if it means killing millions of their own people.

the thing is you cant undo the past, whats done is done. Ron Paul cant change that. he has to live in the world we do today. and that means having a defense policy to fit that. Not one that will leave the US illprepared for any attack. one that would let all our enemies do as they please, wrecking havic, murdering millions.

for your last part. I agree

i dont believe that the woman has a choice on whether or not to kill a child. i do however believe she can do what ever she wants to her own body.

the problem with abortion is, that it is not her own body, something that is scientifical proven over and over, and more convincingly as technology advances. its a Scientific fact that from the moment of conception, the baby is an individual being having its own seperate DNA. it is a life seperate from her own.

So no it is the the womans choice any more than it is her choice to kill her toddler or infant.

furthermore if someone can be charged for double murder for killing a pregnant women, then how the hell is the woman not charged with murder for killing her unborn child. You cant have it both ways. it cant be a child when it wasnt the woman chosing to kill the child, but not a child when she decides to contribute to an ongoing genocide.

I would like to add that I'm against abortion because, one, it's not the woman's body as you said... and two, I think that the choice was made when the woman decided to have sex. Barring nonconsentual sex, the woman obviously chose to have sex with a man... knowing full well that pregnancy could result from that. I believe that the choice was already made.

OT: I'm not sorry to see Perry go. He was arrogant from the start, and the drop in the polls showed that people didn't like his attitude (or mistakes).

Yeah now I just hope Romney has an epic collapse so Dr. Paul becomes frontrunner!

Barring some epic scandal of Watergate proportions (or worse), I can't see that happening, sadly. I don't think Romney would be too terribly different from Obama in terms of actually helping the country... which is to say not helpful at all. I feel like he'd end up like a lot of recent Republican figures, who spend just as much as Democrats, but on different programs. But for some reason, he probably stands the best chance of actually beating Obama. The right wing media would have no clue what to do if RP became the nominee; they'd be torn over whether they should support him despite his Libertarian views, or hate him and end up handing over the election to Obama on a silver platter.

Yeah that's true man, unfortunately I think you're right. 

Yeah I guess Romney isn't THAT bad, assuming he can live up to the things he's put up on his website such as a balanced budget amendment and cutting some spending. He's certainly no Ron Paul, but I think he could be a lot better than another 4 years of Obama. 

i guess, i was getting one of his policies with Ron Puals.

well is still dont support his view on drugs, pot i can understand, not others.

anyway im 100% against any form of killing an unborn child, regardless of the term, you are murdering a child no matter what age, so stopping partial birth abortion is hardly anything to be proud of. i cant see how anybody with any shred of inteligence can be for massacring a child as its being born. (for that matter murdering a child at any age).

but Newt should still be a pretty good candidate (far from perfect) but still good, it seems he has turned away from most of his liberal tendencies, and is a strong fiscal conservative. much  better candidate than Romney.

but im sure you would agree that these men would be near perfect presidents: Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, colonel allen west, or Scott Walker

Well, assuming that a politician is going to live up to the things he says he's gonna do...

I'd vote for Romney over Obama, but that's more of a vote against Obama than for Romney.