I'm Congressman Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas. I am the defender of the Constitution. I'm the champion of liberty. This shows the roadmap to peace and prosperity. [ applause ]
I PRP 'm VBP Congressman NNP Ron NNP Paul NNP , , a DT congressman NN from IN Texas NNP . . I PRP am VBP the DT defender NN of IN the DT Constitution NNP . . I PRP 'm VBP the DT champion NN of IN liberty NN . . This DT shows VBZ the DT roadmap NN to TO peace NN and CC prosperity NN . .
congressman ron paul congressman texa
defend constitut
champion liberti
roadmap peac prosper

Because he's a fake. [ laughter ] [ applause ] [ booing ] [ applause ]
Because IN he PRP 's VBZ a DT fake NN . .
fake

Congratulations.
Congratulations NNS . .
congratul

No. I find it really fascinating that, when people are running for office, they're really fiscally conservative. When they're in office, they do something different. And then when they explain themselves, they say, "Oh, I want to repeal that." So the senator voted for No Child Left Behind, but now --- he voted for it, but now he's running on the effort to get rid of it. So I think the record is so bad, you know, with the politicians. And, you know, nobody accuses me of not having voted for too much. They're always accusing me for not voting for enough. And I've been running in office, in office off and on for a good many years, and over all those years, I've never voted for a budget deficit. I never voted to increase the national debt. As a matter of fact, there's only one appropriation bill I voted for, and that was for veterans. I assumed, from the 1970s on, that we were embarking on a very dangerous path, and we're involved in that danger right now. So this idea of being fiscally conservative now that we're running for office and we're going to repeal something that we did before, I mean, this --- it loses credibility is what our problem is. So... [ applause ] And --- and the one thing that I think should annoy all Americans is the voting for foreign aid? I mean, just think there are foreign aid packages that are huge, and when the member votes for it, they don't say, well, this money is going to A, B, C, because I love that country, but it's the principle of the way the government works. You vote for foreign aid because, for some weird reason, it's supposed to be good for America, but then it goes and helps all our enemies. That's what I disapprove of. [ applause ]
No DT . . I PRP find VBP it PRP really RB fascinating JJ that IN , , when WRB people NNS are VBP running VBG for IN office NN , , they PRP 're VBP really RB fiscally RB conservative JJ . . When WRB they PRP 're VBP in IN office NN , , they PRP do VBP something NN different JJ . . And CC then RB when WRB they PRP explain VBP themselves PRP , , they PRP say VBP , , " VBP Oh UH , , I PRP want VBP to TO repeal VB that DT . . " CD So IN the DT senator NN voted VBD for IN No DT Child NN Left VBN Behind IN , , but CC now RB - : he PRP voted VBD for IN it PRP , , but CC now RB he PRP 's VBZ running VBG on IN the DT effort NN to TO get VB rid JJ of IN it PRP . . So RB I PRP think VBP the DT record NN is VBZ so RB bad JJ , , you PRP know VBP , , with IN the DT politicians NNS . . And CC , , you PRP know VBP , , nobody NN accuses VBZ me PRP of IN not RB having VBG voted VBD for IN too RB much JJ . . They PRP 're VBP always RB accusing VBG me PRP for IN not RB voting VBG for IN enough RB . . And CC I PRP 've VBP been VBN running VBG in IN office NN , , in IN office NN off IN and CC on IN for IN a DT good JJ many JJ years NNS , , and CC over IN all PDT those DT years NNS , , I PRP 've VBP never RB voted VBN for IN a DT budget NN deficit NN . . I PRP never RB voted VBD to TO increase VB the DT national JJ debt NN . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , there EX 's VBZ only RB one CD appropriation NN bill NN I PRP voted VBD for IN , , and CC that DT was VBD for IN veterans NNS . . I PRP assumed VBD , , from IN the DT 1970s NNS on IN , , that IN we PRP were VBD embarking VBG on IN a DT very RB dangerous JJ path NN , , and CC we PRP 're VBP involved VBN in IN that DT danger NN right RB now RB . . So RB this DT idea NN of IN being VBG fiscally RB conservative JJ now RB that IN we PRP 're VBP running VBG for IN office NN and CC we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO repeal VB something NN that IN we PRP did VBD before RB , , I PRP mean VBP , , this DT - : it PRP loses VBZ credibility NN is VBZ what WP our PRP$ problem NN is VBZ . . So RB ... : And CC - : and CC the DT one CD thing NN that IN I PRP think VBP should MD annoy VB all DT Americans NNPS is VBZ the DT voting NN for IN foreign JJ aid NN ? . I PRP mean VBP , , just RB think VBP there EX are VBP foreign JJ aid NN packages NNS that WDT are VBP huge JJ , , and CC when WRB the DT member NN votes NNS for IN it PRP , , they PRP do VBP n't RB say VB , , well RB , , this DT money NN is VBZ going VBG to TO A NNP , , B NNP , , C NNP , , because IN I PRP love VBP that DT country NN , , but CC it PRP 's VBZ the DT principle NN of IN the DT way NN the DT government NN works VBZ . . You PRP vote VBP for IN foreign JJ aid NN because IN , , for IN some DT weird JJ reason NN , , it PRP 's VBZ supposed VBN to TO be VB good JJ for IN America NNP , , but CC then RB it PRP goes VBZ and CC helps VBZ all DT our PRP$ enemies NNS . . That DT 's VBZ what WP I PRP disapprove VBP of IN . .
peopl offic
offic someth
senat child effort
record politician
nobodi
offic offic year year budget deficit
debt
matter fact appropri bill veteran
1970s path danger
idea offic someth credibl problem
thing american vote aid
aid packag member vote money a b c countri principl way govern
aid reason america enemi

You know, that's always a cop-out when you compare yourself to the other members of Congress. The American people are sick and tired of the members of Congress. They get about a 9 percent rating. [ applause ] But this whole thing about comparison of conservative votes, I think you make a very important point. I don't rate what, at the top. If it's spending or on taxes I'm at the very top because I vote for the least amount of spending and the least amount of taxes, which means that some of the conservative ratings --- you have to realize sometimes conservatives want to spend money, too. When it comes to overseas spending, you vote for the foreign aid. Conservatives are quite pleased with spending money overseas. But if you're a strict fiscal conservative and a constitutionalist you don't vote for that kind of stuff and so you can't just go by the ratings.
You PRP know VBP , , that DT 's VBZ always RB a DT cop-out NN when WRB you PRP compare VBP yourself PRP to TO the DT other JJ members NNS of IN Congress NNP . . The DT American JJ people NNS are VBP sick JJ and CC tired JJ of IN the DT members NNS of IN Congress NNP . . They PRP get VBP about IN a DT 9 CD percent NN rating NN . . But CC this DT whole JJ thing NN about IN comparison NN of IN conservative JJ votes NNS , , I PRP think VBP you PRP make VBP a DT very RB important JJ point NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB rate VB what WP , , at IN the DT top NN . . If IN it PRP 's VBZ spending NN or CC on IN taxes NNS I PRP 'm VBP at IN the DT very RB top JJ because IN I PRP vote VBP for IN the DT least JJS amount NN of IN spending NN and CC the DT least JJS amount NN of IN taxes NNS , , which WDT means VBZ that IN some DT of IN the DT conservative JJ ratings NNS - : you PRP have VBP to TO realize VB sometimes RB conservatives NNS want VBP to TO spend VB money NN , , too RB . . When WRB it PRP comes VBZ to TO overseas JJ spending NN , , you PRP vote VBP for IN the DT foreign JJ aid NN . . Conservatives NNS are VBP quite RB pleased JJ with IN spending VBG money NN overseas RB . . But CC if IN you PRP 're VBP a DT strict JJ fiscal JJ conservative NN and CC a DT constitutionalist NN you PRP do VBP n't RB vote VB for IN that DT kind NN of IN stuff NN and CC so RB you PRP ca MD n't RB just RB go VB by IN the DT ratings NNS . .
cop-out member congress
peopl member congress
percent rate
thing comparison vote point
top
spend tax amount spend amount tax rate conserv money
spend aid
conserv money
conserv constitutionalist kind stuff rate

I followed that and I...[ laughter ] You know, there's reason for the confusion, because...[ laughter ]... because it's all Congress's fault. They're all messed up and they don't know what they're doing in Congress is the real reason. [ applause ] But this whole idea of earmarking --- earmarking is designating how the money's spent. What a lot of people don't understand is if --- if the Congress doesn't say the way the money should be spent, it goes to the executive branch, and that's the bad part. If you were actually cutting, it would make a difference. But you don't want to give more power to the executive branch. Even if I'm president, I don't want more power over that --- over that funding. That should be with the people and --- and with the Congress. But earmarking --- the reason we get into trouble is --- is the irresponsibility of Congress. Take your highway funds. We're supposed to pay a user fee. If we pay our gasoline tax, we should get our fair share back. But what do they do? They take the highway funds and other of these trust funds and they spend this money overseas in these wars that we shouldn't be fighting. And then when the highways need building, then you have to go and fight the political system and know who to deal with and maneuver and try to get some of your money back. But if you say you're against --- against the earmarking and fuss and fume over, the answer is vote against the bill. That is what I do. I argue for the case of the responsibility being on the Congress, but it's the responsibility of us who believe in fiscal conservatism to vote against the bill. We need to vote against the spending is what we need to do. [ applause ]
I PRP followed VBD that IN and CC I PRP ... : You PRP know VBP , , there EX 's VBZ reason NN for IN the DT confusion NN , , because IN ... : ... : because IN it PRP 's VBZ all DT Congress NNP 's POS fault NN . . They PRP 're VBP all DT messed VBN up RP and CC they PRP do VBP n't RB know VB what WP they PRP 're VBP doing VBG in IN Congress NNP is VBZ the DT real JJ reason NN . . But CC this DT whole JJ idea NN of IN earmarking VBG - : earmarking VBG is VBZ designating VBG how WRB the DT money NN 's POS spent VBN . . What WP a DT lot NN of IN people NNS do VBP n't RB understand VB is VBZ if IN - : if IN the DT Congress NNP does VBZ n't RB say VB the DT way NN the DT money NN should MD be VB spent VBN , , it PRP goes VBZ to TO the DT executive JJ branch NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ the DT bad JJ part NN . . If IN you PRP were VBD actually RB cutting VBG , , it PRP would MD make VB a DT difference NN . . But CC you PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO give VB more JJR power NN to TO the DT executive JJ branch NN . . Even RB if IN I PRP 'm VBP president NN , , I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB more JJR power NN over IN that DT - : over IN that DT funding NN . . That DT should MD be VB with IN the DT people NNS and CC - : and CC with IN the DT Congress NNP . . But CC earmarking VBG - : the DT reason NN we PRP get VBP into IN trouble NN is VBZ - : is VBZ the DT irresponsibility NN of IN Congress NNP . . Take VB your PRP$ highway NN funds NNS . . We PRP 're VBP supposed VBN to TO pay VB a DT user NN fee NN . . If IN we PRP pay VBP our PRP$ gasoline NN tax NN , , we PRP should MD get VB our PRP$ fair JJ share NN back RB . . But CC what WP do VBP they PRP do VB ? . They PRP take VBP the DT highway NN funds NNS and CC other JJ of IN these DT trust NN funds NNS and CC they PRP spend VBP this DT money NN overseas RB in IN these DT wars NNS that IN we PRP should MD n't RB be VB fighting VBG . . And CC then RB when WRB the DT highways NNS need VBP building NN , , then RB you PRP have VBP to TO go VB and CC fight VB the DT political JJ system NN and CC know VB who WP to TO deal VB with IN and CC maneuver VB and CC try VB to TO get VB some DT of IN your PRP$ money NN back RB . . But CC if IN you PRP say VBP you PRP 're VBP against IN - : against IN the DT earmarking VBG and CC fuss NN and CC fume NN over IN , , the DT answer NN is VBZ vote NN against IN the DT bill NN . . That DT is VBZ what WP I PRP do VBP . . I PRP argue VBP for IN the DT case NN of IN the DT responsibility NN being VBG on IN the DT Congress NNP , , but CC it PRP 's VBZ the DT responsibility NN of IN us PRP who WP believe VBP in IN fiscal JJ conservatism NN to TO vote VB against IN the DT bill NN . . We PRP need VBP to TO vote VB against IN the DT spending NN is VBZ what WP we PRP need VBP to TO do VB . .
reason confus congress fault
congress reason
idea money
lot peopl congress way money branch part
differ
power branch
presid power fund
peopl congress
reason troubl irrespons congress
highway fund
user fee
gasolin tax share
highway fund trust fund money war
highway build system money
fuss fume answer vote bill
case respons congress respons conservat bill
spend

Well, you know, it's interesting when they argue that case. First, I don't like the idea that you have good bailouts and bad bailouts. If bailouts are bad, they're bad, and we shouldn't be doing it. But this argument about maybe one that works, you know, well, now that the bankruptcy or the bailing out of GM worked, I said that's sort of like if a criminal goes out and robs a bank, and he's successful, therefore you endorse what he did, because he's successful. But you have to rob people, you have to distort the law. The government is supposed to protect contracts. They're not supposed to regulate contracts and they're not supposed to undermine contracts. And that's what we've been doing. [ applause ] In the housing bubble, we undermined contracts. And this is what we're doing here. So you want to respect the contracts. A lot of people will accuse me of advocating a free market, that there's no regulations. Actually, the regulations are tougher, because you have to go through bankruptcy and you have to face up to this. And it isn't like General Motors would be destroyed. Newt made that point there, that there were good parts of General Motors. But politicians can't figure this out. Then they serve the special interests, and then you have labor fighting big business. I opt for the free market in defense of liberty. That's what we need in this country. [ applause ]
Well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , it PRP 's VBZ interesting JJ when WRB they PRP argue VBP that DT case NN . . First RB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB the DT idea NN that IN you PRP have VBP good JJ bailouts NNS and CC bad JJ bailouts NNS . . If IN bailouts NNS are VBP bad JJ , , they PRP 're VBP bad JJ , , and CC we PRP should MD n't RB be VB doing VBG it PRP . . But CC this DT argument NN about IN maybe RB one CD that WDT works VBZ , , you PRP know VBP , , well RB , , now RB that IN the DT bankruptcy NN or CC the DT bailing NN out IN of IN GM NNP worked VBD , , I PRP said VBD that DT 's VBZ sort NN of IN like IN if IN a DT criminal NN goes VBZ out RP and CC robs VBZ a DT bank NN , , and CC he PRP 's VBZ successful JJ , , therefore RB you PRP endorse VBP what WP he PRP did VBD , , because IN he PRP 's VBZ successful JJ . . But CC you PRP have VBP to TO rob VB people NNS , , you PRP have VBP to TO distort VB the DT law NN . . The DT government NN is VBZ supposed VBN to TO protect VB contracts NNS . . They PRP 're VBP not RB supposed VBN to TO regulate VB contracts NNS and CC they PRP 're VBP not RB supposed VBN to TO undermine VB contracts NNS . . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP 've VBP been VBN doing VBG . . In IN the DT housing NN bubble NN , , we PRP undermined VBD contracts NNS . . And CC this DT is VBZ what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG here RB . . So RB you PRP want VBP to TO respect VB the DT contracts NNS . . A DT lot NN of IN people NNS will MD accuse VB me PRP of IN advocating VBG a DT free JJ market NN , , that IN there EX 's VBZ no DT regulations NNS . . Actually RB , , the DT regulations NNS are VBP tougher JJR , , because IN you PRP have VBP to TO go VB through IN bankruptcy NN and CC you PRP have VBP to TO face VB up IN to TO this DT . . And CC it PRP is VBZ n't RB like IN General NNP Motors NNPS would MD be VB destroyed VBN . . Newt NNP made VBD that DT point NN there RB , , that IN there EX were VBD good JJ parts NNS of IN General NNP Motors NNPS . . But CC politicians NNS ca MD n't RB figure VB this DT out NN . . Then RB they PRP serve VBP the DT special JJ interests NNS , , and CC then RB you PRP have VBP labor NN fighting VBG big JJ business NN . . I PRP opt VBP for IN the DT free JJ market NN in IN defense NN of IN liberty NN . . That DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP need VBP in IN this DT country NN . .
case
idea bailout bailout
bailout
argument bankruptci bail gm sort crimin bank
peopl law
govern contract
contract contract
hous bubbl contract
contract
lot peopl market regul
regul bankruptci
general motor
newt point part general motor
politician out
interest labor busi
market defens liberti
countri

As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequences of the fact the government has control of medical care and medical insurance, and then we fight over how we dictate how this should be distributed, sort of like in schools. Once the government takes over the schools, especially at the federal level, then there's no right position, and you have to argue which prayer, are you allowed to pray, and you get into all the details. The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level. [ applause ] But sort of along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills. I think it's sort of like the argument --- conservatives use the argument all the time about guns. Guns don't kill, criminals kill. [ applause ] So, in a way, it's the morality of society that we have to deal with. The pill is there and, you know, it contributes, maybe, but the pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society. [ applause ]
As IN an DT OB NNP doctor NN , , I PRP 've VBP dealt VBN with IN birth NN control NN pills NNS and CC contraception NN for IN a DT long JJ time NN . . This DT is VBZ a DT consequences NNS of IN the DT fact NN the DT government NN has VBZ control NN of IN medical JJ care NN and CC medical JJ insurance NN , , and CC then RB we PRP fight VBP over IN how WRB we PRP dictate VBP how WRB this DT should MD be VB distributed VBN , , sort NN of IN like IN in IN schools NNS . . Once RB the DT government NN takes VBZ over IN the DT schools NNS , , especially RB at IN the DT federal JJ level NN , , then RB there EX 's VBZ no DT right JJ position NN , , and CC you PRP have VBP to TO argue VB which WDT prayer NN , , are VBP you PRP allowed VBN to TO pray VB , , and CC you PRP get VBP into IN all PDT the DT details NNS . . The DT problem NN is VBZ the DT government NN is VBZ getting VBG involved VBN in IN things NNS they PRP should MD n't RB be VB involved VBN in IN , , especially RB at IN the DT federal JJ level NN . . But CC sort NN of IN along IN the DT line NN of IN the DT pills NNS creating VBG immorality NN , , I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB it PRP that DT way NN . . I PRP think VBP the DT immorality NN creates VBZ the DT problem NN of IN wanting VBG to TO use VB the DT pills NNS . . So RB you PRP do VBP n't RB blame VB the DT pills NNS . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ sort NN of IN like IN the DT argument NN - : conservatives NNS use VBP the DT argument NN all PDT the DT time NN about IN guns NNS . . Guns NNS do VBP n't RB kill VB , , criminals NNS kill VBP . . So RB , , in IN a DT way NN , , it PRP 's VBZ the DT morality NN of IN society NN that IN we PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN . . The DT pill NN is VBZ there RB and CC , , you PRP know VBP , , it PRP contributes VBZ , , maybe RB , , but CC the DT pills NNS ca MD n't RB be VB blamed VBN for IN the DT immorality NN of IN our PRP$ society NN . .
ob doctor birth control pill contracept time
consequ fact govern control care insur sort school
govern school level posit prayer detail
problem govern thing level
sort line pill immor way
immor problem pill
pill
sort argument conserv argument time gun
gun crimin
way moral societi
pill pill immor societi

John...[ applause ]
John NNP .. NNP . .
john

... have a quick follow-up? [ applause ] You know, we talk about the morning-after pill. Actually, the morning-after pill is nothing more than a birth control pill, so if birth control pills are on the market, the morning-after pill --- so if you're going to legalize birth control pills, you really --- you can't separate the two. They're all basically the same, hormonally. But once again, the question is, if you voted for Planned Parenthood like the senator has, you voted for birth control pills. And you literally, because funds are fungible, you literally vote for abortions because Planned Parenthood gets the money --- "Oh, I'll buy birth control pills," but then they have the money left over to do the abortion. So that's why you have to have a pretty strong resistance of voting for these bunches of bills put together. Planned Parenthood should get nothing, let alone designate how they spend. [ applause ]
... : have VB a DT quick JJ follow-up NN ? . You PRP know VBP , , we PRP talk VBP about IN the DT morning-after NN pill NN . . Actually RB , , the DT morning-after NN pill NN is VBZ nothing NN more JJR than IN a DT birth NN control NN pill NN , , so RB if IN birth NN control NN pills NNS are VBP on IN the DT market NN , , the DT morning-after NN pill NN - : so RB if IN you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO legalize VB birth NN control NN pills NNS , , you PRP really RB - : you PRP ca MD n't RB separate VB the DT two CD . . They PRP 're VBP all RB basically RB the DT same JJ , , hormonally RB . . But CC once RB again RB , , the DT question NN is VBZ , , if IN you PRP voted VBD for IN Planned NNP Parenthood NNP like IN the DT senator NN has VBZ , , you PRP voted VBD for IN birth NN control NN pills NNS . . And CC you PRP literally RB , , because IN funds NNS are VBP fungible JJ , , you PRP literally RB vote VB for IN abortions NNS because IN Planned NNP Parenthood NNP gets VBZ the DT money NN - : " CD Oh UH , , I PRP 'll MD buy VB birth NN control NN pills NNS , , " CD but CC then RB they PRP have VBP the DT money NN left VBD over RP to TO do VB the DT abortion NN . . So IN that DT 's VBZ why WRB you PRP have VBP to TO have VB a DT pretty RB strong JJ resistance NN of IN voting NN for IN these DT bunches NNS of IN bills NNS put VBN together RB . . Planned NNP Parenthood NNP should MD get VB nothing NN , , let VB alone RB designate VB how WRB they PRP spend VBP . .
follow-up
morning-aft pill
morning-aft pill noth birth control pill birth control pill market morning-aft pill birth control pill
question plan parenthood senat birth control pill
fund abort plan parenthood money birth control pill money abort
resist vote bunch bill
plan parenthood noth

John, this demonstrates the problem that I'm talking about. There's always an excuse to do this. Now...[ applause ]... Title XX --- I don't know whether you inferred that I would support Title XX for abstinence. No, it would cost money as a program. It's not a program of the federal government to get involved in our lives this way. If you want laws like that, maybe the state, but...[ applause ]... the federal government shouldn't even be having --- spending money on abstinence. That's way too much more. I don't see that in the Constitution any... [ crosstalk ]
John NNP , , this DT demonstrates VBZ the DT problem NN that IN I PRP 'm VBP talking VBG about IN . . There EX 's VBZ always RB an DT excuse NN to TO do VB this DT . . Now RB ... : ... : Title NNP XX NNP - : I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB whether IN you PRP inferred VBD that IN I PRP would MD support VB Title NNP XX NNP for IN abstinence NN . . No RB , , it PRP would MD cost VB money NN as IN a DT program NN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB a DT program NN of IN the DT federal JJ government NN to TO get VB involved VBN in IN our PRP$ lives NNS this DT way NN . . If IN you PRP want VBP laws NNS like IN that DT , , maybe RB the DT state NN , , but CC ... : ... : the DT federal JJ government NN should MD n't RB even RB be VB having VBG - : spending VBG money NN on IN abstinence NN . . That DT 's VBZ way NN too RB much RB more JJR . . I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB that IN in IN the DT Constitution NNP any DT .. NN . .
john problem
excus
titl xx titl xx abstin
money program
program govern live way
law state govern money abstin
way
constitut

Probably not, but we can do a better job, and the best way to do it is forget about the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and deal with our borders, put our resources on this border. This is what we need. But we need to change the rules. We reward illegal immigration. They get benefits, Texas hospitals, and, you know, schools are going bankrupt. The restraints on the states, and Obama's restraints on the states to deal with it. Why is it if an illegal comes across the border and they go on private property, why isn't that trespassing? And why don't you have the right to stop it? So but there should be no mandates from the federal government about what you must do under the 9th and 10th. There would be essentially none. But the federal government does have a responsibility for these borders. And I just hate to see all these resources --- I think that we should have much more immigration service on the border to make it easier --- it's hard to even get to visit this country. We're losing a lot of visitors and workers that could come to this country because we have an inefficient immigration service. And then that invites the illegal. We have to deal --- we can't endorse the illegal, but the program today endorses the illegal problems. And a weak economy is always detrimental, too, because of the welfare state. We have welfare at home and some jobs go begging, we have jobs going begging in this country in the midst of the recession, has to do with the economy. You can't ignore the economy. But also the welfare state, allowing immigrants to come over and then get the benefits --- if you subsidize something, you get more of. So there's a lot we can do and should do and certainly this president is not doing a very good job. [ applause ]
Probably RB not RB , , but CC we PRP can MD do VB a DT better JJR job NN , , and CC the DT best JJS way NN to TO do VB it PRP is VBZ forget VB about IN the DT border NN between IN Pakistan NNP and CC Afghanistan NNP and CC deal NN with IN our PRP$ borders NNS , , put VBD our PRP$ resources NNS on IN this DT border NN . . This DT is VBZ what WP we PRP need VBP . . But CC we PRP need VBP to TO change VB the DT rules NNS . . We PRP reward VBP illegal JJ immigration NN . . They PRP get VBP benefits NNS , , Texas NNP hospitals NNS , , and CC , , you PRP know VBP , , schools NNS are VBP going VBG bankrupt JJ . . The DT restraints NNS on IN the DT states NNS , , and CC Obama NNP 's POS restraints NNS on IN the DT states NNS to TO deal VB with IN it PRP . . Why WRB is VBZ it PRP if IN an DT illegal JJ comes VBZ across IN the DT border NN and CC they PRP go VBP on IN private JJ property NN , , why WRB is VBZ n't RB that DT trespassing NN ? . And CC why WRB do VBP n't RB you PRP have VBP the DT right NN to TO stop VB it PRP ? . So RB but CC there EX should MD be VB no DT mandates NNS from IN the DT federal JJ government NN about IN what WP you PRP must MD do VB under IN the DT 9th JJ and CC 10th JJ . . There EX would MD be VB essentially RB none NN . . But CC the DT federal JJ government NN does VBZ have VB a DT responsibility NN for IN these DT borders NNS . . And CC I PRP just RB hate VBP to TO see VB all PDT these DT resources NNS - : I PRP think VBP that IN we PRP should MD have VB much RB more JJR immigration NN service NN on IN the DT border NN to TO make VB it PRP easier JJR - : it PRP 's VBZ hard JJ to TO even RB get VB to TO visit VB this DT country NN . . We PRP 're VBP losing VBG a DT lot NN of IN visitors NNS and CC workers NNS that WDT could MD come VB to TO this DT country NN because IN we PRP have VBP an DT inefficient JJ immigration NN service NN . . And CC then RB that DT invites VBZ the DT illegal JJ . . We PRP have VBP to TO deal VB - : we PRP ca MD n't RB endorse VB the DT illegal JJ , , but CC the DT program NN today NN endorses VBZ the DT illegal JJ problems NNS . . And CC a DT weak JJ economy NN is VBZ always RB detrimental JJ , , too RB , , because IN of IN the DT welfare NN state NN . . We PRP have VBP welfare NN at IN home NN and CC some DT jobs NNS go VBP begging VBG , , we PRP have VBP jobs NNS going VBG begging VBG in IN this DT country NN in IN the DT midst NN of IN the DT recession NN , , has VBZ to TO do VB with IN the DT economy NN . . You PRP ca MD n't RB ignore VB the DT economy NN . . But CC also RB the DT welfare NN state NN , , allowing VBG immigrants NNS to TO come VB over RB and CC then RB get VB the DT benefits NNS - : if IN you PRP subsidize VBP something NN , , you PRP get VBP more JJR of IN . . So RB there EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN we PRP can MD do VB and CC should MD do VB and CC certainly RB this DT president NN is VBZ not RB doing VBG a DT very RB good JJ job NN . .
job way border pakistan afghanistan deal border resourc border
rule
immigr
benefit texa hospit school
restraint state obama restraint state
border properti trespass
right
mandat govern
none
govern respons border
resourc immigr servic border countri
lot visitor worker countri immigr servic
program today problem
economi welfar state
welfar home job job countri midst recess economi
economi
welfar state immigr benefit someth
lot presid job

The problem is the character of our wars. And I don't like to think of people in groups. Individuals have rights, not groups. You don't have women's rights or men's rights. And we still have draft legislation. What I fear is the draft coming back because we're getting way over-involved. And the draft --- we keep registering our 18-year-olds. So when the draft comes, we're going to be registering young women, and because of this they're going to be equal. Now, the wars we fight aren't defensive wars, they're offensive wars. We're involved in way too much. They're undeclared, they're not declared by the Congress, and so we're in wars that shouldn't be involved. So I don't want even the men to be over there. I don't want women being killed, but I don't want the men being killed in these wars. [ applause ] But because now we have accepted now for 10 years that we're allowed to start war, we call pre-emptive war, preventive war. Well, that's an aggressive war. I believe in the Christian just war theory that you have to morally justify the wars in defense. Now, if we're defending our country --- and we need to defend, believe me --- with men and women will be in combat and defending our country, and that's the way it should be. But when it's an offensive war, going where we shouldn't be, that's quite a bit different. So it's the foreign policy that needs to be examined.
The DT problem NN is VBZ the DT character NN of IN our PRP$ wars NNS . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB to TO think VB of IN people NNS in IN groups NNS . . Individuals NNS have VBP rights NNS , , not RB groups NNS . . You PRP do VBP n't RB have VB women NNS 's POS rights NNS or CC men NNS 's POS rights NNS . . And CC we PRP still RB have VBP draft NN legislation NN . . What WP I PRP fear VBP is VBZ the DT draft NN coming VBG back RB because IN we PRP 're VBP getting VBG way NN over-involved JJ . . And CC the DT draft NN - : we PRP keep VBP registering VBG our PRP$ 18-year-olds NNS . . So RB when WRB the DT draft NN comes VBZ , , we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO be VB registering VBG young JJ women NNS , , and CC because IN of IN this DT they PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO be VB equal JJ . . Now RB , , the DT wars NNS we PRP fight VBP are VBP n't RB defensive JJ wars NNS , , they PRP 're VBP offensive JJ wars NNS . . We PRP 're VBP involved VBN in IN way NN too RB much RB . . They PRP 're VBP undeclared JJ , , they PRP 're VBP not RB declared VBN by IN the DT Congress NNP , , and CC so RB we PRP 're VBP in IN wars NNS that WDT should MD n't RB be VB involved VBN . . So RB I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB even RB the DT men NNS to TO be VB over IN there RB . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB women NNS being VBG killed VBN , , but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB the DT men NNS being VBG killed VBN in IN these DT wars NNS . . But CC because IN now RB we PRP have VBP accepted VBN now RB for IN 10 CD years NNS that IN we PRP 're VBP allowed VBN to TO start VB war NN , , we PRP call VBP pre-emptive JJ war NN , , preventive JJ war NN . . Well RB , , that DT 's VBZ an DT aggressive JJ war NN . . I PRP believe VBP in IN the DT Christian JJ just JJ war NN theory NN that IN you PRP have VBP to TO morally RB justify VB the DT wars NNS in IN defense NN . . Now RB , , if IN we PRP 're VBP defending VBG our PRP$ country NN - : and CC we PRP need VBP to TO defend VB , , believe VB me PRP - : with IN men NNS and CC women NNS will MD be VB in IN combat NN and CC defending VBG our PRP$ country NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ the DT way NN it PRP should MD be VB . . But CC when WRB it PRP 's VBZ an DT offensive JJ war NN , , going VBG where WRB we PRP should MD n't RB be VB , , that DT 's VBZ quite RB a DT bit RB different JJ . . So IN it PRP 's VBZ the DT foreign JJ policy NN that WDT needs VBZ to TO be VB examined VBN . .
problem charact war
peopl group
individu right group
women right men right
draft legisl
draft way
draft 18-year-old
draft women
war war war
way
congress war
men
women men war
year war war war
war
war theori war defens
countri men women combat countri way
war
polici

I disagree because we don't know if they have a weapon. As a matter of fact, there's no evidence that they have it. There is no evidence. Israel claims they do not have it and our government doesn't. I don't want them to get a weapon. But I think what we're doing is encouraging them to have a weapon because they feel threatened. If you look at a map of --- if you look at a map of Iran, we have 45 bases around their country, plus our submarines. The Iranians can't possibly attack anybody. And we're worrying about the possibility of one nuclear weapon. Now, just think about the Cold War. The Soviets had 30,000 of them. And we talked to them. The Soviets killed 100 million people and the Chinese, and we worked our way out of it. And if you want to worry about nuclear weapons, worry about the nuclear weapons that were left over from the Soviet Union. They're still floating around. They don't have them all detailed. So we're ready to go to war. I say going to war rapidly like this is risky and it's reckless. Now, if they are so determined to go to war, the only thing I plead with you for, if this is the case, is do it properly. Ask the people and ask the Congress for a declaration of war. This is war and people are going to die. And you have got to get a declaration of war. And just to go and start fighting --- but the sanctions are already backfiring. And all that we do is literally doing the opposite. When we've been --- were attacked, we all came together. When we attacked the --- when we --- when we put them under attack, they get together and it neutralizes that. They rally around their leaders. So what we're doing is literally enhancing their power. Think of the sanctions we dealt with Castro. Fifty years and Castro is still there. It doesn't work. So I would say a different approach. We need to at least --- we talked --- we talked to the Soviets during the Cuban crisis. We at least can talk to somebody who does not --- we do not have proof that he has a weapon. Why go to war so carelessly?
I PRP disagree VBP because IN we PRP do VBP n't RB know VB if IN they PRP have VBP a DT weapon NN . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , there EX 's VBZ no DT evidence NN that IN they PRP have VBP it PRP . . There EX is VBZ no DT evidence NN . . Israel NNP claims VBZ they PRP do VBP not RB have VB it PRP and CC our PRP$ government NN does VBZ n't RB . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB them PRP to TO get VB a DT weapon NN . . But CC I PRP think VBP what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG is VBZ encouraging VBG them PRP to TO have VB a DT weapon NN because IN they PRP feel VBP threatened VBN . . If IN you PRP look VBP at IN a DT map NN of IN - : if IN you PRP look VBP at IN a DT map NN of IN Iran NNP , , we PRP have VBP 45 CD bases NNS around IN their PRP$ country NN , , plus CC our PRP$ submarines NNS . . The DT Iranians NNPS ca MD n't RB possibly RB attack VB anybody NN . . And CC we PRP 're VBP worrying VBG about IN the DT possibility NN of IN one CD nuclear JJ weapon NN . . Now RB , , just RB think VB about IN the DT Cold NNP War NNP . . The DT Soviets NNPS had VBD 30,000 CD of IN them PRP . . And CC we PRP talked VBD to TO them PRP . . The DT Soviets NNPS killed VBD 100 CD million CD people NNS and CC the DT Chinese NNPS , , and CC we PRP worked VBD our PRP$ way NN out IN of IN it PRP . . And CC if IN you PRP want VBP to TO worry VB about IN nuclear JJ weapons NNS , , worry VBP about IN the DT nuclear JJ weapons NNS that WDT were VBD left VBN over RP from IN the DT Soviet NNP Union NNP . . They PRP 're VBP still RB floating VBG around RB . . They PRP do VBP n't RB have VB them PRP all DT detailed VBN . . So RB we PRP 're VBP ready JJ to TO go VB to TO war NN . . I PRP say VBP going VBG to TO war NN rapidly RB like IN this DT is VBZ risky JJ and CC it PRP 's VBZ reckless JJ . . Now RB , , if IN they PRP are VBP so RB determined JJ to TO go VB to TO war NN , , the DT only JJ thing NN I PRP plead VBP with IN you PRP for IN , , if IN this DT is VBZ the DT case NN , , is VBZ do VBP it PRP properly RB . . Ask VB the DT people NNS and CC ask VB the DT Congress NNP for IN a DT declaration NN of IN war NN . . This DT is VBZ war NN and CC people NNS are VBP going VBG to TO die VB . . And CC you PRP have VBP got VBN to TO get VB a DT declaration NN of IN war NN . . And CC just RB to TO go VB and CC start VB fighting VBG - : but CC the DT sanctions NNS are VBP already RB backfiring VBG . . And CC all DT that IN we PRP do VBP is VBZ literally RB doing VBG the DT opposite NN . . When WRB we PRP 've VBP been VBN - : were VBD attacked VBN , , we PRP all DT came VBD together RB . . When WRB we PRP attacked VBD the DT - : when WRB we PRP - : when WRB we PRP put VBP them PRP under IN attack NN , , they PRP get VBP together RB and CC it PRP neutralizes VBZ that IN . . They PRP rally VBP around IN their PRP$ leaders NNS . . So RB what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG is VBZ literally RB enhancing VBG their PRP$ power NN . . Think VB of IN the DT sanctions NNS we PRP dealt VBD with IN Castro NNP . . Fifty CD years NNS and CC Castro NNP is VBZ still RB there RB . . It PRP does VBZ n't RB work VB . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB a DT different JJ approach NN . . We PRP need VBP to TO at IN least JJS - : we PRP talked VBD - : we PRP talked VBD to TO the DT Soviets NNS during IN the DT Cuban JJ crisis NN . . We PRP at IN least JJS can MD talk VB to TO somebody NN who WP does VBZ not RB - : we PRP do VBP not RB have VB proof NN that IN he PRP has VBZ a DT weapon NN . . Why WRB go VB to TO war NN so RB carelessly RB ? .
weapon
matter fact evid
evid
israel govern
weapon
weapon
map map iran base countri submarin
iranian anybodi
possibl weapon
cold war
soviet
soviet peopl chines way
weapon weapon soviet union
war
war
war thing case
peopl congress declar war
war peopl
declar war
sanction
opposit
attack
leader
power
sanction castro
year castro
approach
soviet crisi
somebodi proof weapon
war

John?
John NNP ? .
john

No, I get a minute to go quickly. [ applause ] You know, I --- I've tried the moral argument. I've tried the constitutional argument on these issues. And they don't --- they don't go so well. But there --- there's an economic argument, as well. As a matter of fact, Al Qaida has had a plan to bog us down in the Middle East and bankrupt this country. That's exactly what they're doing. We've spent $4 trillion of debt in the last 10 years being bogged down in the Middle East. The neoconservatives who now want us to be in Syria, want us to go to Iran, have another war, and we don't have the money. We're already --- today gasoline hit $6 a gallon in Florida. And we don't have the money. So I don't believe I'm going to get the conversion on the moral and the constitutional arguments in the near future. But I'll tell you what, I'm going to win this argument for economic reasons. Just remember, when the Soviets left, they left not because we had to fight them. They left because they bankrupted this country and we better wake up, because that is what we're doing here. We're destroying our currency and we have a financial crisis on our hands. [ applause ]
No RB , , I PRP get VBP a DT minute NN to TO go VB quickly RB . . You PRP know VBP , , I PRP - : I PRP 've VBP tried VBN the DT moral JJ argument NN . . I PRP 've VBP tried VBN the DT constitutional JJ argument NN on IN these DT issues NNS . . And CC they PRP do VBP n't RB - : they PRP do VBP n't RB go VB so RB well RB . . But CC there EX - : there EX 's VBZ an DT economic JJ argument NN , , as RB well RB . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , Al NNP Qaida NNP has VBZ had VBN a DT plan NN to TO bog VB us PRP down RP in IN the DT Middle NNP East NNP and CC bankrupt VB this DT country NN . . That DT 's VBZ exactly RB what WP they PRP 're VBP doing VBG . . We PRP 've VBP spent VBN $ $ 4 CD trillion CD of IN debt NN in IN the DT last JJ 10 CD years NNS being VBG bogged VBN down RP in IN the DT Middle NNP East NNP . . The DT neoconservatives NNS who WP now RB want VBP us PRP to TO be VB in IN Syria NNP , , want VBP us PRP to TO go VB to TO Iran NNP , , have VBP another DT war NN , , and CC we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB the DT money NN . . We PRP 're VBP already RB - : today NN gasoline NN hit VBD $ $ 6 CD a DT gallon NN in IN Florida NNP . . And CC we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB the DT money NN . . So RB I PRP do VBP n't RB believe VB I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO get VB the DT conversion NN on IN the DT moral JJ and CC the DT constitutional JJ arguments NNS in IN the DT near JJ future NN . . But CC I PRP 'll MD tell VB you PRP what WP , , I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO win VB this DT argument NN for IN economic JJ reasons NNS . . Just RB remember VB , , when WRB the DT Soviets NNPS left VBD , , they PRP left VBD not RB because IN we PRP had VBD to TO fight VB them PRP . . They PRP left VBD because IN they PRP bankrupted VBD this DT country NN and CC we PRP better RB wake VBP up RP , , because IN that DT is VBZ what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG here RB . . We PRP 're VBP destroying VBG our PRP$ currency NN and CC we PRP have VBP a DT financial JJ crisis NN on IN our PRP$ hands NNS . .
minut
argument
argument issu
argument
matter fact al qaida plan middl east countri
debt year middl east
neoconserv syria iran war money
today gasolin gallon florida
money
convers argument futur
argument reason
soviet
countri
currenc crisi hand

Newt --- Newt's going in the right direction, but not far enough. [ laughter ] The Constitution is very, very clear. There is no authority for the federal government to be involved in education. [ applause ] There's no --- no prohibition in the Constitution for the states to be involved in education. That's not a bad position and we can sort things out. But once --- once again the Senators for --- was for No Child Left Behind, but now he's running for president, now he's running to repeal No Child Left Behind once again. But --- and he calls it a team sport. He has to go along to get along and that's the way the team plays. But that's what the problem is with Washington. That's what's been going on for so long. [ applause ] So, I don't accept that form of government. I understand it. That is the way it works. You were with the majority. You were the Whip and you organized and got these votes all passed. But I think the obligation of all of us should be the oath of office. We should take --- and it shouldn't be the oath to the party. I'm sorry about that, but it isn't the oath to the party, it's the oath to our office. [ applause ] To obey the law and the law is the Constitution. [ applause ]
Newt NNP - : Newt NNP 's POS going VBG in IN the DT right JJ direction NN , , but CC not RB far RB enough RB . . The DT Constitution NNP is VBZ very RB , , very RB clear JJ . . There EX is VBZ no DT authority NN for IN the DT federal JJ government NN to TO be VB involved VBN in IN education NN . . There EX 's VBZ no DT - : no DT prohibition NN in IN the DT Constitution NNP for IN the DT states NNS to TO be VB involved VBN in IN education NN . . That DT 's VBZ not RB a DT bad JJ position NN and CC we PRP can MD sort VB things NNS out RP . . But CC once RB - : once RB again RB the DT Senators NNS for IN - : was VBD for IN No DT Child NN Left VBN Behind IN , , but CC now RB he PRP 's VBZ running VBG for IN president NN , , now RB he PRP 's VBZ running VBG to TO repeal VB No NNP Child NNP Left VBD Behind IN once RB again RB . . But CC - : and CC he PRP calls VBZ it PRP a DT team NN sport NN . . He PRP has VBZ to TO go VB along RP to TO get VB along RB and CC that DT 's VBZ the DT way NN the DT team NN plays VBZ . . But CC that DT 's VBZ what WP the DT problem NN is VBZ with IN Washington NNP . . That DT 's VBZ what WP 's VBZ been VBN going VBG on RP for IN so RB long JJ . . So RB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB accept VB that DT form NN of IN government NN . . I PRP understand VBP it PRP . . That DT is VBZ the DT way NN it PRP works VBZ . . You PRP were VBD with IN the DT majority NN . . You PRP were VBD the DT Whip NNP and CC you PRP organized VBD and CC got VBD these DT votes NNS all DT passed VBN . . But CC I PRP think VBP the DT obligation NN of IN all DT of IN us PRP should MD be VB the DT oath NN of IN office NN . . We PRP should MD take VB - : and CC it PRP should MD n't RB be VB the DT oath NN to TO the DT party NN . . I PRP 'm VBP sorry JJ about IN that DT , , but CC it PRP is VBZ n't RB the DT oath NN to TO the DT party NN , , it PRP 's VBZ the DT oath NN to TO our PRP$ office NN . . To TO obey VB the DT law NN and CC the DT law NN is VBZ the DT Constitution NNP . .
newt newt direct
constitut
author govern educ
prohibit constitut state educ
posit thing
senat child presid no child
team sport
way team
problem washington
form govern
way
major
whip vote
oblig oath offic
oath parti
oath parti oath offic
law law constitut

I would say the perpetuation of the myth by the media that I can't win. [ applause ] And the total ignoring some statistics that show it to be the opposite. Just recently, there was a poll in Iowa, and it matched all the four of us up against Obama. And guess what? I did the very best. [ applause ] So I would say that is been the biggest myth. But let me tell you, though, public perception is one thing, but when you go around and talk to the American people and we have our rallies, that misconception isn't there. And I think that's the biggest misconception that I have to deal with.
I PRP would MD say VB the DT perpetuation NN of IN the DT myth NN by IN the DT media NNS that IN I PRP ca MD n't RB win VB . . And CC the DT total NN ignoring VBG some DT statistics NNS that WDT show VBP it PRP to TO be VB the DT opposite NN . . Just RB recently RB , , there EX was VBD a DT poll NN in IN Iowa NNP , , and CC it PRP matched VBD all PDT the DT four CD of IN us PRP up RP against IN Obama NNP . . And CC guess VB what WP ? . I PRP did VBD the DT very RB best JJS . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that DT is VBZ been VBN the DT biggest JJS myth NN . . But CC let VB me PRP tell VB you PRP , , though RB , , public JJ perception NN is VBZ one CD thing NN , , but CC when WRB you PRP go VBP around RB and CC talk VB to TO the DT American JJ people NNS and CC we PRP have VBP our PRP$ rallies NNS , , that DT misconception NN is VBZ n't RB there RB . . And CC I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ the DT biggest JJS misconception NN that IN I PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN . .
perpetu myth media
total statist opposit
poll iowa obama
myth
percept thing peopl ralli misconcept
misconcept

I'm Ron Paul. I'm a congressman from Texas, 12 terms. I am the champion of a sound monetary system, a gold standard, as it is under the Constitution, and a foreign policy based on strength which rejects the notion that we should be the policemen of the world and that we should be a nation builder. [ applause ]
I PRP 'm VBP Ron NNP Paul NNP . . I PRP 'm VBP a DT congressman NN from IN Texas NNP , , 12 CD terms NNS . . I PRP am VBP the DT champion NN of IN a DT sound JJ monetary JJ system NN , , a DT gold JJ standard NN , , as IN it PRP is VBZ under IN the DT Constitution NNP , , and CC a DT foreign JJ policy NN based VBN on IN strength NN which WDT rejects VBZ the DT notion NN that IN we PRP should MD be VB the DT policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN and CC that IN we PRP should MD be VB a DT nation NN builder NN . .
ron paul
congressman texa term
champion system standard constitut polici strength notion policemen world nation builder

Well, I'd talk about it, but I don't see it as being very practical. I think it's a much bigger problem. You can't deal with immigration without dealing with the economy. The weaker the economy, the more resentment there is when illegals come in. If you have a healthy, vibrant economy, it's not a problem; we're usually looking for workers. Even under today's circumstances, a lot of businesses are looking for workers and they don't have them. They're not as well-trained here. But also, the way we're handling our borders is actually hurting our economy because the businesspeople -- you know, visitors have a hard time coming in. I mean, we don't have a well-managed border. So I think we need more resources and I think most of the other candidates would agree we need more resources. But where are the resources going to come from? I have a suggestion. I think we spend way too much time worrying about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Use some of those resources on our own border. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP 'd MD talk VB about IN it PRP , , but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB it PRP as IN being VBG very RB practical JJ . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ a DT much RB bigger JJR problem NN . . You PRP ca MD n't RB deal VB with IN immigration NN without IN dealing VBG with IN the DT economy NN . . The DT weaker JJR the DT economy NN , , the DT more JJR resentment NN there EX is VBZ when WRB illegals NNS come VBP in RP . . If IN you PRP have VBP a DT healthy JJ , , vibrant JJ economy NN , , it PRP 's VBZ not RB a DT problem NN ; : we PRP 're VBP usually RB looking VBG for IN workers NNS . . Even RB under IN today NN 's POS circumstances NNS , , a DT lot NN of IN businesses NNS are VBP looking VBG for IN workers NNS and CC they PRP do VBP n't RB have VB them PRP . . They PRP 're VBP not RB as RB well-trained JJ here RB . . But CC also RB , , the DT way NN we PRP 're VBP handling VBG our PRP$ borders NNS is VBZ actually RB hurting VBG our PRP$ economy NN because IN the DT businesspeople NN -- : you PRP know VBP , , visitors NNS have VBP a DT hard JJ time NN coming VBG in RP . . I PRP mean VBP , , we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB a DT well-managed JJ border NN . . So RB I PRP think VBP we PRP need VBP more JJR resources NNS and CC I PRP think VBP most JJS of IN the DT other JJ candidates NNS would MD agree VB we PRP need VBP more JJR resources NNS . . But CC where WRB are VBP the DT resources NNS going VBG to TO come VB from IN ? . I PRP have VBP a DT suggestion NN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP spend VBP way RB too RB much JJ time NN worrying VBG about IN the DT border NN between IN Afghanistan NNP and CC Pakistan NNP . . Use VB some DT of IN those DT resources NNS on IN our PRP$ own JJ border NN . .
problem
immigr economi
economi resent illeg
economi problem worker
today circumst lot busi worker
way border economi businesspeopl visitor time
border
resourc candid resourc
resourc
suggest
time border afghanistan pakistan
resourc border

Well, I think free trade is the answer. Free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world, so I'm always promoting free trade. And you might add Cuba, too. I think we would be a lot better off with Cuba, trading with Cuba. [ applause ] So, I think the more you can do to promote this free trade, the better off we'll be. But as far as us having an obligation, a military or a financial obligation to go down and dictate to them what government they should have, I don't like that idea. I would work with the people and encourage free trade, and try to set a standard here where countries in Central America or South America or any place in the world would want to emulate us and set the standards that we have. Unfortunately, sometimes we slip up on our standards and we go around the world and we try to force ourselves on others. I don't think the nations in South America and Central America necessarily want us to come down there and dictate which government they should have. And yet, I believe with friendship and trade, you can have a lot of influence, and I strongly believe that it's time we have friendship and trade with Cuba. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP free JJ trade NN is VBZ the DT answer NN . . Free JJ trade NN is VBZ an DT answer NN to TO a DT lot NN of IN conflicts NNS around IN the DT world NN , , so IN I PRP 'm VBP always RB promoting VBG free JJ trade NN . . And CC you PRP might MD add VB Cuba NNP , , too RB . . I PRP think VBP we PRP would MD be VB a DT lot RB better JJR off RP with IN Cuba NNP , , trading VBG with IN Cuba NNP . . So RB , , I PRP think VBP the DT more RBR you PRP can MD do VB to TO promote VB this DT free JJ trade NN , , the DT better JJR off IN we PRP 'll MD be VB . . But CC as RB far RB as IN us PRP having VBG an DT obligation NN , , a DT military NN or CC a DT financial JJ obligation NN to TO go VB down RB and CC dictate VB to TO them PRP what WDT government NN they PRP should MD have VB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB that DT idea NN . . I PRP would MD work VB with IN the DT people NNS and CC encourage VB free JJ trade NN , , and CC try VB to TO set VB a DT standard NN here RB where WRB countries NNS in IN Central NNP America NNP or CC South NNP America NNP or CC any DT place NN in IN the DT world NN would MD want VB to TO emulate VB us PRP and CC set VB the DT standards NNS that IN we PRP have VBP . . Unfortunately RB , , sometimes RB we PRP slip VBP up RP on IN our PRP$ standards NNS and CC we PRP go VBP around IN the DT world NN and CC we PRP try VBP to TO force VB ourselves PRP on IN others NNS . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB the DT nations NNS in IN South NNP America NNP and CC Central NNP America NNP necessarily RB want VBP us PRP to TO come VB down RP there RB and CC dictate VB which WDT government NN they PRP should MD have VB . . And CC yet RB , , I PRP believe VBP with IN friendship NN and CC trade NN , , you PRP can MD have VB a DT lot NN of IN influence NN , , and CC I PRP strongly RB believe VBP that IN it PRP 's VBZ time NN we PRP have VBP friendship NN and CC trade NN with IN Cuba NNP . .
trade answer
trade answer lot conflict world trade
cuba
cuba cuba
trade
oblig militari oblig govern idea
peopl trade standard countri central america south america place world standard
standard world other
nation south america central america govern
friendship trade lot influenc time friendship trade cuba

The -- the senator mentioned standing up for some of these nations, but he doesn't define it, but standing up for nations like this usually means that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money. It doesn't work. Most of the time, this backfires. They resent us. We can achieve what he wants in a much different way than us using the bully attitude that you will do it our way. This is the...[ applause ] This is not a benefit to us. And besides, where do you get the troops and where are you going to get the money? Because you're talking about force. And I -- I know of a much better way than using force to get along with people.
The DT -- : the DT senator NN mentioned VBD standing VBG up RP for IN some DT of IN these DT nations NNS , , but CC he PRP does VBZ n't RB define VB it PRP , , but CC standing VBG up RP for IN nations NNS like IN this DT usually RB means VBZ that IN we PRP impose VBP ourselves PRP , , go VB and CC pick VB the DT dictators NNS , , undermine VBP certain JJ governments NNS , , also RB sending VBG them PRP a DT lot NN of IN money NN . . It PRP does VBZ n't RB work VB . . Most JJS of IN the DT time NN , , this DT backfires VBZ . . They PRP resent VBP us PRP . . We PRP can MD achieve VB what WP he PRP wants VBZ in IN a DT much RB different JJ way NN than IN us PRP using VBG the DT bully NN attitude NN that IN you PRP will MD do VB it PRP our PRP$ way NN . . This DT is VBZ the DT ... : This DT is VBZ not RB a DT benefit NN to TO us PRP . . And CC besides IN , , where WRB do VBP you PRP get VB the DT troops NNS and CC where WRB are VBP you PRP going VBG to TO get VB the DT money NN ? . Because IN you PRP 're VBP talking VBG about IN force NN . . And CC I PRP -- : I PRP know VBP of IN a DT much RB better JJR way NN than IN using VBG force NN to TO get VB along RP with IN people NNS . .
senat nation nation dictat govern lot money
time
way bulli attitud way
benefit
troop money
forc
way forc peopl

That -- that subject really doesn't interest me a whole lot. [ applause ] But the question does. The -- the question is, what are we going to do about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It should have been auctioned off right after the crash came. It would have been cleansed by now. [ applause ] It should have been sold. [ applause ] But maybe it's my physician background, but I think an ounce of prevention is what we ought to talk about so we can quit doing this. But we know how the bubble came about. It was excessive credit, interest rates held too low, too long, the Federal Reserve responsible for that. Community Reinvestment Act, which is Affirmative Action telling banks they have to make these risky loans. And at the same time, there was a line of credit which allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, you know, make more money. And it was -- it was assumed that they would always be protected. Now, you can't argue. I've talked a long time about cutting off that credit from the Fed. I was trying to prevent this stuff. [ applause ] Also, I opposed the Community Reinvestment Act, as well as I had legislation in 10 years before the bust came to remove that line of credit to the Treasury.
That DT -- : that DT subject NN really RB does VBZ n't RB interest VB me PRP a DT whole JJ lot NN . . But CC the DT question NN does VBZ . . The DT -- : the DT question NN is VBZ , , what WP are VBP we PRP going VBG to TO do VB about IN Fannie NNP Mae NNP and CC Freddie NNP Mac NNP . . It PRP should MD have VB been VBN auctioned VBN off RP right RB after IN the DT crash NN came VBD . . It PRP would MD have VB been VBN cleansed VBN by IN now RB . . It PRP should MD have VB been VBN sold VBN . . But CC maybe RB it PRP 's VBZ my PRP$ physician NN background NN , , but CC I PRP think VBP an DT ounce NN of IN prevention NN is VBZ what WP we PRP ought MD to TO talk VB about IN so RB we PRP can MD quit VB doing VBG this DT . . But CC we PRP know VBP how WRB the DT bubble NN came VBD about IN . . It PRP was VBD excessive JJ credit NN , , interest NN rates NNS held VBD too RB low JJ , , too RB long RB , , the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP responsible JJ for IN that DT . . Community NNP Reinvestment NNP Act NNP , , which WDT is VBZ Affirmative NNP Action NNP telling VBG banks NNS they PRP have VBP to TO make VB these DT risky JJ loans NNS . . And CC at IN the DT same JJ time NN , , there EX was VBD a DT line NN of IN credit NN which WDT allowed VBD Fannie NNP Mae NNP and CC Freddie NNP Mac NNP to TO , , you PRP know VBP , , make VBP more JJR money NN . . And CC it PRP was VBD -- : it PRP was VBD assumed VBN that IN they PRP would MD always RB be VB protected VBN . . Now RB , , you PRP ca MD n't RB argue VB . . I PRP 've VBP talked VBN a DT long JJ time NN about IN cutting VBG off RP that DT credit NN from IN the DT Fed NNP . . I PRP was VBD trying VBG to TO prevent VB this DT stuff NN . . Also RB , , I PRP opposed VBD the DT Community NNP Reinvestment NNP Act NNP , , as RB well RB as IN I PRP had VBD legislation NN in IN 10 CD years NNS before IN the DT bust NN came VBD to TO remove VB that DT line NN of IN credit NN to TO the DT Treasury NNP . .
subject lot
question
question fanni mae freddi mac
crash
physician background ounc prevent
bubbl
credit interest rate feder reserv
communiti reinvest act affirm action bank loan
time line credit fanni mae freddi mac money
time credit fed
stuff
communiti reinvest act legisl year bust line credit treasuri

No, he taxed too much. My goal is to get rid of the 16th amendment. And the only way you can do that...[ applause ] The only way you can do that is not run a welfare system and a warfare system in policing the world. But I do want to address this subject about taxing the rich. That is not a solution. But I understand and really empathize with the people who talk about the 99 percent and the 1 percent. Because there's a characteristic about what happens when you destroy a currency. There is a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. And this has been going on for 40 years. So the middle class is shrinking. They are getting poorer and they're losing their jobs and they're losing their houses. But Wall Street isn't getting poorer. And they are the ones who are getting the bailout. So we have to address the bailout and the system that favors a certain group over another group. If you don't have sound money and if you have a welfare state, no matter whether the welfare state is designed to help the poor, you know, the welfare system helps the wealthy. And there has been this transfer of wealth. So, if we could stop all of these transfers to the wealthy class, but the solution isn't to tax the wealthy. If you give an honest product and customers buy that product, you deserve to keep that money and earn that money. But there's a big difference between those who earn money and those who rip us off through the government and the monetary system. [ applause ]
No RB , , he PRP taxed VBD too RB much JJ . . My PRP$ goal NN is VBZ to TO get VB rid JJ of IN the DT 16th JJ amendment NN . . And CC the DT only JJ way NN you PRP can MD do VB that DT ... : The DT only JJ way NN you PRP can MD do VB that DT is VBZ not RB run VB a DT welfare NN system NN and CC a DT warfare NN system NN in IN policing VBG the DT world NN . . But CC I PRP do VBP want VB to TO address VB this DT subject NN about IN taxing VBG the DT rich JJ . . That DT is VBZ not RB a DT solution NN . . But CC I PRP understand VBP and CC really RB empathize VB with IN the DT people NNS who WP talk VBP about IN the DT 99 CD percent NN and CC the DT 1 CD percent NN . . Because IN there EX 's VBZ a DT characteristic NN about IN what WP happens VBZ when WRB you PRP destroy VBP a DT currency NN . . There EX is VBZ a DT transfer NN of IN wealth NN from IN the DT middle JJ class NN to TO the DT wealthy JJ . . And CC this DT has VBZ been VBN going VBG on RP for IN 40 CD years NNS . . So IN the DT middle JJ class NN is VBZ shrinking VBG . . They PRP are VBP getting VBG poorer JJR and CC they PRP 're VBP losing VBG their PRP$ jobs NNS and CC they PRP 're VBP losing VBG their PRP$ houses NNS . . But CC Wall NNP Street NNP is VBZ n't RB getting VBG poorer JJR . . And CC they PRP are VBP the DT ones NNS who WP are VBP getting VBG the DT bailout NN . . So RB we PRP have VBP to TO address VB the DT bailout NN and CC the DT system NN that WDT favors VBZ a DT certain JJ group NN over IN another DT group NN . . If IN you PRP do VBP n't RB have VB sound JJ money NN and CC if IN you PRP have VBP a DT welfare NN state NN , , no DT matter NN whether IN the DT welfare NN state NN is VBZ designed VBN to TO help VB the DT poor JJ , , you PRP know VBP , , the DT welfare NN system NN helps VBZ the DT wealthy JJ . . And CC there EX has VBZ been VBN this DT transfer NN of IN wealth NN . . So RB , , if IN we PRP could MD stop VB all DT of IN these DT transfers NNS to TO the DT wealthy JJ class NN , , but CC the DT solution NN is VBZ n't RB to TO tax VB the DT wealthy JJ . . If IN you PRP give VBP an DT honest JJ product NN and CC customers NNS buy VBP that DT product NN , , you PRP deserve VBP to TO keep VB that DT money NN and CC earn VB that DT money NN . . But CC there EX 's VBZ a DT big JJ difference NN between IN those DT who WP earn VBP money NN and CC those DT who WP rip VBP us PRP off RP through IN the DT government NN and CC the DT monetary JJ system NN . .
goal amend
way way welfar system warfar system world
subject
solut
peopl percent percent
characterist currenc
transfer wealth class
year
class
job hous
wall street
one bailout
bailout system group group
money welfar state matter welfar state welfar system
transfer wealth
transfer class solut
product custom product money money
differ money govern system

Oh, obviously, because it's about one page, if even that long. But...[ laughter ] But I'm willing to...[ applause ] I'm willing to challenge any of these gentlemen up here to a 25- mile bike ride any time of the day in the heat of Texas. [ applause ] And, you know -- you know, that subject has come up and sometimes in fun but sometimes not in fun. But, you know, there are laws against age discrimination, so if you push this too much, you better be careful. [ applause ]
Oh UH , , obviously RB , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ about IN one CD page NN , , if IN even RB that DT long JJ . . But CC ... : But CC I PRP 'm VBP willing JJ to TO ... : I PRP 'm VBP willing JJ to TO challenge VB any DT of IN these DT gentlemen NNS up RB here RB to TO a DT 25- JJ mile NN bike NN ride NN any DT time NN of IN the DT day NN in IN the DT heat NN of IN Texas NNP . . And CC , , you PRP know VBP -- : you PRP know VBP , , that DT subject NN has VBZ come VBN up RB and CC sometimes RB in IN fun NN but CC sometimes RB not RB in IN fun NN . . But CC , , you PRP know VBP , , there EX are VBP laws NNS against IN age NN discrimination NN , , so RB if IN you PRP push VBP this DT too RB much JJ , , you PRP better RB be VB careful JJ . .
page
gentlemen mile bike ride time day heat texa
subject fun fun
law age discrimin

Well, I don't think we should go to the moon. I think we maybe should send some politicians up there. [ applause ] But I went -- I went into the Air Force in 1962 and studied aerospace medicine. Actually had a daydream about maybe becoming the first physician to go into space. That -- that didn't occur, but I see space -- the amount of money we spend on space, the only part that I would vote for is for national defense purposes. Not to explore the moon and go to Mars. I think that's fantastic. That's -- I love those ideas. But I also don't like the idea of building government business partnerships. If we had a healthy economy and had more Bill Gateses and more Warren Buffetts, the money would be there. It should be privatized, and the people who work in the industry, if you had that, there would be jobs in aerospace. And I just think that we don't need a bigger, a newer program, when you think of the people -- I mean, health care or something else deserves a lot more priority than going to the moon. So, I would be very reluctant, but space technology should be followed up to some degree for national defense purposes, but not just for the fun of it and, you know, for -- you know, for scientific --
Well RB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB we PRP should MD go VB to TO the DT moon NN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP maybe RB should MD send VB some DT politicians NNS up RB there RB . . But CC I PRP went VBD -- : I PRP went VBD into IN the DT Air NNP Force NNP in IN 1962 CD and CC studied VBD aerospace NN medicine NN . . Actually RB had VBD a DT daydream NN about IN maybe RB becoming VBG the DT first JJ physician NN to TO go VB into IN space NN . . That DT -- : that WDT did VBD n't RB occur VB , , but CC I PRP see VBP space NN -- : the DT amount NN of IN money NN we PRP spend VBP on IN space NN , , the DT only JJ part NN that IN I PRP would MD vote VB for IN is VBZ for IN national JJ defense NN purposes NNS . . Not RB to TO explore VB the DT moon NN and CC go VB to TO Mars NNP . . I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ fantastic JJ . . That DT 's VBZ -- : I PRP love VBP those DT ideas NNS . . But CC I PRP also RB do VBP n't RB like VB the DT idea NN of IN building VBG government NN business NN partnerships NNS . . If IN we PRP had VBD a DT healthy JJ economy NN and CC had VBD more JJR Bill NNP Gateses NNPS and CC more JJR Warren NNP Buffetts NNPS , , the DT money NN would MD be VB there RB . . It PRP should MD be VB privatized VBN , , and CC the DT people NNS who WP work VBP in IN the DT industry NN , , if IN you PRP had VBD that IN , , there EX would MD be VB jobs NNS in IN aerospace NN . . And CC I PRP just RB think VBP that IN we PRP do VBP n't RB need VB a DT bigger JJR , , a DT newer JJR program NN , , when WRB you PRP think VBP of IN the DT people NNS -- : I PRP mean VBP , , health NN care NN or CC something NN else RB deserves VBZ a DT lot NN more RBR priority JJ than IN going VBG to TO the DT moon NN . . So RB , , I PRP would MD be VB very RB reluctant JJ , , but CC space NN technology NN should MD be VB followed VBN up RP to TO some DT degree NN for IN national JJ defense NN purposes NNS , , but CC not RB just RB for IN the DT fun NN of IN it PRP and CC , , you PRP know VBP , , for IN -- : you PRP know VBP , , for IN scientific JJ -- :
moon
politician
air forc aerospac medicin
daydream physician space
space amount money space part defens purpos
moon mar
idea
idea govern busi partnership
economi bill gates warren buffett money
peopl industri job aerospac
program peopl health care someth lot moon
space technolog degre defens purpos fun

I want to make a quick comment, because Newt's mentioned this quite a few times about balancing the budget for four times. I went back and looked at the record. The budget was -- the national debt during those four years actually went up about a trillion dollars. What he's talking about is, he doesn't count the money he takes out of Social Security. So, Reagan nor you had a truly balanced budget because the national debt goes up, and that's what we pay the interest on. So I think you've stretched that a little bit more than you should have. [ applause ]
I PRP want VBP to TO make VB a DT quick JJ comment NN , , because IN Newt NNP 's POS mentioned VBN this DT quite RB a DT few JJ times NNS about IN balancing VBG the DT budget NN for IN four CD times NNS . . I PRP went VBD back RB and CC looked VBD at IN the DT record NN . . The DT budget NN was VBD -- : the DT national JJ debt NN during IN those DT four CD years NNS actually RB went VBD up RP about IN a DT trillion CD dollars NNS . . What WP he PRP 's VBZ talking VBG about IN is VBZ , , he PRP does VBZ n't RB count VB the DT money NN he PRP takes VBZ out IN of IN Social NNP Security NNP . . So RB , , Reagan NNP nor CC you PRP had VBD a DT truly RB balanced JJ budget NN because IN the DT national JJ debt NN goes VBZ up RP , , and CC that DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP pay VBP the DT interest NN on IN . . So RB I PRP think VBP you PRP 've VBP stretched VBN that IN a DT little JJ bit NN more JJR than IN you PRP should MD have VB . .
comment newt time budget time
record
budget debt year dollar
money social secur
reagan budget debt interest
bit

Well, it's a tragedy because this is a consequence of the government being involved in medicine since 1965. When I was growing up, we didn't have a whole lot, but my dad had a small insurance, but medical care costs weren't that much. And you should have an opportunity -- medical care insurance should be given to you as an individual, so if you're employed or not employed, you have -- you just take care of that and you keep it up. When you lose a job, sometimes you lose your insurance. But the cost is so high. When you pump money into something, like housing, cost -- prices go up. If you pump money into education, the cost of education goes up. When the government gets involved in medicine, you don't get better care; you get -- cost goes up and it distorts the economy and leads to a crisis. But your medical care should go with you. You should get total deduction on it. It would be so much less expensive. It doesn't solve every single problem, but you're -- you're suffering from the consequence of way too much government and the cost going up because government has inflated the cost and we have a government-created recession, and that is a consequence of the business cycle.
Well RB , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT tragedy NN because IN this DT is VBZ a DT consequence NN of IN the DT government NN being VBG involved VBN in IN medicine NN since IN 1965 CD . . When WRB I PRP was VBD growing VBG up RP , , we PRP did VBD n't RB have VB a DT whole JJ lot NN , , but CC my PRP$ dad NN had VBD a DT small JJ insurance NN , , but CC medical JJ care NN costs NNS were VBD n't RB that RB much JJ . . And CC you PRP should MD have VB an DT opportunity NN -- : medical JJ care NN insurance NN should MD be VB given VBN to TO you PRP as IN an DT individual NN , , so RB if IN you PRP 're VBP employed VBN or CC not RB employed VBN , , you PRP have VBP -- : you PRP just RB take VB care NN of IN that DT and CC you PRP keep VBP it PRP up RP . . When WRB you PRP lose VBP a DT job NN , , sometimes RB you PRP lose VBP your PRP$ insurance NN . . But CC the DT cost NN is VBZ so RB high JJ . . When WRB you PRP pump VBP money NN into IN something NN , , like IN housing NN , , cost NN -- : prices NNS go VBP up RB . . If IN you PRP pump VBP money NN into IN education NN , , the DT cost NN of IN education NN goes VBZ up IN . . When WRB the DT government NN gets VBZ involved VBN in IN medicine NN , , you PRP do VBP n't RB get VB better JJR care NN ; : you PRP get VBP -- : cost NN goes VBZ up RB and CC it PRP distorts VBZ the DT economy NN and CC leads VBZ to TO a DT crisis NN . . But CC your PRP$ medical JJ care NN should MD go VB with IN you PRP . . You PRP should MD get VB total JJ deduction NN on IN it PRP . . It PRP would MD be VB so RB much RB less RBR expensive JJ . . It PRP does VBZ n't RB solve VB every DT single JJ problem NN , , but CC you PRP 're VBP -- : you PRP 're VBP suffering VBG from IN the DT consequence NN of IN way NN too RB much JJ government NN and CC the DT cost NN going VBG up RP because IN government NN has VBZ inflated VBN the DT cost NN and CC we PRP have VBP a DT government-created JJ recession NN , , and CC that DT is VBZ a DT consequence NN of IN the DT business NN cycle NN . .
tragedi consequ govern medicin
lot dad insur care cost
opportun care insur individu care
job insur
cost
money someth hous cost price
money educ cost educ
govern medicin care cost economi crisi
care
deduct
problem consequ way govern cost govern cost recess consequ busi cycl

I think they're all wrong. [ laughter ] [ applause ] I think this -- this is a typical result of when you get government involved, because all you are arguing about is which form of government you want. They have way too much confidence in government sorting this out. So, I would say there's a much better way. And that is allow the people to make their decisions and not get the government involved. You know, it has only been...[ applause ] When I started medicine, there was no Medicare or Medicaid. And nobody was out in the streets without it. Now, now people are suffering, all the complaints going on. So the government isn't our solution. So, I'm not too happy with this type of debate, trying to blame one versus the other, so, but -- most likely we're going to continue to have this problem unless we straighten out the economy. And that means...
I PRP think VBP they PRP 're VBP all DT wrong JJ . . I PRP think VBP this DT -- : this DT is VBZ a DT typical JJ result NN of IN when WRB you PRP get VBP government NN involved VBN , , because IN all DT you PRP are VBP arguing VBG about IN is VBZ which WDT form NN of IN government NN you PRP want VBP . . They PRP have VBP way RB too RB much JJ confidence NN in IN government NN sorting VBG this DT out NN . . So RB , , I PRP would MD say VB there EX 's VBZ a DT much RB better JJR way NN . . And CC that DT is VBZ allow VB the DT people NNS to TO make VB their PRP$ decisions NNS and CC not RB get VB the DT government NN involved VBN . . You PRP know VBP , , it PRP has VBZ only RB been VBN ... : When WRB I PRP started VBD medicine NN , , there EX was VBD no DT Medicare NNP or CC Medicaid NNP . . And CC nobody NN was VBD out RB in IN the DT streets NNS without IN it PRP . . Now RB , , now RB people NNS are VBP suffering VBG , , all PDT the DT complaints NNS going VBG on RP . . So IN the DT government NN is VBZ n't RB our PRP$ solution NN . . So RB , , I PRP 'm VBP not RB too RB happy JJ with IN this DT type NN of IN debate NN , , trying VBG to TO blame VB one CD versus CC the DT other JJ , , so RB , , but CC -- : most RBS likely JJ we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO continue VB to TO have VB this DT problem NN unless IN we PRP straighten VBP out RP the DT economy NN . . And CC that DT means VBZ .. NN . .
result govern form govern
confid govern out
way
peopl decis govern
medicin medicar medicaid
nobodi street
peopl complaint
govern solut
type debat problem economi

... cut the spending. And they talk about these new programs and all, but how many of the other candidates are willing to cut anything? I'm willing to cut $1 trillion out of the first year. [ applause ]
... : cut VB the DT spending NN . . And CC they PRP talk VBP about IN these DT new JJ programs NNS and CC all DT , , but CC how WRB many JJ of IN the DT other JJ candidates NNS are VBP willing JJ to TO cut VB anything NN ? . I PRP 'm VBP willing JJ to TO cut VB $ $ 1 CD trillion CD out IN of IN the DT first JJ year NN . .
spend
program candid anyth
year

I -- I -- I don't have one particular name that I'm going to bring up, but my litmus test would be to get individuals, Hispanic or otherwise to understand monetary policy and understand the system. But also the Hispanic community is especially attuned to the foreign policy of non-intervention. They -- they are more opposed to war than other communities, so I would think there's plenty in the Hispanic community that could give me good advice and an understanding of why a non-intervention foreign policy is very attractive to the Hispanic people.
I PRP -- : I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB have VB one CD particular JJ name NN that IN I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO bring VB up RP , , but CC my PRP$ litmus NN test NN would MD be VB to TO get VB individuals NNS , , Hispanic JJ or CC otherwise RB to TO understand VB monetary JJ policy NN and CC understand VB the DT system NN . . But CC also RB the DT Hispanic JJ community NN is VBZ especially RB attuned JJ to TO the DT foreign JJ policy NN of IN non-intervention NN . . They PRP -- : they PRP are VBP more RBR opposed JJ to TO war NN than IN other JJ communities NNS , , so IN I PRP would MD think VB there EX 's VBZ plenty NN in IN the DT Hispanic JJ community NN that WDT could MD give VB me PRP good JJ advice NN and CC an DT understanding NN of IN why WRB a DT non-intervention JJ foreign JJ policy NN is VBZ very RB attractive JJ to TO the DT Hispanic JJ people NNS . .
name litmus test individu polici system
communiti polici non-intervent
war communiti plenti communiti advic understand polici peopl

Well, she's been my wife for 54 years. And we're going to have an anniversary on February 1st.
Well RB , , she PRP 's VBZ been VBN my PRP$ wife NN for IN 54 CD years NNS . . And CC we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO have VB an DT anniversary NN on IN February NNP 1st CD . .
wife year
anniversari februari

So -- but she's the mother of five of our children, and she's a grandmother of 18 grandchildren, does an excellent job. And she's also the author of a very famous cookbook, "The Ron Paul Cookbook."
So RB -- : but CC she PRP 's VBZ the DT mother NN of IN five CD of IN our PRP$ children NNS , , and CC she PRP 's VBZ a DT grandmother NN of IN 18 CD grandchildren NNS , , does VBZ an DT excellent JJ job NN . . And CC she PRP 's VBZ also RB the DT author NN of IN a DT very RB famous JJ cookbook NN , , " IN The DT Ron NNP Paul NNP Cookbook NNP . . " SYM
mother children grandmoth grandchildren job
author cookbook ron paul cookbook

Well, I'd ask him what he called about, you know? [ laughter ] What was the purpose of his call? No, I would ask him what can -- what can we do to improve relations? Because I wouldn't see them as likely to attack us. When I was drafted in October of '62, that was a different world. I mean there were nuclear weapons in Cuba. That was a different story. But -- but today to -- not to talk to them and take the call and see what you can work out, helps -- helps Castro. It hurts the people, the dissidents, the people who want to overthrow him have always had to be, you know, nationalistic and unified behind the leader. So as well intended as these sanctions are, they almost inevitably backfire and they help the dictators and hurt the people. [ applause ] So it's time to change. The Cold -- the Cold War -- the Cold War is over. They're not going to invade us and I just think that a better relationship and trade relationship, so many people -- I think -- I've noticed already since I've been talking about this issue the last four of five years, I think the people have changed their mind. It's very -- the American people are getting much more open. Not nearly as frightened. And people -- I don't think they see a Jihadist under the bed every night...[ laughter ]...and we have to worry about that. I think there's -- I -- I worry about overreaction, over concern and lack of ability to talk to them when they call you.
Well RB , , I PRP 'd MD ask VB him PRP what WP he PRP called VBD about IN , , you PRP know VBP ? . What WP was VBD the DT purpose NN of IN his PRP$ call NN ? . No RB , , I PRP would MD ask VB him PRP what WP can MD -- : what WP can MD we PRP do VB to TO improve VB relations NNS ? . Because IN I PRP would MD n't RB see VB them PRP as RB likely JJ to TO attack VB us PRP . . When WRB I PRP was VBD drafted VBN in IN October NNP of IN '62 CD , , that WDT was VBD a DT different JJ world NN . . I PRP mean VBP there EX were VBD nuclear JJ weapons NNS in IN Cuba NNP . . That DT was VBD a DT different JJ story NN . . But CC -- : but CC today NN to TO -- : not RB to TO talk VB to TO them PRP and CC take VB the DT call NN and CC see VB what WP you PRP can MD work VB out RB , , helps VBZ -- : helps VBZ Castro NNP . . It PRP hurts VBZ the DT people NNS , , the DT dissidents NNS , , the DT people NNS who WP want VBP to TO overthrow VB him PRP have VB always RB had VBD to TO be VB , , you PRP know VBP , , nationalistic JJ and CC unified JJ behind IN the DT leader NN . . So RB as RB well RB intended VBN as IN these DT sanctions NNS are VBP , , they PRP almost RB inevitably RB backfire VB and CC they PRP help VBP the DT dictators NNS and CC hurt VB the DT people NNS . . So IN it PRP 's VBZ time NN to TO change VB . . The DT Cold NNP -- : the DT Cold NNP War NNP -- : the DT Cold NNP War NNP is VBZ over RB . . They PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO invade VB us PRP and CC I PRP just RB think VBP that IN a DT better JJR relationship NN and CC trade NN relationship NN , , so RB many JJ people NNS -- : I PRP think VBP -- : I PRP 've VBP noticed VBN already RB since IN I PRP 've VBP been VBN talking VBG about IN this DT issue NN the DT last JJ four CD of IN five CD years NNS , , I PRP think VBP the DT people NNS have VBP changed VBN their PRP$ mind NN . . It PRP 's VBZ very RB -- : the DT American JJ people NNS are VBP getting VBG much RB more RBR open JJ . . Not RB nearly RB as RB frightened JJ . . And CC people NNS -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB they PRP see VBP a DT Jihadist NN under IN the DT bed NN every DT night NN ... : ... : and CC we PRP have VBP to TO worry VB about IN that DT . . I PRP think VBP there EX 's VBZ -- : I PRP -- : I PRP worry VBP about IN overreaction NN , , over IN concern NN and CC lack NN of IN ability NN to TO talk VB to TO them PRP when WRB they PRP call VBP you PRP . .
purpos call
relat
octob world
weapon cuba
stori
today call castro
peopl dissid peopl leader
sanction dictat peopl
time
cold cold war cold war
relationship trade relationship peopl issu year peopl mind
peopl
peopl jihadist bed night
overreact concern lack abil

Well, my religious beliefs wouldn't affect it. My religious beliefs affect my character in the way I treat people and the way I live. The only thing it would affect...[ applause ] The only thing that would affect me in the way I operate as a president or a congressman is my oath of office and my promises that I've made to the people.
Well RB , , my PRP$ religious JJ beliefs NNS would MD n't RB affect VB it PRP . . My PRP$ religious JJ beliefs NNS affect VBP my PRP$ character NN in IN the DT way NN I PRP treat VBP people NNS and CC the DT way NN I PRP live VBP . . The DT only JJ thing NN it PRP would MD affect VB ... : The DT only JJ thing NN that WDT would MD affect VB me PRP in IN the DT way NN I PRP operate VBP as IN a DT president NN or CC a DT congressman NN is VBZ my PRP$ oath NN of IN office NN and CC my PRP$ promises NNS that IN I PRP 've VBP made VBN to TO the DT people NNS . .
belief
belief charact way peopl way
thing thing way presid congressman oath offic promis peopl

Well, you know, so far, we have some pretty good evidence that I'll do quite well and have a better chance than the rest to beat him, because if you do a national poll, I do very, very well against Obama. But one of the reasons is, is that the freedom message in the Constitution is very appealing to everybody in all political beliefs because it includes free markets, which conservatives endorse, but it also protects civil liberties, the way people run their lives. If it is a God-given life, and it's your life, you should have the right to run your life as you so choose as long as you don't harm other people. This means a lot more tolerance that some would like to give. So that brings people in who are concerned about civil liberties, and all of a sudden, my position undermines Obama completely and totally because the foreign policy is different. He promises to end the wars, but the wars expand. A constitutional foreign policy will end the wars. And if you want somebody to talk about peace and prosperity, it has to be somebody who understands money and a foreign policy and free markets. [ applause ]
Well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , so RB far RB , , we PRP have VBP some DT pretty RB good JJ evidence NN that IN I PRP 'll MD do VB quite RB well RB and CC have VBP a DT better JJR chance NN than IN the DT rest NN to TO beat VB him PRP , , because IN if IN you PRP do VBP a DT national JJ poll NN , , I PRP do VBP very RB , , very RB well RB against IN Obama NNP . . But CC one CD of IN the DT reasons NNS is VBZ , , is VBZ that IN the DT freedom NN message NN in IN the DT Constitution NNP is VBZ very RB appealing JJ to TO everybody NN in IN all DT political JJ beliefs NNS because IN it PRP includes VBZ free JJ markets NNS , , which WDT conservatives NNS endorse VBP , , but CC it PRP also RB protects VBZ civil JJ liberties NNS , , the DT way NN people NNS run VBP their PRP$ lives NNS . . If IN it PRP is VBZ a DT God-given JJ life NN , , and CC it PRP 's VBZ your PRP$ life NN , , you PRP should MD have VB the DT right NN to TO run VB your PRP$ life NN as IN you PRP so RB choose VB as RB long RB as IN you PRP do VBP n't RB harm VB other JJ people NNS . . This DT means VBZ a DT lot NN more JJR tolerance NN that IN some DT would MD like VB to TO give VB . . So IN that DT brings VBZ people NNS in IN who WP are VBP concerned VBN about IN civil JJ liberties NNS , , and CC all DT of IN a DT sudden JJ , , my PRP$ position NN undermines VBZ Obama NNP completely RB and CC totally RB because IN the DT foreign JJ policy NN is VBZ different JJ . . He PRP promises VBZ to TO end VB the DT wars NNS , , but CC the DT wars NNS expand VBP . . A DT constitutional JJ foreign JJ policy NN will MD end VB the DT wars NNS . . And CC if IN you PRP want VBP somebody NN to TO talk VB about IN peace NN and CC prosperity NN , , it PRP has VBZ to TO be VB somebody NN who WP understands VBZ money NN and CC a DT foreign JJ policy NN and CC free JJ markets NNS . .
evid chanc rest poll obama
reason freedom messag constitut everybodi belief market conserv liberti way peopl live
life life right life peopl
lot toler
peopl liberti posit obama polici
war war
polici war
somebodi peac prosper somebodi money polici market

Well, unlike others, maybe they sit around and daydream about being in the White House. I just don't sit around daydreaming about it, but I'm in a race, I'm in a good race. You talk about electability. Why don't we take on the first three states and take everybody 30 years and under? I'm doing pretty darned well. I'm winning that vote. But what about if you compare my name to Obama? I do quite well, if not better, than the rest. So, to say that there has only been three races, and talk about not being electable, I think is a bit of a stretch. As a matter of fact, the delegates haven't even been appointed in Iowa yet. I mean, quite frankly, we have a pretty good chance of getting a good sum of those because of the organization. We only had a straw vote. I mean, this argument on who won, it was a straw vote. I mean, the delegates is what counts. But I do want to address the earlier discussion that you had about 1997. I had been out of Congress for 12 years, and I went back in '96 and arrived there in '97. It was chaotic, let me tell you. It was a mess, and it was a mess for 12 years. And Newt had a big job on his hands, but he really had to attack the conservatives. He did it boldly. And quite frankly, I think the reason -- he didn't not run for Speaker, you know, two years later. He didn't have the votes. That was what the problem was. So this idea that he voluntarily reneged and he was going to punish himself because we didn't do well in the election, that's just not the way it was.
Well RB , , unlike IN others NNS , , maybe RB they PRP sit VBP around RB and CC daydream VB about IN being VBG in IN the DT White NNP House NNP . . I PRP just RB do VBP n't RB sit VB around IN daydreaming VBG about IN it PRP , , but CC I PRP 'm VBP in IN a DT race NN , , I PRP 'm VBP in IN a DT good JJ race NN . . You PRP talk VBP about IN electability NN . . Why WRB do VBP n't RB we PRP take VB on RP the DT first JJ three CD states NNS and CC take VB everybody NN 30 CD years NNS and CC under IN ? . I PRP 'm VBP doing VBG pretty RB darned RB well RB . . I PRP 'm VBP winning VBG that DT vote NN . . But CC what WP about IN if IN you PRP compare VBP my PRP$ name NN to TO Obama NNP ? . I PRP do VBP quite RB well RB , , if IN not RB better JJR , , than IN the DT rest NN . . So RB , , to TO say VB that IN there EX has VBZ only RB been VBN three CD races NNS , , and CC talk VB about IN not RB being VBG electable JJ , , I PRP think VBP is VBZ a DT bit NN of IN a DT stretch NN . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , the DT delegates NNS have VBP n't RB even RB been VBN appointed VBN in IN Iowa NNP yet RB . . I PRP mean VBP , , quite RB frankly RB , , we PRP have VBP a DT pretty RB good JJ chance NN of IN getting VBG a DT good JJ sum NN of IN those DT because IN of IN the DT organization NN . . We PRP only RB had VBD a DT straw NN vote NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , this DT argument NN on IN who WP won VBD , , it PRP was VBD a DT straw NN vote NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , the DT delegates NNS is VBZ what WP counts VBZ . . But CC I PRP do VBP want VB to TO address VB the DT earlier JJR discussion NN that IN you PRP had VBD about IN 1997 CD . . I PRP had VBD been VBN out IN of IN Congress NNP for IN 12 CD years NNS , , and CC I PRP went VBD back RB in IN '96 CD and CC arrived VBD there RB in IN '97 CD . . It PRP was VBD chaotic JJ , , let VB me PRP tell VB you PRP . . It PRP was VBD a DT mess NN , , and CC it PRP was VBD a DT mess NN for IN 12 CD years NNS . . And CC Newt NNP had VBD a DT big JJ job NN on IN his PRP$ hands NNS , , but CC he PRP really RB had VBD to TO attack VB the DT conservatives NNS . . He PRP did VBD it PRP boldly RB . . And CC quite RB frankly RB , , I PRP think VBP the DT reason NN -- : he PRP did VBD n't RB not RB run VB for IN Speaker NNP , , you PRP know VBP , , two CD years NNS later RB . . He PRP did VBD n't RB have VB the DT votes NNS . . That DT was VBD what WP the DT problem NN was VBD . . So RB this DT idea NN that IN he PRP voluntarily RB reneged VBD and CC he PRP was VBD going VBG to TO punish VB himself PRP because IN we PRP did VBD n't RB do VB well RB in IN the DT election NN , , that DT 's VBZ just RB not RB the DT way NN it PRP was VBD . .
other white hous
race race
elect
state everybodi year
vote
name obama
rest
race bit stretch
matter fact deleg iowa
chanc sum organ
straw vote
argument straw vote
deleg
discuss
congress year
mess mess year
newt job hand conserv
reason speaker year
vote
problem
idea elect way

Well, I have done a lot of that in my lifetime.
Well RB , , I PRP have VBP done VBN a DT lot NN of IN that DT in IN my PRP$ lifetime NN . .
lot lifetim

I have no plans to do that, no intention. And when I have been pressed on it, and they asked me why, and I said, I don't want to. But I haven't been an absolutist. When I left Congress, I didn't have plans on going back, but I did after 12 years. I went back to medicine. So, no, I don't have any plans to do that. No.
I PRP have VBP no DT plans NNS to TO do VB that DT , , no DT intention NN . . And CC when WRB I PRP have VBP been VBN pressed VBN on IN it PRP , , and CC they PRP asked VBD me PRP why WRB , , and CC I PRP said VBD , , I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO . . But CC I PRP have VBP n't RB been VBN an DT absolutist NN . . When WRB I PRP left VBD Congress NNP , , I PRP did VBD n't RB have VB plans NNS on IN going VBG back RB , , but CC I PRP did VBD after IN 12 CD years NNS . . I PRP went VBD back RB to TO medicine NN . . So RB , , no DT , , I PRP do VBP n't RB have VB any DT plans NNS to TO do VB that DT . . No DT . .
plan intent
absolutist
congress plan year
medicin
plan

Well, he keeps hinting about attacking the Fed, and he talks about gold. Now if I could just change him on foreign policy, we might be able to talk business. [ laughter ]
Well RB , , he PRP keeps VBZ hinting VBG about IN attacking VBG the DT Fed NNP , , and CC he PRP talks VBZ about IN gold NN . . Now RB if IN I PRP could MD just RB change VB him PRP on IN foreign JJ policy NN , , we PRP might MD be VB able JJ to TO talk VB business NN . .
fed gold
polici busi

Well, the government owes them a free market and a sound monetary system, but they didn't give it to them. They gave them a mess. They gave them a financial system that literally created this problem. And it was compounded -- first, the line of credit to the -- to the Federal Reserve, it was excessive. Everybody now admits in Washington interest rates were kept too low, too long. But not only that, in addition to that, it was an insult to injury, because they kept interest rates especially low with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and there was a line of credit there, and it was a guarantee. As a matter of fact, I had introduced legislation 10 years before the bubble burst to eliminate that line of credit. But then the Community Reinvestment Act added more fuel to it, you know, forcing banks to make loans that are risky loans. So the whole bubble was easily seen. The consequences were anticipated. It was all government manufactured. But the question is, is what do you do after you come upon a mess that the government and the politicians created? The best thing you can do is get out of the way, because you want the prices to come down so that people will start buying them again, but politicians can't allow that to happen. Our policies in Washington still has been to try to stimulate houses and keep -- keep prices up. But this whole thing about how we get involved in this low interest rate to stimulate the economy, almost everybody in Washington now in almost all spectrums of the economic sphere do not believe in wage and price controls, but they believe in controlling interest rates. That's one-half of the whole economy, and here we have a bunch of guys getting in a room in secret, deciding what interest rates should be, and they create this mess. So, yes, we need to get out of the way, but instead the debt has to be liquidated. The mortgage derivatives was a monster. A lot of people made a lot of money on that. But guess what? The Federal Reserve, to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars, as well as TARP funds, were used to bail out the people that made all this money. Guess what happened to the bad debt? It should have been wiped off the book. They should have gone bankrupt. It was dumped on the taxpayers, and the taxpayers still have it. And as long as you maintain that debt on the books, you're not going to have growth. This is why Japan hasn't recovered. We're in four years now, and it's going to continue until we understand who creates the business cycle, how it happens, and what you have to do to get out of it.
Well RB , , the DT government NN owes VBZ them PRP a DT free JJ market NN and CC a DT sound JJ monetary JJ system NN , , but CC they PRP did VBD n't RB give VB it PRP to TO them PRP . . They PRP gave VBD them PRP a DT mess NN . . They PRP gave VBD them PRP a DT financial JJ system NN that WDT literally RB created VBD this DT problem NN . . And CC it PRP was VBD compounded VBN -- : first RB , , the DT line NN of IN credit NN to TO the DT -- : to TO the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , it PRP was VBD excessive JJ . . Everybody NN now RB admits VBZ in IN Washington NNP interest NN rates NNS were VBD kept VBN too RB low JJ , , too RB long RB . . But CC not RB only RB that IN , , in IN addition NN to TO that DT , , it PRP was VBD an DT insult NN to TO injury NN , , because IN they PRP kept VBD interest NN rates NNS especially RB low JJ with IN Freddie NNP Mac NNP and CC Fannie NNP Mae NNP , , and CC there EX was VBD a DT line NN of IN credit NN there RB , , and CC it PRP was VBD a DT guarantee NN . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , I PRP had VBD introduced VBN legislation NN 10 CD years NNS before IN the DT bubble NN burst NN to TO eliminate VB that DT line NN of IN credit NN . . But CC then RB the DT Community NNP Reinvestment NNP Act NNP added VBD more JJR fuel NN to TO it PRP , , you PRP know VBP , , forcing VBG banks NNS to TO make VB loans NNS that WDT are VBP risky JJ loans NNS . . So IN the DT whole JJ bubble NN was VBD easily RB seen VBN . . The DT consequences NNS were VBD anticipated VBN . . It PRP was VBD all DT government NN manufactured VBD . . But CC the DT question NN is VBZ , , is VBZ what WP do VBP you PRP do VB after IN you PRP come VBP upon IN a DT mess NN that IN the DT government NN and CC the DT politicians NNS created VBN ? . The DT best JJS thing NN you PRP can MD do VB is VBZ get VB out IN of IN the DT way NN , , because IN you PRP want VBP the DT prices NNS to TO come VB down RP so RB that IN people NNS will MD start VB buying VBG them PRP again RB , , but CC politicians NNS ca MD n't RB allow VB that DT to TO happen VB . . Our PRP$ policies NNS in IN Washington NNP still RB has VBZ been VBN to TO try VB to TO stimulate VB houses NNS and CC keep VB -- : keep VB prices NNS up RP . . But CC this DT whole JJ thing NN about IN how WRB we PRP get VBP involved VBN in IN this DT low JJ interest NN rate NN to TO stimulate VB the DT economy NN , , almost RB everybody NN in IN Washington NNP now RB in IN almost RB all DT spectrums NNS of IN the DT economic JJ sphere NN do VBP not RB believe VB in IN wage NN and CC price NN controls NNS , , but CC they PRP believe VBP in IN controlling VBG interest NN rates NNS . . That DT 's VBZ one-half NN of IN the DT whole JJ economy NN , , and CC here RB we PRP have VBP a DT bunch NN of IN guys NNS getting VBG in IN a DT room NN in IN secret NN , , deciding VBG what WP interest NN rates NNS should MD be VB , , and CC they PRP create VBP this DT mess NN . . So RB , , yes UH , , we PRP need VBP to TO get VB out IN of IN the DT way NN , , but CC instead RB the DT debt NN has VBZ to TO be VB liquidated VBN . . The DT mortgage NN derivatives NNS was VBD a DT monster NN . . A DT lot NN of IN people NNS made VBD a DT lot NN of IN money NN on IN that DT . . But CC guess VB what WP ? . The DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , to TO the DT tune NN of IN trillions NNS and CC trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS , , as RB well RB as IN TARP NNP funds NNS , , were VBD used VBN to TO bail VB out RP the DT people NNS that WDT made VBD all PDT this DT money NN . . Guess NNP what WP happened VBD to TO the DT bad JJ debt NN ? . It PRP should MD have VB been VBN wiped VBN off IN the DT book NN . . They PRP should MD have VB gone VBN bankrupt JJ . . It PRP was VBD dumped VBN on IN the DT taxpayers NNS , , and CC the DT taxpayers NNS still RB have VBP it PRP . . And CC as RB long RB as IN you PRP maintain VBP that DT debt NN on IN the DT books NNS , , you PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO have VB growth NN . . This DT is VBZ why WRB Japan NNP has VBZ n't RB recovered VBN . . We PRP 're VBP in IN four CD years NNS now RB , , and CC it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO continue VB until IN we PRP understand VBP who WP creates VBZ the DT business NN cycle NN , , how WRB it PRP happens VBZ , , and CC what WP you PRP have VBP to TO do VB to TO get VB out IN of IN it PRP . .
govern market system
mess
system problem
line credit feder reserv
everybodi washington interest rate
addit insult injuri interest rate freddi mac fanni mae line credit guarante
matter fact legisl year bubbl burst line credit
communiti reinvest act fuel bank loan loan
bubbl
consequ
govern
question mess govern politician
thing way price peopl politician
polici washington hous price
thing interest rate economi everybodi washington spectrum sphere wage price control interest rate
one-half economi bunch guy room secret interest rate mess
way debt
mortgag deriv monster
lot peopl lot money
feder reserv tune trillion trillion dollar tarp fund peopl money
guess debt
book
taxpay taxpay
debt book growth
japan
year busi cycl

I -- I have a little bit of work to do yet on him on foreign policy. [ laughter ] [ applause ] No, I would do pretty much the opposite. I don't like the isolationism of not talking to people. I was drafted in 1962 at the height of the Cold War when the missiles were in Cuba. And the Cold War's over. And I think we propped up Castro for 40-some years because we put on these sanctions, and this -- only used us as a scapegoat. He could always say, anything wrong, it's the United States' fault. But I think it's time -- time to quit this isolation business of not talking to people. We talked to the Soviets. We talk to the Chinese. And we opened up trade, and we're not killing each other now. We fought with the Vietnamese for a long time. We finally gave up, started talking to them, now we trade with them. I don't know why -- why the Cuban people should be so intimidating. I -- I don't know where you get this assumption that all of a sudden all the Cubans would come up here. I would probably think they were going to celebrate and they're going to have a lot more freedom if we would only open up our doors and say, we want to talk to you, and trade with you, and come visit. Sometimes they can't even send packages down there. I -- I think we're living in the dark ages when we can't even talk to the Cuban people. I think it's not 1962 anymore. And we don't have to use force and intimidation and overthrow of a -- in governments. I just don't think that's going to work.
I PRP -- : I PRP have VBP a DT little JJ bit NN of IN work NN to TO do VB yet RB on IN him PRP on IN foreign JJ policy NN . . No RB , , I PRP would MD do VB pretty RB much RB the DT opposite NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB the DT isolationism NN of IN not RB talking VBG to TO people NNS . . I PRP was VBD drafted VBN in IN 1962 CD at IN the DT height NN of IN the DT Cold NNP War NNP when WRB the DT missiles NNS were VBD in IN Cuba NNP . . And CC the DT Cold NNP War NNP 's POS over RP . . And CC I PRP think VBP we PRP propped VBD up RP Castro NNP for IN 40-some JJ years NNS because IN we PRP put VBP on IN these DT sanctions NNS , , and CC this DT -- : only RB used VBD us PRP as IN a DT scapegoat NN . . He PRP could MD always RB say VB , , anything NN wrong JJ , , it PRP 's VBZ the DT United NNP States NNPS ' POS fault NN . . But CC I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ time NN -- : time NN to TO quit VB this DT isolation NN business NN of IN not RB talking VBG to TO people NNS . . We PRP talked VBD to TO the DT Soviets NNPS . . We PRP talk VBP to TO the DT Chinese NNPS . . And CC we PRP opened VBD up RP trade NN , , and CC we PRP 're VBP not RB killing VBG each DT other JJ now RB . . We PRP fought VBD with IN the DT Vietnamese NNS for IN a DT long JJ time NN . . We PRP finally RB gave VBD up RP , , started VBD talking VBG to TO them PRP , , now RB we PRP trade VBP with IN them PRP . . I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB why WRB -- : why WRB the DT Cuban JJ people NNS should MD be VB so RB intimidating JJ . . I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB where WRB you PRP get VBP this DT assumption NN that IN all DT of IN a DT sudden JJ all PDT the DT Cubans NNPS would MD come VB up RP here RB . . I PRP would MD probably RB think VB they PRP were VBD going VBG to TO celebrate VB and CC they PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO have VB a DT lot NN more JJR freedom NN if IN we PRP would MD only RB open VB up RP our PRP$ doors NNS and CC say VB , , we PRP want VBP to TO talk VB to TO you PRP , , and CC trade NN with IN you PRP , , and CC come VB visit NN . . Sometimes RB they PRP ca MD n't RB even RB send VB packages NNS down RB there RB . . I PRP -- : I PRP think VBP we PRP 're VBP living VBG in IN the DT dark JJ ages NNS when WRB we PRP ca MD n't RB even RB talk VB to TO the DT Cuban JJ people NNS . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ not RB 1962 CD anymore RB . . And CC we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB to TO use VB force NN and CC intimidation NN and CC overthrow VB of IN a DT -- : in IN governments NNS . . I PRP just RB do VBP n't RB think VB that DT 's VBZ going VBG to TO work VB . .
bit work polici
opposit
isolation peopl
height cold war missil cuba
cold war
castro year sanction scapegoat
anyth unit state fault
time time isol busi peopl
soviet
chines
trade
vietnames time
peopl
assumpt cuban
lot freedom door trade visit
packag
age peopl
forc intimid govern

No, but I wanted to get involved in the discussion.
No RB , , but CC I PRP wanted VBD to TO get VB involved VBN in IN the DT discussion NN . .
discuss

Because the question was, you know, would you go to war? And Mitt said he would -- he would go to war. But you have to think about the preliminary act that might cause them to want to close the Straits of Hormuz, and that's the blockade. We're blockading them. Can you imagine what we would do if somebody blockaded the Gulf of Mexico? That would be an act of war. So the act of war has already been committed and this is a retaliation. But besides, there's no interest whatsoever for Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz. I mean they need it as much as we do. I mean so you have to put that into perspective. But this whole idea that -- that it's - - we -- we have to go to war because we've already committed an act by blockading the country and I -- I don't see -- I -- I -- and -- and I think Newt is right. I think he's wrong about World War II, I think the people were ready because we did it properly. We declared it and we won it quickly. But, not the people are not ready. We don't have any money. We have too many wars. We -- the people want to come home and they certainly don't want a hot war in Iran right now and I -- I think that would be the most foolish thing in the world to do right now is take on Iran.
Because IN the DT question NN was VBD , , you PRP know VBP , , would MD you PRP go VB to TO war NN ? . And CC Mitt NNP said VBD he PRP would MD -- : he PRP would MD go VB to TO war NN . . But CC you PRP have VBP to TO think VB about IN the DT preliminary JJ act NN that WDT might MD cause VB them PRP to TO want VB to TO close VB the DT Straits NNP of IN Hormuz NNP , , and CC that DT 's VBZ the DT blockade NN . . We PRP 're VBP blockading VBG them PRP . . Can MD you PRP imagine VB what WP we PRP would MD do VB if IN somebody NN blockaded VBD the DT Gulf NNP of IN Mexico NNP ? . That DT would MD be VB an DT act NN of IN war NN . . So IN the DT act NN of IN war NN has VBZ already RB been VBN committed VBN and CC this DT is VBZ a DT retaliation NN . . But CC besides IN , , there EX 's VBZ no DT interest NN whatsoever RB for IN Iran NNP to TO close VB the DT Straits NNP of IN Hormuz NNP . . I PRP mean VBP they PRP need VBP it PRP as RB much JJ as IN we PRP do VBP . . I PRP mean VBP so RB you PRP have VBP to TO put VB that IN into IN perspective NN . . But CC this DT whole JJ idea NN that IN -- : that IN it PRP 's VBZ - : - : we PRP -- : we PRP have VBP to TO go VB to TO war NN because IN we PRP 've VBP already RB committed VBN an DT act NN by IN blockading VBG the DT country NN and CC I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB -- : I PRP -- : I PRP -- : and CC -- : and CC I PRP think VBP Newt NNP is VBZ right JJ . . I PRP think VBP he PRP 's VBZ wrong JJ about IN World NNP War NNP II NNP , , I PRP think VBP the DT people NNS were VBD ready JJ because IN we PRP did VBD it PRP properly RB . . We PRP declared VBD it PRP and CC we PRP won VBD it PRP quickly RB . . But CC , , not RB the DT people NNS are VBP not RB ready JJ . . We PRP do VBP n't RB have VB any DT money NN . . We PRP have VBP too RB many JJ wars NNS . . We PRP -- : the DT people NNS want VBP to TO come VB home NN and CC they PRP certainly RB do VBP n't RB want VB a DT hot JJ war NN in IN Iran NNP right RB now RB and CC I PRP -- : I PRP think VBP that DT would MD be VB the DT most RBS foolish JJ thing NN in IN the DT world NN to TO do VB right RB now RB is VBZ take NN on IN Iran NNP . .
question war
mitt war
act strait hormuz blockad
somebodi gulf mexico
act war
act war retali
interest iran strait hormuz
perspect
idea war act countri newt
world war ii peopl
peopl
money
war
peopl home war iran thing world take iran

Yes, my answer is similar, but a little bit different, because at the national level, obviously we have to have one language. I mean, we can't have multiple languages. So, for legal reasons, we would have one language. But our system really gives us a way to be more generous, because if Florida wanted to have some ballots in Spanish, I certainly wouldn't support a federal law that would prohibit Florida from accommodating a city election or a local election or a state election. I think that's the magnificence of our system, where you can solve some of these problems without dictating one answer for all states. But nationally, we should have one language.
Yes RB , , my PRP$ answer NN is VBZ similar JJ , , but CC a DT little JJ bit NN different JJ , , because IN at IN the DT national JJ level NN , , obviously RB we PRP have VBP to TO have VB one CD language NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , we PRP ca MD n't RB have VB multiple JJ languages NNS . . So RB , , for IN legal JJ reasons NNS , , we PRP would MD have VB one CD language NN . . But CC our PRP$ system NN really RB gives VBZ us PRP a DT way NN to TO be VB more RBR generous JJ , , because IN if IN Florida NNP wanted VBD to TO have VB some DT ballots NNS in IN Spanish NNP , , I PRP certainly RB would MD n't RB support VB a DT federal JJ law NN that WDT would MD prohibit VB Florida NNP from IN accommodating VBG a DT city NN election NN or CC a DT local JJ election NN or CC a DT state NN election NN . . I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ the DT magnificence NN of IN our PRP$ system NN , , where WRB you PRP can MD solve VB some DT of IN these DT problems NNS without IN dictating NN one CD answer NN for IN all DT states NNS . . But CC nationally RB , , we PRP should MD have VB one CD language NN . .
answer bit level languag
languag
reason languag
system way florida ballot spanish law florida citi elect elect state elect
magnific system problem dictat answer state
languag

Sure. I -- I don't see any reason to go after that. I would still look into the details on whether that could be a state issue or not. But with all the wars going on, and the economy is in shambles, as it is, and the unemployment, to -- to worry about dealing with that program, we could do it in a theoretical sense. But I would see no reason to, you know, complicate things. But I wouldn't have any desire to interfere with that.
Sure JJ . . I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB any DT reason NN to TO go VB after IN that DT . . I PRP would MD still RB look VB into IN the DT details NNS on IN whether IN that DT could MD be VB a DT state NN issue NN or CC not RB . . But CC with IN all PDT the DT wars NNS going VBG on IN , , and CC the DT economy NN is VBZ in IN shambles NN , , as IN it PRP is VBZ , , and CC the DT unemployment NN , , to TO -- : to TO worry VB about IN dealing VBG with IN that DT program NN , , we PRP could MD do VB it PRP in IN a DT theoretical JJ sense NN . . But CC I PRP would MD see VB no DT reason NN to TO , , you PRP know VBP , , complicate VBP things NNS . . But CC I PRP would MD n't RB have VB any DT desire NN to TO interfere VB with IN that DT . .
reason
detail state issu
war economi shambl unemploy program sens
reason thing
desir

I find it so unfortunate, so unusual, too. That situation doesn't come up very often. It should teach us all a lesson to have living wills or a good conversation with a spouse. I would want my spouse to make the decision. And -- but it's better to have a living will. But I don't like going up the ladder. You know, we go to the federal courts, and the Congress, and on up. Yes, difficult decisions. Will it be perfect for everybody? No. But I would have preferred to see the decision made at the state level. But I've been involved in medicine with things similar, but not quite as difficult as this. But usually, we deferred to the family. And it wasn't made a big issue like this was. This was way out of proportion to what happens more routinely. But I think it should urge us all to try to plan for this and make sure either that one individual that's closest to you makes the decision or you sign a living will. And this would have solved the whole problem.
I PRP find VBP it PRP so RB unfortunate JJ , , so RB unusual JJ , , too RB . . That DT situation NN does VBZ n't RB come VB up RP very RB often RB . . It PRP should MD teach VB us PRP all PDT a DT lesson NN to TO have VB living NN wills NNS or CC a DT good JJ conversation NN with IN a DT spouse NN . . I PRP would MD want VB my PRP$ spouse NN to TO make VB the DT decision NN . . And CC -- : but CC it PRP 's VBZ better JJR to TO have VB a DT living JJ will NN . . But CC I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB going VBG up RP the DT ladder NN . . You PRP know VBP , , we PRP go VBP to TO the DT federal JJ courts NNS , , and CC the DT Congress NNP , , and CC on IN up IN . . Yes RB , , difficult JJ decisions NNS . . Will MD it PRP be VB perfect JJ for IN everybody NN ? . No DT . . But CC I PRP would MD have VB preferred VBN to TO see VB the DT decision NN made VBN at IN the DT state NN level NN . . But CC I PRP 've VBP been VBN involved VBN in IN medicine NN with IN things NNS similar JJ , , but CC not RB quite RB as RB difficult JJ as IN this DT . . But CC usually RB , , we PRP deferred VBD to TO the DT family NN . . And CC it PRP was VBD n't RB made VBD a DT big JJ issue NN like IN this DT was VBD . . This DT was VBD way NN out IN of IN proportion NN to TO what WP happens VBZ more RBR routinely RB . . But CC I PRP think VBP it PRP should MD urge VB us PRP all DT to TO try VB to TO plan VB for IN this DT and CC make VB sure JJ either CC that IN one CD individual NN that WDT 's VBZ closest JJS to TO you PRP makes VBZ the DT decision NN or CC you PRP sign VBP a DT living VBG will NN . . And CC this DT would MD have VB solved VBN the DT whole JJ problem NN . .
situat
lesson live will convers spous
spous decis
will
ladder
court congress
decis
everybodi
decis state level
medicin thing
famili
issu
way proport
individu decis will
problem

Well, I think the problem is, is nobody has defined what being conservative means.
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP the DT problem NN is VBZ , , is VBZ nobody NN has VBZ defined VBN what WP being VBG conservative JJ means NNS . .
problem nobodi mean

And I think that is our problem. Conservative means we have a smaller government and more liberty. And yet, if you ask, what have we done? I think we have lost our way. Our rhetoric is still pretty good, but when we get in charge, we expand the government. You talk about Dodd-Frank, but we gave Sarbanes- Oxley. We gave debts as well, you know, when we're in charge. So, if it means limited government, you have to ask the basic question, what should the role of government be? The founders asked that question, had a revolution and wrote a Constitution. And they said the role of government ought to be to protect liberty. It's not to run a welfare state and not to be the policemen of the world. And so if you're a conservative, how can you be conservative and cut food stamps, but you won't cut spending overseas? There is not a nickel or a penny that anybody will cut on the conservative side, overseas spending. And we don't have the money. They are willing to start more wars. So, I say, if you're conservative, you want small government across the board, especially in personal liberty. What's wrong with having the government out of our personal lives? So, this is what -- we have to decide what conservative means, what limited government means. And I have a simple suggestion. We have a pretty good guide, and if we follow the Constitution, government would be very small and we would all be devoted conservatives.
And CC I PRP think VBP that DT is VBZ our PRP$ problem NN . . Conservative NNP means VBZ we PRP have VBP a DT smaller JJR government NN and CC more JJR liberty NN . . And CC yet RB , , if IN you PRP ask VBP , , what WP have VBP we PRP done VBN ? . I PRP think VBP we PRP have VBP lost VBN our PRP$ way NN . . Our PRP$ rhetoric NN is VBZ still RB pretty RB good JJ , , but CC when WRB we PRP get VBP in IN charge NN , , we PRP expand VBP the DT government NN . . You PRP talk VBP about IN Dodd-Frank NNP , , but CC we PRP gave VBD Sarbanes- NNP Oxley NNP . . We PRP gave VBD debts NNS as RB well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , when WRB we PRP 're VBP in IN charge NN . . So RB , , if IN it PRP means VBZ limited JJ government NN , , you PRP have VBP to TO ask VB the DT basic JJ question NN , , what WP should MD the DT role NN of IN government NN be VB ? . The DT founders NNS asked VBD that DT question NN , , had VBD a DT revolution NN and CC wrote VBD a DT Constitution NNP . . And CC they PRP said VBD the DT role NN of IN government NN ought MD to TO be VB to TO protect VB liberty NN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB to TO run VB a DT welfare NN state NN and CC not RB to TO be VB the DT policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN . . And CC so RB if IN you PRP 're VBP a DT conservative JJ , , how WRB can MD you PRP be VB conservative JJ and CC cut JJ food NN stamps NNS , , but CC you PRP wo MD n't RB cut VB spending NN overseas RB ? . There EX is VBZ not RB a DT nickel NN or CC a DT penny NN that DT anybody NN will MD cut VB on IN the DT conservative JJ side NN , , overseas JJ spending NN . . And CC we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB the DT money NN . . They PRP are VBP willing JJ to TO start VB more JJR wars NNS . . So RB , , I PRP say VBP , , if IN you PRP 're VBP conservative JJ , , you PRP want VBP small JJ government NN across IN the DT board NN , , especially RB in IN personal JJ liberty NN . . What WP 's VBZ wrong JJ with IN having VBG the DT government NN out IN of IN our PRP$ personal JJ lives NNS ? . So RB , , this DT is VBZ what WP -- : we PRP have VBP to TO decide VB what WP conservative JJ means NNS , , what WP limited JJ government NN means VBZ . . And CC I PRP have VBP a DT simple JJ suggestion NN . . We PRP have VBP a DT pretty RB good JJ guide NN , , and CC if IN we PRP follow VBP the DT Constitution NNP , , government NN would MD be VB very RB small JJ and CC we PRP would MD all DT be VB devoted JJ conservatives NNS . .
problem
conserv govern liberti
way
rhetor charg govern
dodd-frank sarbanes- oxley
debt charg
govern question role govern
founder question revolut constitut
role govern liberti
welfar state policemen world
food stamp spend
nickel penni anybodi side spend
money
war
govern board liberti
govern live
mean govern
suggest
guid constitut govern conserv

Thank you very much. It's great to be here tonight. I'm a congressman from Texas. I've been elected for 12 times. And also, I practiced OB/GYN for a 30-year period. I've also served five years in the military, and I'm the only U.S. veteran on this stage tonight. [ applause ]
Thank VB you PRP very RB much RB . . It PRP 's VBZ great JJ to TO be VB here RB tonight RB . . I PRP 'm VBP a DT congressman NN from IN Texas NNP . . I PRP 've VBP been VBN elected VBN for IN 12 CD times NNS . . And CC also RB , , I PRP practiced VBD OB/GYN NNP for IN a DT 30-year JJ period NN . . I PRP 've VBP also RB served VBN five CD years NNS in IN the DT military NN , , and CC I PRP 'm VBP the DT only RB U.S JJ . . veteran NN on IN this DT stage NN tonight NN . .
congressman texa
time
ob/gyn period
year militari
veteran stage tonight

I think too often all of us are on the receiving ends of attacks from the media. It's very disturbing because sometimes they're not based on facts and we suffer the consequences. You know, sometimes it reminds me of this idea of getting corporations out of running campaigns. But what about the corporations that run the media? I mean, they're always...[ applause ] And I think our responsibility, since sorting facts and fiction, the people have to sort this out. But I think setting standards are very important and I'm very proud that my wife of 54 years is with me tonight. [ applause ]
I PRP think VBP too RB often RB all DT of IN us PRP are VBP on IN the DT receiving VBG ends NNS of IN attacks NNS from IN the DT media NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ very RB disturbing JJ because IN sometimes RB they PRP 're VBP not RB based VBN on IN facts NNS and CC we PRP suffer VBP the DT consequences NNS . . You PRP know VBP , , sometimes RB it PRP reminds VBZ me PRP of IN this DT idea NN of IN getting VBG corporations NNS out IN of IN running VBG campaigns NNS . . But CC what WP about IN the DT corporations NNS that WDT run VBP the DT media NNS ? . I PRP mean VBP , , they PRP 're VBP always RB ... : And CC I PRP think VBP our PRP$ responsibility NN , , since IN sorting VBG facts NNS and CC fiction NN , , the DT people NNS have VBP to TO sort VB this DT out NN . . But CC I PRP think VBP setting VBG standards NNS are VBP very RB important JJ and CC I PRP 'm VBP very RB proud JJ that IN my PRP$ wife NN of IN 54 CD years NNS is VBZ with IN me PRP tonight RB . .
end attack media
fact consequ
idea corpor campaign
corpor media
respons fact fiction peopl out
standard wife year

Well, most of the things the federal government could do to get us back to work is get out of the way. I'd like to...[ applause ] I'd like to see the federal government have a sound currency. That creates a healthy economy. [ applause ] I -- I would like to see massive reduction of regulations. I would like to see income tax reduced to near zero as possible. And that is what we have to do. We have to get the government out of the way. We have to recognize why we have unemployment. And it comes because we have a deeply flawed financial system that causes financial bubbles. The bubbles burst and you have the unemployment. Now, the most important thing to get over that hump that was created artificially by bad economic policies is to allow the correction to occur. You have to get rid of the excessive debt and you have to get rid of the malinvestment. And you don't do that by buying the debt off the people who were benefiting from it. So we, the people, shouldn't be stuck with these debts on these mortgage derivatives and all. We need to get that behind us, which means the government shouldn't be doing any bailouts. So most of the things to improve the environment is getting the government out of the way and enforce contract laws and enforce bankruptcy laws. [ applause ]
Well RB , , most JJS of IN the DT things NNS the DT federal JJ government NN could MD do VB to TO get VB us PRP back RB to TO work NN is VBZ get VB out IN of IN the DT way NN . . I PRP 'd MD like VB to TO ... : I PRP 'd MD like VB to TO see VB the DT federal JJ government NN have VBP a DT sound JJ currency NN . . That DT creates VBZ a DT healthy JJ economy NN . . I PRP -- : I PRP would MD like VB to TO see VB massive JJ reduction NN of IN regulations NNS . . I PRP would MD like VB to TO see VB income NN tax NN reduced VBN to TO near JJ zero NN as IN possible JJ . . And CC that DT is VBZ what WP we PRP have VBP to TO do VB . . We PRP have VBP to TO get VB the DT government NN out IN of IN the DT way NN . . We PRP have VBP to TO recognize VB why WRB we PRP have VBP unemployment NN . . And CC it PRP comes VBZ because IN we PRP have VBP a DT deeply RB flawed JJ financial JJ system NN that WDT causes VBZ financial JJ bubbles NNS . . The DT bubbles NNS burst VBP and CC you PRP have VBP the DT unemployment NN . . Now RB , , the DT most RBS important JJ thing NN to TO get VB over IN that DT hump NN that WDT was VBD created VBN artificially RB by IN bad JJ economic JJ policies NNS is VBZ to TO allow VB the DT correction NN to TO occur VB . . You PRP have VBP to TO get VB rid JJ of IN the DT excessive JJ debt NN and CC you PRP have VBP to TO get VB rid JJ of IN the DT malinvestment NN . . And CC you PRP do VBP n't RB do VB that DT by IN buying VBG the DT debt NN off IN the DT people NNS who WP were VBD benefiting VBG from IN it PRP . . So IN we PRP , , the DT people NNS , , should MD n't RB be VB stuck VBN with IN these DT debts NNS on IN these DT mortgage NN derivatives NNS and CC all DT . . We PRP need VBP to TO get VB that IN behind IN us PRP , , which WDT means VBZ the DT government NN should MD n't RB be VB doing VBG any DT bailouts NNS . . So RB most JJS of IN the DT things NNS to TO improve VB the DT environment NN is VBZ getting VBG the DT government NN out IN of IN the DT way NN and CC enforce VB contract NN laws NNS and CC enforce VB bankruptcy NN laws NNS . .
thing govern work way
govern currenc
economi
reduct regul
incom tax zero
govern way
unemploy
system bubbl
bubbl unemploy
thing hump polici correct
debt malinvest
debt peopl
peopl debt mortgag deriv
govern bailout
thing environ govern way contract law bankruptci law

To some degree, but you really want to make the environment -- the economy healthy for everybody and not designate special places. But to help them out to come back is probably necessary on some occasions now. But we have to think about how serious our problems are here, because we face something much, much greater. After World War II, we had 10 million came home all at once. But what did we do then? There were some of the liberals back then that said, oh, we have to have more work programs and do this and that. And they thought they would have to do everything conceivable for those 10 million. They never got around to it because they came home so quickly. And you know what the government did? They cut the budget by 60 percent. They cut taxes by 30 percent. By that time, the debt had been liquidated. And everybody went back to work again, you didn't need any special programs. So...[ applause ] But the one thing, talking about concern about the -- the military and the veterans, I'm very proud that, you know, I get twice as many donations from the military, active military people, then all the rest put together. [ applause ] So I am very concerned about them. I think where the real problem is, is we can create a healthy economic environment if we did the right things. Where the veterans really deserve help, both as a physician and as a congressman, is the people who come back and aren't doing well health-wise. They need a lot more help. We have an epidemic now of suicide of our military coming back. So they need a lot of medical help. And I think they come up shortchanged. They come up shortchanged after Vietnam war, Persian Gulf war, and even now. They don't get care from the Veterans Administration. [ applause ]
To TO some DT degree NN , , but CC you PRP really RB want VBP to TO make VB the DT environment NN -- : the DT economy NN healthy JJ for IN everybody NN and CC not RB designate VB special JJ places NNS . . But CC to TO help VB them PRP out RP to TO come VB back RB is VBZ probably RB necessary JJ on IN some DT occasions NNS now RB . . But CC we PRP have VBP to TO think VB about IN how WRB serious JJ our PRP$ problems NNS are VBP here RB , , because IN we PRP face VBP something NN much RB , , much RB greater JJR . . After IN World NNP War NNP II NNP , , we PRP had VBD 10 CD million CD came VBD home NN all DT at IN once RB . . But CC what WP did VBD we PRP do VB then RB ? . There EX were VBD some DT of IN the DT liberals NNS back RB then RB that DT said VBD , , oh UH , , we PRP have VBP to TO have VB more JJR work NN programs NNS and CC do VB this DT and CC that DT . . And CC they PRP thought VBD they PRP would MD have VB to TO do VB everything NN conceivable JJ for IN those DT 10 CD million CD . . They PRP never RB got VBD around RB to TO it PRP because IN they PRP came VBD home NN so RB quickly RB . . And CC you PRP know VBP what WP the DT government NN did VBD ? . They PRP cut VBD the DT budget NN by IN 60 CD percent NN . . They PRP cut VBD taxes NNS by IN 30 CD percent NN . . By IN that DT time NN , , the DT debt NN had VBD been VBN liquidated VBN . . And CC everybody NN went VBD back RB to TO work VB again RB , , you PRP did VBD n't RB need VB any DT special JJ programs NNS . . So RB ... : But CC the DT one CD thing NN , , talking VBG about IN concern NN about IN the DT -- : the DT military NN and CC the DT veterans NNS , , I PRP 'm VBP very RB proud JJ that IN , , you PRP know VBP , , I PRP get VBP twice RB as IN many JJ donations NNS from IN the DT military JJ , , active JJ military JJ people NNS , , then RB all PDT the DT rest NN put VBD together RB . . So RB I PRP am VBP very RB concerned JJ about IN them PRP . . I PRP think VBP where WRB the DT real JJ problem NN is VBZ , , is VBZ we PRP can MD create VB a DT healthy JJ economic JJ environment NN if IN we PRP did VBD the DT right JJ things NNS . . Where WRB the DT veterans NNS really RB deserve VBP help NN , , both DT as IN a DT physician NN and CC as IN a DT congressman NN , , is VBZ the DT people NNS who WP come VBP back RB and CC are VBP n't RB doing VBG well RB health-wise JJ . . They PRP need VBP a DT lot NN more JJR help NN . . We PRP have VBP an DT epidemic NN now RB of IN suicide NN of IN our PRP$ military NN coming VBG back RB . . So RB they PRP need VBP a DT lot NN of IN medical JJ help NN . . And CC I PRP think VBP they PRP come VBP up RB shortchanged VBN . . They PRP come VBP up RB shortchanged VBN after IN Vietnam NNP war NN , , Persian NNP Gulf NNP war NN , , and CC even RB now RB . . They PRP do VBP n't RB get VB care NN from IN the DT Veterans NNP Administration NNP . .
degre environ economi everybodi place
occas
problem someth
world war ii home
liber work program
everyth
home
govern
budget percent
tax percent
time debt
everybodi program
thing concern militari veteran donat peopl rest
problem environ thing
veteran help physician congressman peopl
lot help
epidem suicid militari
lot help
vietnam war persian gulf war
care veteran administr

Thank you. [ applause ] I thought you were -- I thought maybe you were prejudiced against doctors and a doctor that practiced medicine in the military or something. No, I want to address the question. The gentleman asked whether he thinks we can repeal Obamacare. Theoretically, we can. The likelihood isn't all that good. We can diminish some of the effect, but I'm more concerned about a bigger picture of what's happening. And that is, government involvement in medicine. I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early '60s before we had any government. It worked rather well and there was nobody out in the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and it just expanded. But even when we had the chance to cut back on it, when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican president, we gave them prescription drug programs. Senator Santorum supported it. You know, that's expanding the government. [ applause ] So -- and most of them are bankrupt. Prescription drugs, they're not going to be financed. Medicare's not financed. Medicaid's in trouble. But nobody talks about where the money's going to come from. Now, even in my budget proposal, which is very, very tough, because I'm going to cut $1 trillion the first year, but I try to really -- [ applause ] Even though these programs should have never started but a lot of people depend on it, I want to try to protect the people who are dependent on medical care. Now, where does the money come? My suggestion is, look at some of the overseas spending that we don't need to be doing. [ applause ] We have troops in Korea since the Korean War, in Japan since World War II, in Germany since -- those are subsidies to these countries. And we keep fighting these wars that don't need to be fought. They're undeclared. They never end. Newt pointed out that World War II was won in less than four years. Afghanistan, we're there for 10 years. Nobody says where's the money coming from? We could work our way out of here and take care of these people with these medical needs. But we can't do it with the current philosophy of the government taking care of everybody forever on medical care, cradle to grave, and being the policeman of the world. We will get rid of all this government program, unfortunately because we're going bankrupt and you're going to have runaway inflation, and our checks are going to bounce. And that's going to be a lot worse problem than we're facing tonight. [ applause ]
Thank VB you PRP . . I PRP thought VBD you PRP were VBD -- : I PRP thought VBD maybe RB you PRP were VBD prejudiced VBN against IN doctors NNS and CC a DT doctor NN that WDT practiced VBD medicine NN in IN the DT military NN or CC something NN . . No RB , , I PRP want VBP to TO address VB the DT question NN . . The DT gentleman NN asked VBD whether IN he PRP thinks VBZ we PRP can MD repeal VB Obamacare NNP . . Theoretically RB , , we PRP can MD . . The DT likelihood NN is VBZ n't RB all PDT that DT good JJ . . We PRP can MD diminish VB some DT of IN the DT effect NN , , but CC I PRP 'm VBP more RBR concerned JJ about IN a DT bigger JJR picture NN of IN what WP 's VBZ happening VBG . . And CC that DT is VBZ , , government NN involvement NN in IN medicine NN . . I PRP had VBD the DT privilege NN of IN practicing VBG medicine NN in IN the DT early JJ '60s NNS before IN we PRP had VBD any DT government NN . . It PRP worked VBD rather RB well RB and CC there EX was VBD nobody NN out IN in IN the DT street NN suffering NN with IN no DT medical JJ care NN . . But CC Medicare NNP and CC Medicaid NNP came VBD in IN and CC it PRP just RB expanded VBD . . But CC even RB when WRB we PRP had VBD the DT chance NN to TO cut VB back RB on IN it PRP , , when WRB we PRP had VBD a DT Republican JJ Congress NNP and CC a DT Republican JJ president NN , , we PRP gave VBD them PRP prescription NN drug NN programs NNS . . Senator NNP Santorum NNP supported VBD it PRP . . You PRP know VBP , , that DT 's VBZ expanding VBG the DT government NN . . So RB -- : and CC most JJS of IN them PRP are VBP bankrupt JJ . . Prescription NN drugs NNS , , they PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO be VB financed VBN . . Medicare NNP 's POS not RB financed VBN . . Medicaid NNP 's POS in IN trouble NN . . But CC nobody NN talks NNS about IN where WRB the DT money NN 's POS going VBG to TO come VB from IN . . Now RB , , even RB in IN my PRP$ budget NN proposal NN , , which WDT is VBZ very RB , , very RB tough JJ , , because IN I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO cut VB $ $ 1 CD trillion CD the DT first JJ year NN , , but CC I PRP try VBP to TO really RB -- : Even RB though IN these DT programs NNS should MD have VB never RB started VBN but CC a DT lot NN of IN people NNS depend VBP on IN it PRP , , I PRP want VBP to TO try VB to TO protect VB the DT people NNS who WP are VBP dependent JJ on IN medical JJ care NN . . Now RB , , where WRB does VBZ the DT money NN come VB ? . My PRP$ suggestion NN is VBZ , , look VB at IN some DT of IN the DT overseas JJ spending NN that IN we PRP do VBP n't RB need VB to TO be VB doing VBG . . We PRP have VBP troops NNS in IN Korea NNP since IN the DT Korean NNP War NNP , , in IN Japan NNP since IN World NNP War NNP II NNP , , in IN Germany NNP since IN -- : those DT are VBP subsidies NNS to TO these DT countries NNS . . And CC we PRP keep VBP fighting VBG these DT wars NNS that WDT do VBP n't RB need VB to TO be VB fought VBN . . They PRP 're VBP undeclared JJ . . They PRP never RB end VBP . . Newt NNP pointed VBD out RP that IN World NNP War NNP II NNP was VBD won VBN in IN less JJR than IN four CD years NNS . . Afghanistan NNP , , we PRP 're VBP there RB for IN 10 CD years NNS . . Nobody NN says VBZ where WRB 's VBZ the DT money NN coming VBG from IN ? . We PRP could MD work VB our PRP$ way NN out IN of IN here RB and CC take VB care NN of IN these DT people NNS with IN these DT medical JJ needs NNS . . But CC we PRP ca MD n't RB do VB it PRP with IN the DT current JJ philosophy NN of IN the DT government NN taking VBG care NN of IN everybody NN forever RB on IN medical JJ care NN , , cradle NN to TO grave NN , , and CC being VBG the DT policeman NN of IN the DT world NN . . We PRP will MD get VB rid JJ of IN all PDT this DT government NN program NN , , unfortunately RB because IN we PRP 're VBP going VBG bankrupt JJ and CC you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO have VB runaway JJ inflation NN , , and CC our PRP$ checks NNS are VBP going VBG to TO bounce VB . . And CC that DT 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB a DT lot NN worse JJR problem NN than IN we PRP 're VBP facing VBG tonight NN . .
doctor doctor medicin militari someth
question
gentleman obamacar
likelihood
effect pictur
govern involv medicin
privileg medicin 60s govern
nobodi street suffer care
medicar medicaid
chanc congress presid prescript drug program
senat santorum
govern
prescript drug
medicar
medicaid troubl
nobodi talk money
budget propos year program lot peopl peopl care
money
suggest spend
troop korea korean war japan world war ii germani subsidi countri
war
newt world war ii year
afghanistan year
nobodi money
way care peopl need
philosophi govern care everybodi care cradl grave policeman world
govern program inflat check
lot problem tonight

Well, I hadn't thought it through. I don't have an intention of doing it, but for a different reason. I'd probably be embarrassed to put my financial statement up against their income. And I don't want to be embarrassed because I don't have a greater income. [ applause ] Now, I mean, it may come to that, but right now, I have no intention of doing that. I think with our financial statements, congressional financial statements, I think you know more about me than I know about myself. That's how my wife found out so much about what we were doing, you know, from my financial statements. No, we don't need -- I don't think people need that because nobody's challenging me, because I have no conflict of interest. And I don't even talk to lobbyists and I don't take that kind of money. So there's no conflicts. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP had VBD n't RB thought VBN it PRP through IN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB have VB an DT intention NN of IN doing VBG it PRP , , but CC for IN a DT different JJ reason NN . . I PRP 'd MD probably RB be VB embarrassed VBN to TO put VB my PRP$ financial JJ statement NN up RP against IN their PRP$ income NN . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO be VB embarrassed JJ because IN I PRP do VBP n't RB have VB a DT greater JJR income NN . . Now RB , , I PRP mean VBP , , it PRP may MD come VB to TO that DT , , but CC right RB now RB , , I PRP have VBP no DT intention NN of IN doing VBG that DT . . I PRP think VBP with IN our PRP$ financial JJ statements NNS , , congressional JJ financial JJ statements NNS , , I PRP think VBP you PRP know VBP more RBR about IN me PRP than IN I PRP know VBP about IN myself PRP . . That DT 's VBZ how WRB my PRP$ wife NN found VBD out RP so RB much RB about IN what WP we PRP were VBD doing VBG , , you PRP know VBP , , from IN my PRP$ financial JJ statements NNS . . No RB , , we PRP do VBP n't RB need VB -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB people NNS need VBP that IN because IN nobody NN 's POS challenging JJ me PRP , , because IN I PRP have VBP no DT conflict NN of IN interest NN . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB even RB talk VB to TO lobbyists NNS and CC I PRP do VBP n't RB take VB that DT kind NN of IN money NN . . So RB there EX 's VBZ no DT conflicts NNS . .
intent reason
statement incom
incom
intent
statement statement
wife statement
peopl nobodi conflict interest
lobbyist kind money
conflict

You have to create the right conditions to bring these companies back and they have to bring their capital back and should be taxed. But Apple's a great company, but the way you asked the question, it infers that because there's a bunch of workers overseas it hasn't benefited a lot of people here. The consumers obviously have been benefited by a good company well run. But obviously there's a lot of employees with Apple in this country as well. I don't think that's the number that you have to be concerned about. A lot of people worry about us buying and money going overseas. But if you send money to China, let's say they're paying wages other there and we send dollars over there, they don't put the dollars in a shoe box. They have to spend those dollars. Unfortunately, they're buying our debt and perpetuating our consumerism here and our debt here. But immediately there's a benefit to us because those dollars come back. But also when you get products, if they're buying products cheaper over there, let's say the computer cost $100 instead of $1,000. Well, the person's just saved $900. That helps the economy. That $900 stays in that person's pocket. So whether it's shoes or a computer. So we shouldn't be frightened about trade or sending money on. But we have to look at the reason why they're doing this. I mean, even the car companies, there's obviously a problem with car companies here. They're in bigger trouble. We had to bail them out. But there are foreign companies that build cars in this country and they make a living out of it. So it's more complex than that. But we have to do whatever we can. I think the -- I think the -- the union problem, the right to work states, and of course I've chided Senator Santorum on this...[ applause ]... because he has voted, you know, against right to work. But we have to change these conditions to invite people back. But believe me, the regulations and the fact that we are the issuer of the reserve currency of the world is a real temporary blessing for us because it's easy for us to export our money. That's unfortunately our greatest export and they're still taking our money. Soon, though, they're going to quit and this whole ball game is going to end and we better get prepared for it. [ applause ]
You PRP have VBP to TO create VB the DT right JJ conditions NNS to TO bring VB these DT companies NNS back RB and CC they PRP have VBP to TO bring VB their PRP$ capital NN back RB and CC should MD be VB taxed VBN . . But CC Apple NNP 's VBZ a DT great JJ company NN , , but CC the DT way NN you PRP asked VBD the DT question NN , , it PRP infers VBZ that IN because IN there EX 's VBZ a DT bunch NN of IN workers NNS overseas RB it PRP has VBZ n't RB benefited VBN a DT lot NN of IN people NNS here RB . . The DT consumers NNS obviously RB have VBP been VBN benefited VBN by IN a DT good JJ company NN well RB run VBN . . But CC obviously RB there EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN of IN employees NNS with IN Apple NNP in IN this DT country NN as RB well RB . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB that DT 's VBZ the DT number NN that IN you PRP have VBP to TO be VB concerned VBN about IN . . A DT lot NN of IN people NNS worry VBP about IN us PRP buying NN and CC money NN going VBG overseas RB . . But CC if IN you PRP send VBP money NN to TO China NNP , , let VB 's POS say VB they PRP 're VBP paying VBG wages NNS other JJ there RB and CC we PRP send VBP dollars NNS over IN there RB , , they PRP do VBP n't RB put VB the DT dollars NNS in IN a DT shoe NN box NN . . They PRP have VBP to TO spend VB those DT dollars NNS . . Unfortunately RB , , they PRP 're VBP buying VBG our PRP$ debt NN and CC perpetuating VBG our PRP$ consumerism NN here RB and CC our PRP$ debt NN here RB . . But CC immediately RB there EX 's VBZ a DT benefit NN to TO us PRP because IN those DT dollars NNS come VBP back RB . . But CC also RB when WRB you PRP get VBP products NNS , , if IN they PRP 're VBP buying VBG products NNS cheaper JJR over IN there RB , , let VB 's POS say VB the DT computer NN cost VBD $ $ 100 CD instead RB of IN $ $ 1,000 CD . . Well RB , , the DT person NN 's VBZ just RB saved VBN $ $ 900 CD . . That DT helps VBZ the DT economy NN . . That DT $ $ 900 CD stays NNS in IN that DT person NN 's POS pocket NN . . So RB whether IN it PRP 's VBZ shoes NNS or CC a DT computer NN . . So RB we PRP should MD n't RB be VB frightened VBN about IN trade NN or CC sending VBG money NN on IN . . But CC we PRP have VBP to TO look VB at IN the DT reason NN why WRB they PRP 're VBP doing VBG this DT . . I PRP mean VBP , , even RB the DT car NN companies NNS , , there EX 's VBZ obviously RB a DT problem NN with IN car NN companies NNS here RB . . They PRP 're VBP in IN bigger JJR trouble NN . . We PRP had VBD to TO bail VB them PRP out RP . . But CC there EX are VBP foreign JJ companies NNS that WDT build VBP cars NNS in IN this DT country NN and CC they PRP make VBP a DT living NN out IN of IN it PRP . . So IN it PRP 's VBZ more RBR complex JJ than IN that DT . . But CC we PRP have VBP to TO do VB whatever WDT we PRP can MD . . I PRP think VBP the DT -- : I PRP think VBP the DT -- : the DT union NN problem NN , , the DT right NN to TO work VB states NNS , , and CC of IN course NN I PRP 've VBP chided VBN Senator NNP Santorum NNP on IN this DT ... : ... : because IN he PRP has VBZ voted VBN , , you PRP know VBP , , against IN right NN to TO work VB . . But CC we PRP have VBP to TO change VB these DT conditions NNS to TO invite VB people NNS back RB . . But CC believe VB me PRP , , the DT regulations NNS and CC the DT fact NN that IN we PRP are VBP the DT issuer NN of IN the DT reserve NN currency NN of IN the DT world NN is VBZ a DT real JJ temporary JJ blessing NN for IN us PRP because IN it PRP 's VBZ easy JJ for IN us PRP to TO export VB our PRP$ money NN . . That DT 's VBZ unfortunately RB our PRP$ greatest JJS export NN and CC they PRP 're VBP still RB taking VBG our PRP$ money NN . . Soon RB , , though RB , , they PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO quit VB and CC this DT whole JJ ball NN game NN is VBZ going VBG to TO end VB and CC we PRP better RB get VB prepared VBN for IN it PRP . .
condit compani capit
appl compani way question bunch worker lot peopl
consum compani
lot employe appl countri
number
lot peopl buy money
money china wage dollar dollar shoe box
dollar
debt consumer debt
benefit dollar
product product comput
person
economi
stay person pocket
shoe comput
trade money
reason
car compani problem car compani
troubl
compani car countri live
union problem right state cours senat santorum right
condit peopl
regul fact issuer reserv currenc world bless money
export money
ball game

Yes, the response should be -- yes, I understand that, that's the way politics works. You voted the way you thought --
Yes RB , , the DT response NN should MD be VB -- : yes RB , , I PRP understand VBP that IN , , that DT 's VBZ the DT way NN politics NN works VBZ . . You PRP voted VBD the DT way NN you PRP thought VBD -- :
respons way polit
way

I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law. And we have worked -- [ applause ] We have had a concerted effort, and I feel like we're making achievement. This bill is not going to pass. But watch out for the next one. And I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. And this is a good example on why it's good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties and work with coalitions and bring people together. Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together. I think this is a good example. [ applause ]
I PRP was VBD the DT first JJ Republican NNP to TO sign VB on RP with IN a DT host NN of IN Democrats NNPS to TO oppose VB this DT law NN . . And CC we PRP have VBP worked VBN -- : We PRP have VBP had VBD a DT concerted JJ effort NN , , and CC I PRP feel VBP like IN we PRP 're VBP making VBG achievement NN . . This DT bill NN is VBZ not RB going VBG to TO pass VB . . But CC watch VB out RP for IN the DT next JJ one CD . . And CC I PRP am VBP pleased JJ that IN the DT attitude NN has VBZ sort NN of IN mellowed VBN up RP here RB , , because IN the DT Republicans NNS unfortunately RB have VBP been VBN on IN the DT wrong JJ side NN of IN this DT issue NN . . And CC this DT is VBZ a DT good JJ example NN on IN why WRB it PRP 's VBZ good JJ to TO have VB somebody NN that WDT can MD look VB at IN civil JJ liberties NNS and CC work NN with IN coalitions NNS and CC bring VB people NNS together RB . . Freedom NNP and CC the DT Constitution NNP bring VBP factions NNS together RB . . I PRP think VBP this DT is VBZ a DT good JJ example NN . .
republican host democrat law
effort achiev
bill
attitud sort republican side issu
exampl somebodi liberti work coalit peopl
freedom constitut faction
exampl

I can't -- I can't think of any one thing that I would do differently, but I would continue to do what I'm always trying to do. One thing that I believe about a free society is it provides the opportunity for us to work for our own virtue and excellence. And in campaigning, I think I can still learn a lot about becoming a better deliverer of a message. And the conviction I have that I think if I spoke a little slower and maybe more conviction, that I could do a better job. So I think in general, I could -- I will continue to work on delivering a message which I think is a great message.
I PRP ca MD n't RB -- : I PRP ca MD n't RB think VB of IN any DT one CD thing NN that IN I PRP would MD do VB differently RB , , but CC I PRP would MD continue VB to TO do VB what WP I PRP 'm VBP always RB trying VBG to TO do VB . . One CD thing NN that IN I PRP believe VBP about IN a DT free JJ society NN is VBZ it PRP provides VBZ the DT opportunity NN for IN us PRP to TO work VB for IN our PRP$ own JJ virtue NN and CC excellence NN . . And CC in IN campaigning NN , , I PRP think VBP I PRP can MD still RB learn VB a DT lot NN about IN becoming VBG a DT better JJR deliverer NN of IN a DT message NN . . And CC the DT conviction NN I PRP have VBP that IN I PRP think VBP if IN I PRP spoke VBD a DT little JJ slower JJR and CC maybe RB more JJR conviction NN , , that IN I PRP could MD do VB a DT better JJR job NN . . So RB I PRP think VBP in IN general JJ , , I PRP could MD -- : I PRP will MD continue VB to TO work VB on IN delivering VBG a DT message NN which WDT I PRP think VBP is VBZ a DT great JJ message NN . .
thing
thing societi opportun virtu excel
campaign lot deliver messag
convict convict job
messag messag

I don't believe you should be. Because I think those laws are misdirected. That makes you the policeman, or the businessman the policeman, or the Catholic Church the policeman, if they do anything to help an illegal immigrant. It should be the law enforcers, and that is the border guards. And the federal government's in charge of immigration. So, no, I don't agree with those laws. But it doesn't mean that I'm soft in the issue of illegal immigration. Illegal -- I can't imagine anybody standing up here and saying, oh, I'm for illegal immigration. We're all against illegal immigration. But I think what we fail to do is -- is look at the incentives. And it has a lot to do with economics. There's an economic incentive for them to come, for immigrants to come. But there's also an incentive for some of our people in this country not to take a job that's a low-paying job. You're not supposed to say that, but that is true. But there's also an economic incentive in the welfare state for immigrants to come in. In Texas, we suffer from the fact that there are federal mandates that we have to take care of their medical needs and their educational needs, and it bankrupts some of our -- our school districts and our hospitals. So it's those mandates. But we need a more generous immigration policy. It should be legal, but we need more resources. But I find that the resources are all overseas. When I was in the military, I was on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and that is a no-man's-land. You can't see the border. At least we can -- we can see the river south of Texas. We know where the Rio Grande is. Over there, we can't see it. But we're over there fighting and dying over that border, looking for problems. Why don't we take those resources and quit pretending we can defend those borders and put them on our borders and take care of our needs here? [ applause ]
I PRP do VBP n't RB believe VB you PRP should MD be VB . . Because IN I PRP think VBP those DT laws NNS are VBP misdirected VBN . . That DT makes VBZ you PRP the DT policeman NN , , or CC the DT businessman NN the DT policeman NN , , or CC the DT Catholic NNP Church NNP the DT policeman NN , , if IN they PRP do VBP anything NN to TO help VB an DT illegal JJ immigrant JJ . . It PRP should MD be VB the DT law NN enforcers NNS , , and CC that DT is VBZ the DT border NN guards NNS . . And CC the DT federal JJ government NN 's VBZ in IN charge NN of IN immigration NN . . So RB , , no DT , , I PRP do VBP n't RB agree VB with IN those DT laws NNS . . But CC it PRP does VBZ n't RB mean VB that IN I PRP 'm VBP soft JJ in IN the DT issue NN of IN illegal JJ immigration NN . . Illegal JJ -- : I PRP ca MD n't RB imagine VB anybody NN standing VBG up RP here RB and CC saying VBG , , oh UH , , I PRP 'm VBP for IN illegal JJ immigration NN . . We PRP 're VBP all DT against IN illegal JJ immigration NN . . But CC I PRP think VBP what WP we PRP fail VBP to TO do VB is VBZ -- : is VBZ look NN at IN the DT incentives NNS . . And CC it PRP has VBZ a DT lot NN to TO do VB with IN economics NNS . . There EX 's VBZ an DT economic JJ incentive NN for IN them PRP to TO come VB , , for IN immigrants NNS to TO come VB . . But CC there EX 's VBZ also RB an DT incentive NN for IN some DT of IN our PRP$ people NNS in IN this DT country NN not RB to TO take VB a DT job NN that WDT 's VBZ a DT low-paying JJ job NN . . You PRP 're VBP not RB supposed VBN to TO say VB that IN , , but CC that DT is VBZ true JJ . . But CC there EX 's VBZ also RB an DT economic JJ incentive NN in IN the DT welfare NN state NN for IN immigrants NNS to TO come VB in RP . . In IN Texas NNP , , we PRP suffer VBP from IN the DT fact NN that IN there EX are VBP federal JJ mandates NNS that IN we PRP have VBP to TO take VB care NN of IN their PRP$ medical JJ needs NNS and CC their PRP$ educational JJ needs NNS , , and CC it PRP bankrupts VBZ some DT of IN our PRP$ -- : our PRP$ school NN districts NNS and CC our PRP$ hospitals NNS . . So IN it PRP 's VBZ those DT mandates NNS . . But CC we PRP need VBP a DT more RBR generous JJ immigration NN policy NN . . It PRP should MD be VB legal JJ , , but CC we PRP need VBP more JJR resources NNS . . But CC I PRP find VBP that IN the DT resources NNS are VBP all RB overseas RB . . When WRB I PRP was VBD in IN the DT military NN , , I PRP was VBD on IN the DT Pakistan-Afghanistan JJ border NN , , and CC that DT is VBZ a DT no-man JJ 's-land NN . . You PRP ca MD n't RB see VB the DT border NN . . At IN least JJS we PRP can MD -- : we PRP can MD see VB the DT river NN south RB of IN Texas NNP . . We PRP know VBP where WRB the DT Rio NNP Grande NNP is VBZ . . Over IN there RB , , we PRP ca MD n't RB see VB it PRP . . But CC we PRP 're VBP over IN there RB fighting VBG and CC dying VBG over IN that DT border NN , , looking VBG for IN problems NNS . . Why WRB do VBP n't RB we PRP take VB those DT resources NNS and CC quit VB pretending VBG we PRP can MD defend VB those DT borders NNS and CC put VBD them PRP on IN our PRP$ borders NNS and CC take VB care NN of IN our PRP$ needs NNS here RB ? .
law
policeman businessman policeman cathol church policeman anyth
law enforc border guard
govern charg immigr
law
issu immigr
anybodi immigr
immigr
look incent
lot econom
incent immigr
incent peopl countri job job
incent welfar state immigr
texa fact mandat care need need school district hospit
mandat
immigr polici
resourc
resourc
militari border s-land
border
river texa
rio grand
border problem
resourc border border care need

John, once again, it's a medical subject and I'm a doctor. [ laughter ] No, I do want to make a couple of comments because I can remember the very early years studying obstetrics and I was told -- and it was before the age of abortion. And I was told taking care of a woman that's pregnant, you have two patients. And I think that's -- that solves a lot of the problems of life -- you know, when life begins and all. [ applause ] And I also experienced a time later on in my training, in the 1960s when the culture was changing. The Vietnam War was going on. The drugs were there and pornography and everything came in. And abortion became prevalent, even though it was illegal. So the morality of the country changed, but then the law followed up. When the morality changed, it will -- reflects on the laws. The law is very important. We shouldn't have these laws, but law will not correct the basic problem, and that's the morality of the people that we must do. Now, just very, very briefly, I want to talk a little bit about that funding because the flaw there is if you -- if you send funding out and you say, "Well, you can have it for birth control, but not for abortion," all funds are fungible. Even funds that go to any hospital if you say, "Well, it's not for birth control and it's not for Planned Parenthood and it's not for abortion," if you send it to the hospital, they can still use that money. This is an indictment of government-run medicine because you never can sort that all out. You need the government out of that business or you will always argue over who's paying what bills. [ applause ]
John NNP , , once RB again RB , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT medical JJ subject NN and CC I PRP 'm VBP a DT doctor NN . . No RB , , I PRP do VBP want VB to TO make VB a DT couple NN of IN comments NNS because IN I PRP can MD remember VB the DT very RB early JJ years NNS studying VBG obstetrics NNS and CC I PRP was VBD told VBN -- : and CC it PRP was VBD before IN the DT age NN of IN abortion NN . . And CC I PRP was VBD told VBN taking VBG care NN of IN a DT woman NN that WDT 's VBZ pregnant JJ , , you PRP have VBP two CD patients NNS . . And CC I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ -- : that WDT solves VBZ a DT lot NN of IN the DT problems NNS of IN life NN -- : you PRP know VBP , , when WRB life NN begins VBZ and CC all DT . . And CC I PRP also RB experienced VBD a DT time NN later RB on RB in IN my PRP$ training NN , , in IN the DT 1960s NNS when WRB the DT culture NN was VBD changing VBG . . The DT Vietnam NNP War NNP was VBD going VBG on RP . . The DT drugs NNS were VBD there RB and CC pornography NN and CC everything NN came VBD in IN . . And CC abortion NN became VBD prevalent JJ , , even RB though IN it PRP was VBD illegal JJ . . So IN the DT morality NN of IN the DT country NN changed VBD , , but CC then RB the DT law NN followed VBD up RP . . When WRB the DT morality NN changed VBD , , it PRP will MD -- : reflects VBZ on IN the DT laws NNS . . The DT law NN is VBZ very RB important JJ . . We PRP should MD n't RB have VB these DT laws NNS , , but CC law NN will MD not RB correct VB the DT basic JJ problem NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ the DT morality NN of IN the DT people NNS that IN we PRP must MD do VB . . Now RB , , just RB very RB , , very RB briefly RB , , I PRP want VBP to TO talk VB a DT little JJ bit NN about IN that DT funding NN because IN the DT flaw NN there EX is VBZ if IN you PRP -- : if IN you PRP send VBP funding VBG out RP and CC you PRP say VBP , , " NNP Well NNP , , you PRP can MD have VB it PRP for IN birth NN control NN , , but CC not RB for IN abortion NN , , " VBP all DT funds NNS are VBP fungible JJ . . Even RB funds NNS that WDT go VBP to TO any DT hospital NN if IN you PRP say VBP , , " NNP Well NNP , , it PRP 's VBZ not RB for IN birth NN control NN and CC it PRP 's VBZ not RB for IN Planned NNP Parenthood NNP and CC it PRP 's VBZ not RB for IN abortion NN , , " CD if IN you PRP send VBP it PRP to TO the DT hospital NN , , they PRP can MD still RB use VB that DT money NN . . This DT is VBZ an DT indictment NN of IN government-run JJ medicine NN because IN you PRP never RB can MD sort VB that IN all DT out IN . . You PRP need VBP the DT government NN out IN of IN that DT business NN or CC you PRP will MD always RB argue VB over IN who WP 's VBZ paying VBG what WP bills NNS . .
john subject doctor
coupl comment year obstetr age abort
care woman patient
lot problem life life
time train 1960s cultur
vietnam war
drug pornographi everyth
abort
moral countri law
moral law
law
law law problem moral peopl
bit fund flaw well birth control abort fund
fund hospit well birth control plan parenthood abort hospit money
indict medicin
govern busi bill

Just for the record, I wasn't even thinking about you when I was giving my statement, so you are overly sensitive. [ applause ] But it is true that we have a disagreement on how we approach it. I follow what my understanding is of the Constitution. And it does allow for the states to deal with difficult problems. A matter of fact, it allows the states to deal with almost all the problems if you look at it. It is not given -- these powers aren't given to the Congress. I see abortion as a violent act. All other violence is handled by the states -- murder, burglary, violence. That's a state issue. So don't try to say that I'm less pro-life because I want to be particular about the way we do it and allow the states the prerogative. This is the solution, . This is the solution. Because if we would allow the states to write their laws, take away the jurisdiction by a majority vote in the Congress, you repeal Roe versus Wade overnight, instead of waiting year after y, ear to change the court system. [ applause ]
Just RB for IN the DT record NN , , I PRP was VBD n't RB even RB thinking VBG about IN you PRP when WRB I PRP was VBD giving VBG my PRP$ statement NN , , so IN you PRP are VBP overly RB sensitive JJ . . But CC it PRP is VBZ true JJ that IN we PRP have VBP a DT disagreement NN on IN how WRB we PRP approach VBP it PRP . . I PRP follow VBP what WP my PRP$ understanding NN is VBZ of IN the DT Constitution NNP . . And CC it PRP does VBZ allow VB for IN the DT states NNS to TO deal VB with IN difficult JJ problems NNS . . A DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , it PRP allows VBZ the DT states NNS to TO deal VB with IN almost RB all PDT the DT problems NNS if IN you PRP look VBP at IN it PRP . . It PRP is VBZ not RB given VBN -- : these DT powers NNS are VBP n't RB given VBN to TO the DT Congress NNP . . I PRP see VBP abortion NN as IN a DT violent JJ act NN . . All DT other JJ violence NN is VBZ handled VBN by IN the DT states NNS -- : murder NN , , burglary NN , , violence NN . . That DT 's VBZ a DT state NN issue NN . . So RB do VBP n't RB try VB to TO say VB that IN I PRP 'm VBP less RBR pro-life JJ because IN I PRP want VBP to TO be VB particular JJ about IN the DT way NN we PRP do VBP it PRP and CC allow VB the DT states NNS the DT prerogative NN . . This DT is VBZ the DT solution NN , , . . This DT is VBZ the DT solution NN . . Because IN if IN we PRP would MD allow VB the DT states NNS to TO write VB their PRP$ laws NNS , , take VB away RP the DT jurisdiction NN by IN a DT majority NN vote NN in IN the DT Congress NNP , , you PRP repeal VBP Roe NNP versus CC Wade NNP overnight JJ , , instead RB of IN waiting VBG year NN after IN y NN , , ear NN to TO change VB the DT court NN system NN . .
record statement
disagr
understand constitut
state problem
matter fact state problem
power congress
abort act
violenc state murder burglari violenc
state issu
way state prerog
solut
solut
state law jurisdict major vote congress roe wade year y ear court system

Well, South Carolina is known for their respect for liberty, and a lot of people will ask the question...[ applause ] They will ask the question, in a way, what will you do for South Carolina or what will you do for New Hampshire? What will you do for the various states? But if you understand liberty, it's equal for everybody; it benefits everybody, so if you have a protection of liberty, which is the purpose of the Constitution, protection of individual liberty, and that means you protect the private property rights system. And if you do that, that benefits everybody. And this is what we have to do, is convince people that we can bring people together with the understanding of what those -- those beliefs were that made America great. And it is freedom. It isn't this continued spending money and debt. This is the reason -- we're in a mountain of debt and we have to deal with it. We really never even got around to talking about that tonight. And one of my very modest proposals...[ applause ] My modest proposal is in the first year, cut $1 trillion out of the budget to get started...[ applause ]... because the debt bubble is a great burden. It's a burden to all of us, and as I mentioned earlier, these programs are going to go down if we don't get our budget under control. And we have to be willing to look at overseas spending and all of the entitlement system here in the country. [ applause ]
Well RB , , South NNP Carolina NNP is VBZ known VBN for IN their PRP$ respect NN for IN liberty NN , , and CC a DT lot NN of IN people NNS will MD ask VB the DT question NN ... : They PRP will MD ask VB the DT question NN , , in IN a DT way NN , , what WP will MD you PRP do VB for IN South NNP Carolina NNP or CC what WP will MD you PRP do VB for IN New NNP Hampshire NNP ? . What WP will MD you PRP do VB for IN the DT various JJ states NNS ? . But CC if IN you PRP understand VBP liberty NN , , it PRP 's VBZ equal JJ for IN everybody NN ; : it PRP benefits VBZ everybody NN , , so RB if IN you PRP have VBP a DT protection NN of IN liberty NN , , which WDT is VBZ the DT purpose NN of IN the DT Constitution NNP , , protection NN of IN individual JJ liberty NN , , and CC that DT means VBZ you PRP protect VBP the DT private JJ property NN rights NNS system NN . . And CC if IN you PRP do VBP that DT , , that WDT benefits VBZ everybody NN . . And CC this DT is VBZ what WP we PRP have VBP to TO do VB , , is VBZ convince VB people NNS that IN we PRP can MD bring VB people NNS together RB with IN the DT understanding NN of IN what WP those DT -- : those DT beliefs NNS were VBD that IN made VBN America NNP great JJ . . And CC it PRP is VBZ freedom NN . . It PRP is VBZ n't RB this DT continued VBN spending NN money NN and CC debt NN . . This DT is VBZ the DT reason NN -- : we PRP 're VBP in IN a DT mountain NN of IN debt NN and CC we PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN it PRP . . We PRP really RB never RB even RB got VBD around RB to TO talking VBG about IN that DT tonight NN . . And CC one CD of IN my PRP$ very RB modest JJ proposals NNS ... : My PRP$ modest JJ proposal NN is VBZ in IN the DT first JJ year NN , , cut VBD $ $ 1 CD trillion CD out IN of IN the DT budget NN to TO get VB started VBN ... : ... : because IN the DT debt NN bubble NN is VBZ a DT great JJ burden NN . . It PRP 's VBZ a DT burden NN to TO all DT of IN us PRP , , and CC as IN I PRP mentioned VBD earlier RBR , , these DT programs NNS are VBP going VBG to TO go VB down RP if IN we PRP do VBP n't RB get VB our PRP$ budget NN under IN control NN . . And CC we PRP have VBP to TO be VB willing JJ to TO look VB at IN overseas JJ spending NN and CC all DT of IN the DT entitlement NN system NN here RB in IN the DT country NN . .
south carolina respect liberti lot peopl question question way south carolina new hampshir
state
liberti everybodi everybodi protect liberti purpos constitut protect liberti properti right system
everybodi
peopl peopl understand belief america
freedom
spend money debt
reason mountain debt
tonight
propos propos year budget debt bubbl burden
burden program budget control
spend entitl system countri

Well, they should be abandoned if you're not telling the truth. But if you're exposing a voting record I think it's quite proper. There was one ad that we used against Senator Santorum, and I was only --- I only had one problem, is I couldn't get all the things in I wanted to say in one minute. [ applause ] But, you know, we mentioned No Child Left Behind and that he supported deficits times five, raising the national debt, and that he voted for prescription drug programs, as well as he voted against right-to-work. And I could have added, you know, things like --- he voted for Sarbanes-Oxley. So my only regret is that I couldn't get enough in in that one minute that I should have.
Well RB , , they PRP should MD be VB abandoned VBN if IN you PRP 're VBP not RB telling VBG the DT truth NN . . But CC if IN you PRP 're VBP exposing VBG a DT voting NN record NN I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ quite RB proper JJ . . There EX was VBD one CD ad NN that IN we PRP used VBD against IN Senator NNP Santorum NNP , , and CC I PRP was VBD only RB - : I PRP only RB had VBD one CD problem NN , , is VBZ I PRP could MD n't RB get VB all PDT the DT things NNS in IN I PRP wanted VBD to TO say VB in IN one CD minute NN . . But CC , , you PRP know VBP , , we PRP mentioned VBD No DT Child NN Left VBN Behind IN and CC that IN he PRP supported VBD deficits NNS times NNS five CD , , raising VBG the DT national JJ debt NN , , and CC that IN he PRP voted VBD for IN prescription NN drug NN programs NNS , , as RB well RB as IN he PRP voted VBD against IN right-to-work NN . . And CC I PRP could MD have VB added VBN , , you PRP know VBP , , things NNS like IN - : he PRP voted VBD for IN Sarbanes-Oxley NNP . . So IN my PRP$ only JJ regret NN is VBZ that IN I PRP could MD n't RB get VB enough RB in IN in IN that DT one CD minute NN that IN I PRP should MD have VB . .
truth
vote record
ad senat santorum problem thing minut
child deficit time debt prescript drug program right-to-work
thing sarbanes-oxley
regret minut

I would say your --- your question suggests you're very confused about my position. [ applause ] I want to cut money, overseas money. That's what I want to do. I want to cut military money. I don't want to cut defense money. I want to bring the troops home. I'd probably have more bases here at home. We were closing them down in the 1990s and building them overseas. That's how we got into trouble. So we would save a lot more money and have a stronger national defense, and that's what we should do. But to say that we would be weaker is absolutely wrong, because --- and --- and --- and another important thing you should consider is the fact that the military is behind me more than the others. I get twice as much money from the...[ applause ]... from the active military duties than all the other candidates put together. So they're saying that I'm on the right track. They're sick and tired of those wars. They're sick and tired of the nation- building and the policing activity. But to say that we would have less money for defense, we'd actually have more money. And if I may, I'd like to go back to the international financial thing.
I PRP would MD say VB your PRP$ - : your PRP$ question NN suggests VBZ you PRP 're VBP very RB confused JJ about IN my PRP$ position NN . . I PRP want VBP to TO cut VB money NN , , overseas JJ money NN . . That DT 's VBZ what WP I PRP want VBP to TO do VB . . I PRP want VBP to TO cut VB military JJ money NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO cut VB defense NN money NN . . I PRP want VBP to TO bring VB the DT troops NNS home NN . . I PRP 'd MD probably RB have VB more JJR bases NNS here RB at IN home NN . . We PRP were VBD closing VBG them PRP down RP in IN the DT 1990s CD and CC building VBG them PRP overseas RB . . That DT 's VBZ how WRB we PRP got VBD into IN trouble NN . . So RB we PRP would MD save VB a DT lot NN more JJR money NN and CC have VBP a DT stronger JJR national JJ defense NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP should MD do VB . . But CC to TO say VB that IN we PRP would MD be VB weaker JJR is VBZ absolutely RB wrong JJ , , because IN - : and CC - : and CC - : and CC another DT important JJ thing NN you PRP should MD consider VB is VBZ the DT fact NN that IN the DT military NN is VBZ behind IN me PRP more JJR than IN the DT others NNS . . I PRP get VBP twice RB as RB much JJ money NN from IN the DT ... : ... : from IN the DT active JJ military JJ duties NNS than IN all PDT the DT other JJ candidates NNS put VBP together RB . . So RB they PRP 're VBP saying VBG that IN I PRP 'm VBP on IN the DT right JJ track NN . . They PRP 're VBP sick JJ and CC tired JJ of IN those DT wars NNS . . They PRP 're VBP sick JJ and CC tired JJ of IN the DT nation- JJ building NN and CC the DT policing VBG activity NN . . But CC to TO say VB that IN we PRP would MD have VB less JJR money NN for IN defense NN , , we PRP 'd MD actually RB have VB more JJR money NN . . And CC if IN I PRP may MD , , I PRP 'd MD like VB to TO go VB back RB to TO the DT international JJ financial JJ thing NN . .
question posit
money money
money
defens money
troop home
base home
troubl
lot money defens
thing fact militari other
money duti candid
track
war
build activ
money defens money
thing

You don't understand there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. Just because you spend a billion dollars on an embassy in Baghdad, bigger than the Vatican, you consider that defense spending. I consider that waste. [ applause ] So if you want to --- a little while ago we were talking about funding the unemployed --- and of course that should be privatized and I don't support it --- but I don't support cutting it off like that. I would cut some of this military spending like Eisenhower advises, watch out for the military industrial complex. Defend this country. We have to have a strong national defense, but we don't get strength by diluting ourselves in 900 bases in 130 countries. That is where the problem is. But you need to understand that there is a difference between just military spending and defense spending, just to spend money. We understand this domestically. If you spend more money domestically, we know it's wrong, but we are supposed to spend more money and that's conservative. I've never quite understood this. We are supposed to be conservatives. Spend less money. [ applause ]
You PRP do VBP n't RB understand VB there EX 's VBZ a DT difference NN between IN military JJ spending NN and CC defense NN spending NN . . Just RB because IN you PRP spend VBP a DT billion CD dollars NNS on IN an DT embassy NN in IN Baghdad NNP , , bigger JJR than IN the DT Vatican NNP , , you PRP consider VBP that DT defense NN spending NN . . I PRP consider VBP that DT waste NN . . So RB if IN you PRP want VBP to TO - : a DT little JJ while NN ago IN we PRP were VBD talking VBG about IN funding VBG the DT unemployed JJ - : and CC of IN course NN that WDT should MD be VB privatized VBN and CC I PRP do VBP n't RB support VB it PRP - : but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB support VB cutting VBG it PRP off RP like IN that DT . . I PRP would MD cut VB some DT of IN this DT military JJ spending NN like IN Eisenhower NNP advises VBZ , , watch VB out RP for IN the DT military JJ industrial JJ complex NN . . Defend VB this DT country NN . . We PRP have VBP to TO have VB a DT strong JJ national JJ defense NN , , but CC we PRP do VBP n't RB get VB strength NN by IN diluting VBG ourselves PRP in IN 900 CD bases NNS in IN 130 CD countries NNS . . That DT is VBZ where WRB the DT problem NN is VBZ . . But CC you PRP need VBP to TO understand VB that IN there EX is VBZ a DT difference NN between IN just RB military JJ spending NN and CC defense NN spending NN , , just RB to TO spend VB money NN . . We PRP understand VBP this DT domestically RB . . If IN you PRP spend VBP more JJR money NN domestically RB , , we PRP know VBP it PRP 's VBZ wrong JJ , , but CC we PRP are VBP supposed VBN to TO spend VB more JJR money NN and CC that DT 's VBZ conservative JJ . . I PRP 've VBP never RB quite RB understood VBN this DT . . We PRP are VBP supposed VBN to TO be VB conservatives NNS . . Spend VB less JJR money NN . .
differ spend defens spend
dollar embassi baghdad vatican defens spend
wast
while cours
spend eisenhow complex
countri
defens strength base countri
problem
differ spend defens spend money
money money
conserv
money

Well, we should have the lowest tax that we've ever had, and up until 1913 it was 0 percent. What's so bad about that? [ applause ] Now, I would like to follow up on that, because I think the question on taxes is generally misleading, because anytime you spend money, it's a tax. You might tax, you might borrow, you might inflate. The vicious tax, that's attacking the American people, the retired people today, is the inflation tax, the devaluation of the currency, the standard of living is going down, and you need to address that. And that's why I want to make the inflation tax zero, as well.
Well RB , , we PRP should MD have VB the DT lowest JJS tax NN that IN we PRP 've VBP ever RB had VBN , , and CC up RB until IN 1913 CD it PRP was VBD 0 CD percent NN . . What WP 's VBZ so RB bad JJ about IN that DT ? . Now RB , , I PRP would MD like VB to TO follow VB up RP on IN that DT , , because IN I PRP think VBP the DT question NN on IN taxes NNS is VBZ generally RB misleading JJ , , because IN anytime RB you PRP spend VBP money NN , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT tax NN . . You PRP might MD tax VB , , you PRP might MD borrow VB , , you PRP might MD inflate VB . . The DT vicious JJ tax NN , , that WDT 's VBZ attacking VBG the DT American JJ people NNS , , the DT retired VBN people NNS today NN , , is VBZ the DT inflation NN tax NN , , the DT devaluation NN of IN the DT currency NN , , the DT standard NN of IN living NN is VBZ going VBG down RB , , and CC you PRP need VBP to TO address VB that DT . . And CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB I PRP want VBP to TO make VB the DT inflation NN tax NN zero NN , , as RB well RB . .
tax percent
question tax money tax
tax peopl peopl today inflat tax devalu currenc standard live
inflat tax zero

Zero.
Zero NNP . .
zero

Yes. Definitely. There is a disparity. It's not that it is my opinion, it is very clear. Blacks and minorities who are involved with drugs, are arrested disproportionately. They are tried and imprisoned disproportionately. They suffer the consequence of the death penalty disproportionately. Rich white people don't get the death penalty very often. And most of these are victimless crimes. Sometimes people can use drugs and arrested three times and never committed a violent act and they can go to prison for life. And yet we see times just recently we heard where actually murders get out of prison in shorter periods of time. So I think it's way --- way disproportionate. I don't think we can do a whole lot about it. I think there's discrimination in the system, but you have to address the drug war. You know, the drug war is --- is very violent on our borders. We have the immigration problem, and I'm all for having, you know, tight immigration policies, but we can't ignore the border without looking at the drug war. In the last five years, 47,500 people died in the drug war down there. This is a major thing going on. And it unfairly hits the minorities. This is one thing I am quite sure that Martin Luther King would be in agreement with me on this. As a matter of fact, Martin Luther King he would be in agreement with me on the wars, as well, because he was a strong opponent to the Vietnam War. So I --- I --- I would say, yes, the judicial system is probably one of the worst places where --- where prejudice and --- and discrimination still exists in this country.
Yes RB . . Definitely RB . . There EX is VBZ a DT disparity NN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB that IN it PRP is VBZ my PRP$ opinion NN , , it PRP is VBZ very RB clear JJ . . Blacks NNPS and CC minorities NNS who WP are VBP involved VBN with IN drugs NNS , , are VBP arrested VBN disproportionately RB . . They PRP are VBP tried VBN and CC imprisoned VBN disproportionately RB . . They PRP suffer VBP the DT consequence NN of IN the DT death NN penalty NN disproportionately RB . . Rich NNP white JJ people NNS do VBP n't RB get VB the DT death NN penalty NN very RB often RB . . And CC most JJS of IN these DT are VBP victimless JJ crimes NNS . . Sometimes RB people NNS can MD use VB drugs NNS and CC arrested VBN three CD times NNS and CC never RB committed VBD a DT violent JJ act NN and CC they PRP can MD go VB to TO prison NN for IN life NN . . And CC yet RB we PRP see VBP times NNS just RB recently RB we PRP heard VBD where WRB actually RB murders NNS get VBP out IN of IN prison NN in IN shorter JJR periods NNS of IN time NN . . So RB I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ way NN - : way NN disproportionate JJ . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB we PRP can MD do VB a DT whole JJ lot NN about IN it PRP . . I PRP think VBP there EX 's VBZ discrimination NN in IN the DT system NN , , but CC you PRP have VBP to TO address VB the DT drug NN war NN . . You PRP know VBP , , the DT drug NN war NN is VBZ - : is VBZ very RB violent JJ on IN our PRP$ borders NNS . . We PRP have VBP the DT immigration NN problem NN , , and CC I PRP 'm VBP all DT for IN having VBG , , you PRP know VBP , , tight JJ immigration NN policies NNS , , but CC we PRP ca MD n't RB ignore VB the DT border NN without IN looking VBG at IN the DT drug NN war NN . . In IN the DT last JJ five CD years NNS , , 47,500 CD people NNS died VBD in IN the DT drug NN war NN down RB there RB . . This DT is VBZ a DT major JJ thing NN going VBG on RP . . And CC it PRP unfairly RB hits VBZ the DT minorities NNS . . This DT is VBZ one CD thing NN I PRP am VBP quite RB sure JJ that IN Martin NNP Luther NNP King NNP would MD be VB in IN agreement NN with IN me PRP on IN this DT . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , Martin NNP Luther NNP King NNP he PRP would MD be VB in IN agreement NN with IN me PRP on IN the DT wars NNS , , as RB well RB , , because IN he PRP was VBD a DT strong JJ opponent NN to TO the DT Vietnam NNP War NNP . . So RB I PRP - : I PRP - : I PRP would MD say VB , , yes UH , , the DT judicial JJ system NN is VBZ probably RB one CD of IN the DT worst JJS places NNS where WRB - : where WRB prejudice NN and CC - : and CC discrimination NN still RB exists VBZ in IN this DT country NN . .
dispar
opinion
black minor drug
consequ death penalti
rich peopl death penalti
crime
peopl drug time act prison life
time murder prison period time
way way
lot
discrimin system drug war
drug war border
immigr problem immigr polici border drug war
year peopl drug war
thing
minor
thing martin luther king agreement
matter fact martin luther king agreement war oppon vietnam war
system place prejudic discrimin countri

Obviously no. And that's what --- I did not say that. What I --- as a matter of fact, after 9/11 I voted for the authority to go after him. And my frustration was that we didn't go after him. It took us ten years. We had him trapped at Tora Bora and I thought we should have trapped him there. I even introduced another resolutuion on the principle of market reprisal to keep our eye on target rather than getting involved in nation building.
Obviously RB no RB . . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP - : I PRP did VBD not RB say VB that DT . . What WP I PRP - : as IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , after IN 9/11 CD I PRP voted VBD for IN the DT authority NN to TO go VB after IN him PRP . . And CC my PRP$ frustration NN was VBD that IN we PRP did VBD n't RB go VB after IN him PRP . . It PRP took VBD us PRP ten CD years NNS . . We PRP had VBD him PRP trapped VBN at IN Tora NNP Bora NNP and CC I PRP thought VBD we PRP should MD have VB trapped VBN him PRP there RB . . I PRP even RB introduced VBD another DT resolutuion NN on IN the DT principle NN of IN market NN reprisal NN to TO keep VB our PRP$ eye NN on IN target NN rather RB than IN getting VBG involved VBN in IN nation NN building NN . .
matter fact author
frustrat
year
tora bora
resolutuion principl market repris eye target nation build

Well, you know, I can't say --- his colleague was in Pakistan, and we communicated, you know, with the government of Pakistan and they turned him over. And what I suggested there was that if we have no respect for the sovereignty of another nation that it will lead to disruption of that nation. Here we have a nation that we are becoming constantly trying to kill people who we consider our enemies. At the same time we are giving the government of Pakistan billions of dollars. Now there's a civil war going on, the people are mad at us but yet the government is getting money from us and I think it's a deeply flawed policy. But to not go after him --- and if I voted for the authority, obviously I think it was proper. But once they waited ten years, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have done it like they did after Khalid Sheikh Aman. And that would have been a more proper way. If somebody in this country, say a Chinese dissident come over here, we wouldn't endorse the idea, well, they can come over here and bomb us and do whatever. I'm just trying to suggest that respect for other nation's sovereignty --- and look at the chaos in Pakistan now. We are at war in Pakistan, but to say that I didn't want him killed...
Well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , I PRP ca MD n't RB say VB - : his PRP$ colleague NN was VBD in IN Pakistan NNP , , and CC we PRP communicated VBD , , you PRP know VBP , , with IN the DT government NN of IN Pakistan NNP and CC they PRP turned VBD him PRP over RP . . And CC what WP I PRP suggested VBD there EX was VBD that IN if IN we PRP have VBP no DT respect NN for IN the DT sovereignty NN of IN another DT nation NN that IN it PRP will MD lead VB to TO disruption NN of IN that DT nation NN . . Here RB we PRP have VBP a DT nation NN that IN we PRP are VBP becoming VBG constantly RB trying VBG to TO kill VB people NNS who WP we PRP consider VBP our PRP$ enemies NNS . . At IN the DT same JJ time NN we PRP are VBP giving VBG the DT government NN of IN Pakistan NNP billions NNS of IN dollars NNS . . Now RB there EX 's VBZ a DT civil JJ war NN going VBG on IN , , the DT people NNS are VBP mad JJ at IN us PRP but CC yet RB the DT government NN is VBZ getting VBG money NN from IN us PRP and CC I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ a DT deeply RB flawed JJ policy NN . . But CC to TO not RB go VB after IN him PRP - : and CC if IN I PRP voted VBD for IN the DT authority NN , , obviously RB I PRP think VBP it PRP was VBD proper JJ . . But CC once IN they PRP waited VBD ten CD years NNS , , I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB any DT reason NN why WRB they PRP could MD n't RB have VB done VBN it PRP like IN they PRP did VBD after IN Khalid NNP Sheikh NNP Aman NNP . . And CC that DT would MD have VB been VBN a DT more RBR proper JJ way NN . . If IN somebody NN in IN this DT country NN , , say VBP a DT Chinese JJ dissident NN come VBN over IN here RB , , we PRP would MD n't RB endorse VB the DT idea NN , , well RB , , they PRP can MD come VB over IN here RB and CC bomb VB us PRP and CC do VB whatever WDT . . I PRP 'm VBP just RB trying VBG to TO suggest VB that DT respect NN for IN other JJ nation NN 's POS sovereignty NN - : and CC look VB at IN the DT chaos NN in IN Pakistan NNP now RB . . We PRP are VBP at IN war NN in IN Pakistan NNP , , but CC to TO say VB that IN I PRP did VBD n't RB want VB him PRP killed VBN .. NN . .
colleagu pakistan govern pakistan
respect sovereignti nation disrupt nation
nation peopl enemi
time govern pakistan billion dollar
war peopl govern money polici
author
year reason khalid sheikh aman
way
somebodi countri dissid idea
respect nation sovereignti chao pakistan
war pakistan

I'm just suggesting that there are processes that if you could follow and that you should do it. There is proper procedures rather than digging bigger holes for ourselves. That's what we have been doing in the Middle East, digging bigger and bigger holes for ourselves and it's so hard for us to get out of that mess. And we have a long ways to go. We are still in Iraq and that's getting worse and we are not leaving Afghanistan and the American people are sick and tired of it. 80 percent of the American people want us out of there. I am just suggesting that we work within the rule of law. Like only going to war when you declare the law, then we wouldn't be...
I PRP 'm VBP just RB suggesting VBG that IN there EX are VBP processes NNS that IN if IN you PRP could MD follow VB and CC that IN you PRP should MD do VB it PRP . . There EX is VBZ proper JJ procedures NNS rather RB than IN digging NN bigger JJR holes NNS for IN ourselves PRP . . That DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP have VBP been VBN doing VBG in IN the DT Middle NNP East NNP , , digging NN bigger JJR and CC bigger JJR holes NNS for IN ourselves PRP and CC it PRP 's VBZ so RB hard JJ for IN us PRP to TO get VB out IN of IN that DT mess NN . . And CC we PRP have VBP a DT long JJ ways NNS to TO go VB . . We PRP are VBP still RB in IN Iraq NNP and CC that DT 's VBZ getting VBG worse JJR and CC we PRP are VBP not RB leaving VBG Afghanistan NNP and CC the DT American JJ people NNS are VBP sick JJ and CC tired JJ of IN it PRP . . 80 CD percent NN of IN the DT American JJ people NNS want VBP us PRP out IN of IN there RB . . I PRP am VBP just RB suggesting VBG that IN we PRP work VBP within IN the DT rule NN of IN law NN . . Like IN only RB going VBG to TO war NN when WRB you PRP declare VBP the DT law NN , , then RB we PRP would MD n't RB be VB .. VBN . .
process
procedur dig hole
middl east dig hole mess
way
iraq afghanistan peopl
percent peopl
rule law
war law

I would say that if you do your best and you can't do anything, yes, we had the authority, we voted for it, you got it from the congress, you do it. I just didn't think they had gone through the process enough to actually, you know, capture him in a different way. I mean, think about Saddam Hussein. We did that. We captured him. We tried him. I mean the government tried him and he got hung. What's so terrible about this? This whole idea that you can't capture --- just a minute. This whole idea you can't capture people...
I PRP would MD say VB that IN if IN you PRP do VBP your PRP$ best JJS and CC you PRP ca MD n't RB do VB anything NN , , yes UH , , we PRP had VBD the DT authority NN , , we PRP voted VBD for IN it PRP , , you PRP got VBD it PRP from IN the DT congress NN , , you PRP do VBP it PRP . . I PRP just RB did VBD n't RB think VB they PRP had VBD gone VBN through IN the DT process NN enough RB to TO actually RB , , you PRP know VBP , , capture VBP him PRP in IN a DT different JJ way NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , think VBP about IN Saddam NNP Hussein NNP . . We PRP did VBD that DT . . We PRP captured VBD him PRP . . We PRP tried VBD him PRP . . I PRP mean VBP the DT government NN tried VBD him PRP and CC he PRP got VBD hung JJ . . What WP 's VBZ so RB terrible JJ about IN this DT ? . This DT whole JJ idea NN that IN you PRP ca MD n't RB capture VB - : just RB a DT minute NN . . This DT whole JJ idea NN you PRP ca MD n't RB capture VB people NNS .. VBP . .
anyth author congress
process way
saddam hussein
govern
idea minut
idea peopl

Adolf Eichmann was captured. He was given a trial. What is wrong with capturing people? Why didn't we try to get some information from him? You know, we are accustomed to asking people questions, but all of a sudden gone, you know, that's it. So I would say that there are different ways without trying to turn around and say, oh, for some reason this doesn't mean he's supporting America.
Adolf NNP Eichmann NNP was VBD captured VBN . . He PRP was VBD given VBN a DT trial NN . . What WP is VBZ wrong JJ with IN capturing VBG people NNS ? . Why WRB did VBD n't RB we PRP try VBP to TO get VB some DT information NN from IN him PRP ? . You PRP know VBP , , we PRP are VBP accustomed VBN to TO asking VBG people NNS questions NNS , , but CC all DT of IN a DT sudden JJ gone VBN , , you PRP know VBP , , that DT 's VBZ it PRP . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that IN there EX are VBP different JJ ways NNS without IN trying VBG to TO turn VB around RP and CC say VB , , oh UH , , for IN some DT reason NN this DT does VBZ n't RB mean VB he PRP 's VBZ supporting VBG America NNP . .
adolf eichmann
trial
peopl
inform
peopl question
way reason america

My --- my --- my point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we're not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in --- in foreign policy. Don't do to other nations...[ booing ]... what we don't want to have them do to us. So we --- we endlessly bomb --- we endlessly these countries and then we wonder --- wonder why they get upset with us? And --- and yet it --- it continues on and on. I mean, this --- this idea...
My PRP$ - : my PRP$ - : my PRP$ point NN is VBZ , , if IN another DT country NN does VBZ to TO us PRP what WP we PRP do VBP others NNS , , we PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO like VB it PRP very RB much RB . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that IN maybe RB we PRP ought MD to TO consider VB a DT golden JJ rule NN in IN - : in IN foreign JJ policy NN . . Do VBP n't RB do VB to TO other JJ nations NNS ... : ... : what WP we PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO have VB them PRP do VB to TO us PRP . . So IN we PRP - : we PRP endlessly RB bomb VBP - : we PRP endlessly RB these DT countries NNS and CC then RB we PRP wonder VBP - : wonder NN why WRB they PRP get VBP upset VBN with IN us PRP ? . And CC - : and CC yet RB it PRP - : it PRP continues VBZ on IN and CC on IN . . I PRP mean VBP , , this DT - : this DT idea NN .. NN . .
point countri other
rule polici
nation
countri wonder
idea

This idea that we can't debate foreign policy, then all we have to do is start another war? I mean, it's --- it's warmongering. They're building up for another war against Iran, and people can't wait to get in another war. This country doesn't need another war. We need to quit the ones we're in. We need to save the money and bring our troops home. [ applause ]
This DT idea NN that IN we PRP ca MD n't RB debate VB foreign JJ policy NN , , then RB all DT we PRP have VBP to TO do VB is VBZ start VB another DT war NN ? . I PRP mean VBP , , it PRP 's VBZ - : it PRP 's VBZ warmongering VBG . . They PRP 're VBP building VBG up RP for IN another DT war NN against IN Iran NNP , , and CC people NNS ca MD n't RB wait VB to TO get VB in IN another DT war NN . . This DT country NN does VBZ n't RB need VB another DT war NN . . We PRP need VBP to TO quit VB the DT ones NNS we PRP 're VBP in RP . . We PRP need VBP to TO save VB the DT money NN and CC bring VB our PRP$ troops NNS home NN . .
idea polici war
war iran peopl war
countri war
one
money troop home

Just a very brief statement. I, too, served in the air force for five years during the height of the Cold War from '62 to '68 so I've had a little bit of experience. In a matter of fact, I was over in the Afghanistan, Pakistan region. But I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want --- their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It's the al Qaeda you can't mix the two. The al Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says we don't want foreigners. We need to understand that, or we can't resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.
Just RB a DT very RB brief JJ statement NN . . I PRP , , too RB , , served VBD in IN the DT air NN force NN for IN five CD years NNS during IN the DT height NN of IN the DT Cold NNP War NNP from IN '62 CD to TO '68 CD so IN I PRP 've VBP had VBD a DT little JJ bit NN of IN experience NN . . In IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , I PRP was VBD over RB in IN the DT Afghanistan NNP , , Pakistan NNP region NN . . But CC I PRP would MD like VB to TO point VB out RP one CD thing NN about IN the DT Taliban NNP . . The DT Taliban NNP used VBD to TO be VB our PRP$ allies NNS when WRB we PRP were VBD fighting VBG the DT Russians NNPS . . So IN Taliban NNP are VBP people NNS who WP want VBP - : their PRP$ main JJ goal NN is VBZ to TO keep VB foreigners NNS off IN their PRP$ land NN . . It PRP 's VBZ the DT al JJ Qaeda NNP you PRP ca MD n't RB mix VB the DT two CD . . The DT al JJ Qaeda NNP want VBP to TO come VB here RB to TO kill VB us PRP . . The DT Taliban NNP just RB says VBZ we PRP do VBP n't RB want VB foreigners NNS . . We PRP need VBP to TO understand VB that DT , , or CC we PRP ca MD n't RB resolve VB this DT problem NN in IN the DT Middle NNP East NNP . . We PRP are VBP going VBG to TO spend VB a DT lot NN of IN lives NNS and CC a DT lot NN of IN money NN for IN a DT long JJ time NN to TO come VB . .
statement
air forc year height cold war bit experi
matter fact afghanistan pakistan region
thing taliban
taliban alli russian
taliban peopl goal foreign land
qaeda
qaeda
taliban foreign
problem middl east
lot live lot money time

I need a minute. No, I think we are going in the wrong direction for the protection of our liberties here at home. They are under deep threat. The PATRIOT Act has eliminated the fourth amendment. We now have a policy of preemptive war, you don't have to declare war and you don't even have to have an enemy. We can start the wars, that's what preemptive war is all about. Now with the military appropriations defense act, this --- this is --- this is major. This says that the military can arrest an American citizen for under suspicion, and he can be held indefinitely, without habeas corpus, and be denied a lawyer indefinitely even in a prison here. Let me give you one statistic. You're worrying about all these --- all these --- where we're going to try people, where are they going to do it, we have to do it secretly, because our rule of law is so flawed. We have arrested 362 people related to Al Qaida-type operation; 260 of them are in prison. They've been tried and convicted. So don't give up on our American judicial system so easily, I beg of you. [ applause ]
I PRP need VBP a DT minute NN . . No RB , , I PRP think VBP we PRP are VBP going VBG in IN the DT wrong JJ direction NN for IN the DT protection NN of IN our PRP$ liberties NNS here RB at IN home NN . . They PRP are VBP under IN deep JJ threat NN . . The DT PATRIOT NNP Act NNP has VBZ eliminated VBN the DT fourth JJ amendment NN . . We PRP now RB have VBP a DT policy NN of IN preemptive JJ war NN , , you PRP do VBP n't RB have VB to TO declare VB war NN and CC you PRP do VBP n't RB even RB have VB to TO have VB an DT enemy NN . . We PRP can MD start VB the DT wars NNS , , that DT 's VBZ what WP preemptive JJ war NN is VBZ all DT about IN . . Now RB with IN the DT military JJ appropriations NNS defense NN act NN , , this DT - : this DT is VBZ - : this DT is VBZ major JJ . . This DT says VBZ that IN the DT military NN can MD arrest VB an DT American JJ citizen NN for IN under IN suspicion NN , , and CC he PRP can MD be VB held VBN indefinitely RB , , without IN habeas FW corpus FW , , and CC be VB denied VBN a DT lawyer NN indefinitely RB even RB in IN a DT prison NN here RB . . Let VB me PRP give VB you PRP one CD statistic NN . . You PRP 're VBP worrying VBG about IN all PDT these DT - : all PDT these DT - : where WRB we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO try VB people NNS , , where WRB are VBP they PRP going VBG to TO do VB it PRP , , we PRP have VBP to TO do VB it PRP secretly RB , , because IN our PRP$ rule NN of IN law NN is VBZ so RB flawed JJ . . We PRP have VBP arrested VBN 362 CD people NNS related VBN to TO Al NNP Qaida-type JJ operation NN ; : 260 CD of IN them PRP are VBP in IN prison NN . . They PRP 've VBP been VBN tried VBN and CC convicted VBN . . So RB do VBP n't RB give VB up RP on IN our PRP$ American JJ judicial JJ system NN so RB easily RB , , I PRP beg VBP of IN you PRP . .
minut
direct protect liberti home
threat
patriot act amend
polici war war enemi
war war
appropri defens act
militari citizen suspicion lawyer prison
statist
peopl rule law
peopl al oper prison
system

Hardly would that wipe out the Second Amendment. But the jurisdiction is obviously with the state. Even when tort law is involved with medical malpractice, which is a real problem, now, our governor worked on and our state has done a little bit on medical liability. I think that's the way it should be handled. You don't have --- you don't have national tort law. That's not part of the process. That should be at the state level. So to argue the case that that does away with the Second Amendment, when I'm the one that offers all --- all the legislation to repeal the gun bans that have been going on [ inaudible ] everything else. [ applause ] I mean, I've introduced legislation like that. So that's a bit --- a bit of an overstretch to --- to say that I've done away with the Second Amendment.
Hardly RB would MD that WDT wipe VBP out RP the DT Second NNP Amendment NNP . . But CC the DT jurisdiction NN is VBZ obviously RB with IN the DT state NN . . Even RB when WRB tort NN law NN is VBZ involved VBN with IN medical JJ malpractice NN , , which WDT is VBZ a DT real JJ problem NN , , now RB , , our PRP$ governor NN worked VBD on IN and CC our PRP$ state NN has VBZ done VBN a DT little JJ bit NN on IN medical JJ liability NN . . I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ the DT way NN it PRP should MD be VB handled VBN . . You PRP do VBP n't RB have VB - : you PRP do VBP n't RB have VB national JJ tort NN law NN . . That DT 's VBZ not RB part NN of IN the DT process NN . . That DT should MD be VB at IN the DT state NN level NN . . So RB to TO argue VB the DT case NN that IN that DT does VBZ away RB with IN the DT Second NNP Amendment NNP , , when WRB I PRP 'm VBP the DT one NN that WDT offers VBZ all DT - : all PDT the DT legislation NN to TO repeal VB the DT gun NN bans NNS that WDT have VBP been VBN going VBG on IN everything NN else RB . . I PRP mean VBP , , I PRP 've VBP introduced VBN legislation NN like IN that DT . . So IN that DT 's VBZ a DT bit NN - : a DT bit NN of IN an DT overstretch NN to TO - : to TO say VB that IN I PRP 've VBP done VBN away RB with IN the DT Second NNP Amendment NNP . .
second amend
jurisdict state
tort law malpractic problem governor state bit liabil
way
tort law
part process
state level
case second amend one legisl gun ban everyth
legisl
bit bit overstretch second amend

Well, this is the way --- this is the way our Constitution disappears. It's nibbled away. You say, well, I can give up on this, and therefore, I'll give that, and so eventually there's nothing left. But, no, tort law should be a state function, not a federal function.
Well RB , , this DT is VBZ the DT way NN - : this DT is VBZ the DT way NN our PRP$ Constitution NNP disappears VBZ . . It PRP 's VBZ nibbled VBN away RB . . You PRP say VBP , , well RB , , I PRP can MD give VB up RP on IN this DT , , and CC therefore RB , , I PRP 'll MD give VB that IN , , and CC so RB eventually RB there EX 's VBZ nothing NN left NN . . But CC , , no RB , , tort NN law NN should MD be VB a DT state NN function NN , , not RB a DT federal JJ function NN . .
way way constitut
noth left
tort law state function function

You know, I think this whole discussion so far has been very superficial. And I think the question in the way that you ask it is superficial and you're talking about character, which is very important. But I feel we should deal with the issues as well. And I don't see how we can do well against Obama if we have any candidate that, you know, endorsed, you know, single payer systems and TARP bailouts and don't challenge the Federal Reserve's $15 trillion of injection bailing out their friends. I don't see how we can have anybody really compete with Obama who doesn't challenge this huge empire we have overseas and the overseas spending. I mean this is how nations come down. You see they extend themselves too far overseas. That's how the Soviets came down. We -- we really have to talk about real cuts. We haven't gotten around to this yet. So if we want to change things, this is what we have to talk about. Character is important and motivation is important, our history is important. But I really consider that, in the debate format, to be less significant than what we really believe in.
You PRP know VBP , , I PRP think VBP this DT whole JJ discussion NN so RB far RB has VBZ been VBN very RB superficial JJ . . And CC I PRP think VBP the DT question NN in IN the DT way NN that IN you PRP ask VBP it PRP is VBZ superficial JJ and CC you PRP 're VBP talking VBG about IN character NN , , which WDT is VBZ very RB important JJ . . But CC I PRP feel VBP we PRP should MD deal VB with IN the DT issues NNS as RB well RB . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB how WRB we PRP can MD do VB well RB against IN Obama NNP if IN we PRP have VBP any DT candidate NN that IN , , you PRP know VBP , , endorsed VBN , , you PRP know VBP , , single JJ payer NN systems NNS and CC TARP NN bailouts NNS and CC do VBP n't RB challenge VB the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP 's POS $ $ 15 CD trillion CD of IN injection NN bailing VBG out RP their PRP$ friends NNS . . I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB how WRB we PRP can MD have VB anybody NN really RB compete VB with IN Obama NNP who WP does VBZ n't RB challenge VB this DT huge JJ empire NN we PRP have VBP overseas RB and CC the DT overseas JJ spending NN . . I PRP mean VBP this DT is VBZ how WRB nations NNS come VBP down RP . . You PRP see VBP they PRP extend VBP themselves PRP too RB far RB overseas RB . . That DT 's VBZ how WRB the DT Soviets NNPS came VBD down RB . . We PRP -- : we PRP really RB have VBP to TO talk VB about IN real JJ cuts NNS . . We PRP have VBP n't RB gotten VBN around IN to TO this DT yet RB . . So RB if IN we PRP want VBP to TO change VB things NNS , , this DT is VBZ what WP we PRP have VBP to TO talk VB about IN . . Character NN is VBZ important JJ and CC motivation NN is VBZ important JJ , , our PRP$ history NN is VBZ important JJ . . But CC I PRP really RB consider VBP that IN , , in IN the DT debate NN format NN , , to TO be VB less RBR significant JJ than IN what WP we PRP really RB believe VBP in RP . .
discuss
question way charact
issu
obama candid payer system tarp bailout feder reserv inject friend
anybodi obama empir spend
nation
soviet
cut
thing
charact motiv histori
debat format

You know that demonstrates how out of touch the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress is with the American people. Because I'm supporting things that help the American people. [ applause ] That's the disgust that people have. Is because they keep growing government. Whether it's the Republicans in charge or the Democrats in -- in charge. But as far as working with other groups, I think my record is about as good as anybody's because I work on the principle that freedom and the Constitution bring people together, for different reasons. People use freedom in different ways like it does. It invites variations in our religious beliefs and economic beliefs. We tell people that they're allowed to, you know, spend their money as they choose. On civil liberties, that's a different segment. Republican conservatives aren't all that well known for protecting privacy and personal liberties. When it comes to this spending overseas, I can work a coalition. Matter of fact, my trillion dollar proposal to cut spending, doesn't immediately deal with Social Security, it's to try to work our way out of Social Security. I'm cutting a trillion dollars by attacking overseas spending and going back to ' 06 budget. And I do not believe that you have to have -- people who have gotten special privileges and bailouts from the government, they may get the pain, but the American people, they get their freedom back and get no income back, they don't suffer any pain.
You PRP know VBP that DT demonstrates VBZ how WRB out IN of IN touch NN the DT U.S NNP . . government NN and CC the DT U.S NNP . . Congress NNP is VBZ with IN the DT American JJ people NNS . . Because IN I PRP 'm VBP supporting VBG things NNS that WDT help VBP the DT American JJ people NNS . . That DT 's VBZ the DT disgust NN that IN people NNS have VBP . . Is VBZ because IN they PRP keep VBP growing VBG government NN . . Whether IN it PRP 's VBZ the DT Republicans NNS in IN charge NN or CC the DT Democrats NNPS in IN -- : in IN charge NN . . But CC as RB far RB as IN working VBG with IN other JJ groups NNS , , I PRP think VBP my PRP$ record NN is VBZ about RB as RB good JJ as IN anybody NN 's POS because IN I PRP work VBP on IN the DT principle NN that IN freedom NN and CC the DT Constitution NNP bring VBP people NNS together RB , , for IN different JJ reasons NNS . . People NNS use VBP freedom NN in IN different JJ ways NNS like IN it PRP does VBZ . . It PRP invites VBZ variations NNS in IN our PRP$ religious JJ beliefs NNS and CC economic JJ beliefs NNS . . We PRP tell VBP people NNS that IN they PRP 're VBP allowed VBN to TO , , you PRP know VBP , , spend VBP their PRP$ money NN as IN they PRP choose VBP . . On IN civil JJ liberties NNS , , that DT 's VBZ a DT different JJ segment NN . . Republican JJ conservatives NNS are VBP n't RB all PDT that DT well RB known VBN for IN protecting VBG privacy NN and CC personal JJ liberties NNS . . When WRB it PRP comes VBZ to TO this DT spending NN overseas RB , , I PRP can MD work VB a DT coalition NN . . Matter NN of IN fact NN , , my PRP$ trillion CD dollar NN proposal NN to TO cut VB spending NN , , does VBZ n't RB immediately RB deal VB with IN Social NNP Security NNP , , it PRP 's VBZ to TO try VB to TO work VB our PRP$ way NN out IN of IN Social NNP Security NNP . . I PRP 'm VBP cutting VBG a DT trillion CD dollars NNS by IN attacking VBG overseas JJ spending NN and CC going VBG back RB to TO ' '' 06 CD budget NN . . And CC I PRP do VBP not RB believe VB that IN you PRP have VBP to TO have VB -- : people NNS who WP have VBP gotten VBN special JJ privileges NNS and CC bailouts NNS from IN the DT government NN , , they PRP may MD get VB the DT pain NN , , but CC the DT American JJ people NNS , , they PRP get VBP their PRP$ freedom NN back RB and CC get VB no DT income NN back RB , , they PRP do VBP n't RB suffer VB any DT pain NN . .
touch u.
govern u.
congress peopl
thing peopl
disgust peopl
govern
republican charg democrat charg
group record anybodi principl freedom constitut peopl reason
peopl freedom way
variat belief belief
peopl money
liberti segment
conserv privaci liberti
spend coalit
matter fact dollar propos spend social secur way social secur
dollar spend budget
peopl privileg bailout govern pain peopl freedom incom pain

It's not exactly a simple task to repeal approximately 100 years of us sliding away from our republic and still running a foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson, trying to make the world safe for democracy. And, look, we have elections overseas and we don't even accept the elections. No, changing foreign policy is significant, but that's where a nation will come down if they keep doing this. We can't stay in 130 countries, get involved in nation-building. We cannot have 900 bases overseas. We have to change policy. What about changing monetary policy? Yes, we do. But we've had that for 100 years. And right now, we're winning that battle. The American people now agree. About 75 percent of the American people now say we ought to audit the Federal Reserve, find out what they're doing, and who are their friends that they're bailing out constantly? [ applause ]
It PRP 's VBZ not RB exactly RB a DT simple JJ task NN to TO repeal VB approximately RB 100 CD years NNS of IN us PRP sliding VBG away RB from IN our PRP$ republic NN and CC still RB running VBG a DT foreign JJ policy NN of IN Woodrow NNP Wilson NNP , , trying VBG to TO make VB the DT world NN safe JJ for IN democracy NN . . And CC , , look NN , , we PRP have VBP elections NNS overseas RB and CC we PRP do VBP n't RB even RB accept VB the DT elections NNS . . No RB , , changing VBG foreign JJ policy NN is VBZ significant JJ , , but CC that DT 's VBZ where WRB a DT nation NN will MD come VB down RP if IN they PRP keep VBP doing VBG this DT . . We PRP ca MD n't RB stay VB in IN 130 CD countries NNS , , get VB involved VBN in IN nation-building NN . . We PRP can MD not RB have VB 900 CD bases NNS overseas RB . . We PRP have VBP to TO change VB policy NN . . What WP about IN changing VBG monetary JJ policy NN ? . Yes UH , , we PRP do VBP . . But CC we PRP 've VBP had VBD that IN for IN 100 CD years NNS . . And CC right RB now RB , , we PRP 're VBP winning VBG that DT battle NN . . The DT American JJ people NNS now RB agree VBP . . About IN 75 CD percent NN of IN the DT American JJ people NNS now RB say VBP we PRP ought MD to TO audit VB the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , find VB out RP what WP they PRP 're VBP doing VBG , , and CC who WP are VBP their PRP$ friends NNS that IN they PRP 're VBP bailing VBG out RP constantly RB ? .
task year republ polici woodrow wilson world democraci
look elect elect
polici nation
countri nation-build
base
polici
polici
year
battl
peopl
percent peopl feder reserv friend

Well, subsidies per se are -- it's bad economic policy. It's bad moral policy, because it's using government force to transfer money from one group to another. And economically, it does a lot of harm. But when it -- when it comes to energy, we should, you know, deregulate it, like others talk about. But we need to talk -- you know supply and demand -- everybody knows about supply and demand. They talk about oil and if we had more alternative sources, that we -- we always hope the prices will go down. But everybody forgets that there's another 50 percent of a transaction is the monetary unit and you don't deal, very few people talk about the supply and demand of money. And when you create a lot of money, prices go up. So it goes up in the areas where government most gets involved, you know, in education and medical care, housing and in energy. So prices go up much faster than in any other place. So if you subsidize somebody and you print money to do it, you compound the problem. It's good politics. Yes, I'm going to subsidize you and take care of you. But it's bad economic policy and it -- it's not a good way to find -- find any answers.
Well RB , , subsidies NNS per IN se FW are VBP -- : it PRP 's VBZ bad JJ economic JJ policy NN . . It PRP 's VBZ bad JJ moral JJ policy NN , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ using VBG government NN force NN to TO transfer VB money NN from IN one CD group NN to TO another DT . . And CC economically RB , , it PRP does VBZ a DT lot NN of IN harm NN . . But CC when WRB it PRP -- : when WRB it PRP comes VBZ to TO energy NN , , we PRP should MD , , you PRP know VBP , , deregulate VBP it PRP , , like IN others NNS talk VBP about IN . . But CC we PRP need VBP to TO talk VB -- : you PRP know VBP supply NN and CC demand NN -- : everybody NN knows VBZ about IN supply NN and CC demand NN . . They PRP talk VBP about IN oil NN and CC if IN we PRP had VBD more RBR alternative JJ sources NNS , , that IN we PRP -- : we PRP always RB hope VBP the DT prices NNS will MD go VB down RB . . But CC everybody NN forgets VBZ that IN there EX 's VBZ another DT 50 CD percent NN of IN a DT transaction NN is VBZ the DT monetary JJ unit NN and CC you PRP do VBP n't RB deal VB , , very RB few JJ people NNS talk VBP about IN the DT supply NN and CC demand NN of IN money NN . . And CC when WRB you PRP create VBP a DT lot NN of IN money NN , , prices NNS go VBP up RB . . So IN it PRP goes VBZ up RP in IN the DT areas NNS where WRB government NN most RBS gets VBZ involved VBN , , you PRP know VBP , , in IN education NN and CC medical JJ care NN , , housing NN and CC in IN energy NN . . So IN prices NNS go VBP up RB much RB faster RBR than IN in IN any DT other JJ place NN . . So RB if IN you PRP subsidize VBP somebody NN and CC you PRP print VBP money NN to TO do VB it PRP , , you PRP compound VBP the DT problem NN . . It PRP 's VBZ good JJ politics NNS . . Yes RB , , I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO subsidize VB you PRP and CC take VB care NN of IN you PRP . . But CC it PRP 's VBZ bad JJ economic JJ policy NN and CC it PRP -- : it PRP 's VBZ not RB a DT good JJ way NN to TO find VB -- : find VB any DT answers NNS . .
subsidi polici
polici govern forc money group
lot harm
energi other
suppli demand everybodi suppli demand
oil sourc price
everybodi percent transact unit peopl suppli demand money
lot money price
area govern educ care hous energi
price place
somebodi money problem
polit
care
polici way answer

Entitlements are not rights. Right mean you have a right...[ applause ]...rights mean you have a right to your life. You have a right to -- to your liberty and you should have a right to keep the fruits of your labor. And this is quite a bit different, but earlier on there was a little discussion here about gay rights. I in a way don't like to use those terms, gay rights, woman's rights, minority rights, religious rights. There's only one type of right. It's the right to your liberty. And I think this causes divisiveness when we see people in groups, because for too long we punish groups. So the answer then was, let's -- let's relieve them by giving them affirmative action. So I think both are wrong. If you think in terms of individuals and protect every single individuals, no, they're not entitled. One group isn't entitled to take something from somebody else. And the basic problem here is, there's a lot of good intention to help poor people, but guess who gets the entitlements in Washington? The big guys get -- the rich people. They run the entitlement system, the military industrial complex, the banking system. Those are the entitlements we should be dealing with.
Entitlements NNS are VBP not RB rights NNS . . Right RB mean VB you PRP have VBP a DT right NN ... : ... : rights NNS mean VBP you PRP have VBP a DT right NN to TO your PRP$ life NN . . You PRP have VBP a DT right NN to TO -- : to TO your PRP$ liberty NN and CC you PRP should MD have VB a DT right NN to TO keep VB the DT fruits NNS of IN your PRP$ labor NN . . And CC this DT is VBZ quite RB a DT bit RB different JJ , , but CC earlier RB on IN there EX was VBD a DT little JJ discussion NN here RB about IN gay JJ rights NNS . . I PRP in IN a DT way NN do VBP n't RB like VB to TO use VB those DT terms NNS , , gay JJ rights NNS , , woman NN 's POS rights NNS , , minority NN rights NNS , , religious JJ rights NNS . . There EX 's VBZ only RB one CD type NN of IN right NN . . It PRP 's VBZ the DT right NN to TO your PRP$ liberty NN . . And CC I PRP think VBP this DT causes VBZ divisiveness NN when WRB we PRP see VBP people NNS in IN groups NNS , , because IN for IN too RB long RB we PRP punish VBP groups NNS . . So IN the DT answer NN then RB was VBD , , let VB 's POS -- : let VB 's POS relieve VB them PRP by IN giving VBG them PRP affirmative JJ action NN . . So RB I PRP think VBP both DT are VBP wrong JJ . . If IN you PRP think VBP in IN terms NNS of IN individuals NNS and CC protect VB every DT single JJ individuals NNS , , no DT , , they PRP 're VBP not RB entitled VBN . . One CD group NN is VBZ n't RB entitled VBN to TO take VB something NN from IN somebody NN else RB . . And CC the DT basic JJ problem NN here RB is VBZ , , there EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN of IN good JJ intention NN to TO help VB poor JJ people NNS , , but CC guess NN who WP gets VBZ the DT entitlements NNS in IN Washington NNP ? . The DT big JJ guys NNS get VBP -- : the DT rich JJ people NNS . . They PRP run VBP the DT entitlement NN system NN , , the DT military JJ industrial JJ complex NN , , the DT banking NN system NN . . Those DT are VBP the DT entitlements NNS we PRP should MD be VB dealing VBG with IN . .
entitl right
right right right life
right liberti right fruit labor
discuss right
way term right woman right minor right right
type right
right liberti
divis peopl group group
answer action
term individu individu
group someth somebodi
problem lot intent peopl guess entitl washington
guy peopl
entitl system complex bank system
entitl

I would continue to do what I'm doing now, preaching the gospel of liberty. I think that the most important ingredients in this country that made us great was our founders understood what liberty meant. And that is what we need. We have deserted that. We have drifted a long way. It involves our right to our life, right to our liberty. We ought to be able to keep the fruits of our labor. We ought to understand property rights. We ought to understand contract rights. We ought to understand what sound money is all about, and we ought to understand what national defense means. That means defending this country. That is the bully pulpit we need. We need to defend liberty.
I PRP would MD continue VB to TO do VB what WP I PRP 'm VBP doing VBG now RB , , preaching VBG the DT gospel NN of IN liberty NN . . I PRP think VBP that IN the DT most RBS important JJ ingredients NNS in IN this DT country NN that WDT made VBD us PRP great JJ was VBD our PRP$ founders NNS understood VBD what WP liberty NN meant VBD . . And CC that DT is VBZ what WP we PRP need VBP . . We PRP have VBP deserted VBN that DT . . We PRP have VBP drifted VBN a DT long JJ way NN . . It PRP involves VBZ our PRP$ right NN to TO our PRP$ life NN , , right JJ to TO our PRP$ liberty NN . . We PRP ought MD to TO be VB able JJ to TO keep VB the DT fruits NNS of IN our PRP$ labor NN . . We PRP ought MD to TO understand VB property NN rights NNS . . We PRP ought MD to TO understand VB contract NN rights NNS . . We PRP ought MD to TO understand VB what WP sound JJ money NN is VBZ all DT about IN , , and CC we PRP ought MD to TO understand VB what WP national JJ defense NN means VBZ . . That DT means VBZ defending VBG this DT country NN . . That DT is VBZ the DT bully NN pulpit NN we PRP need VBP . . We PRP need VBP to TO defend VB liberty NN . .
gospel liberti
ingredi countri founder liberti
way
right life liberti
fruit labor
properti right
contract right
money defens
countri
bulli pulpit
liberti

And liberty. [ laughter ]
And CC liberty NN . .
liberti

Well, it was a quote -- somebody did make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists. But really what the whole -- there it goes again.
Well RB , , it PRP was VBD a DT quote NN -- : somebody NN did VBD make VB a DT survey NN and CC I PRP think VBP he PRP came VBD out RP as IN one CD of IN the DT top JJ corrupt JJ individuals NNS because IN he PRP took VBD so RB much JJ money NN from IN the DT lobbyists NNS . . But CC really RB what WP the DT whole NN -- : there EX it PRP goes VBZ again RB . .
quot somebodi survey individu money lobbyist
whole

But really -- what really counts is his record. I mean, he's a big government, big spending individual. Because, you know, he preached to the fact he wanted a balanced budget amendment but voted to raise the debt to five times. So he is a big government person. And we as Republicans know something about right to work. He supported -- he voted against right to work. He voted along with No Child Left Behind, to double, you know, the size of the Department of Education. And he also voted to -- for the prescription drug program. So he's a big government person, along with him being very -- associated with the lobbyists and taking a lot of funds. And also where did he get -- make his living afterwards? I mean, he became a high-powered lobbyist on -- in Washington, D.C. And he has done quite well. We checked out Newt, on his income. I think we ought to find out how much money he has made from the lobbyists as well.
But CC really RB -- : what WP really RB counts VBZ is VBZ his PRP$ record NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , he PRP 's VBZ a DT big JJ government NN , , big JJ spending NN individual NN . . Because IN , , you PRP know VBP , , he PRP preached VBD to TO the DT fact NN he PRP wanted VBD a DT balanced JJ budget NN amendment NN but CC voted VBD to TO raise VB the DT debt NN to TO five CD times NNS . . So RB he PRP is VBZ a DT big JJ government NN person NN . . And CC we PRP as IN Republicans NNPS know VBP something NN about IN right NN to TO work VB . . He PRP supported VBD -- : he PRP voted VBD against IN right NN to TO work VB . . He PRP voted VBD along IN with IN No DT Child NN Left VBN Behind IN , , to TO double VB , , you PRP know VBP , , the DT size NN of IN the DT Department NNP of IN Education NNP . . And CC he PRP also RB voted VBD to TO -- : for IN the DT prescription NN drug NN program NN . . So RB he PRP 's VBZ a DT big JJ government NN person NN , , along IN with IN him PRP being VBG very RB -- : associated VBN with IN the DT lobbyists NNS and CC taking VBG a DT lot NN of IN funds NNS . . And CC also RB where WRB did VBD he PRP get VB -- : make VB his PRP$ living NN afterwards RB ? . I PRP mean VBP , , he PRP became VBD a DT high-powered JJ lobbyist NN on IN -- : in IN Washington NNP , , D.C NNP . . And CC he PRP has VBZ done VBN quite RB well RB . . We PRP checked VBD out RP Newt NNP , , on IN his PRP$ income NN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP ought MD to TO find VB out RP how WRB much JJ money NN he PRP has VBZ made VBN from IN the DT lobbyists NNS as RB well RB . .
record
govern spend individu
fact budget amend debt time
govern person
republican someth right
right
child size depart educ
prescript drug program
govern person lobbyist lot fund
live
lobbyist washington d.c
newt incom
money lobbyist

Well, you know, it is true -- I believe Congress should designate how the money should be spent. I agree with that. But the big difference between the way I voted and the senator voted is I always voted against the spending. I voted against all the spending. It's only been a couple appropriations bills I voted for in the past, what, 24, 26 years I've been in Washington. So you're a big spender; that's all there is to it. You're a big-government conservative. And you don't vote for, you know, right to work and these very important things. And that's what weakens the economy. So to say you're a conservative, I think, is a stretch. But you've convinced a lot of people of it, so somebody has to point out your record. [ crosstalk ]
Well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , it PRP is VBZ true JJ -- : I PRP believe VBP Congress NNP should MD designate VB how WRB the DT money NN should MD be VB spent VBN . . I PRP agree VBP with IN that DT . . But CC the DT big JJ difference NN between IN the DT way NN I PRP voted VBD and CC the DT senator NN voted VBD is VBZ I PRP always RB voted VBD against IN the DT spending NN . . I PRP voted VBD against IN all PDT the DT spending NN . . It PRP 's VBZ only RB been VBN a DT couple JJ appropriations NNS bills NNS I PRP voted VBD for IN in IN the DT past NN , , what WP , , 24 CD , , 26 CD years NNS I PRP 've VBP been VBN in IN Washington NNP . . So RB you PRP 're VBP a DT big JJ spender NN ; : that DT 's VBZ all DT there EX is VBZ to TO it PRP . . You PRP 're VBP a DT big-government JJ conservative NN . . And CC you PRP do VBP n't RB vote VB for IN , , you PRP know VBP , , right JJ to TO work VB and CC these DT very RB important JJ things NNS . . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP weakens VBZ the DT economy NN . . So RB to TO say VB you PRP 're VBP a DT conservative JJ , , I PRP think VBP , , is VBZ a DT stretch NN . . But CC you PRP 've VBP convinced VBN a DT lot NN of IN people NNS of IN it PRP , , so IN somebody NN has VBZ to TO point VB out RP your PRP$ record NN . .
congress money
differ way senat spend
spend
appropri bill past year washington
spender
conserv
thing
economi
stretch
lot peopl somebodi record

Well, I call it being a constitutionalist, because I believe we should earmark, or designate, every penny. You designate weapons systems. You designate money to go to spend $1 billion on an embassy in Iraq. That's -- that's an earmark, too. I say the Congress has more responsibility. But this thing, back -- back to Senator Santorum, you know, he ducks behind this -- he's for this balanced budget amendment, but voted five times to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars. This is what the whole Tea Party movement's about. When -- I mean, government's practically stopped over increasing the national debt. You did it five times. So what's your excuse for that? That's trillions of dollars. You kept this thing going. You didn't do very much to slow it up when you had a chance.
Well RB , , I PRP call VBP it PRP being VBG a DT constitutionalist NN , , because IN I PRP believe VBP we PRP should MD earmark VB , , or CC designate VB , , every DT penny NN . . You PRP designate VBP weapons NNS systems NNS . . You PRP designate VBP money NN to TO go VB to TO spend VB $ $ 1 CD billion CD on IN an DT embassy NN in IN Iraq NNP . . That DT 's VBZ -- : that DT 's VBZ an DT earmark VBP , , too RB . . I PRP say VBP the DT Congress NNP has VBZ more JJR responsibility NN . . But CC this DT thing NN , , back RB -- : back RB to TO Senator NNP Santorum NNP , , you PRP know VBP , , he PRP ducks VBZ behind IN this DT -- : he PRP 's VBZ for IN this DT balanced JJ budget NN amendment NN , , but CC voted VBD five CD times NNS to TO increase VB the DT national JJ debt NN by IN trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS . . This DT is VBZ what WP the DT whole JJ Tea NNP Party NNP movement NN 's VBZ about IN . . When WRB -- : I PRP mean VBP , , government NN 's VBZ practically RB stopped VBN over IN increasing VBG the DT national JJ debt NN . . You PRP did VBD it PRP five CD times NNS . . So RB what WP 's VBZ your PRP$ excuse NN for IN that DT ? . That DT 's VBZ trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS . . You PRP kept VBD this DT thing NN going VBG . . You PRP did VBD n't RB do VB very RB much RB to TO slow VB it PRP up RP when WRB you PRP had VBD a DT chance NN . .
constitutionalist penni
weapon system
money embassi iraq
congress respons
thing senat santorum budget amend time debt trillion dollar
tea parti movement
govern debt
time
excus
trillion dollar
thing
chanc

Yeah. I -- I think people who don't serve when they could and they get three or four or even five deferments aren't -- they -- they have no right to send our kids off to war, and -- and not be even against the wars that we have. I'm trying to stop the wars, but at least, you know, I went when they called me up. But, you know, the -- the veterans' problem is a big one. We have hundreds of thousands coming back from these wars that were undeclared, they were unnecessary, they haven't been won, they're unwinnable, and we have hundreds of thousands looking for care. And we have an epidemic of suicide coming back. And so many have -- I mean, if you add up all the contractors and all the wars going on, Afghanistan and in Iraq, we've lost 8,500 Americans, and severe injuries, over 40,000. And these are undeclared war. So, Rick keeps say we -- you don't want this libertarian stuff, but what I'm talking about, I don't bring up the word. You do. But I talk about the Constitution. Constitution has rules. And I don't like it when we send our kids off to fight these wars, and when those individuals didn't go themselves, and then come up and when they're asked, they say, oh, I don't think I could -- one person could have made a difference. I have a pet peeve that annoys me to a great deal, because when I see these young men coming back, my heart weeps for them.
Yeah UH . . I PRP -- : I PRP think VBP people NNS who WP do VBP n't RB serve VB when WRB they PRP could MD and CC they PRP get VBP three CD or CC four CD or CC even RB five CD deferments NNS are VBP n't RB -- : they PRP -- : they PRP have VBP no DT right NN to TO send VB our PRP$ kids NNS off RB to TO war NN , , and CC -- : and CC not RB be VB even RB against IN the DT wars NNS that IN we PRP have VBP . . I PRP 'm VBP trying VBG to TO stop VB the DT wars NNS , , but CC at IN least JJS , , you PRP know VBP , , I PRP went VBD when WRB they PRP called VBD me PRP up RP . . But CC , , you PRP know VBP , , the DT -- : the DT veterans NNS ' POS problem NN is VBZ a DT big JJ one CD . . We PRP have VBP hundreds NNS of IN thousands NNS coming VBG back RB from IN these DT wars NNS that WDT were VBD undeclared JJ , , they PRP were VBD unnecessary JJ , , they PRP have VBP n't RB been VBN won VBN , , they PRP 're VBP unwinnable JJ , , and CC we PRP have VBP hundreds NNS of IN thousands NNS looking VBG for IN care NN . . And CC we PRP have VBP an DT epidemic NN of IN suicide NN coming VBG back RB . . And CC so RB many JJ have VBP -- : I PRP mean VBP , , if IN you PRP add VBP up RP all PDT the DT contractors NNS and CC all PDT the DT wars NNS going VBG on IN , , Afghanistan NNP and CC in IN Iraq NNP , , we PRP 've VBP lost VBN 8,500 CD Americans NNPS , , and CC severe JJ injuries NNS , , over IN 40,000 CD . . And CC these DT are VBP undeclared JJ war NN . . So RB , , Rick NNP keeps VBZ say VB we PRP -- : you PRP do VBP n't RB want VB this DT libertarian JJ stuff NN , , but CC what WP I PRP 'm VBP talking VBG about IN , , I PRP do VBP n't RB bring VB up RP the DT word NN . . You PRP do VBP . . But CC I PRP talk VBP about IN the DT Constitution NNP . . Constitution NNP has VBZ rules NNS . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB it PRP when WRB we PRP send VBP our PRP$ kids NNS off RP to TO fight VB these DT wars NNS , , and CC when WRB those DT individuals NNS did VBD n't RB go VB themselves PRP , , and CC then RB come VB up RB and CC when WRB they PRP 're VBP asked VBN , , they PRP say VBP , , oh UH , , I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB I PRP could MD -- : one CD person NN could MD have VB made VBN a DT difference NN . . I PRP have VBP a DT pet NN peeve NN that WDT annoys VBZ me PRP to TO a DT great JJ deal NN , , because IN when WRB I PRP see VBP these DT young JJ men NNS coming VBG back RB , , my PRP$ heart NN weeps VBZ for IN them PRP . .
peopl defer right kid war war
war
veteran problem
hundr thousand war hundr thousand care
epidem suicid
contractor war afghanistan iraq american injuri
war
rick stuff word
constitut
constitut rule
kid war individu person differ
pet peev deal men heart

I need one quick follow-up. When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went. [ applause ]
I PRP need VBP one CD quick JJ follow-up NN . . When WRB I PRP was VBD drafted VBN , , I PRP was VBD married VBN and CC had VBD two CD kids NNS , , and CC I PRP went VBD . .
follow-up
kid

Well, it's been explained many times, and everything's written 20 years ago, approximately, that I did not write. So concentrating on something that was written 20 years ago that I didn't write, you know, is diverting the attention from most of the important issues. But the inference is obvious that -- and you even bring up the word racial overtones. More importantly, you ought to ask me what my relationship is for racial relationships. And one of my heroes is Martin Luther King because he practiced the libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, as did Rosa Parks did. But, also, I'm the only one up here and the only one in the Democratic Party that understands true racism in this country is in the judicial system. And it has to do with enforcing the drug laws. Look at the percentages. The percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately. They're -- they're prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately. They get -- they get the death penalty way disproportionately. How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution? But poor minorities have an injustice. And they have an injustice in war, as well, because minorities suffer more. Even with a draft -- with a draft, they suffered definitely more. And without a draft, they're suffering disproportionately. If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws, which are being so unfairly enforced.
Well RB , , it PRP 's VBZ been VBN explained VBD many JJ times NNS , , and CC everything NN 's POS written VBN 20 CD years NNS ago RB , , approximately RB , , that IN I PRP did VBD not RB write VB . . So RB concentrating VBG on IN something NN that WDT was VBD written VBN 20 CD years NNS ago RB that IN I PRP did VBD n't RB write VB , , you PRP know VBP , , is VBZ diverting VBG the DT attention NN from IN most JJS of IN the DT important JJ issues NNS . . But CC the DT inference NN is VBZ obvious JJ that IN -- : and CC you PRP even RB bring VB up RP the DT word NN racial JJ overtones NNS . . More RBR importantly RB , , you PRP ought MD to TO ask VB me PRP what WP my PRP$ relationship NN is VBZ for IN racial JJ relationships NNS . . And CC one CD of IN my PRP$ heroes NNS is VBZ Martin NNP Luther NNP King NNP because IN he PRP practiced VBD the DT libertarian JJ principle NN of IN peaceful JJ resistance NN and CC peaceful JJ civil JJ disobedience NN , , as IN did VBD Rosa NNP Parks NNPS did VBD . . But CC , , also RB , , I PRP 'm VBP the DT only RB one CD up IN here RB and CC the DT only RB one CD in IN the DT Democratic NNP Party NNP that WDT understands VBZ true JJ racism NN in IN this DT country NN is VBZ in IN the DT judicial JJ system NN . . And CC it PRP has VBZ to TO do VB with IN enforcing VBG the DT drug NN laws NNS . . Look VB at IN the DT percentages NNS . . The DT percentage NN of IN people NNS who WP use VBP drugs NNS are VBP about IN the DT same JJ with IN blacks NNS and CC whites NNS . . And CC yet RB the DT blacks NNS are VBP arrested VBN way RB disproportionately RB . . They PRP 're VBP -- : they PRP 're VBP prosecuted VBN and CC imprisoned VBN way NN disproportionately RB . . They PRP get VBP -- : they PRP get VBP the DT death NN penalty NN way NN disproportionately RB . . How WRB many JJ times NNS have VBP you PRP seen VBN a DT white JJ rich JJ person NN get VB the DT electric JJ chair NN or CC get VB , , you PRP know VBP , , execution NN ? . But CC poor JJ minorities NNS have VBP an DT injustice NN . . And CC they PRP have VBP an DT injustice NN in IN war NN , , as IN well RB , , because IN minorities NNS suffer VBP more JJR . . Even RB with IN a DT draft NN -- : with IN a DT draft NN , , they PRP suffered VBD definitely RB more JJR . . And CC without IN a DT draft NN , , they PRP 're VBP suffering VBG disproportionately RB . . If IN we PRP truly RB want VBP to TO be VB concerned VBN about IN racism NN , , you PRP ought MD to TO look VB at IN a DT few JJ of IN those DT issues NNS and CC look VB at IN the DT drug NN laws NNS , , which WDT are VBP being VBG so RB unfairly RB enforced VBN . .
time everyth year
someth year attent issu
infer word overton
relationship relationship
hero martin luther king principl resist disobedi rosa park
democrat parti racism countri system
drug law
percentag
percentag peopl drug black white
black
way
death penalti way
time person chair execut
minor injustic
injustic war minor
draft draft
draft
racism issu drug law

Well, it was a quote. Somebody did make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals, because he took so much money from the lobbyists. But, really, what the whole... [ feedback noise ]
Well RB , , it PRP was VBD a DT quote NN . . Somebody NN did VBD make VB a DT survey NN and CC I PRP think VBP he PRP came VBD out RP as IN one CD of IN the DT top JJ corrupt JJ individuals NNS , , because IN he PRP took VBD so RB much JJ money NN from IN the DT lobbyists NNS . . But CC , , really RB , , what WP the DT whole JJ .. NN . .
quot
somebodi survey individu money lobbyist

But what real -- really... [ laughter ] ...What really counts is -- is his record. I mean he's a big government, big spending individual.
But CC what WP real JJ -- : really RB ... : ... : What WP really RB counts VBZ is VBZ -- : is VBZ his PRP$ record NN . . I PRP mean VBP he PRP 's VBZ a DT big JJ government NN , , big JJ spending NN individual NN . .
record
govern spend individu

He mentioned my name.
He PRP mentioned VBD my PRP$ name NN . .
name

I didn't know whether I got time when it was favorable or not. But thank you. No, I think the Fourth Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house and look at what they have or their papers or any private things without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the Fourth Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce Clause protects this because the Interstate Commerce Clause was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to facilitate trade between the states. So if it's not illegal to import birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to sell birth control pills in that state.
I PRP did VBD n't RB know VB whether IN I PRP got VBD time NN when WRB it PRP was VBD favorable JJ or CC not RB . . But CC thank VB you PRP . . No RB , , I PRP think VBP the DT Fourth JJ Amendment NNP is VBZ very RB clear JJ . . It PRP is VBZ explicit JJ in IN our PRP$ privacy NN . . You PRP ca MD n't RB go VB into IN anybody NN 's POS house NN and CC look NN at IN what WP they PRP have VBP or CC their PRP$ papers NNS or CC any DT private JJ things NNS without IN a DT search NN warrant NN . . This DT is VBZ why WRB the DT Patriot NNP Act NNP is VBZ wrong JJ , , because IN you PRP have VBP a DT right NN of IN privacy NN by IN the DT Fourth JJ Amendment NNP . . As RB far RB as IN selling VBG contraceptives NNS , , the DT Interstate NNP Commerce NNP Clause NN protects VBZ this DT because IN the DT Interstate NNP Commerce NNP Clause NN was VBD originally RB written VBN not RB to TO impede VB trade NN between IN the DT states NNS , , but CC it PRP was VBD written VBN to TO facilitate VB trade NN between IN the DT states NNS . . So RB if IN it PRP 's VBZ not RB illegal JJ to TO import VB birth NN control NN pills NNS from IN one CD state NN to TO the DT next JJ , , it PRP would MD be VB legal JJ to TO sell VB birth NN control NN pills NNS in IN that DT state NN . .
time
amend
privaci
anybodi hous look paper thing search warrant
patriot act right privaci amend
contracept interst commerc claus interst commerc claus trade state trade state
birth control pill state birth control pill state

Well I essentially have. It's just that I don't like absolutes like, I will never do something. But no...
Well RB I PRP essentially RB have VBP . . It PRP 's VBZ just RB that IN I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB absolutes NNS like IN , , I PRP will MD never RB do VB something NN . . But CC no DT .. NN . .
absolut someth

Please don't interrupt me. [ applause ] So, I have said it in the last go-around, I said -- they asked me that about 30 times. I think maybe you've asked me four or five already. And the answer is always the same. You know, no, I have no plans to do it. I don't intend to do it. And somebody pushed me a little bit harder and said why don't you plan to do it? I just -- I don't want to. So I have no intention. But I don't know why a person can't reserve a judgment and see how things turn out? You know, in many ways I see the other candidates as very honorable people, but I sometimes disagree with their approach to government. And I'd like to see some changes. I -- I want to see changes. When they're talking about a -- a little bit of a difference in foreign policy and -- and interest in the Federal Reserve, a change in the monetary policy. We haven't heard one talk -- minute of talk about cutting any spending. we've talked previously about cutting the military spending. That's cutting proposed increases. This is why I have proposed that we cut a whole trillion dollars that first year. If we're serious as Republicans and conservatives, we have to cut. So I want to put as much pressure on them as I can. But besides, I'm doing pretty well, you know? Third wasn't too bad. I wasn't too far behind. And doing pretty well. Catching up on Mitt every single day. [ laughter ]
Please VB do VBP n't RB interrupt VB me PRP . . So RB , , I PRP have VBP said VBD it PRP in IN the DT last JJ go-around NN , , I PRP said VBD -- : they PRP asked VBD me PRP that IN about IN 30 CD times NNS . . I PRP think VBP maybe RB you PRP 've VBP asked VBN me PRP four CD or CC five CD already RB . . And CC the DT answer NN is VBZ always RB the DT same JJ . . You PRP know VBP , , no DT , , I PRP have VBP no DT plans NNS to TO do VB it PRP . . I PRP do VBP n't RB intend VB to TO do VB it PRP . . And CC somebody NN pushed VBD me PRP a DT little JJ bit NN harder RBR and CC said VBD why WRB do VBP n't RB you PRP plan VBP to TO do VB it PRP ? . I PRP just RB -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO . . So RB I PRP have VBP no DT intention NN . . But CC I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB why WRB a DT person NN ca MD n't RB reserve VB a DT judgment NN and CC see VB how WRB things NNS turn VBP out RP ? . You PRP know VBP , , in IN many JJ ways NNS I PRP see VBP the DT other JJ candidates NNS as IN very RB honorable JJ people NNS , , but CC I PRP sometimes RB disagree VBP with IN their PRP$ approach NN to TO government NN . . And CC I PRP 'd MD like VB to TO see VB some DT changes NNS . . I PRP -- : I PRP want VBP to TO see VB changes NNS . . When WRB they PRP 're VBP talking VBG about IN a DT -- : a DT little JJ bit NN of IN a DT difference NN in IN foreign JJ policy NN and CC -- : and CC interest NN in IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , a DT change NN in IN the DT monetary JJ policy NN . . We PRP have VBP n't RB heard VBN one CD talk NN -- : minute NN of IN talk NN about IN cutting VBG any DT spending NN . . we PRP 've VBP talked VBN previously RB about IN cutting VBG the DT military JJ spending NN . . That DT 's VBZ cutting VBG proposed VBN increases NNS . . This DT is VBZ why WRB I PRP have VBP proposed VBN that IN we PRP cut VBD a DT whole JJ trillion CD dollars NNS that IN first JJ year NN . . If IN we PRP 're VBP serious JJ as IN Republicans NNS and CC conservatives NNS , , we PRP have VBP to TO cut VB . . So RB I PRP want VBP to TO put VB as RB much JJ pressure NN on IN them PRP as IN I PRP can MD . . But CC besides IN , , I PRP 'm VBP doing VBG pretty RB well RB , , you PRP know VBP ? . Third NNP was VBD n't RB too RB bad JJ . . I PRP was VBD n't RB too RB far RB behind RB . . And CC doing VBG pretty RB well RB . . Catching VBG up RP on IN Mitt NNP every DT single JJ day NN . .
go-around time
answer
plan
somebodi bit
intent
person judgment thing
way candid peopl approach govern
chang
chang
bit differ polici interest feder reserv chang polici
talk minut talk spend
spend
increas
dollar year
republican conserv
pressur
third
mitt day

Well, I think -- I think that's a misquote. I don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I voted to go after bin Laden, so that, you know, takes care of that. But, you know, this business about when to go in, I don't think it's that complicated. I think we've made it much more complicated than it should be. Yes, the president is the commander-in-chief, but he's not the king. And that's why we fought a revolution, not to have a king and decide when we go to war. We would have saved ourselves a lot of grief if we only had gone to war in a proper manner, and the proper manner is the people elect congressmen and senators to make a declaration of war, and then we become the commander-in-chief, and we make these decisions. But we went into Afghanistan. We went into Iraq. And now we're in Pakistan. We're involved in so many countries. Now they want to move on to Syria. And they can't -- there's some in Washington now can't wait until they start bombing Iran. We have to change this whole nature. You know, something happened this week I thought was so encouraging. And it reminds me of how we finally talked to the Chinese. I mean, they had killed 100 million of their own people, but we finally broke the ice by playing ping-pong. But today, the -- the American Navy picked up a bunch of fishermen, Iranian fishermen, that had been held by -- by the pirates, and released them. And they were so welcome, it was just a wonderful thing to happen. This is the kind of stuff we should deal with, not putting on sanctions. Sanctions themselves are -- always leads up to war. And that's what we're doing. Eastern Europe is going to be destabilized if they don't have this oil. And this just pushes Iran right into the hands of the Chinese. So our policy may be well intended, but it has a lot of downside, a lot of unintended consequences, and, unfortunately, blowback.
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP -- : I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ a DT misquote NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB Iran NNP to TO get VB a DT nuclear JJ weapon NN . . I PRP voted VBD to TO go VB after IN bin NN Laden NNP , , so IN that IN , , you PRP know VBP , , takes VBZ care NN of IN that DT . . But CC , , you PRP know VBP , , this DT business NN about IN when WRB to TO go VB in IN , , I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB it PRP 's VBZ that IN complicated VBN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP 've VBP made VBN it PRP much RB more RBR complicated JJ than IN it PRP should MD be VB . . Yes RB , , the DT president NN is VBZ the DT commander-in-chief NN , , but CC he PRP 's VBZ not RB the DT king NN . . And CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB we PRP fought VBD a DT revolution NN , , not RB to TO have VB a DT king NN and CC decide VB when WRB we PRP go VBP to TO war NN . . We PRP would MD have VB saved VBN ourselves PRP a DT lot NN of IN grief NN if IN we PRP only RB had VBD gone VBN to TO war NN in IN a DT proper JJ manner NN , , and CC the DT proper JJ manner NN is VBZ the DT people NNS elect VBP congressmen NNS and CC senators NNS to TO make VB a DT declaration NN of IN war NN , , and CC then RB we PRP become VBP the DT commander-in-chief NN , , and CC we PRP make VBP these DT decisions NNS . . But CC we PRP went VBD into IN Afghanistan NNP . . We PRP went VBD into IN Iraq NNP . . And CC now RB we PRP 're VBP in IN Pakistan NNP . . We PRP 're VBP involved VBN in IN so RB many JJ countries NNS . . Now RB they PRP want VBP to TO move VB on RP to TO Syria NNP . . And CC they PRP ca MD n't RB -- : there EX 's VBZ some DT in IN Washington NNP now RB ca MD n't RB wait VB until IN they PRP start VBP bombing NN Iran NNP . . We PRP have VBP to TO change VB this DT whole JJ nature NN . . You PRP know VBP , , something NN happened VBD this DT week NN I PRP thought VBD was VBD so RB encouraging JJ . . And CC it PRP reminds VBZ me PRP of IN how WRB we PRP finally RB talked VBD to TO the DT Chinese NNPS . . I PRP mean VBP , , they PRP had VBD killed VBN 100 CD million CD of IN their PRP$ own JJ people NNS , , but CC we PRP finally RB broke VBD the DT ice NN by IN playing VBG ping-pong NN . . But CC today NN , , the DT -- : the DT American NNP Navy NNP picked VBD up RP a DT bunch NN of IN fishermen NNS , , Iranian JJ fishermen NNS , , that WDT had VBD been VBN held VBN by IN -- : by IN the DT pirates NNS , , and CC released VBD them PRP . . And CC they PRP were VBD so RB welcome JJ , , it PRP was VBD just RB a DT wonderful JJ thing NN to TO happen VB . . This DT is VBZ the DT kind NN of IN stuff NN we PRP should MD deal VB with IN , , not RB putting VBG on IN sanctions NNS . . Sanctions NNS themselves PRP are VBP -- : always RB leads VBZ up RP to TO war NN . . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG . . Eastern NNP Europe NNP is VBZ going VBG to TO be VB destabilized VBN if IN they PRP do VBP n't RB have VB this DT oil NN . . And CC this DT just RB pushes VBZ Iran NNP right RB into IN the DT hands NNS of IN the DT Chinese NNPS . . So RB our PRP$ policy NN may MD be VB well RB intended VBN , , but CC it PRP has VBZ a DT lot NN of IN downside NN , , a DT lot NN of IN unintended JJ consequences NNS , , and CC , , unfortunately RB , , blowback NN . .
misquot
iran weapon
bin laden care
busi
presid commander-in-chief king
revolut king war
lot grief war manner manner peopl congressmen senat declar war commander-in-chief decis
afghanistan
iraq
pakistan
countri
syria
washington bomb iran
natur
someth week
chines
peopl ice ping-pong
today american navi bunch fishermen fishermen pirat
thing
kind stuff sanction
sanction war
eastern europ oil
iran hand chines
polici lot downsid lot consequ blowback

Well, it's to restore America to our freedoms, restore America to our principles, and that is individual liberty and our Constitution and sound money. But in doing that, you have to understand economics. You can't solve any of this economic crisis unless you know where the business cycle comes from and why you have bubbles and why -- why -- why they break. You have to understand that we've had a financial bubble that's been going on for 40 years. It's collapsing. Nobody quite recognizes it, but we're in the midst of a real big correction. And the only way you can get back to growth is you have to liquidate the debt. But instead of liquidating debt, what we've done is the people who built up the debt on Wall Street and the banks, we've had the American taxpayer bail them out. We -- we bought it through the Federal Reserve and through the Treasury, dumped it on the American people. The middle class is now shrinking. And we don't have jobs. But if you're an individual or a businessman, if you're consuming everything you're earning just to finance your debt, you can't have growth. So we have to liquidate debt. This is the reason I call for cutting spending, the only one that's calling for real cuts. You have to have real cuts. That's what the Republican Party used to stand for, but you can't liquidate debt. You can't -- you can't keep bailing out the debt. That's what Japan has done for 20 years. And they're still in their doldrums. We did it in the depression. We're into this now for five years, and it has to end. It's only going to end until after we understand the business cycle.
Well RB , , it PRP 's VBZ to TO restore VB America NNP to TO our PRP$ freedoms NNS , , restore VB America NNP to TO our PRP$ principles NNS , , and CC that DT is VBZ individual JJ liberty NN and CC our PRP$ Constitution NNP and CC sound JJ money NN . . But CC in IN doing VBG that IN , , you PRP have VBP to TO understand VB economics NNS . . You PRP ca MD n't RB solve VB any DT of IN this DT economic JJ crisis NN unless IN you PRP know VBP where WRB the DT business NN cycle NN comes VBZ from IN and CC why WRB you PRP have VBP bubbles NNS and CC why WRB -- : why WRB -- : why WRB they PRP break VBP . . You PRP have VBP to TO understand VB that IN we PRP 've VBP had VBD a DT financial JJ bubble NN that WDT 's VBZ been VBN going VBG on RP for IN 40 CD years NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ collapsing VBG . . Nobody NN quite RB recognizes VBZ it PRP , , but CC we PRP 're VBP in IN the DT midst NN of IN a DT real JJ big JJ correction NN . . And CC the DT only JJ way NN you PRP can MD get VB back RB to TO growth NN is VBZ you PRP have VBP to TO liquidate VB the DT debt NN . . But CC instead RB of IN liquidating VBG debt NN , , what WP we PRP 've VBP done VBN is VBZ the DT people NNS who WP built VBD up RP the DT debt NN on IN Wall NNP Street NNP and CC the DT banks NNS , , we PRP 've VBP had VBD the DT American JJ taxpayer NN bail VB them PRP out RP . . We PRP -- : we PRP bought VBD it PRP through IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP and CC through IN the DT Treasury NNP , , dumped VBD it PRP on IN the DT American JJ people NNS . . The DT middle JJ class NN is VBZ now RB shrinking VBG . . And CC we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB jobs NNS . . But CC if IN you PRP 're VBP an DT individual NN or CC a DT businessman NN , , if IN you PRP 're VBP consuming NN everything NN you PRP 're VBP earning VBG just RB to TO finance VB your PRP$ debt NN , , you PRP ca MD n't RB have VB growth NN . . So RB we PRP have VBP to TO liquidate VB debt NN . . This DT is VBZ the DT reason NN I PRP call VBP for IN cutting VBG spending NN , , the DT only JJ one NN that WDT 's VBZ calling VBG for IN real JJ cuts NNS . . You PRP have VBP to TO have VB real JJ cuts NNS . . That DT 's VBZ what WP the DT Republican NNP Party NNP used VBD to TO stand VB for IN , , but CC you PRP ca MD n't RB liquidate VB debt NN . . You PRP ca MD n't RB -- : you PRP ca MD n't RB keep VB bailing VBG out RP the DT debt NN . . That DT 's VBZ what WP Japan NNP has VBZ done VBN for IN 20 CD years NNS . . And CC they PRP 're VBP still RB in IN their PRP$ doldrums NNS . . We PRP did VBD it PRP in IN the DT depression NN . . We PRP 're VBP into IN this DT now RB for IN five CD years NNS , , and CC it PRP has VBZ to TO end VB . . It PRP 's VBZ only RB going VBG to TO end VB until IN after IN we PRP understand VBP the DT business NN cycle NN . .
america freedom america principl liberti constitut money
econom
crisi busi cycl bubbl
bubbl year
nobodi midst correct
way growth debt
debt peopl debt wall street bank taxpay
feder reserv treasuri peopl
class
job
individu businessman consum everyth debt growth
debt
reason spend one cut
cut
republican parti debt
debt
japan year
doldrum
depress
year
busi cycl

I'd be home with my family. But if they all went to bed, I'd probably read an economic textbook. [ laughter ]
I PRP 'd MD be VB home NN with IN my PRP$ family NN . . But CC if IN they PRP all DT went VBD to TO bed NN , , I PRP 'd MD probably RB read VB an DT economic JJ textbook NN . .
home famili
bed textbook

Well, you know, fortunately for the Republican party this year, probably every -- anybody up here could probably beat Obama, so. [ laughter ] [ applause ]
Well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , fortunately RB for IN the DT Republican JJ party NN this DT year NN , , probably RB every DT -- : anybody NN up RP here RB could MD probably RB beat VB Obama NNP , , so RB . .
parti year anybodi obama

So the challenge isn't all that great on how we're going to beat Obama. I think he's beating himself. I think really the question is, is what do we have to offer? And I have something different to offer. I emphasize civil liberties. I emphasize a pro-American foreign policy, which is a lot different than policemen of the world. I emphasize, you know, monetary policy and these things that the other candidates don't -- don't talk about. But I think the important thing is the philosophy I'm talking about is the Constitution and freedom. And that brings people together. It brings independents into the fold and it brings Democrats over on some of these issues. So, therefore, I see this philosophy as being very electable, because it's an America philosophy. It's the rule of law. And it -- it means that, you know, we ought to balance the budget. It opens up the door for saying -- supporting my willingness to cut $1 trillion out of the budget the first year. [ applause ]
So IN the DT challenge NN is VBZ n't RB all PDT that DT great JJ on IN how WRB we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO beat VB Obama NNP . . I PRP think VBP he PRP 's VBZ beating VBG himself PRP . . I PRP think VBP really RB the DT question NN is VBZ , , is VBZ what WP do VBP we PRP have VB to TO offer VB ? . And CC I PRP have VBP something NN different JJ to TO offer VB . . I PRP emphasize VBP civil JJ liberties NNS . . I PRP emphasize VBP a DT pro-American JJ foreign JJ policy NN , , which WDT is VBZ a DT lot RB different JJ than IN policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN . . I PRP emphasize VBP , , you PRP know VBP , , monetary JJ policy NN and CC these DT things NNS that IN the DT other JJ candidates NNS do VBP n't RB -- : do VB n't RB talk VB about IN . . But CC I PRP think VBP the DT important JJ thing NN is VBZ the DT philosophy NN I PRP 'm VBP talking VBG about IN is VBZ the DT Constitution NNP and CC freedom NN . . And CC that DT brings VBZ people NNS together RB . . It PRP brings VBZ independents NNS into IN the DT fold VBP and CC it PRP brings VBZ Democrats NNPS over RP on IN some DT of IN these DT issues NNS . . So RB , , therefore RB , , I PRP see VBP this DT philosophy NN as IN being VBG very RB electable JJ , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ an DT America NNP philosophy NN . . It PRP 's VBZ the DT rule NN of IN law NN . . And CC it PRP -- : it PRP means VBZ that IN , , you PRP know VBP , , we PRP ought MD to TO balance VB the DT budget NN . . It PRP opens VBZ up RP the DT door NN for IN saying VBG -- : supporting VBG my PRP$ willingness NN to TO cut VB $ $ 1 CD trillion CD out IN of IN the DT budget NN the DT first JJ year NN . .
challeng obama
question
someth
liberti
polici policemen world
polici thing candid
thing philosophi constitut freedom
peopl
independ democrat issu
philosophi america philosophi
rule law
budget
door willing budget year

The main problem we have is the government is too big and the debt is too big and you have to cut spending so you have to get people to come together. They have been coming together to increase spending for decades. We have to get them to come together to do the opposite. But there are two factions up there, one wants welfare and the other want warfare around the world and policing the world. So you go to people who like warfare you say give me half of the cuts that have to be in the welfare. Go to welfare people and say give me the cuts to cut the oversea warfare spending and bring people together and live up to what they say.
The DT main JJ problem NN we PRP have VBP is VBZ the DT government NN is VBZ too RB big JJ and CC the DT debt NN is VBZ too RB big JJ and CC you PRP have VBP to TO cut VB spending NN so IN you PRP have VBP to TO get VB people NNS to TO come VB together RB . . They PRP have VBP been VBN coming VBG together RB to TO increase VB spending NN for IN decades NNS . . We PRP have VBP to TO get VB them PRP to TO come VB together RB to TO do VB the DT opposite NN . . But CC there EX are VBP two CD factions NNS up RB there RB , , one CD wants VBZ welfare NN and CC the DT other JJ want VBP warfare NN around IN the DT world NN and CC policing VBG the DT world NN . . So RB you PRP go VBP to TO people NNS who WP like VBP warfare NN you PRP say VBP give VB me PRP half NN of IN the DT cuts NNS that WDT have VBP to TO be VB in IN the DT welfare NN . . Go VB to TO welfare NN people NNS and CC say VB give VB me PRP the DT cuts NNS to TO cut VB the DT oversea NN warfare NN spending NN and CC bring VB people NNS together RB and CC live VB up RP to TO what WP they PRP say VBP . .
problem govern debt spend peopl
spend decad
opposit
faction welfar warfar world world
peopl warfar half cut welfar
welfar peopl cut oversea warfar spend peopl

Well he has a different definition of the private sector than I have. Because it's a GSE, government sponsored enterprise. That's completely different. It's -- it's a government agency. They get the money and the sponsorship. They get mixed up. It's -- it's the worst kind of economy. You know, pure private enterprise, more closely probably to what Governor Romney is involved with, but if it's government-sponsored, it's a mixture of business and government. It's very, very dangerous. Some people say, if it goes to extreme, it becomes fascism, because big business and big government get together. So, yes, they get money. And I was talking about that for a long time, the line of credit, the excessive credit from the Federal Reserve, the Community Reinvestment Act for 10 years or so. The Austrian economists knew there was a bubble. And at this time, nobody was listening or doing anything in the Congress. And then to go to work for them and get money from them, it literally is -- it's literally coming from the taxpayer. They went broke. We had to bail them out. So indirectly, that was money that he ended up getting. They're still getting money from a government- sponsored enterprise. It's not a free-market enterprise.
Well RB he PRP has VBZ a DT different JJ definition NN of IN the DT private JJ sector NN than IN I PRP have VBP . . Because IN it PRP 's VBZ a DT GSE NNP , , government NN sponsored VBD enterprise NN . . That DT 's VBZ completely RB different JJ . . It PRP 's VBZ -- : it PRP 's VBZ a DT government NN agency NN . . They PRP get VBP the DT money NN and CC the DT sponsorship NN . . They PRP get VBP mixed VBN up RP . . It PRP 's VBZ -- : it PRP 's VBZ the DT worst JJS kind NN of IN economy NN . . You PRP know VBP , , pure JJ private JJ enterprise NN , , more RBR closely RB probably RB to TO what WP Governor NNP Romney NNP is VBZ involved VBN with IN , , but CC if IN it PRP 's VBZ government-sponsored JJ , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT mixture NN of IN business NN and CC government NN . . It PRP 's VBZ very RB , , very RB dangerous JJ . . Some DT people NNS say VBP , , if IN it PRP goes VBZ to TO extreme NN , , it PRP becomes VBZ fascism NN , , because IN big JJ business NN and CC big JJ government NN get VB together RB . . So RB , , yes UH , , they PRP get VBP money NN . . And CC I PRP was VBD talking VBG about IN that DT for IN a DT long JJ time NN , , the DT line NN of IN credit NN , , the DT excessive JJ credit NN from IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , the DT Community NNP Reinvestment NNP Act NNP for IN 10 CD years NNS or CC so RB . . The DT Austrian JJ economists NNS knew VBD there EX was VBD a DT bubble NN . . And CC at IN this DT time NN , , nobody NN was VBD listening VBG or CC doing VBG anything NN in IN the DT Congress NNP . . And CC then RB to TO go VB to TO work VB for IN them PRP and CC get VB money NN from IN them PRP , , it PRP literally RB is VBZ -- : it PRP 's VBZ literally RB coming VBG from IN the DT taxpayer NN . . They PRP went VBD broke RB . . We PRP had VBD to TO bail VB them PRP out RP . . So RB indirectly RB , , that WDT was VBD money NN that IN he PRP ended VBD up RP getting VBG . . They PRP 're VBP still RB getting VBG money NN from IN a DT government- JJ sponsored VBN enterprise NN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB a DT free-market JJ enterprise NN . .
definit sector
gse govern enterpris
govern agenc
money sponsorship
kind economi
enterpris governor romney mixtur busi govern
peopl extrem fascism busi govern
money
time line credit credit feder reserv communiti reinvest act year
economist bubbl
time nobodi anyth congress
money taxpay
money
money enterpris
enterpris

Well, it's a mixed question is the problem, because the real message is you should include in your question also you have never voted once for an earmark. No, it's a principle that I deal with, because if the government takes money from you and you fill out your tax form, you take your deductions. I look at that the same way in our communities. They take our money, they take our highway funds. and we have every right to apply for them to come back. As a matter of fact, it's a bigger principle for me than that. I think this whole thing is out of control on the earmarks, because I think the congress has an obligation to earmark every penny, not to deliver that power to the executive branch. What happens when you don't vote for the earmarks it goes in to the slush fund, the executive branch spends the money then you have to grovel to the executive branch and beg and plead and say oh, please return my highway funds to me. So if this whole principle of budgeting that is messed up, but I never vote, I never voted for an earmark. But I do argue the case for my -- the people I represent to try to get their money back if at all possible.
Well RB , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT mixed JJ question NN is VBZ the DT problem NN , , because IN the DT real JJ message NN is VBZ you PRP should MD include VB in IN your PRP$ question NN also RB you PRP have VBP never RB voted VBN once RB for IN an DT earmark VBP . . No RB , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT principle NN that IN I PRP deal VBP with IN , , because IN if IN the DT government NN takes VBZ money NN from IN you PRP and CC you PRP fill VBP out RP your PRP$ tax NN form NN , , you PRP take VBP your PRP$ deductions NNS . . I PRP look VBP at IN that IN the DT same JJ way NN in IN our PRP$ communities NNS . . They PRP take VBP our PRP$ money NN , , they PRP take VBP our PRP$ highway NN funds NNS . . and CC we PRP have VBP every DT right NN to TO apply VB for IN them PRP to TO come VB back RB . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT bigger JJR principle NN for IN me PRP than IN that DT . . I PRP think VBP this DT whole JJ thing NN is VBZ out IN of IN control NN on IN the DT earmarks NNS , , because IN I PRP think VBP the DT congress NN has VBZ an DT obligation NN to TO earmark VB every DT penny NN , , not RB to TO deliver VB that DT power NN to TO the DT executive JJ branch NN . . What WP happens VBZ when WRB you PRP do VBP n't RB vote VB for IN the DT earmarks NNS it PRP goes VBZ in IN to TO the DT slush NN fund NN , , the DT executive JJ branch NN spends VBZ the DT money NN then RB you PRP have VBP to TO grovel VB to TO the DT executive JJ branch NN and CC beg VB and CC plead VB and CC say VB oh UH , , please VB return NN my PRP$ highway NN funds NNS to TO me PRP . . So RB if IN this DT whole JJ principle NN of IN budgeting NN that WDT is VBZ messed VBN up RP , , but CC I PRP never RB vote VBP , , I PRP never RB voted VBD for IN an DT earmark VBP . . But CC I PRP do VBP argue VB the DT case NN for IN my PRP$ -- : the DT people NNS I PRP represent VBP to TO try VB to TO get VB their PRP$ money NN back RB if IN at IN all DT possible JJ . .
question problem messag question
principl govern money tax form deduct
way communiti
money highway fund
right
matter fact principl
thing control earmark congress oblig penni power branch
earmark slush fund branch money branch return highway fund
principl budget
case peopl money

Yes, but you're missing the point. I don't complain about earmarks, because it is the principle of the Congress meeting their obligation. But if everybody did what I did, there would be no earmarks. The budget would be balanced and we'd be cutting about 80 percent of the spending. So that would be the solution. [ applause ]
Yes RB , , but CC you PRP 're VBP missing VBG the DT point NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB complain VB about IN earmarks NNS , , because IN it PRP is VBZ the DT principle NN of IN the DT Congress NNP meeting NN their PRP$ obligation NN . . But CC if IN everybody NN did VBD what WP I PRP did VBD , , there EX would MD be VB no DT earmarks NNS . . The DT budget NN would MD be VB balanced VBN and CC we PRP 'd MD be VB cutting VBG about IN 80 CD percent NN of IN the DT spending NN . . So IN that DT would MD be VB the DT solution NN . .
point
earmark principl congress meet oblig
everybodi earmark
budget percent spend
solut

But you also want to protect the process. You want to emphasize the responsibility of the Congress, and not delivering more power to the president. I would be a different kind of president. I wouldn't be looking for more power. Everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. I, as the president, wouldn't want to run the world. I don't want to police individual activities and their lifestyle. And I don't want to run the economy. So that is an entirely different philosophy, but it's very, very much in our tradition and in a tradition of our Constitution. [ applause ]
But CC you PRP also RB want VBP to TO protect VB the DT process NN . . You PRP want VBP to TO emphasize VB the DT responsibility NN of IN the DT Congress NNP , , and CC not RB delivering VBG more JJR power NN to TO the DT president NN . . I PRP would MD be VB a DT different JJ kind NN of IN president NN . . I PRP would MD n't RB be VB looking VBG for IN more JJR power NN . . Everybody NN wants VBZ to TO be VB a DT powerful JJ executive NN and CC run VB things NNS . . I PRP , , as IN the DT president NN , , would MD n't RB want VB to TO run VB the DT world NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO police VB individual JJ activities NNS and CC their PRP$ lifestyle NN . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO run VB the DT economy NN . . So IN that DT is VBZ an DT entirely RB different JJ philosophy NN , , but CC it PRP 's VBZ very RB , , very RB much RB in IN our PRP$ tradition NN and CC in IN a DT tradition NN of IN our PRP$ Constitution NNP . .
process
respons congress power presid
kind presid
power
everybodi execut thing
presid world
activ lifestyl
economi
philosophi tradit tradit constitut

Well the Congress can get rid of these courts. If -- if a judge misbehaves and is unethical and gets into trouble, the proper procedure is impeachment. But to subpoena judges before the Congress, I'd really question that. And if you get too careless about abolishing courts, that could open up a can of worms. Because it -- you -- there -- there could be retaliation. So it should be a more serious -- yes we get very frustrated with this. But the whole thing is, if you just say, well we're going to -- OK there are 10 courts, lets get rid of three this year because they ruled a -- a way we didn't like. That -- that to me is, I think opening up a can of worms for us and it would lead to trouble. But I really, really question this idea that the -- the Congress could subpoena judges and bring them before us. That's a real affront to the separation of the powers.
Well RB the DT Congress NNP can MD get VB rid JJ of IN these DT courts NNS . . If IN -- : if IN a DT judge NN misbehaves VBZ and CC is VBZ unethical JJ and CC gets VBZ into IN trouble NN , , the DT proper JJ procedure NN is VBZ impeachment NN . . But CC to TO subpoena VB judges NNS before IN the DT Congress NNP , , I PRP 'd MD really RB question VB that DT . . And CC if IN you PRP get VBP too RB careless JJ about IN abolishing VBG courts NNS , , that WDT could MD open VB up RP a DT can NN of IN worms NNS . . Because IN it PRP -- : you PRP -- : there EX -- : there EX could MD be VB retaliation NN . . So RB it PRP should MD be VB a DT more RBR serious JJ -- : yes RB we PRP get VBP very RB frustrated JJ with IN this DT . . But CC the DT whole JJ thing NN is VBZ , , if IN you PRP just RB say VB , , well RB we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO -- : OK JJ there EX are VBP 10 CD courts NNS , , lets VBZ get VB rid JJ of IN three CD this DT year NN because IN they PRP ruled VBD a DT -- : a DT way NN we PRP did VBD n't RB like VB . . That DT -- : that IN to TO me PRP is VBZ , , I PRP think VBP opening VBG up RP a DT can NN of IN worms NNS for IN us PRP and CC it PRP would MD lead VB to TO trouble NN . . But CC I PRP really RB , , really RB question NN this DT idea NN that IN the DT -- : the DT Congress NNP could MD subpoena VB judges NNS and CC bring VB them PRP before IN us PRP . . That DT 's VBZ a DT real JJ affront NN to TO the DT separation NN of IN the DT powers NNS . .
congress court
judg troubl procedur impeach
judg congress
court can worm
retali
thing court year way
can worm troubl
question idea congress judg
affront separ power

From my point they're all good and they're all bad, because our country a long time ago split freedom up to two pieces -- personal liberty and economic liberty. And the judges, as is congress and as is nation, think it's two issues. It's but one issue. So therefore, congress is on this issue as well as our judges.
From IN my PRP$ point NN they PRP 're VBP all DT good JJ and CC they PRP 're VBP all DT bad JJ , , because IN our PRP$ country NN a DT long JJ time NN ago RB split VBD freedom NN up IN to TO two CD pieces NNS -- : personal JJ liberty NN and CC economic JJ liberty NN . . And CC the DT judges NNS , , as IN is VBZ congress NN and CC as IN is VBZ nation NN , , think VB it PRP 's VBZ two CD issues NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ but CC one CD issue NN . . So RB therefore RB , , congress NN is VBZ on IN this DT issue NN as RB well RB as IN our PRP$ judges NNS . .
point countri time freedom piec liberti liberti
judg congress nation issu
issu
congress issu judg

But I'd be running with the American people, because it would be a much better policy. For you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it. There's no U.N. evidence of that happening. Clapper at the -- in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. It's no different than it was in 2003. You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming. There's war propaganda going on. [ applause ] And we're arguing -- to me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb Iran. And the sentiment is very mixed. It's -- it's very mixed even in Israel. You know, there -- the -- a head of the security for Israel, who just recently retired, said that it wouldn't make sense to do this, to take -- to take them out, because they might be having a weapon. So I would say that the greatest danger is overreacting. There is no evidence that they have it. And it would make more sense -- if we lived through the Cold War, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq. [ applause ]
But CC I PRP 'd MD be VB running VBG with IN the DT American JJ people NNS , , because IN it PRP would MD be VB a DT much RB better JJR policy NN . . For IN you PRP to TO say VB that IN there EX is VBZ some DT scientific JJ evidence NN and CC some DT people NNS arguing VBG that IN maybe RB in IN a DT year NN they PRP might MD have VB a DT weapon NN , , there EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN more RBR saying VBG they PRP do VBP n't RB have VB it PRP . . There EX 's VBZ no DT U.N NN . . evidence NN of IN that DT happening VBG . . Clapper NNP at IN the DT -- : in IN our PRP$ national JJ security NN department NN , , he PRP says VBZ there EX is VBZ no DT evidence NN . . It PRP 's VBZ no RB different JJ than IN it PRP was VBD in IN 2003 CD . . You PRP know VBP what WP I PRP really RB fear VBP about IN what WP 's VBZ happening VBG here RB ? . It PRP 's VBZ another DT Iraq NNP coming VBG . . There EX 's VBZ war NN propaganda NN going VBG on RP . . And CC we PRP 're VBP arguing VBG -- : to TO me PRP , , the DT greatest JJS danger NN is VBZ that IN we PRP will MD have VB a DT president NN that WDT will MD overreact VB and CC we PRP will MD soon RB bomb VB Iran NNP . . And CC the DT sentiment NN is VBZ very RB mixed JJ . . It PRP 's VBZ -- : it PRP 's VBZ very RB mixed JJ even RB in IN Israel NNP . . You PRP know VBP , , there EX -- : the DT -- : a DT head NN of IN the DT security NN for IN Israel NNP , , who WP just RB recently RB retired VBN , , said VBD that IN it PRP would MD n't RB make VB sense NN to TO do VB this DT , , to TO take VB -- : to TO take VB them PRP out RP , , because IN they PRP might MD be VB having VBG a DT weapon NN . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that IN the DT greatest JJS danger NN is VBZ overreacting VBG . . There EX is VBZ no DT evidence NN that IN they PRP have VBP it PRP . . And CC it PRP would MD make VB more JJR sense NN -- : if IN we PRP lived VBD through IN the DT Cold NNP War NNP , , which WDT we PRP did VBD , , with IN 30,000 CD missiles NNS pointed VBD at IN us PRP , , we PRP ought MD to TO really RB sit VB back RB and CC think VB and CC not RB jump VB the DT gun NN and CC believe VB that IN we PRP are VBP going VBG to TO be VB attacked VBN . . That DT 's VBZ how WRB we PRP got VBD into IN that DT useless JJ war NN in IN Iraq NNP and CC lost VBD so RB much JJ in IN Iraq NNP . .
peopl polici
evid peopl year weapon lot
u.n
evid
clapper secur depart evid
iraq
war propaganda
danger presid iran
sentiment
israel
head secur israel sens weapon
danger
evid
sens cold war missil gun
war iraq iraq

Yes. All we're doing is promoting their desire to have it. Ehud Barak, the defense minister for Israel, said that -- that, if he were in -- in Iran, he would probably want a nuclear weapon, too, because they're surrounded, for geopolitical reasons. So that's an understanding. So the fact that they are surrounded, they have a desire. And how do we treat people when they have a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them. We talked them out of their nuclear weapon. And then we killed them. So, it makes more sense to work with people. And the whole thing is that nuclear weapons are loaded over there. Pakistan, India, Israel has 300 of them. We have our ships there. We've got to get it in a proper context. We don't need another war. [ cheering and applause ]
Yes RB . . All DT we PRP 're VBP doing VBG is VBZ promoting VBG their PRP$ desire NN to TO have VB it PRP . . Ehud NNP Barak NNP , , the DT defense NN minister NN for IN Israel NNP , , said VBD that DT -- : that IN , , if IN he PRP were VBD in IN -- : in IN Iran NNP , , he PRP would MD probably RB want VB a DT nuclear JJ weapon NN , , too RB , , because IN they PRP 're VBP surrounded VBN , , for IN geopolitical JJ reasons NNS . . So IN that DT 's VBZ an DT understanding NN . . So IN the DT fact NN that IN they PRP are VBP surrounded VBN , , they PRP have VBP a DT desire NN . . And CC how WRB do VBP we PRP treat VB people NNS when WRB they PRP have VBP a DT nuclear JJ weapon NN ? . With IN a DT lot NN more JJR respect NN . . What WP did VBD we PRP do VB with IN Libya NNP ? . We PRP talked VBD to TO them PRP . . We PRP talked VBD them PRP out IN of IN their PRP$ nuclear JJ weapon NN . . And CC then RB we PRP killed VBD them PRP . . So RB , , it PRP makes VBZ more JJR sense NN to TO work VB with IN people NNS . . And CC the DT whole JJ thing NN is VBZ that IN nuclear JJ weapons NNS are VBP loaded VBN over IN there RB . . Pakistan NNP , , India NNP , , Israel NNP has VBZ 300 CD of IN them PRP . . We PRP have VBP our PRP$ ships NNS there RB . . We PRP 've VBP got VBN to TO get VB it PRP in IN a DT proper JJ context NN . . We PRP do VBP n't RB need VB another DT war NN . .
desir
ehud barak defens minist israel iran weapon reason
understand
fact desir
peopl weapon
lot respect
libya
weapon
sens peopl
thing weapon
pakistan india israel
ship
context
war

This is -- the plans are on the book. All they talk about is, when are we, the West, going to bomb Iran? So why wouldn't they talk about -- they don't have a weapon, they don't have a nuclear weapon, why wouldn't they try to send out some information there and say, you know, if you come and bomb us, we might close the Straits of Hormuz down. So already the president, and I think he is wisely backing off on the sanctions, because it's going to be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of Europe. So I think that makes sense. He knows these sanctions are overreaching. Sanctions are an act of war when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. We need to approach this a little differently. We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while. [ applause ]
This DT is VBZ -- : the DT plans NNS are VBP on IN the DT book NN . . All DT they PRP talk VBP about IN is VBZ , , when WRB are VBP we PRP , , the DT West NNP , , going VBG to TO bomb VB Iran NNP ? . So RB why WRB would MD n't RB they PRP talk VBP about IN -- : they PRP do VBP n't RB have VB a DT weapon NN , , they PRP do VBP n't RB have VB a DT nuclear JJ weapon NN , , why WRB would MD n't RB they PRP try VBP to TO send VB out RP some DT information NN there RB and CC say VB , , you PRP know VBP , , if IN you PRP come VBP and CC bomb VBP us PRP , , we PRP might MD close VB the DT Straits NNP of IN Hormuz NNP down IN . . So RB already RB the DT president NN , , and CC I PRP think VBP he PRP is VBZ wisely RB backing VBG off RP on IN the DT sanctions NNS , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB an DT economic JJ calamity NN if IN you PRP take VBP all PDT the DT oil NN out IN of IN Europe NNP . . So RB I PRP think VBP that DT makes VBZ sense NN . . He PRP knows VBZ these DT sanctions NNS are VBP overreaching VBG . . Sanctions NNS are VBP an DT act NN of IN war NN when WRB you PRP prevent VBP goods NNS and CC services NNS from IN going VBG into IN a DT country NN . . We PRP need VBP to TO approach VB this DT a DT little JJ differently RB . . We PRP have VBP 12,000 CD diplomats NNS in IN our PRP$ services NNS . . We PRP ought MD to TO use VB a DT little JJ bit NN of IN diplomacy NN once RB in IN a DT while NN . .
plan book
west iran
weapon weapon inform strait hormuz
presid sanction calam oil europ
sens
sanction
sanction act war good servic countri
diplomat servic
bit diplomaci while

Obviously, I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. I -- I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them, because there would be less chance of war. But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we're bombing them. What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran? And we're begging and pleading, and how are we going to start a war to get this drone back? Why were we flying the drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why are we in -- have 900 bases, 130 countries, and we're totally bankrupt? How are you going to rebuild the military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? [ applause ] So I think -- I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really us overreacting. And we need a strong national defense. And we need to only go to war with a declaration of war, and just carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often.
Obviously RB , , I PRP would MD like VB to TO see VB a DT lot NN less RBR nuclear JJ weapons NNS . . I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB Iran NNP to TO have VB a DT nuclear JJ weapon NN . . I PRP would MD like VB to TO reduce VB them PRP , , because IN there EX would MD be VB less JJR chance NN of IN war NN . . But CC to TO declare VB war NN on IN 1.2 CD billion CD Muslims NNPS and CC say VB all DT Muslims NNPS are VBP the DT same JJ , , this DT is VBZ dangerous JJ talk NN . . Yeah UH , , there EX are VBP some DT radicals NNS , , but CC they PRP do VBP n't RB come VB here RB to TO kill VB us PRP because IN we PRP 're VBP free JJ and CC prosperous JJ . . Do VBP they PRP go VB to TO Switzerland NNP and CC Sweden NNP ? . I PRP mean VBP , , that DT 's VBZ absurd JJ . . If IN you PRP think VBP that DT is VBZ the DT reason NN , , we PRP have VBP no DT chance NN of IN winning VBG this DT . . They PRP come VBP here RB and CC explicitly RB explain VB it PRP to TO us PRP . . The DT CIA NNP has VBZ explained VBN it PRP to TO us PRP . . It PRP said VBD they PRP come VBP here RB and CC they PRP want VBP to TO do VB us PRP harm VB because IN we PRP 're VBP bombing NN them PRP . . What WP is VBZ the DT whole JJ world NN about IN the DT drone NN being VBG in IN Iran NNP ? . And CC we PRP 're VBP begging VBG and CC pleading VBG , , and CC how WRB are VBP we PRP going VBG to TO start VB a DT war NN to TO get VB this DT drone NN back RB ? . Why WRB were VBD we PRP flying VBG the DT drone NN over IN Iran NNP ? . Why WRB do VBP we PRP have VB to TO bomb VB so RB many JJ countries NNS ? . Why WRB are VBP we PRP in IN -- : have VBP 900 CD bases NNS , , 130 CD countries NNS , , and CC we PRP 're VBP totally RB bankrupt JJ ? . How WRB are VBP you PRP going VBG to TO rebuild VB the DT military NN when WRB we PRP have VBP no DT money NN ? . How WRB are VBP we PRP going VBG to TO take VB care NN of IN the DT people NNS ? . So RB I PRP think VBP -- : I PRP think VBP this DT wild JJ goal NN to TO have VB another DT war NN in IN the DT name NN of IN defense NN is VBZ the DT dangerous JJ thing NN . . The DT danger NN is VBZ really RB us PRP overreacting VBG . . And CC we PRP need VBP a DT strong JJ national JJ defense NN . . And CC we PRP need VBP to TO only RB go VB to TO war NN with IN a DT declaration NN of IN war NN , , and CC just RB carelessly RB flouting VBG it PRP and CC starting VBG these DT wars NNS so RB often RB . .
lot weapon
iran weapon
chanc war
war muslim muslim talk
radic
switzerland sweden
reason chanc
cia
bomb
world drone iran
war drone
drone iran
countri
base countri
militari money
care peopl
goal war name defens thing
danger
defens
war declar war war

There is no U.N. report that said that. It's totally wrong on what -- what you just said.
There EX is VBZ no DT U.N NN . . report NN that WDT said VBD that DT . . It PRP 's VBZ totally RB wrong JJ on IN what WP -- : what WP you PRP just RB said VBD . .
u.n
report

That -- that is not -- that is not true. They -- they produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There's no -- been no enrichment of these bombs.
That DT -- : that DT is VBZ not RB -- : that DT is VBZ not RB true JJ . . They PRP -- : they PRP produced VBD information NN that WDT led VBD you PRP to TO believe VB that DT , , but CC they PRP have VBP no DT evidence NN . . There EX 's VBZ no DT -- : been VBN no DT enrichment NN of IN these DT bombs NNS . .
inform evid
enrich bomb

OK. She took my time, so I'd like -- I'd like to finish. If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in the 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to them, and talks them out of this so we don't have a nuclear exchange. And you're trying to dramatize this, that we have to go and -- and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis, and 8,000-some Americans have died since we've gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war. You can solve the problems if we follow our constitution and go to war only when we declare the war, win them and get them over with instead of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemy all around the world.
OK JJ . . She PRP took VBD my PRP$ time NN , , so IN I PRP 'd MD like VB -- : I PRP 'd MD like VB to TO finish VB . . If IN she PRP thinks VBZ we PRP live VBP in IN a DT dangerous JJ world NN , , she PRP ought MD to TO think VB back RB when WRB I PRP was VBD drafted VBN in IN the DT 1962 CD with IN nuclear JJ missiles NNS in IN Cuba NNP . . And CC Kennedy NNP calls VBZ Khrushchev NNP and CC talks NNS to TO them PRP , , and CC talks NNS them PRP out IN of IN this DT so IN we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB a DT nuclear JJ exchange NN . . And CC you PRP 're VBP trying VBG to TO dramatize VB this DT , , that IN we PRP have VBP to TO go VB and CC -- : and CC treat VB Iran NNP like IN we PRP 've VBP treated VBN Iraq NNP and CC kill VB a DT million CD Iraqis NNPS , , and CC 8,000-some JJ Americans NNPS have VBP died VBN since IN we PRP 've VBP gone VBN to TO war NN . . You PRP can MD not RB solve VB these DT problems NNS with IN war NN . . You PRP can MD solve VB the DT problems NNS if IN we PRP follow VBP our PRP$ constitution NN and CC go VB to TO war NN only RB when WRB we PRP declare VBP the DT war NN , , win VB them PRP and CC get VB them PRP over RP with IN instead RB of IN this DT endless JJ fighting NN and CC this DT endless JJ attitude NN that IN we PRP have VBP enemy NN all DT around IN the DT world NN . .
time
world missil cuba
kennedi khrushchev talk talk exchang
iran iraq iraqi american war
problem war
problem constitut war war fight attitud enemi world

You know, the media has a responsibility and we have a responsibility, and I think exposing our opponents to what they believe in and their flip-flop, I think the reason maybe that we had to do more this year is maybe the media is messing up and they haven't asked enough questions, that we have to fill in and ask these questions and get this information out. So, no, I think it's a responsibility on us. I think there should be lines drawn. I think there are some things below the belt. I don't think -- but I don't like the demagoguing, the distortion, and taking things out of context. I don't like that. But when they disagree on an issue, important issues, then we should expose it.
You PRP know VBP , , the DT media NNS has VBZ a DT responsibility NN and CC we PRP have VBP a DT responsibility NN , , and CC I PRP think VBP exposing VBG our PRP$ opponents NNS to TO what WP they PRP believe VBP in IN and CC their PRP$ flip-flop NN , , I PRP think VBP the DT reason NN maybe RB that IN we PRP had VBD to TO do VB more RBR this DT year NN is VBZ maybe RB the DT media NNS is VBZ messing VBG up RP and CC they PRP have VBP n't RB asked VBN enough JJ questions NNS , , that IN we PRP have VBP to TO fill VB in IN and CC ask VB these DT questions NNS and CC get VB this DT information NN out RP . . So RB , , no DT , , I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ a DT responsibility NN on IN us PRP . . I PRP think VBP there EX should MD be VB lines NNS drawn VBN . . I PRP think VBP there EX are VBP some DT things NNS below IN the DT belt NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB -- : but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB the DT demagoguing NN , , the DT distortion NN , , and CC taking VBG things NNS out IN of IN context NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB that DT . . But CC when WRB they PRP disagree VBP on IN an DT issue NN , , important JJ issues NNS , , then RB we PRP should MD expose VB it PRP . .
media respons respons oppon flip-flop reason year media question question inform
respons
line
thing belt
demagogu distort thing context
issu issu

My -- approach is slightly different. Where I think all for less taxes and less regulations, we recognize this. But I emphasize the fact that you have to know why we have a recession, and why we have unemployment before you can solve the problem. And the re-- the financial bubbles are created by excessive credit and stimulation by the Federal Reserve. And then you have bubbles and you have to have a correction. The-- this stimulus creates es-- excessive debt and malinvestment. As long as you don't correct that and you maintain the debt and the malinvestment, you can't get back to economic growth again. Unfortunately, so far what we have done, is we have not liquidated the debt, we have dumped the debt on the American people through TARP funding and-- and as well as the Federal Reserve. So the debt is dumped on the people. And what did we do? We bailed out the people that were benefiting during the formation of the bubble. So as long as we do that, we're not gonna have economic growth. We-- you did the same thing in the Depression, the Japanese are doing it right now, so it's time we liquidate the debt and look at monetary policy. And then, of course, lower taxes. And I would like to-- do in the first year, cut $1 trillion, 'cause that is the culprit, big spending and big government.
My PRP$ -- : approach NN is VBZ slightly RB different JJ . . Where WRB I PRP think VBP all DT for IN less JJR taxes NNS and CC less JJR regulations NNS , , we PRP recognize VBP this DT . . But CC I PRP emphasize VBP the DT fact NN that IN you PRP have VBP to TO know VB why WRB we PRP have VBP a DT recession NN , , and CC why WRB we PRP have VBP unemployment NN before IN you PRP can MD solve VB the DT problem NN . . And CC the DT re NN the DT financial JJ bubbles NNS are VBP created VBN by IN excessive JJ credit NN and CC stimulation NN by IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . And CC then RB you PRP have VBP bubbles NNS and CC you PRP have VBP to TO have VB a DT correction NN . . The DT this DT stimulus NN creates VBZ es NNS excessive JJ debt NN and CC malinvestment NN . . As RB long RB as IN you PRP do VBP n't RB correct VB that DT and CC you PRP maintain VBP the DT debt NN and CC the DT malinvestment NN , , you PRP ca MD n't RB get VB back RB to TO economic JJ growth NN again RB . . Unfortunately RB , , so RB far RB what WP we PRP have VBP done VBN , , is VBZ we PRP have VBP not RB liquidated VBN the DT debt NN , , we PRP have VBP dumped VBN the DT debt NN on IN the DT American JJ people NNS through IN TARP NNP funding NN and CC and CC as RB well RB as IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . So IN the DT debt NN is VBZ dumped VBN on IN the DT people NNS . . And CC what WP did VBD we PRP do VB ? . We PRP bailed VBD out RP the DT people NNS that WDT were VBD benefiting VBG during IN the DT formation NN of IN the DT bubble NN . . So RB as RB long RB as IN we PRP do VBP that DT , , we PRP 're VBP not RB gon VBG na TO have VB economic JJ growth NN . . We PRP you PRP did VBD the DT same JJ thing NN in IN the DT Depression NN , , the DT Japanese NNPS are VBP doing VBG it PRP right RB now RB , , so IN it PRP 's VBZ time NN we PRP liquidate VBP the DT debt NN and CC look NN at IN monetary JJ policy NN . . And CC then RB , , of IN course NN , , lower JJR taxes NNS . . And CC I PRP would MD like VB to TO do VB in IN the DT first JJ year NN , , cut VBD $ $ 1 CD trillion CD , , 'cause NN that WDT is VBZ the DT culprit NN , , big JJ spending NN and CC big JJ government NN . .
approach
tax regul
fact recess unemploy problem
re bubbl credit stimul feder reserv
bubbl correct
stimulus es debt malinvest
debt malinvest growth
debt debt peopl tarp fund feder reserv
debt peopl
peopl format bubbl
growth
thing depress japanes time debt look polici
cours tax
year caus culprit spend govern

Well-- well I want to-- extend the tax cut, because if you don't, you raise the taxes. But I wanna pay for it. And it's not that difficult. In my proposal, in my budget, I wanna cut hundreds of billions of dollars from overseas. The trust fund is gone. But how are we gonna restore it? We have to quit the spending. We have to quit this being the policemen of the world. We don't need another war in Syria and another war in Iran. Just get rid of the embassy in Baghdad. We're pretending we're comin' home from Baghdad. We built an embassy there that cost a billion dollars and we're putting 17,000 contractors in there, pretending our troops are coming home. I could save--
Well RB well RB I PRP want VBP to TO extend VB the DT tax NN cut NN , , because IN if IN you PRP do VBP n't RB , , you PRP raise VBP the DT taxes NNS . . But CC I PRP wan VBP na TO pay VB for IN it PRP . . And CC it PRP 's VBZ not RB that IN difficult JJ . . In IN my PRP$ proposal NN , , in IN my PRP$ budget NN , , I PRP wan VBP na TO cut VB hundreds NNS of IN billions NNS of IN dollars NNS from IN overseas RB . . The DT trust NN fund NN is VBZ gone VBN . . But CC how WRB are VBP we PRP gon VBG na TO restore VB it PRP ? . We PRP have VBP to TO quit VB the DT spending NN . . We PRP have VBP to TO quit VB this DT being VBG the DT policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN . . We PRP do VBP n't RB need VB another DT war NN in IN Syria NNP and CC another DT war NN in IN Iran NNP . . Just RB get VB rid JJ of IN the DT embassy NN in IN Baghdad NNP . . We PRP 're VBP pretending VBG we PRP 're VBP comin NNS ' POS home NN from IN Baghdad NNP . . We PRP built VBD an DT embassy NN there RB that DT cost NN a DT billion CD dollars NNS and CC we PRP 're VBP putting VBG 17,000 CD contractors NNS in IN there RB , , pretending VBG our PRP$ troops NNS are VBP coming VBG home NN . . I PRP could MD save-- VB
tax cut tax
propos budget hundr billion dollar
trust fund
spend
policemen world
war syria war iran
embassi baghdad
comin home baghdad
embassi cost dollar contractor troop home

--and we don't have to raise taxes on Social Security-- on the-- on the-- on the-- on the tax-- [ overtalk ]
--and JJ we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB to TO raise VB taxes NNS on IN Social NNP Security NNP on IN the DT on IN the DT on IN the DT on IN the DT tax-- NN
tax social secur tax--

Well, he's been on different positions, you know, on so many issues. You know, single payer-- he's taken some positions that are not conservative. He-- he supported the TARP funds. And-- the other-- really annoy-- should've [ laugh ] annoyed a lot of people, he received a lot of money from Freddie Mac. Now, Freddie Mac is essentially a government organization. While he was earning a lot of money from Freddie Mac, I was fighting over a decade to try to explain to people where the housing bubble was coming from. So Freddie Mac is bailed out by the tax payers. So in a way, Newt, I think you probably [ laugh ] got some of our tax payer's money. They g-- they got taxed, and they got money on, and they're still getting bailed out. But-- you're a spokesman for 'em and you received money for 'em, so I think-- I think this is-- something that-- the people oughta know about. But there's been many positions, and you have admitted many of the positions where you have changed positions. But-- you know, if you were lookin' for a consistent position, you know, I-- I think there's gonna be a little bit of trouble anybody competing with me on consistency. [ laughter ] [ applause ]
Well RB , , he PRP 's VBZ been VBN on IN different JJ positions NNS , , you PRP know VBP , , on IN so RB many JJ issues NNS . . You PRP know VBP , , single JJ payer NN he PRP 's VBZ taken VBN some DT positions NNS that WDT are VBP not RB conservative JJ . . He PRP he PRP supported VBD the DT TARP NNP funds NNS . . And CC the DT other JJ really RB annoy JJ should MD 've VB annoyed VBN a DT lot NN of IN people NNS , , he PRP received VBD a DT lot NN of IN money NN from IN Freddie NNP Mac NNP . . Now RB , , Freddie NNP Mac NNP is VBZ essentially RB a DT government NN organization NN . . While IN he PRP was VBD earning VBG a DT lot NN of IN money NN from IN Freddie NNP Mac NNP , , I PRP was VBD fighting VBG over IN a DT decade NN to TO try VB to TO explain VB to TO people NNS where WRB the DT housing NN bubble NN was VBD coming VBG from IN . . So RB Freddie NNP Mac NNP is VBZ bailed VBN out RP by IN the DT tax NN payers NNS . . So RB in IN a DT way NN , , Newt NNP , , I PRP think VBP you PRP probably RB got VBD some DT of IN our PRP$ tax NN payer NN 's POS money NN . . They PRP g VBP they PRP got VBD taxed VBN , , and CC they PRP got VBD money NN on IN , , and CC they PRP 're VBP still RB getting VBG bailed VBD out RP . . But CC you PRP 're VBP a DT spokesman NN for IN 'em PRP and CC you PRP received VBD money NN for IN 'em PRP , , so IN I PRP think VBP I PRP think VBP this DT is VBZ something NN that IN the DT people NNS oughta VBP know VB about IN . . But CC there EX 's VBZ been VBN many JJ positions NNS , , and CC you PRP have VBP admitted VBN many JJ of IN the DT positions NNS where WRB you PRP have VBP changed VBN positions NNS . . But CC you PRP know VBP , , if IN you PRP were VBD lookin NN ' '' for IN a DT consistent JJ position NN , , you PRP know VBP , , I PRP I PRP think VBP there EX 's VBZ gon VBG na TO be VB a DT little JJ bit NN of IN trouble NN anybody NN competing VBG with IN me PRP on IN consistency NN . .
posit issu
payer posit
tarp fund
lot peopl lot money freddi mac
freddi mac govern organ
lot money freddi mac decad peopl hous bubbl
freddi mac tax payer
way newt tax payer money
money
spokesman money someth peopl
posit posit posit
lookin posit bit troubl anybodi consist

--private sector. [ laugh ]
--private JJ sector NN . .
sector

It's the tax payer's money though, we had to bail these people out--
It PRP 's VBZ the DT tax NN payer NN 's POS money NN though RB , , we PRP had VBD to TO bail VB these DT people NNS out-- VBP
tax payer money peopl

You know, I think character is, obviously-- very important. I-- I don't think it should be necessary to have to talk about it. I think it should show through in the way we live. And I think it should show through in-- in a marriage. And I happen to have been married for 54 years and family person. But, I don't think we should have to talk about it. But, you know what? [ unintelligible ] is-- every bit as important. It-- if your marriage vows are important, what about our oath of office? That's what really gets to me. That's where you're really on the line as a public figure. And that's where I think a lot of people come up real short. Because there's many times that I have been forced to Congress because I take my oath very seriously. I am up sometimes, believe it or not, voting all by myself [ chuckle ] thinking that, "Why aren't there people paying att-- why don't they read Article One, Section Eight?" You know, if-- if we took that oath of office seriously in Washington, we'd get rid of 80% of the government. The budget would be balanced. We'd have sound money. And we would have prosperity. And we wouldn't be the policemen of the world. We wouldn't have a Federal Reserve System, and we wouldn't be invading the privacy of every single individual in this country with bills like the Patriot Act. We'd have a free society and a prosperous society. [ applause ]
You PRP know VBP , , I PRP think VBP character NN is VBZ , , obviously RB very RB important JJ . . I PRP I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB it PRP should MD be VB necessary JJ to TO have VB to TO talk VB about IN it PRP . . I PRP think VBP it PRP should MD show VB through RP in IN the DT way NN we PRP live VBP . . And CC I PRP think VBP it PRP should MD show VB through RP in IN in IN a DT marriage NN . . And CC I PRP happen VBP to TO have VB been VBN married VBN for IN 54 CD years NNS and CC family NN person NN . . But CC , , I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB we PRP should MD have VB to TO talk VB about IN it PRP . . But CC , , you PRP know VBP what WP ? . is VBZ every DT bit NN as IN important JJ . . It PRP if IN your PRP$ marriage NN vows VBZ are VBP important JJ , , what WP about IN our PRP$ oath NN of IN office NN ? . That DT 's VBZ what WP really RB gets VBZ to TO me PRP . . That DT 's VBZ where WRB you PRP 're VBP really RB on IN the DT line NN as IN a DT public JJ figure NN . . And CC that DT 's VBZ where WRB I PRP think VBP a DT lot NN of IN people NNS come VBP up RP real RB short JJ . . Because IN there EX 's VBZ many JJ times NNS that IN I PRP have VBP been VBN forced VBN to TO Congress NNP because IN I PRP take VBP my PRP$ oath NN very RB seriously RB . . I PRP am VBP up RP sometimes RB , , believe VB it PRP or CC not RB , , voting VBG all DT by IN myself PRP thinking VBG that IN , , " VB Why WRB are VBP n't RB there EX people NNS paying VBG att NN why WRB do VBP n't RB they PRP read VBP Article NNP One CD , , Section NN Eight CD ? . " IN You PRP know VBP , , if IN if IN we PRP took VBD that DT oath NN of IN office NN seriously RB in IN Washington NNP , , we PRP 'd MD get VB rid JJ of IN 80 CD % NN of IN the DT government NN . . The DT budget NN would MD be VB balanced VBN . . We PRP 'd MD have VB sound JJ money NN . . And CC we PRP would MD have VB prosperity NN . . And CC we PRP would MD n't RB be VB the DT policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN . . We PRP would MD n't RB have VB a DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP System NNP , , and CC we PRP would MD n't RB be VB invading VBG the DT privacy NN of IN every DT single JJ individual NN in IN this DT country NN with IN bills NNS like IN the DT Patriot NNP Act NNP . . We PRP 'd MD have VB a DT free JJ society NN and CC a DT prosperous JJ society NN . .
charact
way
marriag
year famili person
bit
marriag oath offic
line figur
lot peopl
time congress oath
peopl att articl section
oath offic washington govern
budget
money
prosper
policemen world
feder reserv system privaci individu countri bill patriot act
societi societi

N-- no, I don't agree with that. And that's just stirrin' up trouble. And I-- I believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. I don't think we should get in the middle of these squabbles. But to go out of our way and say that so-and-so is not a real people? Technically and historically, yes-- you know, under the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinians didn't have a state, but neither did Israel have a state then too. But this is how we get involved in so many messes. And I think it just fails on the side of-- practicing a little bit of diplomacy, getting ourselves [ laugh ] into trouble mentioning things that are unnecessary. The people in those regions should be dealing with these problems; we shouldn't be dealing with these things. But-- historically, it-- it-- you know, under the Ottoman Empire, that i-- that is-- technically-- correct. But to make these decisions in deciding what the settlement's going to be should be the people that are involved. This idea that we can be the policemen of the world and settle all these disputes, I mean, soon we'll have to quit because we're flat out broke. But we-- we cannot continue to get into these issues like this and-- and-- and-- and getting ourselves into more trouble.
N NNP no RB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB agree VB with IN that DT . . And CC that DT 's VBZ just RB stirrin NN ' '' up RP trouble NN . . And CC I PRP I PRP believe VBP in IN a DT non-interventionist JJ foreign JJ policy NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB we PRP should MD get VB in IN the DT middle NN of IN these DT squabbles NNS . . But CC to TO go VB out IN of IN our PRP$ way NN and CC say VB that DT so-and-so NN is VBZ not RB a DT real JJ people NNS ? . Technically NNP and CC historically RB , , yes RB you PRP know VBP , , under IN the DT Ottoman NNP Empire NNP , , the DT Palestinians NNPS did VBD n't RB have VB a DT state NN , , but CC neither DT did VBD Israel NNP have VB a DT state NN then RB too RB . . But CC this DT is VBZ how WRB we PRP get VBP involved VBN in IN so RB many JJ messes NNS . . And CC I PRP think VBP it PRP just RB fails VBZ on IN the DT side NN of IN practicing VBG a DT little JJ bit NN of IN diplomacy NN , , getting VBG ourselves PRP into IN trouble NN mentioning VBG things NNS that WDT are VBP unnecessary JJ . . The DT people NNS in IN those DT regions NNS should MD be VB dealing VBG with IN these DT problems NNS ; : we PRP should MD n't RB be VB dealing VBG with IN these DT things NNS . . But CC historically RB , , it PRP it PRP you PRP know VBP , , under IN the DT Ottoman NNP Empire NNP , , that IN i FW that WDT is VBZ technically RB correct JJ . . But CC to TO make VB these DT decisions NNS in IN deciding VBG what WP the DT settlement NN 's POS going VBG to TO be VB should MD be VB the DT people NNS that WDT are VBP involved VBN . . This DT idea NN that IN we PRP can MD be VB the DT policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN and CC settle VB all PDT these DT disputes NNS , , I PRP mean VBP , , soon RB we PRP 'll MD have VB to TO quit VB because IN we PRP 're VBP flat JJ out IN broke RB . . But CC we PRP we PRP can MD not RB continue VB to TO get VB into IN these DT issues NNS like IN this DT and CC and CC and CC and CC getting VBG ourselves PRP into IN more JJR trouble NN . .
n
stirrin troubl
polici
middl squabbl
way so-and-so peopl
technic ottoman empir palestinian state israel state
mess
side bit diplomaci troubl thing
peopl region problem thing
ottoman empir
decis settlement peopl
idea policemen world disput
issu troubl

Well-- I feel very fortunate because-- although I was raised in-- in a system that-- in a family that was rather poor, but we-- [ laugh ] I didn't even know it. You know, it was durin' the Depression and World War II, and we didn't have very much, and I worked my way through college, and that was a natural instinct because that's what you were supposed to do. But-- I-- I-- I finally-- did a little bit better in medical school because I had my wife work our way through cool-- [ laugh ] medical school. [ laughter ] So that worked out a little bit better. But middle class is suffering, but not only because we bale out the rich and dump on the poor and they lose their jobs and they lose their houses, but there's a characteristic about monetary policy. When a country destroys its currency, it transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and this is what you're seeing today: the elimination of the middle class. And going to get a lot worse unless we address the subject overspending, over-borrowing, and printing too much money, and understanding the business cycle.
Well RB I PRP feel VBP very RB fortunate JJ because IN although IN I PRP was VBD raised VBN in IN in IN a DT system NN that IN in IN a DT family NN that WDT was VBD rather RB poor JJ , , but CC we PRP I PRP did VBD n't RB even RB know VB it PRP . . You PRP know VBP , , it PRP was VBD durin NN ' '' the DT Depression NNP and CC World NNP War NNP II NNP , , and CC we PRP did VBD n't RB have VB very RB much RB , , and CC I PRP worked VBD my PRP$ way NN through IN college NN , , and CC that DT was VBD a DT natural JJ instinct NN because IN that DT 's VBZ what WP you PRP were VBD supposed VBN to TO do VB . . But CC I PRP I PRP I PRP finally RB did VBD a DT little JJ bit NN better RBR in IN medical JJ school NN because IN I PRP had VBD my PRP$ wife NN work NN our PRP$ way NN through IN cool JJ medical JJ school NN . . So IN that DT worked VBD out RP a DT little JJ bit NN better RBR . . But CC middle JJ class NN is VBZ suffering VBG , , but CC not RB only RB because IN we PRP bale VBP out RP the DT rich JJ and CC dump VB on IN the DT poor JJ and CC they PRP lose VBP their PRP$ jobs NNS and CC they PRP lose VBP their PRP$ houses NNS , , but CC there EX 's VBZ a DT characteristic NN about IN monetary JJ policy NN . . When WRB a DT country NN destroys VBZ its PRP$ currency NN , , it PRP transfers VBZ wealth NN from IN the DT middle JJ class NN to TO the DT wealthy JJ , , and CC this DT is VBZ what WP you PRP 're VBP seeing VBG today NN : : the DT elimination NN of IN the DT middle JJ class NN . . And CC going VBG to TO get VB a DT lot NN worse JJR unless IN we PRP address VBP the DT subject JJ overspending NN , , over-borrowing NN , , and CC printing NN too RB much JJ money NN , , and CC understanding VBG the DT business NN cycle NN . .
system famili
durin depress world war ii way colleg instinct
bit school wife work way school
bit
class job hous characterist polici
countri currenc wealth class today elimin class
lot overspend over-borrow print money busi cycl

No, essentially not, but they have to be-- a referee. If people are doing things that hurt other people, yes. But if you embark on instituting a society where government protects you from yourself, you're in big trouble, and that's what they're doing. [ applause ] I think-- I think what we've had here is a demonstration of-- why should we have a candidate that's gonna have to explain themselves? 70% of the people want further explanations on what your positions are. So I think that it is endless. But you talk about the-- the Obamacare using force, but that's all government is, is force. I mean, do you have a choice about paying Medicare taxes? So there's not a whole of different-- you're forced to buy insurance. That's one step further. But you have to stop with force. Once government uses force to mold behavior or mold the economy, they've overstepped the bounds and they've violated the whole concept of our revolution and our Constitution. [ applause ]
No RB , , essentially RB not RB , , but CC they PRP have VBP to TO be VB a DT referee NN . . If IN people NNS are VBP doing VBG things NNS that WDT hurt VBP other JJ people NNS , , yes RB . . But CC if IN you PRP embark VBP on IN instituting VBG a DT society NN where WRB government NN protects VBZ you PRP from IN yourself PRP , , you PRP 're VBP in IN big JJ trouble NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ what WP they PRP 're VBP doing VBG . . I PRP think VBP I PRP think VBP what WP we PRP 've VBP had VBN here RB is VBZ a DT demonstration NN of IN why WRB should MD we PRP have VB a DT candidate NN that WDT 's VBZ gon VBG na TO have VB to TO explain VB themselves PRP ? . 70 CD % NN of IN the DT people NNS want VBP further JJ explanations NNS on IN what WP your PRP$ positions NNS are VBP . . So RB I PRP think VBP that IN it PRP is VBZ endless JJ . . But CC you PRP talk VBP about IN the DT the DT Obamacare NNP using VBG force NN , , but CC that DT 's VBZ all DT government NN is VBZ , , is VBZ force NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , do VBP you PRP have VB a DT choice NN about IN paying VBG Medicare NNP taxes NNS ? . So RB there EX 's VBZ not RB a DT whole NN of IN different JJ you PRP 're VBP forced VBN to TO buy VB insurance NN . . That DT 's VBZ one CD step NN further RB . . But CC you PRP have VBP to TO stop VB with IN force NN . . Once RB government NN uses VBZ force NN to TO mold NN behavior NN or CC mold NN the DT economy NN , , they PRP 've VBP overstepped VBN the DT bounds NNS and CC they PRP 've VBP violated VBN the DT whole JJ concept NN of IN our PRP$ revolution NN and CC our PRP$ Constitution NNP . .
refere
peopl thing peopl
societi govern troubl
demonstr candid
peopl explan posit
obamacar forc govern forc
choic medicar tax
whole insur
step
forc
govern forc mold behavior mold economi bound concept revolut constitut

Well, I have learned that you should never give up on your opposition. Because if you're persistent, [ laugh ] and you present your case, they will come your way. So Rick, I appreciate it. [ laughter ] Rick, I appreciate it. [ unintelligible ] appreciate it. You're open to the federal reserve. That's wonderful. But I-- I work from the assumption that freedom brings people together. And if you understand freedom, it's based on tolerance and nonviolence. So if it's tolerance, it should be bringing all kinds of people together and that's following our Constitution. And we shouldn't be fighting among ourselves. Because we shouldn't be fighting in Washington if we all take the same oath of office. Where does the fight come from? Somebody is messin' up somewhere. [ laughter ] So-- so I say that with persistence, I think that we can all prevail and come up with the right answers. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP have VBP learned VBN that IN you PRP should MD never RB give VB up RP on IN your PRP$ opposition NN . . Because IN if IN you PRP 're VBP persistent JJ , , and CC you PRP present VBP your PRP$ case NN , , they PRP will MD come VB your PRP$ way NN . . So IN Rick NNP , , I PRP appreciate VBP it PRP . . Rick NNP , , I PRP appreciate VBP it PRP . . appreciate VB it PRP . . You PRP 're VBP open JJ to TO the DT federal JJ reserve NN . . That DT 's VBZ wonderful JJ . . But CC I PRP I PRP work VBP from IN the DT assumption NN that IN freedom NN brings VBZ people NNS together RB . . And CC if IN you PRP understand VBP freedom NN , , it PRP 's VBZ based VBN on IN tolerance NN and CC nonviolence NN . . So RB if IN it PRP 's VBZ tolerance NN , , it PRP should MD be VB bringing VBG all DT kinds NNS of IN people NNS together RB and CC that DT 's VBZ following VBG our PRP$ Constitution NNP . . And CC we PRP should MD n't RB be VB fighting VBG among IN ourselves PRP . . Because IN we PRP should MD n't RB be VB fighting VBG in IN Washington NNP if IN we PRP all DT take VBP the DT same JJ oath NN of IN office NN . . Where WRB does VBZ the DT fight NN come VB from IN ? . Somebody NN is VBZ messin NN ' '' up RP somewhere RB . . So RB so IN I PRP say VBP that IN with IN persistence NN , , I PRP think VBP that IN we PRP can MD all DT prevail VB and CC come VB up RP with IN the DT right JJ answers NNS . .
opposit
case way
rick
rick
reserv
assumpt freedom peopl
freedom toler nonviol
toler kind peopl constitut
washington oath offic
fight
somebodi messin
persist answer

I'm Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas. I am pleased to be here at the debate because this is a very important debate. I am convinced that needless and unnecessary wars are a great detriment. They undermine our prosperity and our liberties. They add to our deficits and they consume our welfare. We should take a careful look at our foreign policy.
I PRP 'm VBP Ron NNP Paul NNP , , a DT congressman NN from IN Texas NNP . . I PRP am VBP pleased VBN to TO be VB here RB at IN the DT debate NN because IN this DT is VBZ a DT very RB important JJ debate NN . . I PRP am VBP convinced VBN that IN needless JJ and CC unnecessary JJ wars NNS are VBP a DT great JJ detriment NN . . They PRP undermine VBP our PRP$ prosperity NN and CC our PRP$ liberties NNS . . They PRP add VBP to TO our PRP$ deficits NNS and CC they PRP consume VBP our PRP$ welfare NN . . We PRP should MD take VB a DT careful JJ look NN at IN our PRP$ foreign JJ policy NN . .
ron paul congressman texa
debat debat
war detriment
prosper liberti
deficit welfar
look polici

I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it. We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security. Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights. [ applause ]
I PRP think VBP the DT Patriot NNP Act NNP is VBZ unpatriotic JJ because IN it PRP undermines VBZ our PRP$ liberty NN . . I PRP 'm VBP concerned JJ , , as IN everybody NN is VBZ , , about IN the DT terrorist JJ attack NN . . Timothy NNP McVeigh NNP was VBD a DT vicious JJ terrorist JJ . . He PRP was VBD arrested VBN . . Terrorism NNP is VBZ still RB on IN the DT books NNS , , internationally RB and CC nationally RB , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT crime NN and CC we PRP should MD deal VB with IN it PRP . . We PRP dealt VBD with IN it PRP rather RB well RB with IN Timothy NNP McVeigh NNP . . But CC why WRB I PRP really RB fear VBP it PRP is VBZ we PRP have VBP drifted VBN into IN a DT condition NN that IN we PRP were VBD warned VBN against IN because IN our PRP$ early JJ founders NNS were VBD very RB clear JJ . . They PRP said VBD , , do VBP n't RB be VB willing JJ to TO sacrifice VB liberty NN for IN security NN . . Today NN it PRP seems VBZ too RB easy JJ that IN our PRP$ government NN and CC our PRP$ congresses NNS are VBP so RB willing JJ to TO give VB up RP our PRP$ liberties NNS for IN our PRP$ security NN . . I PRP have VBP a DT personal JJ belief NN that IN you PRP never RB have VBP to TO give VB up RP liberty NN for IN security NN . . You PRP can MD still RB provide VB security NN without IN sacrificing VBG our PRP$ Bill NN of IN Rights NNS . .
patriot act liberti
everybodi attack
timothi mcveigh
terror book crime
timothi mcveigh
condit founder
liberti secur
today govern congress liberti secur
belief liberti secur
secur bill right

This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child- beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don't do it so carelessly. [ applause ]
This DT is VBZ like IN saying VBG that IN we PRP need VBP a DT policeman NN in IN every DT house NN , , a DT camera NN in IN every DT house NN because IN we PRP want VBP to TO prevent VB child- JJ beating NN and CC wife-beating NN . . You PRP can MD prevent VB crimes NNS by IN becoming VBG a DT police NN state NN . . So RB if IN you PRP advocate VBP the DT police NN state NN , , yes UH , , you PRP can MD have VB safety NN and CC security NN and CC you PRP might MD prevent VB a DT crime NN , , but CC the DT crime NN then RB will MD be VB against IN the DT American JJ people NNS and CC against IN our PRP$ freedoms NNS . . And CC we PRP will MD throw VB out RP so RB much RB of IN what WP our PRP$ revolution NN was VBD fought VBN for IN . . So RB do VBP n't RB do VB it PRP so RB carelessly RB . .
policeman hous camera hous beat wife-b
crime polic state
polic state safeti secur crime crime peopl freedom
revolut

That's digging a... [ applause ] That's digging a hole for ourselves. What if they look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal. I think we're using too much carelessness in the use of words that we're at war. I don't remember voting on -- on a declared -- declaration of war. Oh, we're against terrorism. [ applause ] And terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects. And they have changed the -- in the -- in DOD budget they have changed the wording on the definition of al-Qaeda and Taliban. It's anybody associated with organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated so that makes all Americans vulnerable. And now we know that American citizens are vulnerable to assassination. So I would be very cautious about protecting the rule of law. It will be a sacrifice that you'll be sorry for. [ applause ]
That DT 's VBZ digging NN a DT ... : That DT 's VBZ digging NN a DT hole NN for IN ourselves PRP . . What WP if IN they PRP look VBP like IN Timothy NNP McVeigh NNP ? . You PRP know VBP , , he PRP was VBD a DT pretty RB tough JJ criminal NN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP 're VBP using VBG too RB much JJ carelessness NN in IN the DT use NN of IN words NNS that IN we PRP 're VBP at IN war NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB remember VB voting NN on IN -- : on IN a DT declared VBN -- : declaration NN of IN war NN . . Oh UH , , we PRP 're VBP against IN terrorism NN . . And CC terrorism NN is VBZ a DT tactic NN . . It PRP is VBZ n't RB a DT person NN . . It PRP is VBZ n't RB a DT people NNS . . So RB this DT is VBZ a DT very RB careless JJ use NN of IN words NNS . . What WP about IN this DT ? . Sacrifice NN liberties NNS because IN there EX are VBP terrorists NNS ? . You PRP 're VBP the DT judge NN and CC the DT jury NN ? . No RB , , they PRP 're VBP suspects NNS . . And CC they PRP have VBP changed VBN the DT -- : in IN the DT -- : in IN DOD NNP budget NN they PRP have VBP changed VBN the DT wording NN on IN the DT definition NN of IN al-Qaeda NNP and CC Taliban NNP . . It PRP 's VBZ anybody NN associated VBN with IN organizations NNS , , which WDT means VBZ almost RB anybody NN can MD be VB loosely RB associated VBN so IN that DT makes VBZ all DT Americans NNS vulnerable JJ . . And CC now RB we PRP know VBP that IN American JJ citizens NNS are VBP vulnerable JJ to TO assassination NN . . So RB I PRP would MD be VB very RB cautious JJ about IN protecting VBG the DT rule NN of IN law NN . . It PRP will MD be VB a DT sacrifice NN that IN you PRP 'll MD be VB sorry JJ for IN . .
dig dig hole
timothi mcveigh
crimin
careless use word war
vote declar war
terror
terror tactic
person
peopl
use word
sacrific liberti terrorist
judg juri
suspect
dod budget word definit al-qaeda taliban
anybodi organ anybodi american
citizen assassin
rule law
sacrific

How about the rest of us?
How WRB about IN the DT rest NN of IN us PRP ? .
rest

How about us who haven't had a response?
How WRB about IN us PRP who WP have VBP n't RB had VBD a DT response NN ? .
respons

No, I wouldn't do that. [ laughter ] But there would be good reasons because I don't expect it to happen. Because, you know, the Mossad leader that just retired said it would be the stupidest thing to do in the world. And it's a big argument over in Israel. They're not about to do this. They've just polled 40 major experts on foreign policy here by the National Journal. Not one of them said there should be a unilateral attack on -- on the sites in -- in Iran. So that's not going to happen. And if it did -- you're supposing that if it did, why does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way. I mean, we interfere with them. We interfere with them...[ laughter ]... when they deal with their borders. When they want to have peace treaties, we tell them what they can do because we buy their allegiance and they sacrifice their sovereignty to us. And then they decide they want to bomb something, that's their business, but they should, you know, suffer the consequences. When they bombed the Iraqi missile site, nuclear site, back in the '80s, I was one of the few in Congress that said it's none of our business and Israel should take care of themselves. Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles. And they can take care of themselves. Why should we commit -- we don't even have a treaty with Israel. Why do we have this automatic commitment that we're going to send our kids and send our money endlessly to Israel? So I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves. I think we do detriment -- just think of all the money we gave to Egypt over 30 or 40 years. Now, look, we were buying friendship. Now there's a civil war, they're less friendly to Israel. The whole thing is going to backfire once we go bankrupt and we remove our troops, so I think we should be very cautious in our willingness to go to war and send troops without a proper declaration by the U.S. Congress.
No RB , , I PRP would MD n't RB do VB that DT . . But CC there EX would MD be VB good JJ reasons NNS because IN I PRP do VBP n't RB expect VB it PRP to TO happen VB . . Because IN , , you PRP know VBP , , the DT Mossad NNP leader NN that WDT just RB retired VBN said VBD it PRP would MD be VB the DT stupidest JJS thing NN to TO do VB in IN the DT world NN . . And CC it PRP 's VBZ a DT big JJ argument NN over IN in IN Israel NNP . . They PRP 're VBP not RB about IN to TO do VB this DT . . They PRP 've VBP just RB polled VBN 40 CD major JJ experts NNS on IN foreign JJ policy NN here RB by IN the DT National NNP Journal NNP . . Not RB one CD of IN them PRP said VBD there EX should MD be VB a DT unilateral JJ attack NN on IN -- : on IN the DT sites NNS in IN -- : in IN Iran NNP . . So IN that DT 's VBZ not RB going VBG to TO happen VB . . And CC if IN it PRP did VBD -- : you PRP 're VBP supposing VBG that IN if IN it PRP did VBD , , why WRB does VBZ Israel NNP need VB our PRP$ help NN ? . We PRP need VBP to TO get VB out IN of IN their PRP$ way NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , we PRP interfere VBP with IN them PRP . . We PRP interfere VBP with IN them PRP ... : ... : when WRB they PRP deal VBP with IN their PRP$ borders NNS . . When WRB they PRP want VBP to TO have VB peace NN treaties NNS , , we PRP tell VBP them PRP what WP they PRP can MD do VB because IN we PRP buy VBP their PRP$ allegiance NN and CC they PRP sacrifice VBP their PRP$ sovereignty NN to TO us PRP . . And CC then RB they PRP decide VBP they PRP want VBP to TO bomb VB something NN , , that DT 's VBZ their PRP$ business NN , , but CC they PRP should MD , , you PRP know VBP , , suffer VBP the DT consequences NNS . . When WRB they PRP bombed VBD the DT Iraqi JJ missile NN site NN , , nuclear JJ site NN , , back RB in IN the DT '80s NNS , , I PRP was VBD one CD of IN the DT few JJ in IN Congress NNP that WDT said VBD it PRP 's VBZ none NN of IN our PRP$ business NN and CC Israel NNP should MD take VB care NN of IN themselves PRP . . Israel NNP has VBZ 200 CD , , 300 CD nuclear JJ missiles NNS . . And CC they PRP can MD take VB care NN of IN themselves PRP . . Why WRB should MD we PRP commit VB -- : we PRP do VBP n't RB even RB have VB a DT treaty NN with IN Israel NNP . . Why WRB do VBP we PRP have VB this DT automatic JJ commitment NN that IN we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO send VB our PRP$ kids NNS and CC send VB our PRP$ money NN endlessly RB to TO Israel NNP ? . So RB I PRP think VBP they PRP 're VBP quite RB capable JJ of IN taking VBG care NN of IN themselves PRP . . I PRP think VBP we PRP do VBP detriment NN -- : just RB think VB of IN all PDT the DT money NN we PRP gave VBD to TO Egypt NNP over IN 30 CD or CC 40 CD years NNS . . Now RB , , look NN , , we PRP were VBD buying VBG friendship NN . . Now RB there EX 's VBZ a DT civil JJ war NN , , they PRP 're VBP less RBR friendly JJ to TO Israel NNP . . The DT whole JJ thing NN is VBZ going VBG to TO backfire VB once RB we PRP go VBP bankrupt JJ and CC we PRP remove VBP our PRP$ troops NNS , , so IN I PRP think VBP we PRP should MD be VB very RB cautious JJ in IN our PRP$ willingness NN to TO go VB to TO war NN and CC send VB troops NNS without IN a DT proper JJ declaration NN by IN the DT U.S NNP . . Congress NNP . .
reason
mossad leader thing world
argument israel
expert polici nation journal
attack site iran
israel help
way
border
peac treati allegi sovereignti
someth busi consequ
missil site site 80s congress none busi israel care
israel missil
care
treati israel
commit kid money israel
care
detriment money egypt year
look friendship
war israel
thing troop willing war troop declar u.
congress

I -- I think the aid is all worthless. It doesn't do any good for most of the people. You take money from poor people in this country and you end up giving it to rich people in poor countries. And they're used as weapons of war so you accomplish nothing. We should export some, maybe some principles about free markets and sound money and maybe they could produce some of their -- their own wealth. But this whole idea of -- of talking about the endless wars and the endless foreign aid, it seems like nobody cares about the budget. I mean, we -- we're in big trouble and -- and -- and nobody wants to cut anything. So if you're gonna keep sending foreign aid overseas and these endless wars that you don't have to declare and -- and go into Libya without even consulting with the Congress, the biggest threat -- the biggest threat to our national security is our financial condition. And this is just aggravating it. [ applause ]
I PRP -- : I PRP think VBP the DT aid NN is VBZ all DT worthless JJ . . It PRP does VBZ n't RB do VB any DT good JJ for IN most JJS of IN the DT people NNS . . You PRP take VBP money NN from IN poor JJ people NNS in IN this DT country NN and CC you PRP end VBP up RP giving VBG it PRP to TO rich JJ people NNS in IN poor JJ countries NNS . . And CC they PRP 're VBP used VBN as IN weapons NNS of IN war NN so IN you PRP accomplish VBP nothing NN . . We PRP should MD export VB some DT , , maybe RB some DT principles NNS about IN free JJ markets NNS and CC sound JJ money NN and CC maybe RB they PRP could MD produce VB some DT of IN their PRP$ -- : their PRP$ own JJ wealth NN . . But CC this DT whole JJ idea NN of IN -- : of IN talking VBG about IN the DT endless JJ wars NNS and CC the DT endless JJ foreign JJ aid NN , , it PRP seems VBZ like IN nobody NN cares VBZ about IN the DT budget NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , we PRP -- : we PRP 're VBP in IN big JJ trouble NN and CC -- : and CC -- : and CC nobody NN wants VBZ to TO cut VB anything NN . . So RB if IN you PRP 're VBP gon VBG na TO keep VB sending VBG foreign JJ aid NN overseas RB and CC these DT endless JJ wars NNS that IN you PRP do VBP n't RB have VB to TO declare VB and CC -- : and CC go VB into IN Libya NNP without IN even RB consulting VBG with IN the DT Congress NNP , , the DT biggest JJS threat NN -- : the DT biggest JJS threat NN to TO our PRP$ national JJ security NN is VBZ our PRP$ financial JJ condition NN . . And CC this DT is VBZ just RB aggravating VBG it PRP . .
aid
peopl
money peopl countri peopl countri
weapon war noth
principl market money wealth
idea war aid nobodi budget
troubl nobodi anyth
aid war libya congress threat threat secur condit

Well, they're not cutting anything out of anything. All this talk is just talk. [ applause ] Believe me. They're cutting -- they're nibbling away at baseline budgeting, and its automatic increases. There's nothing cut against the military. And the people on the Hill are nearly hysterical because they're not going -- the budget isn't going up as rapidly as they want it to. It's a road to disaster. We had better wake up. [ applause ]
Well RB , , they PRP 're VBP not RB cutting VBG anything NN out IN of IN anything NN . . All PDT this DT talk NN is VBZ just RB talk NN . . Believe VB me PRP . . They PRP 're VBP cutting VBG -- : they PRP 're VBP nibbling VBG away RB at IN baseline JJ budgeting NN , , and CC its PRP$ automatic JJ increases NNS . . There EX 's VBZ nothing NN cut NN against IN the DT military NN . . And CC the DT people NNS on IN the DT Hill NNP are VBP nearly RB hysterical JJ because IN they PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG -- : the DT budget NN is VBZ n't RB going VBG up RP as RB rapidly RB as IN they PRP want VBP it PRP to TO . . It PRP 's VBZ a DT road NN to TO disaster NN . . We PRP had VBD better RBR wake VB up RP . .
anyth anyth
talk talk
budget increas
noth cut militari
peopl hill budget
road disast

Not entirely. [ laughter ] No, the drug was mentioned. I think that's another war we ought to cancel, because it's... [ applause ]... to nobody's benefit. And that's where the violence is coming from. But, yes, we do have a national responsibility for our borders. What I'm, sort of, tired of is all the money spent and lives lost worrying about the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan and forgetting about our borders between the United States and Mexico. We should think more about, you know, what we do at home. We need better immigration services, obviously. But, you know, if you subsidize something or give people incentives, you get more of it. So if you give easy road to citizenship, you're going to have more illegals. If you have a weak economy, which is understandable and we should have prevented, that's understandable. But giving -- mandating to the states and to Texas that we have to provide free medical care and free education, that's a great burden. It's a great burden to California and all the border states. So I would say eliminate all these benefits and talk about eliminating the welfare state because it's detrimental not only to here but the people that come because that's the incentive to bring their families with them.
Not RB entirely RB . . No RB , , the DT drug NN was VBD mentioned VBN . . I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ another DT war NN we PRP ought MD to TO cancel VB , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ ... : ... : to TO nobody NN 's POS benefit NN . . And CC that DT 's VBZ where WRB the DT violence NN is VBZ coming VBG from IN . . But CC , , yes UH , , we PRP do VBP have VB a DT national JJ responsibility NN for IN our PRP$ borders NNS . . What WP I PRP 'm VBP , , sort NN of IN , , tired VBN of IN is VBZ all PDT the DT money NN spent VBN and CC lives NNS lost VBD worrying VBG about IN the DT borders NNS between IN Pakistan NNP and CC Afghanistan NNP and CC forgetting VBG about IN our PRP$ borders NNS between IN the DT United NNP States NNPS and CC Mexico NNP . . We PRP should MD think VB more RBR about IN , , you PRP know VBP , , what WP we PRP do VBP at IN home NN . . We PRP need VBP better JJR immigration NN services NNS , , obviously RB . . But CC , , you PRP know VBP , , if IN you PRP subsidize VBP something NN or CC give VB people NNS incentives NNS , , you PRP get VBP more JJR of IN it PRP . . So RB if IN you PRP give VBP easy JJ road NN to TO citizenship NN , , you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO have VB more JJR illegals NNS . . If IN you PRP have VBP a DT weak JJ economy NN , , which WDT is VBZ understandable JJ and CC we PRP should MD have VB prevented VBN , , that DT 's VBZ understandable JJ . . But CC giving VBG -- : mandating VBG to TO the DT states NNS and CC to TO Texas NNP that IN we PRP have VBP to TO provide VB free JJ medical JJ care NN and CC free JJ education NN , , that DT 's VBZ a DT great JJ burden NN . . It PRP 's VBZ a DT great JJ burden NN to TO California NNP and CC all PDT the DT border NN states NNS . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB eliminate VB all PDT these DT benefits NNS and CC talk NN about IN eliminating VBG the DT welfare NN state NN because IN it PRP 's VBZ detrimental JJ not RB only RB to TO here RB but CC the DT people NNS that WDT come VBP because IN that DT 's VBZ the DT incentive NN to TO bring VB their PRP$ families NNS with IN them PRP . .
drug
war nobodi benefit
violenc
respons border
sort money live border pakistan afghanistan border unit state mexico
home
immigr servic
someth peopl incent
road citizenship illeg
economi
state texa care educ burden
burden california border state
benefit talk welfar state peopl incent famili

I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure. [ applause ] You can -- you can at least let sick people have marijuana because it's helpful, but compassionate conservatives say, well, we can't do this; we're going to put people who are sick and dying with cancer and they're being helped with marijuana, if they have multiple sclerosis -- the federal government's going in there and overriding state laws and putting people like that in prison. Why don't we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol? Alcohol is a deadly drug. What about -- the real deadly drugs are the prescription drugs. They kill a lot more people than the illegal drugs. So the drug war is out of control. I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend -- like, over the last 40 years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn't worked.
I PRP think VBP the DT federal JJ war NN on IN drugs NNS is VBZ a DT total JJ failure NN . . You PRP can MD -- : you PRP can MD at IN least JJS let VB sick JJ people NNS have VBP marijuana NN because IN it PRP 's VBZ helpful JJ , , but CC compassionate JJ conservatives NNS say VBP , , well RB , , we PRP ca MD n't RB do VB this DT ; : we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO put VB people NNS who WP are VBP sick JJ and CC dying VBG with IN cancer NN and CC they PRP 're VBP being VBG helped VBN with IN marijuana NN , , if IN they PRP have VBP multiple JJ sclerosis NN -- : the DT federal JJ government NN 's POS going VBG in IN there EX and CC overriding VBG state NN laws NNS and CC putting VBG people NNS like IN that DT in IN prison NN . . Why WRB do VBP n't RB we PRP handle VB the DT drugs NNS like IN we PRP handle VBP alcohol NN ? . Alcohol NN is VBZ a DT deadly JJ drug NN . . What WP about RB -- : the DT real JJ deadly JJ drugs NNS are VBP the DT prescription NN drugs NNS . . They PRP kill VBP a DT lot NN more JJR people NNS than IN the DT illegal JJ drugs NNS . . So IN the DT drug NN war NN is VBZ out IN of IN control NN . . I PRP fear VBP the DT drug NN war NN because IN it PRP undermines VBZ our PRP$ civil JJ liberties NNS . . It PRP magnifies VBZ our PRP$ problems NNS on IN the DT borders NNS . . We PRP spend VBP -- : like IN , , over IN the DT last JJ 40 CD years NNS , , $ $ 1 CD trillion CD on IN this DT war NN . . And CC believe VB me PRP , , the DT kids NNS can MD still RB get VB the DT drugs NNS . . It PRP just RB has VBZ n't RB worked VBN . .
war drug failur
peopl marijuana conserv peopl cancer marijuana sclerosi govern state law peopl prison
drug alcohol
alcohol drug
drug prescript drug
lot peopl drug
drug war control
drug war liberti
problem border
year war
kid drug

You're talking about al Qaeda, correct?
You PRP 're VBP talking VBG about IN al JJ Qaeda NNP , , correct JJ ? .
qaeda

You have to understand who the al Qaeda really is. The -- the al Qaeda responds in a very deliberate fashion. As a matter of fact, Paul Wolfowitz explained it very clearly after 9/11. He said that al Qaeda is inspired by the fact that we had bases in Saudi Arabia. So if you want to inspire al Qaeda, just meddle in -- in that region. That will inspire the al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, he went on to say that that was a good reason for us to remove the base that we had had in 15 years in -- in Saudi Arabia and that we should have done that. So there is a response. Al Qaeda responds to that and they -- they are quite annoyed with us. So if you drop -- if you have a no- fly zone over Syria, that's an act of war. What if we had China put a no-fly zone over our territory? I don't think -- I don't think we would like that. And I think we should practice a policy of good will to other people. What about saying that we don't do anything to any other country that we don't have them do to us? When we have a no-fly zone over Iraq, it was for -- meant to be regime change. And evidently, some want to have regime change. What is our business? Why should we spend more money and more lives to get involved in another war? That's an -- that is the internal affairs of the other nations and we don't want -- we don't need another nation to start nation building. We have way too many already. So this is just looking for more trouble. I would say why don't we mind our own business? [ applause ]
You PRP have VBP to TO understand VB who WP the DT al NNP Qaeda NNP really RB is VBZ . . The DT -- : the DT al JJ Qaeda NNP responds VBZ in IN a DT very RB deliberate JJ fashion NN . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , Paul NNP Wolfowitz NNP explained VBD it PRP very RB clearly RB after IN 9/11 CD . . He PRP said VBD that IN al NNP Qaeda NNP is VBZ inspired VBN by IN the DT fact NN that IN we PRP had VBD bases NNS in IN Saudi NNP Arabia NNP . . So RB if IN you PRP want VBP to TO inspire VB al NNP Qaeda NNP , , just RB meddle VB in IN -- : in IN that DT region NN . . That DT will MD inspire VB the DT al JJ Qaeda NNP . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , he PRP went VBD on RP to TO say VB that IN that DT was VBD a DT good JJ reason NN for IN us PRP to TO remove VB the DT base NN that IN we PRP had VBD had VBN in IN 15 CD years NNS in IN -- : in IN Saudi NNP Arabia NNP and CC that IN we PRP should MD have VB done VBN that DT . . So RB there EX is VBZ a DT response NN . . Al NNP Qaeda NNP responds VBZ to TO that DT and CC they PRP -- : they PRP are VBP quite RB annoyed JJ with IN us PRP . . So RB if IN you PRP drop VBP -- : if IN you PRP have VBP a DT no- JJ fly NN zone NN over IN Syria NNP , , that DT 's VBZ an DT act NN of IN war NN . . What WP if IN we PRP had VBD China NNP put VBD a DT no-fly JJ zone NN over IN our PRP$ territory NN ? . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB we PRP would MD like VB that DT . . And CC I PRP think VBP we PRP should MD practice VB a DT policy NN of IN good JJ will NN to TO other JJ people NNS . . What WP about IN saying VBG that IN we PRP do VBP n't RB do VB anything NN to TO any DT other JJ country NN that IN we PRP do VBP n't RB have VB them PRP do VB to TO us PRP ? . When WRB we PRP have VBP a DT no-fly JJ zone NN over IN Iraq NNP , , it PRP was VBD for IN -- : meant VBN to TO be VB regime NN change NN . . And CC evidently RB , , some DT want VBP to TO have VB regime NN change NN . . What WP is VBZ our PRP$ business NN ? . Why WRB should MD we PRP spend VB more JJR money NN and CC more JJR lives NNS to TO get VB involved VBN in IN another DT war NN ? . That DT 's VBZ an DT -- : that DT is VBZ the DT internal JJ affairs NNS of IN the DT other JJ nations NNS and CC we PRP do VBP n't RB want VB -- : we PRP do VBP n't RB need VB another DT nation NN to TO start VB nation NN building NN . . We PRP have VBP way RB too RB many JJ already RB . . So RB this DT is VBZ just RB looking VBG for IN more JJR trouble NN . . I PRP would MD say VB why WRB do VBP n't RB we PRP mind VB our PRP$ own JJ business NN ? .
al qaeda
qaeda fashion
matter fact paul wolfowitz
al qaeda fact base saudi arabia
al qaeda region
qaeda
matter fact reason base year saudi arabia
respons
al qaeda
fli zone syria act war
china zone territori
polici will peopl
anyth countri
zone iraq regim chang
regim chang
busi
money live war
affair nation nation nation build
troubl
busi

I worry most about overreaction on our part, getting involved in another war when we don't need to, when we have been attacked, and our national security has not been at threat. And I worry a lot about people never have come around to understanding who the Taliban is and why they are motivated. Taliban doesn't mean they want to come here and kill us. The Taliban means they want to kill us over there because all they want to do is get people who occupy their country out of their country, just like we would if anybody tried to occupy us.
I PRP worry VBP most JJS about IN overreaction NN on IN our PRP$ part NN , , getting VBG involved VBN in IN another DT war NN when WRB we PRP do VBP n't RB need VB to TO , , when WRB we PRP have VBP been VBN attacked VBN , , and CC our PRP$ national JJ security NN has VBZ not RB been VBN at IN threat NN . . And CC I PRP worry VBP a DT lot NN about IN people NNS never RB have VBP come VBN around RB to TO understanding NN who WP the DT Taliban NNP is VBZ and CC why WRB they PRP are VBP motivated JJ . . Taliban NNP does VBZ n't RB mean VB they PRP want VBP to TO come VB here RB and CC kill VB us PRP . . The DT Taliban NNP means VBZ they PRP want VBP to TO kill VB us PRP over IN there RB because IN all DT they PRP want VBP to TO do VB is VBZ get VB people NNS who WP occupy VBP their PRP$ country NN out IN of IN their PRP$ country NN , , just RB like IN we PRP would MD if IN anybody NN tried VBD to TO occupy VB us PRP . .
overreact part war secur threat
lot peopl understand taliban
taliban
taliban peopl countri countri anybodi

No, it isn't worthwhile. The only way you would do that is-- you would have to go through Congress. We-- we as commander in chief aren't making the decision to go to war. You know, the old-fashioned way, the Constitution, you go to the Congress and find out if our national security is threatened. And-- I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq. And, you know, they didn't have nuc-- weapons of mass destruction. And it was orchestrated and it was-- to me, a tragedy of what's happened these past-- last ten years, the death and destruction, $4 billion-- $4 trillion in debt. So no, it's not worthwhile goin' to war. If you do, you get a declaration of war and you fight it and you win it and get it over with.
No RB , , it PRP is VBZ n't RB worthwhile JJ . . The DT only JJ way NN you PRP would MD do VB that DT is VBZ you PRP would MD have VB to TO go VB through IN Congress NNP . . We PRP we PRP as IN commander NN in IN chief NN are VBP n't RB making VBG the DT decision NN to TO go VB to TO war NN . . You PRP know VBP , , the DT old-fashioned JJ way NN , , the DT Constitution NNP , , you PRP go VBP to TO the DT Congress NNP and CC find VB out RP if IN our PRP$ national JJ security NN is VBZ threatened VBN . . And CC I PRP 'm VBP afraid JJ what WP 's VBZ going VBG on RP right RB now RB is VBZ similar JJ to TO the DT war NN propaganda NN that WDT went VBD on IN against IN Iraq NNP . . And CC , , you PRP know VBP , , they PRP did VBD n't RB have VB nuc JJ weapons NNS of IN mass NN destruction NN . . And CC it PRP was VBD orchestrated VBN and CC it PRP was VBD to TO me PRP , , a DT tragedy NN of IN what WP 's VBZ happened VBN these DT past NN last JJ ten CD years NNS , , the DT death NN and CC destruction NN , , $ $ 4 CD billion CD $ $ 4 CD trillion CD in IN debt NN . . So IN no DT , , it PRP 's VBZ not RB worthwhile JJ goin NN ' '' to TO war NN . . If IN you PRP do VBP , , you PRP get VBP a DT declaration NN of IN war NN and CC you PRP fight VBP it PRP and CC you PRP win VBP it PRP and CC get VB it PRP over RP with IN . .
way congress
command chief decis war
way constitut congress secur
war propaganda iraq
weapon mass destruct
tragedi past year death destruct debt
goin war
declar war

Yes. Tor-- torture is illegal. And-- by our laws. It's illegal by international laws.
Yes RB . . Tor NNP torture VBP is VBZ illegal JJ . . And CC by IN our PRP$ laws NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ illegal JJ by IN international JJ laws NNS . .
tor
law
law

Well, waterboarding is torture. And-- and many other-- it's ill-- it's illegal under international law and under our law. It's also immoral. The-- and it's also very impractical. There's no evidence that you really get reliable evidence. Why would you accept the position of torturing 100 people because you know one person might have information? And that's what you do when you accept the principal of a-- of-- of-- of torture. I think it's-- I think it's uncivilized and prac-- and has no practical advantages and is really un-American to accept on principal that we will torture people that we capture.
Well RB , , waterboarding NN is VBZ torture VB . . And CC and CC many JJ other JJ it PRP 's VBZ ill JJ it PRP 's VBZ illegal JJ under IN international JJ law NN and CC under IN our PRP$ law NN . . It PRP 's VBZ also RB immoral JJ . . The DT and CC it PRP 's VBZ also RB very RB impractical JJ . . There EX 's VBZ no DT evidence NN that IN you PRP really RB get VB reliable JJ evidence NN . . Why WRB would MD you PRP accept VB the DT position NN of IN torturing VBG 100 CD people NNS because IN you PRP know VBP one CD person NN might MD have VB information NN ? . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP you PRP do VBP when WRB you PRP accept VBP the DT principal NN of IN a DT of IN of IN of IN torture VBP . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ uncivilized JJ and CC prac JJ and CC has VBZ no DT practical JJ advantages NNS and CC is VBZ really RB un-American JJ to TO accept VB on IN principal NN that IN we PRP will MD torture VB people NNS that IN we PRP capture VBP . .
waterboard
law law
evid evid
posit peopl person inform
princip
advantag princip peopl

I think it would-- be a mistake. I think the Syrians oughta deal with their country. I think we should have dealt--
I PRP think VBP it PRP would MD be VB a DT mistake NN . . I PRP think VBP the DT Syrians NNPS oughta JJ deal NN with IN their PRP$ country NN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP should MD have VB dealt-- NN
mistak
syrian deal countri
dealt--

Well, there-- there's been a lot of people killed throughout the world in the last century. You know, the Soviets and the Chinese killed hundreds of millions. But we didn't feel compelled morally to try to stop it. No. It's a tragedy. And it would be nice if they would accept different views. But for us to get in the middle of that and prop up the different dictatorships, this is why we get into this trouble. It's overthrowin' dictatorships that we have supported that causes so much of this problem. So to get further involved, you-- want to have self determination. We don't need to lose anymore troops. You get in there with covert operations. And you have troops involved. And--
Well RB , , there EX there EX 's VBZ been VBN a DT lot NN of IN people NNS killed VBN throughout IN the DT world NN in IN the DT last JJ century NN . . You PRP know VBP , , the DT Soviets NNPS and CC the DT Chinese NNPS killed VBD hundreds NNS of IN millions NNS . . But CC we PRP did VBD n't RB feel VB compelled VBN morally RB to TO try VB to TO stop VB it PRP . . No DT . . It PRP 's VBZ a DT tragedy NN . . And CC it PRP would MD be VB nice JJ if IN they PRP would MD accept VB different JJ views NNS . . But CC for IN us PRP to TO get VB in IN the DT middle NN of IN that DT and CC prop VB up RP the DT different JJ dictatorships NNS , , this DT is VBZ why WRB we PRP get VBP into IN this DT trouble NN . . It PRP 's VBZ overthrowin NN ' '' dictatorships NNS that IN we PRP have VBP supported VBN that IN causes NNS so RB much JJ of IN this DT problem NN . . So RB to TO get VB further RBR involved VBN , , you PRP want VBP to TO have VB self NN determination NN . . We PRP do VBP n't RB need VB to TO lose VB anymore RB troops NNS . . You PRP get VBP in IN there RB with IN covert JJ operations NNS . . And CC you PRP have VBP troops NNS involved VBN . . And-- NN
lot peopl world centuri
soviet chines hundr million
tragedi
view
middl dictatorship troubl
overthrowin dictatorship caus problem
self determin
troop
oper
troop
and--

It's not a good idea.
It PRP 's VBZ not RB a DT good JJ idea NN . .
idea

I think that-- this is a mess. It's a mess because we have a bad foreign policy. We're pretending we're at war. We haven't declared the war, but we're at war against a tactic. And therefore-- there's no limits to it. So we create these monstrosities. And we do think outside the law. We come up with assassination, allowing the president to decide who's going to be assassinated? And-- lo and behold, three Americans now have been on the list. They've been assassinated. But they don't talk about the second one, because the second one happened to be a 16 year old son of Awlaki. So what are we doing here to accept this idea that our president, and this lawlessness, to pursue? And that-- we some day will be subject to those same courts. So no, you don't. You want to live within-- in the law and obey the law. Because-- otherwise, it's going to be very bad for all-- all of us. And-- this whole idea that-- now we can be assassinated by somebody that we don't even like to run our medical care, and giving this power to the president to be the prosecutor, the executor, the judge and the jury, we better look at that carefully before you automatically endorse something like that.
I PRP think VBP that IN this DT is VBZ a DT mess NN . . It PRP 's VBZ a DT mess NN because IN we PRP have VBP a DT bad JJ foreign JJ policy NN . . We PRP 're VBP pretending VBG we PRP 're VBP at IN war NN . . We PRP have VBP n't RB declared VBN the DT war NN , , but CC we PRP 're VBP at IN war NN against IN a DT tactic NN . . And CC therefore RB there EX 's VBZ no DT limits NNS to TO it PRP . . So RB we PRP create VBP these DT monstrosities NNS . . And CC we PRP do VBP think VB outside IN the DT law NN . . We PRP come VBP up RB with IN assassination NN , , allowing VBG the DT president NN to TO decide VB who WP 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB assassinated VBN ? . And CC lo VB and CC behold VB , , three CD Americans NNS now RB have VBP been VBN on IN the DT list NN . . They PRP 've VBP been VBN assassinated VBN . . But CC they PRP do VBP n't RB talk VB about IN the DT second JJ one CD , , because IN the DT second JJ one CD happened VBD to TO be VB a DT 16 CD year NN old JJ son NN of IN Awlaki NNP . . So RB what WP are VBP we PRP doing VBG here RB to TO accept VB this DT idea NN that IN our PRP$ president NN , , and CC this DT lawlessness NN , , to TO pursue VB ? . And CC that IN we PRP some DT day NN will MD be VB subject JJ to TO those DT same JJ courts NNS . . So IN no DT , , you PRP do VBP n't RB . . You PRP want VBP to TO live VB within IN in IN the DT law NN and CC obey VB the DT law NN . . Because IN otherwise RB , , it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB very RB bad JJ for IN all DT all DT of IN us PRP . . And CC this DT whole JJ idea NN that IN now RB we PRP can MD be VB assassinated VBN by IN somebody NN that IN we PRP do VBP n't RB even RB like VB to TO run VB our PRP$ medical JJ care NN , , and CC giving VBG this DT power NN to TO the DT president NN to TO be VB the DT prosecutor NN , , the DT executor NN , , the DT judge NN and CC the DT jury NN , , we PRP better JJR look NN at IN that DT carefully RB before IN you PRP automatically RB endorse VB something NN like IN that DT . .
mess
mess polici
war
war war tactic
limit
monstros
law
assassin presid
american list
year son awlaki
idea presid lawless
day court
law law
idea somebodi care power presid prosecutor executor judg juri look someth

I voted for the authority to go after bin Laden. I was upset because it took ten years because we-- we were diverted from-- going after him and doing the job. But that's a lot different than assassinating American citizens. I mean he-- he wasn't a citizen. But I do wanna remind you that over 300 individuals were tried in civilian courts here that were charged with terrorism here. Most of 'em are in jail. And I don't think we should give up so easily on our rule of law.
I PRP voted VBD for IN the DT authority NN to TO go VB after IN bin NN Laden NNP . . I PRP was VBD upset VBN because IN it PRP took VBD ten CD years NNS because IN we PRP we PRP were VBD diverted VBN from IN going VBG after IN him PRP and CC doing VBG the DT job NN . . But CC that DT 's VBZ a DT lot NN different JJ than IN assassinating VBG American JJ citizens NNS . . I PRP mean VBP he PRP he PRP was VBD n't RB a DT citizen NN . . But CC I PRP do VBP wan VB na TO remind VB you PRP that IN over IN 300 CD individuals NNS were VBD tried VBN in IN civilian JJ courts NNS here RB that WDT were VBD charged VBN with IN terrorism NN here RB . . Most JJS of IN 'em PRP are VBP in IN jail NN . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB we PRP should MD give VB up RP so RB easily RB on IN our PRP$ rule NN of IN law NN . .
author bin laden
year job
lot citizen
citizen
individu court terror
jail
rule law

No, you have to let it -- you have to let it liquidate. We've had -- we took 40 years to build up this worldwide debt. We're in a debt crisis never seen before in our history. The sovereign debt of this world is equal to the GDP, as ours is in this country. If you prop it up, you'll do exactly what we did in the depression, prolong the agony. If you do -- if you prop it up, you do what Japan has done for 20 years. So, yes, you want to liquidate the debt. The debt is unsustainable. And this bubble was predictable, because 40 years ago we had no restraints whatsoever on the monetary authorities, and we piled debt on debt, we pyramided debt, we had no restraints on the spending. And if you keep bailing people out and prop it up, you just prolong the agony, as we're doing in the housing bubble.
No RB , , you PRP have VBP to TO let VB it PRP -- : you PRP have VBP to TO let VB it PRP liquidate VB . . We PRP 've VBP had VBN -- : we PRP took VBD 40 CD years NNS to TO build VB up RP this DT worldwide JJ debt NN . . We PRP 're VBP in IN a DT debt NN crisis NN never RB seen VBN before RB in IN our PRP$ history NN . . The DT sovereign JJ debt NN of IN this DT world NN is VBZ equal JJ to TO the DT GDP NNP , , as IN ours PRP is VBZ in IN this DT country NN . . If IN you PRP prop VBP it PRP up RP , , you PRP 'll MD do VB exactly RB what WP we PRP did VBD in IN the DT depression NN , , prolong VBP the DT agony NN . . If IN you PRP do VBP -- : if IN you PRP prop VBP it PRP up RP , , you PRP do VBP what WP Japan NNP has VBZ done VBN for IN 20 CD years NNS . . So RB , , yes UH , , you PRP want VBP to TO liquidate VB the DT debt NN . . The DT debt NN is VBZ unsustainable JJ . . And CC this DT bubble NN was VBD predictable JJ , , because IN 40 CD years NNS ago IN we PRP had VBD no DT restraints NNS whatsoever RB on IN the DT monetary JJ authorities NNS , , and CC we PRP piled VBD debt NN on IN debt NN , , we PRP pyramided VBD debt NN , , we PRP had VBD no DT restraints NNS on IN the DT spending NN . . And CC if IN you PRP keep VBP bailing VBG people NNS out RB and CC prop VB it PRP up RP , , you PRP just RB prolong VB the DT agony NN , , as IN we PRP 're VBP doing VBG in IN the DT housing NN bubble NN . .
year debt
debt crisi histori
debt world gdp countri
depress agoni
japan year
debt
debt
bubbl year restraint author debt debt debt restraint spend
peopl agoni hous bubbl

Right now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are demanding more money because we don't allow the market to determine what these mortgages are worth. If you don't liquidate this and clear the market, believe me, you're going to perpetuate this for a decade or two more, and that is very, very dangerous.
Right RB now RB , , Fannie NNP Mae NNP and CC Freddie NNP Mac NNP are VBP demanding VBG more JJR money NN because IN we PRP do VBP n't RB allow VB the DT market NN to TO determine VB what WP these DT mortgages NNS are VBP worth JJ . . If IN you PRP do VBP n't RB liquidate VB this DT and CC clear VB the DT market NN , , believe VB me PRP , , you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO perpetuate VB this DT for IN a DT decade NN or CC two CD more JJR , , and CC that DT is VBZ very RB , , very RB dangerous JJ . .
fanni mae freddi mac money market mortgag
market decad

Well, eventually they go into the private sector. Then don't all leave immediately when the plan goes into effect. But what my plan does is it addresses taxes in a little different way. We are talking about the tax code. But that's the consequence, that's the symptom. The disease is spending. Every time you spend, spending is a tax. We tax the people, we borrow, and then we print the money and the prices go up, and that is a tax. So you have to address the subject of spending. That is the tax. That is the reason I go after the spending. I propose in the first year cut $1 trillion out of the budget in five departments. [ cheering and applause ]
Well RB , , eventually RB they PRP go VBP into IN the DT private JJ sector NN . . Then RB do VBP n't RB all DT leave NN immediately RB when WRB the DT plan NN goes VBZ into IN effect NN . . But CC what WP my PRP$ plan NN does VBZ is VBZ it PRP addresses VBZ taxes NNS in IN a DT little JJ different JJ way NN . . We PRP are VBP talking VBG about IN the DT tax NN code NN . . But CC that DT 's VBZ the DT consequence NN , , that DT 's VBZ the DT symptom NN . . The DT disease NN is VBZ spending VBG . . Every DT time NN you PRP spend VBP , , spending NN is VBZ a DT tax NN . . We PRP tax VBP the DT people NNS , , we PRP borrow VBP , , and CC then RB we PRP print VBP the DT money NN and CC the DT prices NNS go VB up RB , , and CC that DT is VBZ a DT tax NN . . So RB you PRP have VBP to TO address VB the DT subject NN of IN spending NN . . That DT is VBZ the DT tax NN . . That DT is VBZ the DT reason NN I PRP go VBP after IN the DT spending NN . . I PRP propose VBP in IN the DT first JJ year NN cut VBD $ $ 1 CD trillion CD out IN of IN the DT budget NN in IN five CD departments NNS . .
sector
leav plan effect
plan tax way
tax code
consequ symptom
diseas
time spend tax
peopl money price tax
subject spend
tax
reason spend
year budget depart

Now the other thing is that you must do if you want to get the economy going and going again is you have to get rid of price- fixing. And the most significant price-fixing that goes on, that gave us the bubble, destroyed the economy, and is preventing this from coming out, is the price-fixing of the Federal Reserve, manipulating interest rates way below market rates. You have to have the market determine interest rates if you want a healthy, viable economy.
Now RB the DT other JJ thing NN is VBZ that IN you PRP must MD do VB if IN you PRP want VBP to TO get VB the DT economy NN going VBG and CC going VBG again RB is VBZ you PRP have VBP to TO get VB rid JJ of IN price- NN fixing VBG . . And CC the DT most RBS significant JJ price-fixing NN that WDT goes VBZ on IN , , that WDT gave VBD us PRP the DT bubble NN , , destroyed VBD the DT economy NN , , and CC is VBZ preventing VBG this DT from IN coming VBG out RP , , is VBZ the DT price-fixing NN of IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , manipulating VBG interest NN rates NNS way NN below IN market NN rates NNS . . You PRP have VBP to TO have VB the DT market NN determine VB interest NN rates NNS if IN you PRP want VBP a DT healthy JJ , , viable JJ economy NN . .
thing economi price-
price-fix bubbl economi price-fix feder reserv interest rate way market rate
market interest rate economi

You would have more incentive. You would take care of the elderly. They get cheated. They get nothing for their CDs. Why cheat them and give the banks loans at zero percent? And then they loan it back to the government at 3 percent. They are ripping us off at the expense of those on fixed incomes and retirees.
You PRP would MD have VB more JJR incentive NN . . You PRP would MD take VB care NN of IN the DT elderly JJ . . They PRP get VBP cheated VBN . . They PRP get VBP nothing NN for IN their PRP$ CDs NNS . . Why WRB cheat VB them PRP and CC give VB the DT banks NNS loans NNS at IN zero CD percent NN ? . And CC then RB they PRP loan VBP it PRP back RB to TO the DT government NN at IN 3 CD percent NN . . They PRP are VBP ripping VBG us PRP off RP at IN the DT expense NN of IN those DT on IN fixed VBN incomes NNS and CC retirees NNS . .
incent
care
noth cds
bank loan percent
govern percent
expens incom retire

But you want is the market to determine this. Whoever thought that one person, the Federal Reserve Board chairman, knows what the money supply should be? Just in the past six months, M1 has gone up at the rate of 30 percent. That spells inflation. That spells lower standard of living and higher prices and watch out. They are coming. [ cheering and applause ]
But CC you PRP want VBP is VBZ the DT market NN to TO determine VB this DT . . Whoever WP thought VBD that IN one CD person NN , , the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP Board NNP chairman NN , , knows VBZ what WP the DT money NN supply NN should MD be VB ? . Just RB in IN the DT past JJ six CD months NNS , , M1 NNP has VBZ gone VBN up RP at IN the DT rate NN of IN 30 CD percent NN . . That DT spells NNS inflation NN . . That DT spells NNS lower JJR standard NN of IN living NN and CC higher JJR prices NNS and CC watch VB out RP . . They PRP are VBP coming VBG . .
market
person feder reserv board chairman money suppli
month m1 rate percent
spell inflat
spell standard live price

We need to get the government out of the business, and we do need to have the right to opt out of "Obama-care." But we ought to have the right to opt out of everything. And the answer to it is turn it back over to the patient and the doctor relationship with medical savings accounts. So I would say that we have had too much government. I have been in medicine, it has gone downhill. Quality has gone down. Prices have skyrocketed because of the inflation. So you need to get a market force in there, a medical savings account. But this mess has been created -- it's a bipartisan mess. So it has been there for a while. So what we need is the doctor-patient relationship and medical savings account where you can deduct it from your taxes and get a major medical policy. Prices then would come down.
We PRP need VBP to TO get VB the DT government NN out IN of IN the DT business NN , , and CC we PRP do VBP need VB to TO have VB the DT right NN to TO opt VB out IN of IN " NN Obama-care NN . . " CD But CC we PRP ought MD to TO have VB the DT right NN to TO opt VB out IN of IN everything NN . . And CC the DT answer NN to TO it PRP is VBZ turn VB it PRP back RB over IN to TO the DT patient NN and CC the DT doctor NN relationship NN with IN medical JJ savings NNS accounts NNS . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that IN we PRP have VBP had VBN too RB much JJ government NN . . I PRP have VBP been VBN in IN medicine NN , , it PRP has VBZ gone VBN downhill RB . . Quality NNP has VBZ gone VBN down RB . . Prices NNS have VBP skyrocketed VBN because RB of IN the DT inflation NN . . So RB you PRP need VBP to TO get VB a DT market NN force NN in IN there RB , , a DT medical JJ savings NN account NN . . But CC this DT mess NN has VBZ been VBN created VBN -- : it PRP 's VBZ a DT bipartisan JJ mess NN . . So IN it PRP has VBZ been VBN there RB for IN a DT while NN . . So RB what WP we PRP need VBP is VBZ the DT doctor-patient NN relationship NN and CC medical JJ savings NNS account NN where WRB you PRP can MD deduct VB it PRP from IN your PRP$ taxes NNS and CC get VB a DT major JJ medical JJ policy NN . . Prices NNS then RB would MD come VB down RP . .
govern busi right obama-car
right everyth
answer patient doctor relationship save account
govern
medicin
qualiti
price inflat
market forc save account
mess mess
while
doctor-pati relationship save account tax polici
price

My plan of cutting the budget by a trillion dollars does deal with Medicaid. And that is that it preserves it, and there is a transition period, with the goal that eventually we would hope to move that back into the economy. But right now, it would be too much to do it in one year. You know, finding a trillion dollars was a job and a half, and getting rid of five departments. So, yes, my budget takes into consideration health care for the elderly, health care on Medicaid, as well as child health care. At the same time, we deal with the bailouts, the banks, and all the benefits that they get from the financial system, because what we're facing today is the crisis in this housing crisis. If I could just have one second on that. We face a housing crisis once again because it's price-fixing. They're fixing the prices of these mortgages too high, and this is why nobody will buy them. This is why you have to get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, sell all of that into the marketplace. And the reason they do this is to prop up the banks, because the banks have invested in Europe, they've invested in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and these credit defaults swaps. They're in big trouble, and that is why they're getting bailed out. And that's why they are not allowing these mortgages to go down, and that is why we will most likely bail out Europe, which will be a real tragedy. [ applause ]
My PRP$ plan NN of IN cutting VBG the DT budget NN by IN a DT trillion CD dollars NNS does VBZ deal NN with IN Medicaid NNP . . And CC that DT is VBZ that IN it PRP preserves VBZ it PRP , , and CC there EX is VBZ a DT transition NN period NN , , with IN the DT goal NN that WDT eventually RB we PRP would MD hope VB to TO move VB that IN back RB into IN the DT economy NN . . But CC right RB now RB , , it PRP would MD be VB too RB much JJ to TO do VB it PRP in IN one CD year NN . . You PRP know VBP , , finding VBG a DT trillion CD dollars NNS was VBD a DT job NN and CC a DT half NN , , and CC getting VBG rid JJ of IN five CD departments NNS . . So RB , , yes UH , , my PRP$ budget NN takes VBZ into IN consideration NN health NN care NN for IN the DT elderly JJ , , health NN care NN on IN Medicaid NNP , , as RB well RB as IN child NN health NN care NN . . At IN the DT same JJ time NN , , we PRP deal VBP with IN the DT bailouts NNS , , the DT banks NNS , , and CC all PDT the DT benefits NNS that IN they PRP get VBP from IN the DT financial JJ system NN , , because IN what WP we PRP 're VBP facing VBG today NN is VBZ the DT crisis NN in IN this DT housing NN crisis NN . . If IN I PRP could MD just RB have VB one CD second JJ on IN that DT . . We PRP face VBP a DT housing NN crisis NN once RB again RB because IN it PRP 's VBZ price-fixing JJ . . They PRP 're VBP fixing VBG the DT prices NNS of IN these DT mortgages NNS too RB high JJ , , and CC this DT is VBZ why WRB nobody NN will MD buy VB them PRP . . This DT is VBZ why WRB you PRP have VBP to TO get VB rid JJ of IN Fannie NNP Mae NNP and CC Freddie NNP Mac NNP , , sell VB all DT of IN that DT into IN the DT marketplace NN . . And CC the DT reason NN they PRP do VBP this DT is VBZ to TO prop VB up RP the DT banks NNS , , because IN the DT banks NNS have VBP invested VBN in IN Europe NNP , , they PRP 've VBP invested VBN in IN Fannie NNP Mae NNP and CC Freddie NNP Mac NNP , , and CC these DT credit NN defaults NNS swaps NNS . . They PRP 're VBP in IN big JJ trouble NN , , and CC that DT is VBZ why WRB they PRP 're VBP getting VBG bailed VBD out RP . . And CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB they PRP are VBP not RB allowing VBG these DT mortgages NNS to TO go VB down RP , , and CC that DT is VBZ why WRB we PRP will MD most RBS likely JJ bail NN out IN Europe NNP , , which WDT will MD be VB a DT real JJ tragedy NN . .
plan budget dollar deal medicaid
transit period goal economi
year
dollar job half depart
budget consider health care health care medicaid child health care
time bailout bank benefit system today crisi hous crisi
hous crisi
price mortgag nobodi
fanni mae freddi mac marketplac
reason bank bank europ fanni mae freddi mac credit default swap
troubl
mortgag bail europ tragedi

Well, I think you proved that the policy of student loans is a total failure. I mean, a trillion dollars of debt? [ applause ] And it's going to be dumped on the taxpayer? And what have they gotten? A poorer education and costs that have skyrocketed because of inflation, and they don't have jobs. There's nothing more dramatically failing than -- than that program. So, no, there's no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to be dealing with education. We should get rid of the loan programs. We should get rid of the Department of Education and give tax credits, if you have to, to help people. But the inflation is the big problem. It's three times the rate that the government admits that inflation is, and that is natural and normal. When governments inflate the currency, it goes in the areas that the government gets involved in, housing, high prices, stock market, skyrocketing prices, medical care, skyrocketing, education...
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP you PRP proved VBD that IN the DT policy NN of IN student NN loans NNS is VBZ a DT total JJ failure NN . . I PRP mean VBP , , a DT trillion CD dollars NNS of IN debt NN ? . And CC it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB dumped VBN on IN the DT taxpayer NN ? . And CC what WP have VBP they PRP gotten VBN ? . A DT poorer JJR education NN and CC costs NNS that WDT have VBP skyrocketed VBN because RB of IN inflation NN , , and CC they PRP do VBP n't RB have VB jobs NNS . . There EX 's VBZ nothing NN more RBR dramatically RB failing VBG than IN -- : than IN that DT program NN . . So RB , , no DT , , there EX 's VBZ no DT authority NN in IN the DT Constitution NNP for IN the DT federal JJ government NN to TO be VB dealing VBG with IN education NN . . We PRP should MD get VB rid JJ of IN the DT loan NN programs NNS . . We PRP should MD get VB rid JJ of IN the DT Department NNP of IN Education NNP and CC give VB tax NN credits NNS , , if IN you PRP have VBP to TO , , to TO help VB people NNS . . But CC the DT inflation NN is VBZ the DT big JJ problem NN . . It PRP 's VBZ three CD times NNS the DT rate NN that IN the DT government NN admits VBZ that IN inflation NN is VBZ , , and CC that DT is VBZ natural JJ and CC normal JJ . . When WRB governments NNS inflate VBP the DT currency NN , , it PRP goes VBZ in IN the DT areas NNS that IN the DT government NN gets VBZ involved VBN in IN , , housing NN , , high JJ prices NNS , , stock NN market NN , , skyrocketing VBG prices NNS , , medical JJ care NN , , skyrocketing VBG , , education NN .. NN . .
polici student loan failur
dollar debt
taxpay
educ cost inflat job
noth program
author constitut govern educ
loan program
depart educ tax credit peopl
inflat problem
time rate govern inflat
govern currenc area govern hous price stock market price care educ

The way -- the way you pay for cellphones and computers. [ applause ] You have the marketplace there. There's competition. Quality goes up. The price goes down. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Department of Homeland Security was in charge of finding one person or one company to make the cellphones? I mean, it would have been a total disaster. So when the government gets involved in the delivery of any service -- whether it's education, medical care, or housing -- they cause higher prices, lower quality, create bubbles, and they give us this mess that we're in. That's why we have to eventually get our -- we have to wise up. And look at where the bubbles come from. It's from the Federal Reserve. And we should start by auditing the Fed, and then we should end the Fed. [ applause ]
The DT way NN -- : the DT way NN you PRP pay VBP for IN cellphones NNS and CC computers NNS . . You PRP have VBP the DT marketplace NN there RB . . There EX 's VBZ competition NN . . Quality NNP goes VBZ up IN . . The DT price NN goes VBZ down RB . . Can MD you PRP imagine VB what WP it PRP would MD have VB been VBN like IN if IN the DT Department NNP of IN Homeland NNP Security NNP was VBD in IN charge NN of IN finding VBG one CD person NN or CC one CD company NN to TO make VB the DT cellphones NNS ? . I PRP mean VBP , , it PRP would MD have VB been VBN a DT total JJ disaster NN . . So RB when WRB the DT government NN gets VBZ involved VBN in IN the DT delivery NN of IN any DT service NN -- : whether IN it PRP 's VBZ education NN , , medical JJ care NN , , or CC housing NN -- : they PRP cause VBP higher JJR prices NNS , , lower JJR quality NN , , create VB bubbles NNS , , and CC they PRP give VBP us PRP this DT mess NN that IN we PRP 're VBP in RP . . That DT 's VBZ why WRB we PRP have VBP to TO eventually RB get VB our PRP$ -- : we PRP have VBP to TO wise JJ up IN . . And CC look VB at IN where WRB the DT bubbles NNS come VBP from IN . . It PRP 's VBZ from IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . And CC we PRP should MD start VB by IN auditing NN the DT Fed NNP , , and CC then RB we PRP should MD end VB the DT Fed NNP . .
way way cellphon comput
marketplac
competit
qualiti
price
depart homeland secur charg person compani cellphon
disast
govern deliveri servic educ care hous price qualiti bubbl mess
bubbl
feder reserv
audit fed fed

I haven't analyzed it enough to call him a crony or not. So, no, I don't know the details of that. But there is a lot of crony capitalism going on in this country. And that has to be distinguished from real capitalism, because this occupation stuff on Wall Street, if you're going after crony capitalism, I'm all for it. And those are the people who benefit from contracts from government, benefits from the Federal Reserve, benefits from all of the bailouts. They don't deserve compassion, they deserve taxation, or they don't -- they deserve to have all their benefits removed. But crony capitalism isn't when somebody makes money and they produce a product. That is very important. We have to distinguish the two. And unfortunately, I think some people mix that. But this, to me, is so vital, that we recognize what crony -- what capitalism is versus crony capitalism. And believe me, when you have an inflationary environment, and all this speculation, and all the bailouts due to monetary system, believe me, you get a majority of crony capitalism, and that's why we're facing this crisis today.
I PRP have VBP n't RB analyzed VBN it PRP enough JJ to TO call VB him PRP a DT crony NN or CC not RB . . So RB , , no DT , , I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB the DT details NNS of IN that DT . . But CC there EX is VBZ a DT lot NN of IN crony NN capitalism NN going VBG on RP in IN this DT country NN . . And CC that DT has VBZ to TO be VB distinguished VBN from IN real JJ capitalism NN , , because IN this DT occupation NN stuff NN on IN Wall NNP Street NNP , , if IN you PRP 're VBP going VBG after IN crony NN capitalism NN , , I PRP 'm VBP all DT for IN it PRP . . And CC those DT are VBP the DT people NNS who WP benefit VBP from IN contracts NNS from IN government NN , , benefits NNS from IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , benefits NNS from IN all DT of IN the DT bailouts NNS . . They PRP do VBP n't RB deserve VB compassion NN , , they PRP deserve VBP taxation NN , , or CC they PRP do VBP n't RB -- : they PRP deserve VBP to TO have VB all DT their PRP$ benefits NNS removed VBN . . But CC crony NN capitalism NN is VBZ n't RB when WRB somebody NN makes VBZ money NN and CC they PRP produce VBP a DT product NN . . That DT is VBZ very RB important JJ . . We PRP have VBP to TO distinguish VB the DT two CD . . And CC unfortunately RB , , I PRP think VBP some DT people NNS mix VBP that DT . . But CC this DT , , to TO me PRP , , is VBZ so RB vital JJ , , that IN we PRP recognize VBP what WP crony NN -- : what WDT capitalism NN is VBZ versus IN crony NN capitalism NN . . And CC believe VB me PRP , , when WRB you PRP have VBP an DT inflationary JJ environment NN , , and CC all PDT this DT speculation NN , , and CC all PDT the DT bailouts NNS due JJ to TO monetary JJ system NN , , believe VB me PRP , , you PRP get VBP a DT majority NN of IN crony NN capitalism NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB we PRP 're VBP facing VBG this DT crisis NN today NN . .
croni
detail
lot croni capit countri
capit occup stuff wall street croni capit
peopl contract govern benefit feder reserv benefit bailout
compass taxat benefit
croni capit somebodi money product
peopl
croni capit croni capit
environ specul bailout system major croni capit crisi today

I'm Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. I'm the champion of liberty. I am the only one that has offered a balanced budget in -- in a sincere method. And also, I present the case for a free society as being the best defense for peace and prosperity. [ applause ]
I PRP 'm VBP Congressman NNP Ron NNP Paul NNP from IN Texas NNP . . I PRP 'm VBP the DT champion NN of IN liberty NN . . I PRP am VBP the DT only JJ one NN that WDT has VBZ offered VBN a DT balanced JJ budget NN in IN -- : in IN a DT sincere JJ method NN . . And CC also RB , , I PRP present VBP the DT case NN for IN a DT free JJ society NN as IN being VBG the DT best JJS defense NN for IN peace NN and CC prosperity NN . .
congressman ron paul texa
champion liberti
one budget method
case societi defens peac prosper

Oh, it is, because it raises revenues, and the worst part about it, it's regressive. A lot of people aren't paying any taxes, and I like that. I don't think that we should even things up by raising taxes. So it is a regressive tax. So it's very, very dangerous. And it will raise more revenues. But the gentlemen asked the question -- he didn't even ask what we're talking about. He asked the question, what are you going to replace the income tax with? And I say nothing. That's what we should replace it with. [ applause ]
Oh UH , , it PRP is VBZ , , because IN it PRP raises VBZ revenues NNS , , and CC the DT worst JJS part NN about IN it PRP , , it PRP 's VBZ regressive JJ . . A DT lot NN of IN people NNS are VBP n't RB paying VBG any DT taxes NNS , , and CC I PRP like VBP that DT . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB that IN we PRP should MD even VB things NNS up RP by IN raising VBG taxes NNS . . So IN it PRP is VBZ a DT regressive JJ tax NN . . So IN it PRP 's VBZ very RB , , very RB dangerous JJ . . And CC it PRP will MD raise VB more JJR revenues NNS . . But CC the DT gentlemen NNS asked VBD the DT question NN -- : he PRP did VBD n't RB even RB ask VB what WP we PRP 're VBP talking VBG about IN . . He PRP asked VBD the DT question NN , , what WP are VBP you PRP going VBG to TO replace VB the DT income NN tax NN with IN ? . And CC I PRP say VBP nothing NN . . That DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP should MD replace VB it PRP with IN . .
revenu part
lot peopl tax
thing tax
tax
revenu
gentlemen question
question incom tax
noth

But I do want to make a point that spending is a tax. As soon as the governments spend money, eventually it's a tax. Sometimes we put a direct tax on the people. Sometimes we borrow the money. And sometimes we print the money. And then when prices go up, like today, the wholesale price index went up 7 percent rate, and if you look at the free market, prices are going up 9 and 10 percent. So that is the tax. So, spending is the tax. That is the reason I offered the program, to cut $1 trillion out of the first year budget that I offer. [ applause ]
But CC I PRP do VBP want VB to TO make VB a DT point NN that IN spending NN is VBZ a DT tax NN . . As RB soon RB as IN the DT governments NNS spend VBP money NN , , eventually RB it PRP 's VBZ a DT tax NN . . Sometimes RB we PRP put VBP a DT direct JJ tax NN on IN the DT people NNS . . Sometimes RB we PRP borrow VBP the DT money NN . . And CC sometimes RB we PRP print VBP the DT money NN . . And CC then RB when WRB prices NNS go VBP up RB , , like IN today NN , , the DT wholesale JJ price NN index NN went VBD up RB 7 CD percent NN rate NN , , and CC if IN you PRP look VBP at IN the DT free JJ market NN , , prices NNS are VBP going VBG up RB 9 CD and CC 10 CD percent NN . . So IN that DT is VBZ the DT tax NN . . So RB , , spending NN is VBZ the DT tax NN . . That DT is VBZ the DT reason NN I PRP offered VBD the DT program NN , , to TO cut VB $ $ 1 CD trillion CD out IN of IN the DT first JJ year NN budget NN that IN I PRP offer VBP . .
point spend tax
govern money tax
tax peopl
money
money
price today price index percent rate market price percent
tax
spend tax
reason program year budget

Really not, because he's just adding on more government. There's been a lot of discussion about medicine, but it seems to be talking about which kind of government management is best. Our problem is we have too much. We've had it for 30, 40 years. We have Medicare. We have prescription drug programs. We have Medicaid. And what we need -- I mean, there's a pretty good support up here for getting rid of Obamacare, because it's a Democratic proposal, and we want to opt out. I think we'd all agree on this. But if you want better competition and better health care, you should allow the American people to opt out of government medicine. And... [ applause ] And the way to do this is to not de-emphasize the medical savings account, but let people opt out, pay their bills, get back to the doctor-patient relationship. There is inflation worked into it. When a government gets involved in an industry, prices always go up. We have tort laws to deal with. And we need more competition in medicine. But the most important thing is letting the people have control of their money and getting it out of the hands of the third party. As soon as you go to the government, the lobbyists line up, the drug companies line up, these insurance companies line up. And even with Obamacare, the industries, the corporations get behind it and affect the outcome, and already insurance premiums are going up. [ applause ]
Really RB not RB , , because IN he PRP 's VBZ just RB adding VBG on IN more JJR government NN . . There EX 's VBZ been VBN a DT lot NN of IN discussion NN about IN medicine NN , , but CC it PRP seems VBZ to TO be VB talking VBG about IN which WDT kind NN of IN government NN management NN is VBZ best RB . . Our PRP$ problem NN is VBZ we PRP have VBP too RB much JJ . . We PRP 've VBP had VBD it PRP for IN 30 CD , , 40 CD years NNS . . We PRP have VBP Medicare NNP . . We PRP have VBP prescription NN drug NN programs NNS . . We PRP have VBP Medicaid NNP . . And CC what WP we PRP need VBP -- : I PRP mean VBP , , there EX 's VBZ a DT pretty RB good JJ support NN up RB here RB for IN getting VBG rid JJ of IN Obamacare NNP , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ a DT Democratic JJ proposal NN , , and CC we PRP want VBP to TO opt VB out RP . . I PRP think VBP we PRP 'd MD all DT agree VBP on IN this DT . . But CC if IN you PRP want VBP better JJR competition NN and CC better JJR health NN care NN , , you PRP should MD allow VB the DT American JJ people NNS to TO opt VB out IN of IN government NN medicine NN . . And CC ... : And CC the DT way NN to TO do VB this DT is VBZ to TO not RB de-emphasize VB the DT medical JJ savings NNS account NN , , but CC let VB people NNS opt VB out RP , , pay VB their PRP$ bills NNS , , get VB back RB to TO the DT doctor-patient NN relationship NN . . There EX is VBZ inflation NN worked VBD into IN it PRP . . When WRB a DT government NN gets VBZ involved VBN in IN an DT industry NN , , prices NNS always RB go VBP up RP . . We PRP have VBP tort NN laws NNS to TO deal VB with IN . . And CC we PRP need VBP more JJR competition NN in IN medicine NN . . But CC the DT most RBS important JJ thing NN is VBZ letting VBG the DT people NNS have VBP control NN of IN their PRP$ money NN and CC getting VBG it PRP out IN of IN the DT hands NNS of IN the DT third JJ party NN . . As RB soon RB as IN you PRP go VBP to TO the DT government NN , , the DT lobbyists NNS line VBP up RP , , the DT drug NN companies NNS line VBP up RP , , these DT insurance NN companies NNS line VBP up RP . . And CC even RB with IN Obamacare NNP , , the DT industries NNS , , the DT corporations NNS get VBP behind IN it PRP and CC affect VB the DT outcome NN , , and CC already RB insurance NN premiums NNS are VBP going VBG up RP . .
govern
lot discuss medicin kind govern manag
problem
year
medicar
prescript drug program
medicaid
support obamacar propos
competit health care peopl govern medicin
way save account peopl bill doctor-pati relationship
inflat
govern industri price
tort law
competit medicin
thing peopl control money hand parti
govern lobbyist drug compani insur compani
obamacar industri corpor outcom insur premium

Well, I think some people do believe that. I think a fence is symbolic of that. And I can understand why somebody might look at that. But when we approach this immigration problem, we should look at the incentives and that -- or the mandates from the federal government saying that you must educate, you must give them free education. You have to remove these incentives. But I don't think the answer is a fence whatsoever. But in order to attract Latino votes, I think, you know, too long this country has always put people in groups. They penalize people because they're in groups, and then they reward people because they're in groups. But following up on what Newt was saying, we need a healthy economy, we wouldn't be talking about this. We need to se everybody as an individual. And to me, seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals and they're treated that way and they're never penalized that way. So if you have a free and prosperous society, all of a sudden this group mentality melts away. As long as there's no abuse -- one place where there's still a lot of discrimination in this country is in our court systems. And I think the minorities come up with a short hand in our court system.
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP some DT people NNS do VBP believe VB that DT . . I PRP think VBP a DT fence NN is VBZ symbolic JJ of IN that DT . . And CC I PRP can MD understand VB why WRB somebody NN might MD look VB at IN that DT . . But CC when WRB we PRP approach VBP this DT immigration NN problem NN , , we PRP should MD look VB at IN the DT incentives NNS and CC that DT -- : or CC the DT mandates NNS from IN the DT federal JJ government NN saying VBG that IN you PRP must MD educate VB , , you PRP must MD give VB them PRP free JJ education NN . . You PRP have VBP to TO remove VB these DT incentives NNS . . But CC I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB the DT answer NN is VBZ a DT fence NN whatsoever RB . . But CC in IN order NN to TO attract VB Latino NNP votes NNS , , I PRP think VBP , , you PRP know VBP , , too RB long RB this DT country NN has VBZ always RB put VBN people NNS in IN groups NNS . . They PRP penalize VBP people NNS because IN they PRP 're VBP in IN groups NNS , , and CC then RB they PRP reward VBP people NNS because IN they PRP 're VBP in IN groups NNS . . But CC following VBG up RP on IN what WP Newt NNP was VBD saying VBG , , we PRP need VBP a DT healthy JJ economy NN , , we PRP would MD n't RB be VB talking VBG about IN this DT . . We PRP need VBP to TO se FW everybody NN as IN an DT individual NN . . And CC to TO me PRP , , seeing VBG everybody NN as IN an DT individual NN means VBZ their PRP$ liberties NNS are VBP protected VBN as IN individuals NNS and CC they PRP 're VBP treated VBN that DT way NN and CC they PRP 're VBP never RB penalized VBN that DT way NN . . So RB if IN you PRP have VBP a DT free JJ and CC prosperous JJ society NN , , all DT of IN a DT sudden JJ this DT group NN mentality NN melts VBZ away RB . . As RB long RB as IN there EX 's VBZ no DT abuse NN -- : one CD place NN where WRB there EX 's VBZ still RB a DT lot NN of IN discrimination NN in IN this DT country NN is VBZ in IN our PRP$ court NN systems NNS . . And CC I PRP think VBP the DT minorities NNS come VBP up RP with IN a DT short JJ hand NN in IN our PRP$ court NN system NN . .
peopl
fenc
somebodi
immigr problem incent mandat govern educ
incent
answer fenc
order latino vote countri peopl group
peopl group peopl group
newt economi
everybodi individu
everybodi individu liberti individu way way
societi group mental
abus place lot discrimin countri court system
minor hand court system

Well, I would like to explain that rights don't come in bunches. Rights come as individuals, they come from a God, and they come as each individual has a right to life and liberty. But I might add about the border control and the Latino vote, is we lack resources there. I think we should have more border guards on it, a more orderly transition, and run it much better. But where are our resources? You know, we worry more about the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We need to bring the guard units home and the units back here so we can have more personnel on our border. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP would MD like VB to TO explain VB that IN rights NNS do VBP n't RB come VB in IN bunches NNS . . Rights NNS come VBP as IN individuals NNS , , they PRP come VBP from IN a DT God NNP , , and CC they PRP come VBP as IN each DT individual NN has VBZ a DT right NN to TO life NN and CC liberty NN . . But CC I PRP might MD add VB about IN the DT border NN control NN and CC the DT Latino NNP vote NN , , is VBZ we PRP lack VBP resources NNS there RB . . I PRP think VBP we PRP should MD have VB more JJR border NN guards NNS on IN it PRP , , a DT more RBR orderly JJ transition NN , , and CC run VB it PRP much RB better RBR . . But CC where WRB are VBP our PRP$ resources NNS ? . You PRP know VBP , , we PRP worry VBP more RBR about IN the DT border NN between IN Afghanistan NNP and CC Pakistan NNP . . We PRP need VBP to TO bring VB the DT guard NN units NNS home NN and CC the DT units NNS back RB here RB so IN we PRP can MD have VB more JJR personnel NNS on IN our PRP$ border NN . .
right bunch
right individu god individu right life liberti
border control latino vote resourc
border guard transit
resourc
border afghanistan pakistan
guard unit home unit personnel border

Yes. Yes, I've -- I've opposed this. We've had votes in the Congress. There was a time when I voted with two other individuals, the two congressmen from Nevada. And I approach it from a state's rights position. What right does 49 states have to punish one state and say, "We're going to put our garbage in your state"? I think that's wrong. But I think it's very serious. I think it's very serious. But quite frankly, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing any form of energy. And nuclear energy, I think, is a good source of energy, but they still get subsidies. Then they assume this responsibility. Then we as politicians and the bureaucrats get involved in this. And then we get involved with which state's going to get stuck with the garbage. So I would say, the more the free market handles this and the more you deal with property rights and no subsidies to any form of energy, the easier this problem would be solved.
Yes RB . . Yes RB , , I PRP 've VBP -- : I PRP 've VBP opposed VBN this DT . . We PRP 've VBP had VBD votes NNS in IN the DT Congress NNP . . There EX was VBD a DT time NN when WRB I PRP voted VBD with IN two CD other JJ individuals NNS , , the DT two CD congressmen NNS from IN Nevada NNP . . And CC I PRP approach VBP it PRP from IN a DT state NN 's POS rights NNS position NN . . What WP right RB does VBZ 49 CD states NNS have VBP to TO punish VB one CD state NN and CC say VB , , " VB We PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO put VB our PRP$ garbage NN in IN your PRP$ state NN " NN ? . I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ wrong JJ . . But CC I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ very RB serious JJ . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ very RB serious JJ . . But CC quite RB frankly RB , , the DT government NN should MD n't RB be VB in IN the DT business NN of IN subsidizing VBG any DT form NN of IN energy NN . . And CC nuclear JJ energy NN , , I PRP think VBP , , is VBZ a DT good JJ source NN of IN energy NN , , but CC they PRP still RB get VBP subsidies NNS . . Then RB they PRP assume VBP this DT responsibility NN . . Then RB we PRP as IN politicians NNS and CC the DT bureaucrats NNS get VBP involved VBN in IN this DT . . And CC then RB we PRP get VBP involved VBN with IN which WDT state NN 's POS going VBG to TO get VB stuck VBN with IN the DT garbage NN . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB , , the DT more JJR the DT free JJ market NN handles VBZ this DT and CC the DT more RBR you PRP deal VBP with IN property NN rights NNS and CC no DT subsidies NNS to TO any DT form NN of IN energy NN , , the DT easier JJR this DT problem NN would MD be VB solved VBN . .
vote congress
time individu congressmen nevada
state right posit
state state garbag state
govern busi form energi
energi sourc energi subsidi
respons
politician bureaucrat
state garbag
market properti right subsidi form energi problem

Well, I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims. There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can't blame the victims. But we also have to point -- I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street, but I'd go over to the Federal Reserve. [ applause ] They -- they create the financial bubbles. And you have to understand that you can't solve these problems if you don't know where these bubbles come from. But then, when the bailout came and supported by both parties, you have to realize, oh, wait, Republicans were still in charge. So the bailouts came from both parties. Guess who they bailed out? The big corporations of people who were ripping off the people in the derivatives market. And they said, oh, the world's going to come to an end unless we bail out all the banks. So the banks were involved, and the Federal Reserve was involved. But who got stuck? The middle class got stuck. They got stuck. They lost their jobs, and they lost their houses. If you had to give money out, you should have given it to people who were losing their mortgages, not to the banks. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP Mr NNP . . Cain NNP has VBZ blamed VBN the DT victims NNS . . There EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN of IN people NNS that WDT are VBP victims NNS of IN this DT business NN cycle NN . . We PRP ca MD n't RB blame VB the DT victims NNS . . But CC we PRP also RB have VBP to TO point VB -- : I PRP 'd MD go VB to TO Washington NNP as RB well RB as IN Wall NNP Street NNP , , but CC I PRP 'd MD go VB over RP to TO the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . They PRP -- : they PRP create VBP the DT financial JJ bubbles NNS . . And CC you PRP have VBP to TO understand VB that IN you PRP ca MD n't RB solve VB these DT problems NNS if IN you PRP do VBP n't RB know VB where WRB these DT bubbles NNS come VBP from IN . . But CC then RB , , when WRB the DT bailout NN came VBD and CC supported VBN by IN both DT parties NNS , , you PRP have VBP to TO realize VB , , oh UH , , wait NN , , Republicans NNPS were VBD still RB in IN charge NN . . So IN the DT bailouts NNS came VBD from IN both DT parties NNS . . Guess NNP who WP they PRP bailed VBD out RP ? . The DT big JJ corporations NNS of IN people NNS who WP were VBD ripping VBG off RP the DT people NNS in IN the DT derivatives NNS market NN . . And CC they PRP said VBD , , oh UH , , the DT world NN 's POS going VBG to TO come VB to TO an DT end NN unless IN we PRP bail VBP out RP all PDT the DT banks NNS . . So IN the DT banks NNS were VBD involved VBN , , and CC the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP was VBD involved VBN . . But CC who WP got VBD stuck VBN ? . The DT middle JJ class NN got VBD stuck JJ . . They PRP got VBD stuck VBN . . They PRP lost VBD their PRP$ jobs NNS , , and CC they PRP lost VBD their PRP$ houses NNS . . If IN you PRP had VBD to TO give VB money NN out IN , , you PRP should MD have VB given VBN it PRP to TO people NNS who WP were VBD losing VBG their PRP$ mortgages NNS , , not RB to TO the DT banks NNS . .
mr
cain victim
lot peopl victim busi cycl
victim
washington wall street feder reserv
bubbl
problem bubbl
bailout parti wait republican charg
bailout parti
guess
corpor peopl peopl deriv market
world end bank
bank feder reserv
class
job hous
money peopl mortgag bank

Yes, the argument is it's -- the program was OK, but it was mismanaged. But I work on the assumption that government's not very capable of managing almost anything... [ applause ] ... so you shouldn't put that much trust in the government. You have -- you have to trust the marketplace. And when the government gets involved, they have to deal with fraud. And how many people have gone to jail either in the government, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, that participated in this? And nobody suffers the consequences. All these investigations, and yet the people who lose their jobs and lose their houses, it's their fault, according -- that's why they're on Wall Street. And we can't blame them. We have to blame the business cycle...
Yes RB , , the DT argument NN is VBZ it PRP 's VBZ -- : the DT program NN was VBD OK JJ , , but CC it PRP was VBD mismanaged VBN . . But CC I PRP work VBP on IN the DT assumption NN that DT government NN 's VBZ not RB very RB capable JJ of IN managing VBG almost RB anything NN ... : ... : so IN you PRP should MD n't RB put VB that DT much JJ trust NN in IN the DT government NN . . You PRP have VBP -- : you PRP have VBP to TO trust VB the DT marketplace NN . . And CC when WRB the DT government NN gets VBZ involved VBN , , they PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN fraud NN . . And CC how WRB many JJ people NNS have VBP gone VBN to TO jail NN either CC in IN the DT government NN , , Fannie NNP Mae NNP or CC Freddie NNP Mac NNP , , that WDT participated VBD in IN this DT ? . And CC nobody NN suffers VBZ the DT consequences NNS . . All PDT these DT investigations NNS , , and CC yet RB the DT people NNS who WP lose VBP their PRP$ jobs NNS and CC lose VB their PRP$ houses NNS , , it PRP 's VBZ their PRP$ fault NN , , according VBG -- : that DT 's VBZ why WRB they PRP 're VBP on IN Wall NNP Street NNP . . And CC we PRP ca MD n't RB blame VB them PRP . . We PRP have VBP to TO blame VB the DT business NN cycle NN .. NN . .
argument program
assumpt govern anyth trust govern
marketplac
govern fraud
peopl jail govern fanni mae freddi mac
nobodi consequ
investig peopl job hous fault wall street
busi cycl

... and the economic policies that led to this disaster. [ applause ]
... : and CC the DT economic JJ policies NNS that WDT led VBD to TO this DT disaster NN . .
polici disast

I think it would be enhanced. I don't want to cut any defense. And you have to get it straight. There's a lot of money spent in the military budget that doesn't do any good for our defense. How does it help us to keep troops in Korea all these years? We're broke. We have to borrow this money. Why are we in Japan? Why do we subsidize Germany, and they subsidize their socialized system over there? Because we pay for it. We're broke. And this whole thing that this can't be on the table, I'll tell you what, this debt bubble is the thing you better really worry about, because it's imploding on us right now. It's worldwide. We are no more removed from this than man the man on the moon. It's going to get much worse. And to cut military spending is a wise thing to do. We would be safer if we weren't in so many places. We have an empire. We can't afford it. The empires always bring great nations down. We spread ourselves too thinly around the world. This is what's happened throughout history, and we're doing it to ourselves. The most recent empire to fail was an empire that went into, of all places, Afghanistan...
I PRP think VBP it PRP would MD be VB enhanced VBN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO cut VB any DT defense NN . . And CC you PRP have VBP to TO get VB it PRP straight RB . . There EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN of IN money NN spent VBN in IN the DT military JJ budget NN that WDT does VBZ n't RB do VB any DT good JJ for IN our PRP$ defense NN . . How WRB does VBZ it PRP help VB us PRP to TO keep VB troops NNS in IN Korea NNP all PDT these DT years NNS ? . We PRP 're VBP broke VBN . . We PRP have VBP to TO borrow VB this DT money NN . . Why WRB are VBP we PRP in IN Japan NNP ? . Why WRB do VBP we PRP subsidize VB Germany NNP , , and CC they PRP subsidize VBP their PRP$ socialized VBN system NN over IN there RB ? . Because IN we PRP pay VBP for IN it PRP . . We PRP 're VBP broke VBN . . And CC this DT whole JJ thing NN that IN this DT ca MD n't RB be VB on IN the DT table NN , , I PRP 'll MD tell VB you PRP what WP , , this DT debt NN bubble NN is VBZ the DT thing NN you PRP better RBR really RB worry VB about IN , , because IN it PRP 's VBZ imploding VBG on IN us PRP right RB now RB . . It PRP 's VBZ worldwide JJ . . We PRP are VBP no RB more RBR removed VBN from IN this DT than IN man NN the DT man NN on IN the DT moon NN . . It PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO get VB much RB worse JJR . . And CC to TO cut VB military JJ spending NN is VBZ a DT wise JJ thing NN to TO do VB . . We PRP would MD be VB safer JJR if IN we PRP were VBD n't RB in IN so RB many JJ places NNS . . We PRP have VBP an DT empire NN . . We PRP ca MD n't RB afford VB it PRP . . The DT empires NNS always RB bring VBP great JJ nations NNS down RB . . We PRP spread VBP ourselves PRP too RB thinly RB around IN the DT world NN . . This DT is VBZ what WP 's VBZ happened VBN throughout IN history NN , , and CC we PRP 're VBP doing VBG it PRP to TO ourselves PRP . . The DT most RBS recent JJ empire NN to TO fail VB was VBD an DT empire NN that WDT went VBD into IN , , of IN all DT places NNS , , Afghanistan NNP .. NNP . .
defens
lot money budget defens
troop korea year
money
japan
germani system
thing tabl debt bubbl thing
man man moon
spend thing
place
empir
empir nation
world
histori
empir empir place afghanistan

... they went broke. So where are we? In Afghanistan. I say it's time to come home. [ cheering and applause ]
... : they PRP went VBD broke RB . . So RB where WRB are VBP we PRP ? . In IN Afghanistan NNP . . I PRP say VBP it PRP 's VBZ time NN to TO come VB home NN . .
afghanistan
time home

Well, I think we're on economic suicide if we're not even willing to look at some of these overseas expenditures, 150 bases -- 900 bases, 150 different countries. We have enough weapons to blow up the world about 20-25 times. We have more weapons than all the other countries put together essentially. And we want to spend more and more, and you can't cut a penny? I mean, this is why we're at an impasse. I want to hear somebody up here willing to cut something. Something real. [ cheering and applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP we PRP 're VBP on IN economic JJ suicide NN if IN we PRP 're VBP not RB even RB willing JJ to TO look VB at IN some DT of IN these DT overseas JJ expenditures NNS , , 150 CD bases NNS -- : 900 CD bases NNS , , 150 CD different JJ countries NNS . . We PRP have VBP enough JJ weapons NNS to TO blow VB up RP the DT world NN about IN 20-25 CD times NNS . . We PRP have VBP more JJR weapons NNS than IN all PDT the DT other JJ countries NNS put VBP together RB essentially RB . . And CC we PRP want VBP to TO spend VB more JJR and CC more JJR , , and CC you PRP ca MD n't RB cut VB a DT penny NN ? . I PRP mean VBP , , this DT is VBZ why WRB we PRP 're VBP at IN an DT impasse NN . . I PRP want VBP to TO hear VB somebody NN up RB here RB willing JJ to TO cut VB something NN . . Something NN real JJ . .
suicid expenditur base base countri
weapon world time
weapon countri
penni
impass
somebodi someth
someth

This budget is in bad shape and the financial calamity is going to be much worse than anybody ever invading this country. Which country -- are they going to invade this country? They can't even shoot a missile at us.
This DT budget NN is VBZ in IN bad JJ shape NN and CC the DT financial JJ calamity NN is VBZ going VBG to TO be VB much RB worse JJR than IN anybody NN ever RB invading VBG this DT country NN . . Which WDT country NN -- : are VBP they PRP going VBG to TO invade VB this DT country NN ? . They PRP ca MD n't RB even RB shoot VB a DT missile NN at IN us PRP . .
budget shape calam anybodi countri
countri countri
missil

On foreign aid, that should be the easiest thing to cut. It's not authorized in the Constitution that we can take money from you and give it to particular countries around the world. To me, foreign aid is taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in poor countries. And it becomes weapons of war. Essentially, no well -- no matter how well-motivated it is...
On IN foreign JJ aid NN , , that WDT should MD be VB the DT easiest JJS thing NN to TO cut VB . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB authorized VBN in IN the DT Constitution NNP that IN we PRP can MD take VB money NN from IN you PRP and CC give VB it PRP to TO particular JJ countries NNS around IN the DT world NN . . To TO me PRP , , foreign JJ aid NN is VBZ taking VBG money NN from IN poor JJ people NNS in IN this DT country NN and CC giving VBG it PRP to TO rich JJ people NNS in IN poor JJ countries NNS . . And CC it PRP becomes VBZ weapons NNS of IN war NN . . Essentially RB , , no DT well NN -- : no DT matter NN how WRB well-motivated JJ it PRP is VBZ .. CD . .
aid thing
constitut money countri world
aid money peopl countri peopl countri
weapon war
well matter

I would cut all foreign aid. I would treat everybody equally and fairly. And I don't think aid to Israel actually helps them. I think it teaches them to be dependent. We're on a bankruptcy course. And -- and look at what's the result of all that foreign aid we gave to Egypt? I mean, their -- their dictator that we pumped up, we spent all these billions of dollars, and now there's a more hostile regime in Egypt. And that's what's happening all around Israel. That foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us. It softens them for their own economy. And they should have their sovereignty back. They should be able to deal with their neighbors...
I PRP would MD cut VB all DT foreign JJ aid NN . . I PRP would MD treat VB everybody NN equally RB and CC fairly RB . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB aid NN to TO Israel NNP actually RB helps VBZ them PRP . . I PRP think VBP it PRP teaches VBZ them PRP to TO be VB dependent JJ . . We PRP 're VBP on IN a DT bankruptcy NN course NN . . And CC -- : and CC look VB at IN what WP 's VBZ the DT result NN of IN all PDT that DT foreign JJ aid NN we PRP gave VBD to TO Egypt NNP ? . I PRP mean VBP , , their PRP$ -- : their PRP$ dictator NN that IN we PRP pumped VBD up RP , , we PRP spent VBD all PDT these DT billions NNS of IN dollars NNS , , and CC now RB there EX 's VBZ a DT more RBR hostile JJ regime NN in IN Egypt NNP . . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP 's VBZ happening VBG all DT around IN Israel NNP . . That DT foreign JJ aid NN makes VBZ Israel NNP dependent JJ on IN us PRP . . It PRP softens VBZ them PRP for IN their PRP$ own JJ economy NN . . And CC they PRP should MD have VB their PRP$ sovereignty NN back RB . . They PRP should MD be VB able JJ to TO deal VB with IN their PRP$ neighbors NNS .. VBP . .
aid
everybodi
aid israel
bankruptci cours
result aid egypt
dictat billion dollar regim egypt
israel
aid israel
economi
sovereignti
neighbor

... at their own will. [ applause ]
... : at IN their PRP$ own JJ will NN . .
will

Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, I don't want to make a statement. I want to ask a question. Are you all willing to condemn Ronald Reagan for exchanging weapons for hostages out of Iran? We all know that was done.
Oh UH , , yes RB . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO make VB a DT statement NN . . I PRP want VBP to TO ask VB a DT question NN . . Are VBP you PRP all DT willing JJ to TO condemn VB Ronald NNP Reagan NNP for IN exchanging VBG weapons NNS for IN hostages NNS out IN of IN Iran NNP ? . We PRP all DT know VBP that DT was VBD done VBN . .
matter fact statement
question
ronald reagan weapon hostag iran

Oh, they were our good friends back then, huh?
Oh UH , , they PRP were VBD our PRP$ good JJ friends NNS back RB then RB , , huh VB ? .
friend

He negotiated for hostages.
He PRP negotiated VBD for IN hostages NNS . .
hostag

But they're all suspects. They're not terrorists. You haven't convicted them of anything.
But CC they PRP 're VBP all DT suspects NNS . . They PRP 're VBP not RB terrorists NNS . . You PRP have VBP n't RB convicted VBN them PRP of IN anything NN . .
suspect
terrorist
anyth

One thing I might -- might say is, we have made some inroads on the Federal Reserve. We passed a bill last year. We got a partial, you know, audit of the Fed. We've learned a whole lot. They were dealing in $15 trillion; $5 trillion went overseas to bail out foreign banks. But you know what? Congress did a lot. I've worked on it for a good many years. But Bloomberg helped and Fox helped. They had court cases, Freedom of Information Act. And there are some even at this table who didn't think auditing the Fed was such a good idea, that we could call up the Fed and ask them and they would tell us what they're doing. I've been calling them up for 30 years and they never tell me. [ laughter ] But we're getting to the bottom of it. But if you want to understand why we have a problem, you have to understand the Fed, because the cause comes from the business cycle. We shouldn't be asking what to do exactly with the recession -- obviously, we have to deal with that -- but you can't solve -- you can't cure the disease if you don't know the cause of it. And the cause is the booms. When there are booms and they're artificial, whether it's the CRA or whether it's the Fed, easy credit, when you have bubbles, whether it's the Nasdaq or whether it's the housing bubbles, they burst. And when they do, you have to have corrections. And that's what we're dealing with. And we can do this by building coalitions and not sacrificing any principles.
One CD thing NN I PRP might MD -- : might MD say VB is VBZ , , we PRP have VBP made VBN some DT inroads NNS on IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . We PRP passed VBD a DT bill NN last JJ year NN . . We PRP got VBD a DT partial JJ , , you PRP know VBP , , audit NN of IN the DT Fed NNP . . We PRP 've VBP learned VBN a DT whole JJ lot NN . . They PRP were VBD dealing VBG in IN $ $ 15 CD trillion CD ; : $ $ 5 CD trillion CD went VBD overseas RB to TO bail VB out RP foreign JJ banks NNS . . But CC you PRP know VBP what WP ? . Congress NNP did VBD a DT lot NN . . I PRP 've VBP worked VBN on IN it PRP for IN a DT good JJ many JJ years NNS . . But CC Bloomberg NNP helped VBD and CC Fox NNP helped VBD . . They PRP had VBD court NN cases NNS , , Freedom NNP of IN Information NNP Act NNP . . And CC there EX are VBP some DT even RB at IN this DT table NN who WP did VBD n't RB think VB auditing NN the DT Fed NNP was VBD such JJ a DT good JJ idea NN , , that IN we PRP could MD call VB up RP the DT Fed NNP and CC ask VB them PRP and CC they PRP would MD tell VB us PRP what WP they PRP 're VBP doing VBG . . I PRP 've VBP been VBN calling VBG them PRP up RP for IN 30 CD years NNS and CC they PRP never RB tell VBP me PRP . . But CC we PRP 're VBP getting VBG to TO the DT bottom NN of IN it PRP . . But CC if IN you PRP want VBP to TO understand VB why WRB we PRP have VBP a DT problem NN , , you PRP have VBP to TO understand VB the DT Fed NNP , , because IN the DT cause NN comes VBZ from IN the DT business NN cycle NN . . We PRP should MD n't RB be VB asking VBG what WP to TO do VB exactly RB with IN the DT recession NN -- : obviously RB , , we PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN that DT -- : but CC you PRP ca MD n't RB solve VB -- : you PRP ca MD n't RB cure VB the DT disease NN if IN you PRP do VBP n't RB know VB the DT cause NN of IN it PRP . . And CC the DT cause NN is VBZ the DT booms NNS . . When WRB there EX are VBP booms NNS and CC they PRP 're VBP artificial JJ , , whether IN it PRP 's VBZ the DT CRA NNP or CC whether IN it PRP 's VBZ the DT Fed NNP , , easy JJ credit NN , , when WRB you PRP have VBP bubbles NNS , , whether IN it PRP 's VBZ the DT Nasdaq NNP or CC whether IN it PRP 's VBZ the DT housing NN bubbles NNS , , they PRP burst VBP . . And CC when WRB they PRP do VBP , , you PRP have VBP to TO have VB corrections NNS . . And CC that DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP 're VBP dealing VBG with IN . . And CC we PRP can MD do VB this DT by IN building NN coalitions NNS and CC not RB sacrificing VBG any DT principles NNS . .
thing inroad feder reserv
bill year
audit fed
lot
bank
congress lot
year
bloomberg fox
court case freedom inform act
tabl audit fed idea fed
year
bottom
problem fed caus busi cycl
recess diseas caus
caus boom
boom cra fed credit bubbl nasdaq hous bubbl
correct
build coalit principl

Absolutely. I mean, there's no need to. Look at...
Absolutely RB . . I PRP mean VBP , , there EX 's VBZ no DT need NN to TO . . Look VB at IN .. CD . .
need

The -- no. You -- that's where the distortions come. That's where the moral hazard comes from. That's where the malinvestment, overbuild. It was predictable. You talked about what economists we should look to. And, unfortunately, we've been living with Keynesian economics for many, many decades. And everybody who was right about predicting the bubbles were Austrian economists. They said they were coming. And yet they're also saying -- and I agree with them -- that everything that we're doing right now is wrong. So what we did with the housing bubble, yes, we had too many houses. It was glaring in our face. The bubble was doomed to burst, and it came because of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, easy credit, and also Community Reinvestment Act. So who -- who got into trouble? The people who did the speculating, the Wall Street, the derivatives market? They got the bailout. They got [ inaudible ] so what happened to the middle class? They lost their jobs. They lost their houses. This whole system is all messed up. And you're -- what I hear here is just tinkering with the current system and not looking at something new and different, and it's a free-market economy without a Federal Reserve system, with sound money. If you don't have that, you're going to continue with the bubble. And this propping up this debt and keeping the correction, you need the correction. You need to get rid of the malinvestment and the debt.
The DT -- : no RB . . You PRP -- : that DT 's VBZ where WRB the DT distortions NNS come VBP . . That DT 's VBZ where WRB the DT moral JJ hazard NN comes VBZ from IN . . That DT 's VBZ where WRB the DT malinvestment NN , , overbuild NN . . It PRP was VBD predictable JJ . . You PRP talked VBD about IN what WP economists NNS we PRP should MD look VB to TO . . And CC , , unfortunately RB , , we PRP 've VBP been VBN living VBG with IN Keynesian JJ economics NNS for IN many JJ , , many JJ decades NNS . . And CC everybody NN who WP was VBD right JJ about IN predicting VBG the DT bubbles NNS were VBD Austrian JJ economists NNS . . They PRP said VBD they PRP were VBD coming VBG . . And CC yet RB they PRP 're VBP also RB saying VBG -- : and CC I PRP agree VBP with IN them PRP -- : that DT everything NN that IN we PRP 're VBP doing VBG right RB now RB is VBZ wrong JJ . . So RB what WP we PRP did VBD with IN the DT housing NN bubble NN , , yes UH , , we PRP had VBD too RB many JJ houses NNS . . It PRP was VBD glaring VBG in IN our PRP$ face NN . . The DT bubble NN was VBD doomed VBN to TO burst VB , , and CC it PRP came VBD because IN of IN Fannie NNP Mae NNP , , Freddie NNP Mac NNP , , easy JJ credit NN , , and CC also RB Community NNP Reinvestment NNP Act NNP . . So RB who WP -- : who WP got VBD into IN trouble NN ? . The DT people NNS who WP did VBD the DT speculating VBG , , the DT Wall NNP Street NNP , , the DT derivatives NNS market NN ? . They PRP got VBD the DT bailout NN . . They PRP got VBD so RB what WP happened VBD to TO the DT middle JJ class NN ? . They PRP lost VBD their PRP$ jobs NNS . . They PRP lost VBD their PRP$ houses NNS . . This DT whole JJ system NN is VBZ all DT messed VBN up RP . . And CC you PRP 're VBP -- : what WP I PRP hear VBP here RB is VBZ just RB tinkering VBG with IN the DT current JJ system NN and CC not RB looking VBG at IN something NN new JJ and CC different JJ , , and CC it PRP 's VBZ a DT free-market JJ economy NN without IN a DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP system NN , , with IN sound JJ money NN . . If IN you PRP do VBP n't RB have VB that DT , , you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO continue VB with IN the DT bubble NN . . And CC this DT propping VBG up RP this DT debt NN and CC keeping VBG the DT correction NN , , you PRP need VBP the DT correction NN . . You PRP need VBP to TO get VB rid JJ of IN the DT malinvestment NN and CC the DT debt NN . .
distort
hazard
malinvest overbuild
economist
econom decad
everybodi bubbl economist
everyth
hous bubbl hous
face
bubbl fanni mae freddi mac credit communiti reinvest act
troubl
peopl wall street deriv market
bailout
class
job
hous
system
system someth economi feder reserv system money
bubbl
debt correct correct
malinvest debt

The debt is the burden on the economy.
The DT debt NN is VBZ the DT burden NN on IN the DT economy NN . .
debt burden economi

Since the Federal Reserve is the engine of inflation, creates the business cycle, produces are recessions and our depressions, the Federal Reserve obviously is a very important issue. And fortunately, tonight we have a former director of the Federal Reserve at Kansas City. So I have a question for Mr. Cain. Mr. Cain, in the past you have been rather critical of any of us who would want to audit the Fed. You have said -- you've used pretty strong terms, that we were ignorant and that we didn't know what we are doing, and therefore, there was no need for an audit anyway, because if you had one, you're not going to find out anything, because everybody knows everything about the Fed. But now that we have found and we have gotten an audit, we have found out an awful lot on how special businesses get bailed out -- Wall Street, the banks, and special companies, foreign governments. And you said that you advise those of us who were concerned, and you belittled -- you say call up the Federal Reserve and just ask them.
Since IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP is VBZ the DT engine NN of IN inflation NN , , creates VBZ the DT business NN cycle NN , , produces VBZ are VBP recessions NNS and CC our PRP$ depressions NNS , , the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP obviously RB is VBZ a DT very RB important JJ issue NN . . And CC fortunately RB , , tonight RB we PRP have VBP a DT former JJ director NN of IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP at IN Kansas NNP City NNP . . So RB I PRP have VBP a DT question NN for IN Mr NNP . . Cain NNP . . Mr NNP . . Cain NNP , , in IN the DT past NN you PRP have VBP been VBN rather RB critical JJ of IN any DT of IN us PRP who WP would MD want VB to TO audit VB the DT Fed NNP . . You PRP have VBP said VBN -- : you PRP 've VBP used VBN pretty RB strong JJ terms NNS , , that IN we PRP were VBD ignorant JJ and CC that IN we PRP did VBD n't RB know VB what WP we PRP are VBP doing VBG , , and CC therefore RB , , there EX was VBD no DT need NN for IN an DT audit NN anyway RB , , because IN if IN you PRP had VBD one CD , , you PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO find VB out RP anything NN , , because IN everybody NN knows VBZ everything NN about IN the DT Fed NNP . . But CC now RB that IN we PRP have VBP found VBN and CC we PRP have VBP gotten VBN an DT audit NN , , we PRP have VBP found VBN out RP an DT awful JJ lot NN on IN how WRB special JJ businesses NNS get VB bailed VBN out RP -- : Wall NNP Street NNP , , the DT banks NNS , , and CC special JJ companies NNS , , foreign JJ governments NNS . . And CC you PRP said VBD that IN you PRP advise VBP those DT of IN us PRP who WP were VBD concerned VBN , , and CC you PRP belittled VBD -- : you PRP say VBP call VB up RP the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP and CC just RB ask VB them PRP . .
feder reserv engin inflat busi cycl recess depress feder reserv issu
director feder reserv kansa citi
question mr
cain
mr
cain past fed
term need audit anyth everybodi everyth fed
audit lot busi wall street bank compani govern
feder reserv

Do you still stick by this, that that this is frivolous, or do you think it's very important? Sixty-four percent of the American people want a full audit of the Fed on a regular basis.
Do VBP you PRP still RB stick VB by IN this DT , , that IN that IN this DT is VBZ frivolous JJ , , or CC do VB you PRP think VB it PRP 's VBZ very RB important JJ ? . Sixty-four JJ percent NN of IN the DT American JJ people NNS want VBP a DT full JJ audit NN of IN the DT Fed NNP on IN a DT regular JJ basis NN . .
percent peopl audit fed basi

Spoken like a true insider. No, Alan Greenspan was a disaster. [ laughter ] [ applause ] Everybody in Washington -- liberals and conservatives -- said he kept interest rates too low, too long. Of course, the solution was, lower them even more, and they think that's going to solve our problem. But if I had to name one person that did a little bit of good, that was Paul Volcker. He at least knew how to end -- or help, you know, end the inflation. But, of course, with my position that I don't think highly of the Federal Reserve, I think we should have sound money and we shouldn't have somebody deciding what the interest rate should be and how much money supply we should have, I mean, nobody satisfies me. But certainly, Alan Greenspan has ushered in the biggest bubble. And what did we do? We've continued the same thing, doing the same thing. We think the inflation under Alan Greenspan was bad so we're trying to solve the problem by inflating even further. So Bernanke compounds the problem. He's inflating twice as fast as -- as Greenspan was. But Greenspan caused so much trouble. And he used to believe in the gold standard. I think he's coming around to that. Before he retires, he'll write his -- his biography and explain why he's coming back to the gold standard.
Spoken VBN like IN a DT true JJ insider NN . . No NNP , , Alan NNP Greenspan NNP was VBD a DT disaster NN . . Everybody NN in IN Washington NNP -- : liberals NNS and CC conservatives NNS -- : said VBD he PRP kept VBD interest NN rates NNS too RB low JJ , , too RB long RB . . Of IN course NN , , the DT solution NN was VBD , , lower JJR them PRP even RB more RBR , , and CC they PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ going VBG to TO solve VB our PRP$ problem NN . . But CC if IN I PRP had VBD to TO name VB one CD person NN that WDT did VBD a DT little JJ bit NN of IN good JJ , , that DT was VBD Paul NNP Volcker NNP . . He PRP at IN least JJS knew VBD how WRB to TO end VB -- : or CC help NN , , you PRP know VBP , , end VBP the DT inflation NN . . But CC , , of IN course NN , , with IN my PRP$ position NN that IN I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB highly RB of IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , I PRP think VBP we PRP should MD have VB sound JJ money NN and CC we PRP should MD n't RB have VB somebody NN deciding VBG what WP the DT interest NN rate NN should MD be VB and CC how WRB much JJ money NN supply NN we PRP should MD have VB , , I PRP mean VBP , , nobody NN satisfies VBZ me PRP . . But CC certainly RB , , Alan NNP Greenspan NNP has VBZ ushered VBN in IN the DT biggest JJS bubble NN . . And CC what WP did VBD we PRP do VB ? . We PRP 've VBP continued VBN the DT same JJ thing NN , , doing VBG the DT same JJ thing NN . . We PRP think VBP the DT inflation NN under IN Alan NNP Greenspan NNP was VBD bad JJ so IN we PRP 're VBP trying VBG to TO solve VB the DT problem NN by IN inflating VBG even RB further RBR . . So RB Bernanke NNP compounds VBZ the DT problem NN . . He PRP 's VBZ inflating VBG twice RB as RB fast JJ as IN -- : as IN Greenspan NNP was VBD . . But CC Greenspan NNP caused VBD so RB much JJ trouble NN . . And CC he PRP used VBD to TO believe VB in IN the DT gold JJ standard NN . . I PRP think VBP he PRP 's VBZ coming VBG around RB to TO that DT . . Before IN he PRP retires VBZ , , he PRP 'll MD write VB his PRP$ -- : his PRP$ biography NN and CC explain VB why WRB he PRP 's VBZ coming VBG back RB to TO the DT gold JJ standard NN . .
insid
no alan greenspan disast
everybodi washington liber conserv interest rate
cours solut problem
person bit paul volcker
help inflat
cours posit feder reserv money somebodi interest rate money suppli nobodi
alan greenspan bubbl
thing thing
inflat alan greenspan problem
bernank problem
greenspan
greenspan troubl
standard
biographi standard

I just want to add one quick thing. Dodd-Frank obviously is a disaster. It's estimated it's going to cost a trillion dollars. I think one the reasons we're not getting anywhere and we're not getting anywhere in Washington, it's a partisan fight. It's a fight over power, because Sarbanes-Oxley, which was done by the Republicans, it cost a trillion dollars, too. Let's repeal that, too. I mean, if you look at what we have done as Republicans, we have caused a lot of problems. To say it's all in these past two years, I mean, I think that is so misleading. And that's why the American people are sick and tired of listening to the politicians.
I PRP just RB want VBP to TO add VB one CD quick JJ thing NN . . Dodd-Frank NNP obviously RB is VBZ a DT disaster NN . . It PRP 's VBZ estimated VBN it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO cost VB a DT trillion CD dollars NNS . . I PRP think VBP one CD the DT reasons NNS we PRP 're VBP not RB getting VBG anywhere RB and CC we PRP 're VBP not RB getting VBG anywhere RB in IN Washington NNP , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT partisan JJ fight NN . . It PRP 's VBZ a DT fight NN over IN power NN , , because IN Sarbanes-Oxley NNP , , which WDT was VBD done VBN by IN the DT Republicans NNPS , , it PRP cost VBD a DT trillion CD dollars NNS , , too RB . . Let NNP 's POS repeal NN that IN , , too RB . . I PRP mean VBP , , if IN you PRP look VBP at IN what WP we PRP have VBP done VBN as IN Republicans NNPS , , we PRP have VBP caused VBN a DT lot NN of IN problems NNS . . To TO say VB it PRP 's VBZ all DT in IN these DT past JJ two CD years NNS , , I PRP mean VBP , , I PRP think VBP that DT is VBZ so RB misleading JJ . . And CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB the DT American JJ people NNS are VBP sick JJ and CC tired JJ of IN listening VBG to TO the DT politicians NNS . .
thing
dodd-frank disast
dollar
reason washington fight
fight power sarbanes-oxley republican dollar
let repeal
republican lot problem
year
peopl politician

My motivation, my goal has always been to promote liberty, believing that's what made America great. If we want prosperity, if we want peace, we understand what the cause of liberty is all about, and we have to understand that a free-market system and sound money gives us the prosperity. And it also is the humanitarian program, because once you get into the welfare state and the socialist state, it all backfires. So if you care about people, you believe in liberty, that's what made America great. That's what I want to restore.
My PRP$ motivation NN , , my PRP$ goal NN has VBZ always RB been VBN to TO promote VB liberty NN , , believing VBG that DT 's VBZ what WP made VBD America NNP great JJ . . If IN we PRP want VBP prosperity NN , , if IN we PRP want VBP peace NN , , we PRP understand VBP what WP the DT cause NN of IN liberty NN is VBZ all DT about IN , , and CC we PRP have VBP to TO understand VB that IN a DT free-market JJ system NN and CC sound JJ money NN gives VBZ us PRP the DT prosperity NN . . And CC it PRP also RB is VBZ the DT humanitarian JJ program NN , , because IN once RB you PRP get VBP into IN the DT welfare NN state NN and CC the DT socialist JJ state NN , , it PRP all DT backfires VBZ . . So RB if IN you PRP care VBP about IN people NNS , , you PRP believe VBP in IN liberty NN , , that DT 's VBZ what WP made VBD America NNP great JJ . . That DT 's VBZ what WP I PRP want VBP to TO restore VB . .
motiv goal liberti america
prosper peac caus liberti system money prosper
program welfar state state
peopl liberti america

Well obviously, it would take more than one individual, but the responsibility of the president would be to veto every single bill that violates the 10th amendment. That would be the solution. [ applause ]
Well RB obviously RB , , it PRP would MD take VB more JJR than IN one CD individual NN , , but CC the DT responsibility NN of IN the DT president NN would MD be VB to TO veto VB every DT single JJ bill NN that WDT violates VBZ the DT 10th JJ amendment NN . . That DT would MD be VB the DT solution NN . .
individu respons presid bill amend
solut

Well, I'll tell you what, that is the subject that is crucial because government is too big in Washington, D.C. It's run away. We have no controls of spending, taxes, regulations, no control in the Federal Reserve printing money. So if we want government, whether it is medical care or whatever, it is proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools. But there's no authority in the constitution to do so much what we're doing. There's no authority for them to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with our personal lives! [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP 'll MD tell VB you PRP what WP , , that WDT is VBZ the DT subject NN that WDT is VBZ crucial JJ because IN government NN is VBZ too RB big JJ in IN Washington NNP , , D.C NNP . . It PRP 's VBZ run VBN away RB . . We PRP have VBP no DT controls NNS of IN spending NN , , taxes NNS , , regulations NNS , , no DT control NN in IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP printing NN money NN . . So RB if IN we PRP want VBP government NN , , whether IN it PRP is VBZ medical JJ care NN or CC whatever WDT , , it PRP is VBZ proper JJ to TO do VB it PRP at IN the DT local JJ level NN as RB well RB as IN our PRP$ schools NNS . . But CC there EX 's VBZ no DT authority NN in IN the DT constitution NN to TO do VB so RB much RB what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG . . There EX 's VBZ no DT authority NN for IN them PRP to TO run VB our PRP$ schools NNS , , no DT authority NN to TO control VB our PRP$ economy NN , , and CC no DT authority NN to TO control VB us PRP as IN individuals NNS on IN what WP we PRP do VBP with IN our PRP$ personal JJ lives NNS ! .
subject govern washington d.c
control spend tax regul control feder reserv print money
govern care level school
author constitut
author school author economi author individu live

If you care about your children, you'll get the federal government out of the business of educating our kids. [ applause ] In 1980, when the Republican Party ran, part of the platform was to get rid of the Department of Education. By the year 2000, it was eliminated, and we fed on to it. Then (inaudible) Republicans added No Child Left Behind. So the first thing a president should do is -- the goal should be set to get the government out completely, but don't enforce this law of No Child Left Behind. It's not going to do any good, and nobody likes it. And there's no value to it. The teachers don't like it, and the students don't like it. But there are other things that the federal government can do, and that is give tax credits for the people who will opt out. We ought to have a right to opt out of the public system if you want.
If IN you PRP care VBP about IN your PRP$ children NNS , , you PRP 'll MD get VB the DT federal JJ government NN out IN of IN the DT business NN of IN educating VBG our PRP$ kids NNS . . In IN 1980 CD , , when WRB the DT Republican NNP Party NNP ran VBD , , part NN of IN the DT platform NN was VBD to TO get VB rid JJ of IN the DT Department NNP of IN Education NNP . . By IN the DT year NN 2000 CD , , it PRP was VBD eliminated VBN , , and CC we PRP fed VBD on RP to TO it PRP . . Then RB Republicans NNPS added VBD No DT Child NN Left VBN Behind IN . . So IN the DT first JJ thing NN a DT president NN should MD do VB is VBZ -- : the DT goal NN should MD be VB set VBN to TO get VB the DT government NN out IN completely RB , , but CC do VBP n't RB enforce VB this DT law NN of IN No DT Child NN Left VBN Behind IN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB going VBG to TO do VB any DT good JJ , , and CC nobody NN likes VBZ it PRP . . And CC there EX 's VBZ no DT value NN to TO it PRP . . The DT teachers NNS do VBP n't RB like VB it PRP , , and CC the DT students NNS do VBP n't RB like VB it PRP . . But CC there EX are VBP other JJ things NNS that IN the DT federal JJ government NN can MD do VB , , and CC that DT is VBZ give VB tax NN credits NNS for IN the DT people NNS who WP will MD opt VB out RP . . We PRP ought MD to TO have VB a DT right NN to TO opt VB out IN of IN the DT public JJ system NN if IN you PRP want VBP . .
children govern busi kid
republican parti part platform depart educ
year
republican child
thing presid goal govern law child
nobodi
valu
teacher student
thing govern tax credit peopl
right system

There are -- there are some. All the candidates up here talk about repatriation of dollars. They've already taken them overseas. We're talking about trying to bring in $1.5 trillion because they leave our country, because we make it uncomfortable, too many regulations, too much taxation. They can't start business; they've lost confidence. Yes, when countries destroy a currency, they do lead to capital controls and they lead to people control. So I think it is a real concern. [ applause ] And, also, once you have these data banks, the data banks means that everybody is going to be in the data bank. You say, oh, no, the data bank's there for the illegals. But everybody's in the data bank. That's national ID card. If you care about your personal liberty, you'll be cautious when you feel comfortable, blame all the illegal immigrants for everything. What you need to do is attack their benefits: no free education, no free subsidies, no citizenship, no birth-right citizenship. [ applause ] And that would get to the bottom of it a lot sooner. But economically, you should not ignore the fact that, in tough economic times, money and people want to leave the country. That's unfortunate.
There EX are VBP -- : there EX are VBP some DT . . All PDT the DT candidates NNS up RB here RB talk VB about IN repatriation NN of IN dollars NNS . . They PRP 've VBP already RB taken VBN them PRP overseas RB . . We PRP 're VBP talking VBG about IN trying VBG to TO bring VB in RP $ $ 1.5 CD trillion CD because IN they PRP leave VBP our PRP$ country NN , , because IN we PRP make VBP it PRP uncomfortable JJ , , too RB many JJ regulations NNS , , too RB much JJ taxation NN . . They PRP ca MD n't RB start VB business NN ; : they PRP 've VBP lost VBN confidence NN . . Yes RB , , when WRB countries NNS destroy VBP a DT currency NN , , they PRP do VBP lead VB to TO capital NN controls NNS and CC they PRP lead VBP to TO people NNS control NN . . So RB I PRP think VBP it PRP is VBZ a DT real JJ concern NN . . And CC , , also RB , , once RB you PRP have VBP these DT data NNS banks NNS , , the DT data NNS banks NNS means VBZ that DT everybody NN is VBZ going VBG to TO be VB in IN the DT data NNS bank NN . . You PRP say VBP , , oh UH , , no DT , , the DT data NN bank NN 's VBZ there RB for IN the DT illegals NNS . . But CC everybody NN 's VBZ in IN the DT data NNS bank NN . . That DT 's VBZ national JJ ID NNP card NN . . If IN you PRP care VBP about IN your PRP$ personal JJ liberty NN , , you PRP 'll MD be VB cautious JJ when WRB you PRP feel VBP comfortable JJ , , blame VB all PDT the DT illegal JJ immigrants NNS for IN everything NN . . What WP you PRP need VBP to TO do VB is VBZ attack VB their PRP$ benefits NNS : : no DT free JJ education NN , , no DT free JJ subsidies NNS , , no DT citizenship NN , , no DT birth-right JJ citizenship NN . . And CC that DT would MD get VB to TO the DT bottom NN of IN it PRP a DT lot NN sooner RBR . . But CC economically RB , , you PRP should MD not RB ignore VB the DT fact NN that IN , , in IN tough JJ economic JJ times NNS , , money NN and CC people NNS want VBP to TO leave VB the DT country NN . . That DT 's VBZ unfortunate JJ . .
candid repatri dollar
countri regul taxat
busi confid
countri currenc capit control peopl control
concern
data bank data bank everybodi data bank
data bank illeg
everybodi data bank
id card
liberti immigr everyth
benefit educ subsidi citizenship citizenship
bottom lot
fact time money peopl countri

They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances... [ applause ] There are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant, you don't even know if there's a disease, but if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know where -- how you're going to police it. So I don't think you should create -- we have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? It doesn't make any sense to me in a practical matter. So I would say that nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law. [ applause ]
They PRP may MD be VB , , but CC the DT way NN this DT is VBZ taken VBN care NN of IN in IN our PRP$ country NN , , it PRP is VBZ not RB a DT national JJ issue NN . . This DT is VBZ a DT state NN issue NN . . And CC there EX are VBP circumstances NNS ... : There EX are VBP circumstances NNS where WRB doctors NNS in IN the DT past NN have VBP used VBN certain JJ day-after JJ pills NNS for IN somebody NN with IN rape NN . . And CC , , quite RB frankly RB , , if IN somebody NN is VBZ treated VBN , , you PRP do VBP n't RB even RB know VB if IN a DT person NN is VBZ pregnant JJ , , you PRP do VBP n't RB even RB know VB if IN there EX 's VBZ a DT disease NN , , but CC if IN it PRP 's VBZ 24 CD hours NNS after IN rape NN , , I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB where WRB -- : how WRB you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO police VB it PRP . . So RB I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB you PRP should MD create VB -- : we PRP have VBP too RB many JJ laws NNS already RB . . Now RB , , how WRB are VBP you PRP going VBG to TO police VB the DT day-after JJ pill NN ? . It PRP does VBZ n't RB make VB any DT sense NN to TO me PRP in IN a DT practical JJ matter NN . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that DT nobody NN can MD out-do VB me PRP on IN respect NN for IN life NN . . I PRP 've VBP spent VBN a DT lifetime NN dealing VBG with IN life NN . . But CC I PRP still RB think VBP there EX is VBZ a DT time NN where WRB the DT law NN does VBZ n't RB solve VB the DT problems NNS . . Only RB the DT moral JJ character NN of IN the DT people NNS will MD eventually RB solve VB this DT problem NN , , not RB the DT law NN . .
way care countri issu
state issu
circumst circumst doctor past pill somebodi rape
somebodi person diseas hour rape
law
pill
sens matter
nobodi respect life
lifetim life
time law problem
charact peopl problem law

Government destroys jobs; the market creates jobs. So the government isn't going to be expected to create the jobs; they have to change the environment. But you can't do that unless you understand where the depression, recessions come from, and you can't understand that unless you know where the bubbles come from. I've been arguing this case for 20 years and warning about bubbles and housing bubbles and Nasdaq bubbles. And a lot of other economists have been doing the same thing. Until we understand that, you can't solve the problem. You have to deal with the Federal Reserve system. You have to deal with free markets. And you have to deal with the tax program and the regulatory system. [ applause ] Then you can get your jobs, because the people will create the jobs, not the government. [ applause ]
Government NNP destroys VBZ jobs NNS ; : the DT market NN creates VBZ jobs NNS . . So IN the DT government NN is VBZ n't RB going VBG to TO be VB expected VBN to TO create VB the DT jobs NNS ; : they PRP have VBP to TO change VB the DT environment NN . . But CC you PRP ca MD n't RB do VB that DT unless IN you PRP understand VBP where WRB the DT depression NN , , recessions NNS come VBP from IN , , and CC you PRP ca MD n't RB understand VB that IN unless IN you PRP know VBP where WRB the DT bubbles NNS come VBP from IN . . I PRP 've VBP been VBN arguing VBG this DT case NN for IN 20 CD years NNS and CC warning VBG about IN bubbles NNS and CC housing NN bubbles NNS and CC Nasdaq NNP bubbles NNS . . And CC a DT lot NN of IN other JJ economists NNS have VBP been VBN doing VBG the DT same JJ thing NN . . Until IN we PRP understand VBP that IN , , you PRP ca MD n't RB solve VB the DT problem NN . . You PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP system NN . . You PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN free JJ markets NNS . . And CC you PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN the DT tax NN program NN and CC the DT regulatory JJ system NN . . Then RB you PRP can MD get VB your PRP$ jobs NNS , , because IN the DT people NNS will MD create VB the DT jobs NNS , , not RB the DT government NN . .
govern job market job
govern job environ
depress recess bubbl
case year bubbl hous bubbl nasdaq bubbl
lot economist thing
problem
feder reserv system
market
tax program system
job peopl job govern

I don't plan to make a choice at the moment, because I am on national polls. It seems like I'm in third place now. I think it would be inappropriate. [ applause ] As soon as -- as soon as I'm one of the two top tier, then I will start thinking along that line. But right now, I'm going to defer, and just work very hard, and make sure that I stay in the top tier and then eventually be one of the top two contenders. [ applause ]
I PRP do VBP n't RB plan VB to TO make VB a DT choice NN at IN the DT moment NN , , because IN I PRP am VBP on IN national JJ polls NNS . . It PRP seems VBZ like IN I PRP 'm VBP in IN third JJ place NN now RB . . I PRP think VBP it PRP would MD be VB inappropriate JJ . . As RB soon RB as RB -- : as RB soon RB as IN I PRP 'm VBP one CD of IN the DT two CD top JJ tier NN , , then RB I PRP will MD start VB thinking VBG along IN that DT line NN . . But CC right RB now RB , , I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO defer VB , , and CC just RB work VB very RB hard RB , , and CC make VB sure JJ that IN I PRP stay VBP in IN the DT top JJ tier NN and CC then RB eventually RB be VB one CD of IN the DT top JJ two CD contenders NNS . .
choic moment poll
place
tier line
tier contend

I'm Congressman Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas. I've been in the Congress for 20 years. My goal has always been to promote the cause of liberty and to obey the Constitution. I plan to do that as president, as well.
I PRP 'm VBP Congressman NNP Ron NNP Paul NNP , , a DT congressman NN from IN Texas NNP . . I PRP 've VBP been VBN in IN the DT Congress NNP for IN 20 CD years NNS . . My PRP$ goal NN has VBZ always RB been VBN to TO promote VB the DT cause NN of IN liberty NN and CC to TO obey VB the DT Constitution NNP . . I PRP plan VBP to TO do VB that IN as IN president NN , , as RB well RB . .
congressman ron paul congressman texa
congress year
goal caus liberti constitut
presid

Well, I agree that Social Security is broke. We spent all the money and it's on its last legs unless we do something. One bill that I had in congress never got passed was to prevent the congress from spending any of that money on the wars and all the nonsense that we do around the world. Now the other thing that I would like to see done is a transition. I think it's terrible that the Social Security system is in the -- the problems it has, but if people wouldn't have spent the money we would be OK. Now, what I would like to do is to allow all the young people to get out of Social Security and go on their own. Now, the big question is, is how would the funding occur?
Well RB , , I PRP agree VBP that IN Social NNP Security NNP is VBZ broke VBN . . We PRP spent VBD all PDT the DT money NN and CC it PRP 's VBZ on IN its PRP$ last JJ legs NNS unless IN we PRP do VBP something NN . . One CD bill NN that IN I PRP had VBD in IN congress NN never RB got VBD passed VBN was VBD to TO prevent VB the DT congress NN from IN spending VBG any DT of IN that DT money NN on IN the DT wars NNS and CC all PDT the DT nonsense NN that IN we PRP do VBP around IN the DT world NN . . Now RB the DT other JJ thing NN that IN I PRP would MD like VB to TO see VB done VBN is VBZ a DT transition NN . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ terrible JJ that IN the DT Social NNP Security NNP system NN is VBZ in IN the DT -- : the DT problems NNS it PRP has VBZ , , but CC if IN people NNS would MD n't RB have VB spent VBN the DT money NN we PRP would MD be VB OK JJ . . Now RB , , what WP I PRP would MD like VB to TO do VB is VBZ to TO allow VB all PDT the DT young JJ people NNS to TO get VB out IN of IN Social NNP Security NNP and CC go VB on IN their PRP$ own JJ . . Now RB , , the DT big JJ question NN is VBZ , , is VBZ how WRB would MD the DT funding NN occur VB ? .
social secur
money leg someth
bill congress congress money war nonsens world
thing transit
social secur system problem peopl money
peopl social secur
question fund

Well, we shouldn't have never started it. I voted against it. But that sure wouldn't be on my high list. I would find a lot of cuts a lot of other places. As a matter of fact, on Social Security, it is already being reformed, because the cost of living increases aren't there, so the value is going down. So, no, there's places we should cut. And we cut -- we spend -- and I'm not sure I can get anybody to agree with me on here -- on this panel, but we spend $1.5 trillion overseas in wars that we don't need to be in and we need to cut there... [ applause ] ... and then put this money back into our economy here. And that is the only way to achieve it. Then it still wouldn't be enough in order to get some people out. What we need to do is cut the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and all these departments, and get rid of them. [ applause ] Then we can do it.
Well RB , , we PRP should MD n't RB have VB never RB started VBN it PRP . . I PRP voted VBD against IN it PRP . . But CC that IN sure RB would MD n't RB be VB on IN my PRP$ high JJ list NN . . I PRP would MD find VB a DT lot NN of IN cuts NNS a DT lot NN of IN other JJ places NNS . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , on IN Social NNP Security NNP , , it PRP is VBZ already RB being VBG reformed VBN , , because IN the DT cost NN of IN living NN increases NNS are VBP n't RB there RB , , so IN the DT value NN is VBZ going VBG down RP . . So RB , , no DT , , there EX 's POS places NNS we PRP should MD cut VB . . And CC we PRP cut VBP -- : we PRP spend VBP -- : and CC I PRP 'm VBP not RB sure JJ I PRP can MD get VB anybody NN to TO agree VB with IN me PRP on IN here RB -- : on IN this DT panel NN , , but CC we PRP spend VBP $ $ 1.5 CD trillion CD overseas RB in IN wars NNS that IN we PRP do VBP n't RB need VB to TO be VB in IN and CC we PRP need VBP to TO cut VB there RB ... : ... : and CC then RB put VB this DT money NN back RB into IN our PRP$ economy NN here RB . . And CC that DT is VBZ the DT only JJ way NN to TO achieve VB it PRP . . Then RB it PRP still RB would MD n't RB be VB enough RB in IN order NN to TO get VB some DT people NNS out RP . . What WP we PRP need VBP to TO do VB is VBZ cut VB the DT Department NNP of IN Education NNP , , the DT Department NNP of IN Energy NNP , , and CC all PDT these DT departments NNS , , and CC get VB rid JJ of IN them PRP . . Then RB we PRP can MD do VB it PRP . .
list
lot cut lot place
matter fact social secur cost live increas valu
place
anybodi panel war money economi
way
order peopl
depart educ depart energi depart

I'm a taxpayer there. My taxes have gone up. Our taxes have doubled since he's been in office. Our spending has gone up double. Our debt has gone up nearly triple. So, no. And 170,000 of the jobs were government jobs. So I would put a little damper on this, but I don't want to offend the governor, because he might raise my taxes or something. [ applause ]
I PRP 'm VBP a DT taxpayer NN there RB . . My PRP$ taxes NNS have VBP gone VBN up RP . . Our PRP$ taxes NNS have VBP doubled VBN since IN he PRP 's VBZ been VBN in IN office NN . . Our PRP$ spending NN has VBZ gone VBN up RP double RB . . Our PRP$ debt NN has VBZ gone VBN up RP nearly RB triple JJ . . So RB , , no DT . . And CC 170,000 CD of IN the DT jobs NNS were VBD government NN jobs NNS . . So RB I PRP would MD put VB a DT little JJ damper NN on IN this DT , , but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO offend VB the DT governor NN , , because IN he PRP might MD raise VB my PRP$ taxes NNS or CC something NN . .
taxpay
tax
tax offic
spend
debt
job govern job
damper governor tax someth

But I would like to mention something that we said earlier about a tax cut and can you -- how do you pay for a tax cut? I think that's the wrong principle, because when you give people their money back, it's their money. You don't have to pay for it. That means that the government owns all of our money if you look that way. [ applause ]
But CC I PRP would MD like VB to TO mention VB something NN that IN we PRP said VBD earlier RBR about IN a DT tax NN cut NN and CC can MD you PRP -- : how WRB do VBP you PRP pay VB for IN a DT tax NN cut NN ? . I PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ the DT wrong JJ principle NN , , because IN when WRB you PRP give VBP people NNS their PRP$ money NN back RB , , it PRP 's VBZ their PRP$ money NN . . You PRP do VBP n't RB have VB to TO pay VB for IN it PRP . . That DT means VBZ that IN the DT government NN owns VBZ all DT of IN our PRP$ money NN if IN you PRP look VBP that DT way NN . .
someth tax cut tax cut
principl peopl money money
govern money way

So we have to cut the spending, and a good way to start, there's a little embassy we built over in Baghdad that cost us a billion dollars. It's bigger than the Vatican. That's what's bankrupting this country, and that's the easy place to cut. That's where we should be cutting. [ applause ]
So RB we PRP have VBP to TO cut VB the DT spending NN , , and CC a DT good JJ way NN to TO start VB , , there EX 's VBZ a DT little JJ embassy NN we PRP built VBD over RP in IN Baghdad NNP that WDT cost VBD us PRP a DT billion CD dollars NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ bigger JJR than IN the DT Vatican NNP . . That DT 's VBZ what WP 's VBZ bankrupting VBG this DT country NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ the DT easy JJ place NN to TO cut VB . . That DT 's VBZ where WRB we PRP should MD be VB cutting VBG . .
spend way embassi baghdad dollar
vatican
countri place

The executive orders have been grossly abused by all administrations for a lot of years. If you can't -- some executive orders are legal. When the president executes proper function of the presidency like moving troops and other things, yes, it's done with an executive order. But the executive order should never be used to legislate. That is what is so bad. So the executive order should be taken under control. And I have made a promise that as president I would never use the executive order to legislate.
The DT executive NN orders NNS have VBP been VBN grossly RB abused VBN by IN all DT administrations NNS for IN a DT lot NN of IN years NNS . . If IN you PRP ca MD n't RB -- : some DT executive NN orders NNS are VBP legal JJ . . When WRB the DT president NN executes VBZ proper JJ function NN of IN the DT presidency NN like IN moving VBG troops NNS and CC other JJ things NNS , , yes UH , , it PRP 's VBZ done VBN with IN an DT executive JJ order NN . . But CC the DT executive JJ order NN should MD never RB be VB used VBN to TO legislate VB . . That DT is VBZ what WP is VBZ so RB bad JJ . . So RB the DT executive JJ order NN should MD be VB taken VBN under IN control NN . . And CC I PRP have VBP made VBN a DT promise NN that IN as IN president NN I PRP would MD never RB use VB the DT executive JJ order NN to TO legislate VB . .
execut order administr lot year
execut order
presid function presid troop thing order
order
order control
promis presid order

Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.
Well RB , , in IN a DT society NN that IN you PRP accept VBP welfarism NN and CC socialism NN , , he PRP expects VBZ the DT government NN to TO take VB care NN of IN him PRP . .
societi welfar social govern care

But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --
But CC what WP he PRP should MD do VB is VBZ whatever WDT he PRP wants VBZ to TO do VB , , and CC assume VB responsibility NN for IN himself PRP . . My PRP$ advice NN to TO him PRP would MD have VB a DT major JJ medical JJ policy NN , , but CC not RB be VB forced VBN -- :
respons
advic polici

That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody -- [ applause ]
That DT 's VBZ what WP freedom NN is VBZ all DT about IN , , taking VBG your PRP$ own JJ risks NNS . . This DT whole JJ idea NN that IN you PRP have VBP to TO prepare VB and CC take VB care NN of IN everybody NN -- :
freedom risk
idea care everybodi

No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. [ applause ]
No DT . . I PRP practiced VBD medicine NN before IN we PRP had VBD Medicaid NNP , , in IN the DT early JJ 1960s NNS , , when WRB I PRP got VBD out IN of IN medical JJ school NN . . I PRP practiced VBD at IN Santa NNP Rosa NNP Hospital NNP in IN San NNP Antonio NNP , , and CC the DT churches NNS took VBD care NN of IN them PRP . . We PRP never RB turned VBD anybody NN away RB from IN the DT hospitals NNS . .
medicin medicaid 1960s school
santa rosa hospit san antonio church care
anybodi hospit

And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.
And CC we PRP 've VBP given VBN up RP on IN this DT whole JJ concept NN that IN we PRP might MD take VB care NN of IN ourselves PRP and CC assume VB responsibility NN for IN ourselves PRP . . Our PRP$ neighbors NNS , , our PRP$ friends NNS , , our PRP$ churches NNS would MD do VB it PRP . . This DT whole JJ idea NN , , that DT 's VBZ the DT reason NN the DT cost NN is VBZ so RB high JJ . . The DT cost NN is VBZ so RB high JJ because IN they PRP dump VBP it PRP on IN the DT government NN , , it PRP becomes VBZ a DT bureaucracy NN . . It PRP becomes VBZ special JJ interests NNS . . It PRP kowtows VBZ to TO the DT insurance NN companies NNS and CC the DT drug NN companies NNS , , and CC then RB on IN top NN of IN that DT , , you PRP have VBP the DT inflation NN . . The DT inflation NN devalues VBZ the DT dollar NN , , we PRP have VBP lack NN of IN competition NN . .
concept care respons
neighbor friend church
idea reason cost
cost govern bureaucraci
interest
insur compani drug compani top inflat
inflat dollar lack competit

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want. [ applause ]
There EX 's VBZ no DT competition NN in IN medicine NN . . Everybody NN is VBZ protected VBN by IN licensing NN . . And CC we PRP should MD actually RB legalize VB alternative JJ health NN care NN , , allow VBP people NNS to TO practice VB what WP they PRP want VBP . .
competit medicin
everybodi licens
health care peopl

First thing I would like to do is make sure that you understand there's a difference between military spending and defense spending. I'm tired of all the militarism that we are involved in. And we're wasting this money in getting us involved. And I agree, we are still in danger, but most of the danger comes by our lack of wisdom on how we run our foreign policy. So I would say there's a lot of room to cut on the military, but not on the defense. You can slash the military spending. We don't need to be building airplanes that were used in World War II -- we're always fighting the last war. But we're under great threat, because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We're going broke. The purpose of al Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11, but we're there occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we're kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say, China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there? [ applause ]
First JJ thing NN I PRP would MD like VB to TO do VB is VBZ make VB sure JJ that IN you PRP understand VBP there EX 's VBZ a DT difference NN between IN military JJ spending NN and CC defense NN spending NN . . I PRP 'm VBP tired JJ of IN all PDT the DT militarism NN that IN we PRP are VBP involved VBN in IN . . And CC we PRP 're VBP wasting VBG this DT money NN in IN getting VBG us PRP involved VBN . . And CC I PRP agree VBP , , we PRP are VBP still RB in IN danger NN , , but CC most JJS of IN the DT danger NN comes VBZ by IN our PRP$ lack NN of IN wisdom NN on IN how WRB we PRP run VBP our PRP$ foreign JJ policy NN . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB there EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN of IN room NN to TO cut VB on IN the DT military NN , , but CC not RB on IN the DT defense NN . . You PRP can MD slash VB the DT military JJ spending NN . . We PRP do VBP n't RB need VB to TO be VB building VBG airplanes NNS that WDT were VBD used VBN in IN World NNP War NNP II NNP -- : we PRP 're VBP always RB fighting VBG the DT last JJ war NN . . But CC we PRP 're VBP under IN great JJ threat NN , , because IN we PRP occupy VBP so RB many JJ countries NNS . . We PRP 're VBP in IN 130 CD countries NNS . . We PRP have VBP 900 CD bases NNS around IN the DT world NN . . We PRP 're VBP going VBG broke RB . . The DT purpose NN of IN al JJ Qaeda NNP was VBD to TO attack VB us PRP , , invite VB us PRP over IN there RB , , where WRB they PRP can MD target VB us PRP . . And CC they PRP have VBP been VBN doing VBG it PRP . . They PRP have VBP more JJR attacks NNS against IN us PRP and CC the DT American JJ interests NNS per IN month NN than IN occurred VBD in IN all PDT the DT years NNS before IN 9/11 CD , , but CC we PRP 're VBP there RB occupying VBG their PRP$ land NN . . And CC if IN we PRP think VBP that IN we PRP can MD do VB that DT and CC not RB have VB retaliation NN , , we PRP 're VBP kidding VBG ourselves PRP . . We PRP have VBP to TO be VB honest JJ with IN ourselves PRP . . What WP would MD we PRP do VB if IN another DT country NN , , say VB , , China NNP , , did VBD to TO us PRP what WP we PRP do VBP to TO all PDT those DT countries NNS over IN there RB ? .
thing differ spend defens spend
militar
money
danger danger lack wisdom polici
lot room militari defens
spend
airplan world war ii war
threat countri
countri
base world
purpos qaeda
attack interest month year land
retali
countri china countri

So I would say a policy -- a foreign policy that takes care of our national defense, that we're willing to get along with people and trade with people, as the founders advised, there's no authority in the Constitution to be the policeman of the world, and no nation-building. Just remember, George Bush won the presidency on that platform in the year 2000. And I still think it's a good platform.
So RB I PRP would MD say VB a DT policy NN -- : a DT foreign JJ policy NN that WDT takes VBZ care NN of IN our PRP$ national JJ defense NN , , that IN we PRP 're VBP willing JJ to TO get VB along RP with IN people NNS and CC trade NN with IN people NNS , , as IN the DT founders NNS advised VBD , , there EX 's VBZ no DT authority NN in IN the DT Constitution NNP to TO be VB the DT policeman NN of IN the DT world NN , , and CC no DT nation-building NN . . Just RB remember VB , , George NNP Bush NNP won VBD the DT presidency NN on IN that DT platform NN in IN the DT year NN 2000 CD . . And CC I PRP still RB think VBP it PRP 's VBZ a DT good JJ platform NN . .
polici polici care defens peopl trade peopl founder author constitut policeman world nation-build
georg bush presid platform year
platform

As long as this country follows that idea, we're going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this, and they're attacking us because we're free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit -- they have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing -- [ booing ]
As RB long RB as IN this DT country NN follows VBZ that DT idea NN , , we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO be VB under IN a DT lot NN of IN danger NN . . This DT whole JJ idea NN that IN the DT whole JJ Muslim NNP world NN is VBZ responsible JJ for IN this DT , , and CC they PRP 're VBP attacking VBG us PRP because IN we PRP 're VBP free JJ and CC prosperous JJ , , that WDT is VBZ just RB not RB true JJ . . Osama NNP bin NN Laden NNP and CC al NNP Qaeda NNP have VBP been VBN explicit JJ -- : they PRP have VBP been VBN explicit JJ , , and CC they PRP wrote VBD and CC said VBD that IN we PRP attacked VBD America NNP because IN you PRP had VBD bases NNS on IN our PRP$ holy JJ land NN in IN Saudi NNP Arabia NNP , , you PRP do VBP not RB give VB Palestinians NNPS fair JJ treatment NN , , and CC you PRP have VBP been VBN bombing NN -- :
countri idea lot danger
idea muslim world
osama bin laden al qaeda america base land saudi arabia palestinian treatment bomb

I didn't say that. I'm trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing, at the same time we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you're not annoyed, then there's some problem.
I PRP did VBD n't RB say VB that DT . . I PRP 'm VBP trying VBG to TO get VB you PRP to TO understand VB what WP the DT motive NN was VBD behind IN the DT bombing NN , , at IN the DT same JJ time NN we PRP had VBD been VBN bombing NN and CC killing VBG hundreds NNS of IN thousands NNS of IN Iraqis NNPS for IN 10 CD years NNS . . Would MD you PRP be VB annoyed VBN ? . If IN you PRP 're VBP not RB annoyed JJ , , then RB there EX 's VBZ some DT problem NN . .
motiv bomb time bomb hundr thousand iraqi year
problem

I'd bring a bushel basket full of common sense. And I would also bring a course in Austrian economics to teach the people... [ applause ] ... the business cycle and why the Fed creates inflation and depressions and all our unemployment problems.
I PRP 'd MD bring VB a DT bushel NN basket NN full JJ of IN common JJ sense NN . . And CC I PRP would MD also RB bring VB a DT course NN in IN Austrian JJ economics NNS to TO teach VB the DT people NNS ... : ... : the DT business NN cycle NN and CC why WRB the DT Fed NNP creates VBZ inflation NN and CC depressions NNS and CC all DT our PRP$ unemployment NN problems NNS . .
bushel basket sens
cours econom peopl busi cycl fed inflat depress unemploy problem

I think in theory, if you understood the free market in a free society, you don't need government to do that. We live in a society where we have been adapted to this, and you can't just drop it all at once, but you can transition away from it. On regulations, no, I don't believe in any of these federal regulations, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in regulations. The regulation of the marketplace takes care of it. Just think if we had the regulations on the market that dealt with the bankruptcies? They'd have had to go bankrupt. We wouldn't have been able to bail out the big banks and the big corporations and dump onto poor people. So the market would dictate it. You can't commit fraud. If you need detailed regulations, you can do it at the state level. But the federal government is not authorized to nitpick every little transaction. The way they use the interstate commerce clause is outrageous, as far as I'm concerned.
I PRP think VBP in IN theory NN , , if IN you PRP understood VBD the DT free JJ market NN in IN a DT free JJ society NN , , you PRP do VBP n't RB need VB government NN to TO do VB that DT . . We PRP live VBP in IN a DT society NN where WRB we PRP have VBP been VBN adapted VBN to TO this DT , , and CC you PRP ca MD n't RB just RB drop VB it PRP all DT at IN once RB , , but CC you PRP can MD transition NN away RB from IN it PRP . . On IN regulations NNS , , no RB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB believe VB in IN any DT of IN these DT federal JJ regulations NNS , , but CC that DT does VBZ n't RB mean VB I PRP do VBP n't RB believe VB in IN regulations NNS . . The DT regulation NN of IN the DT marketplace NN takes VBZ care NN of IN it PRP . . Just RB think VB if IN we PRP had VBD the DT regulations NNS on IN the DT market NN that WDT dealt VBD with IN the DT bankruptcies NNS ? . They PRP 'd MD have VB had VBD to TO go VB bankrupt JJ . . We PRP would MD n't RB have VB been VBN able JJ to TO bail VB out RP the DT big JJ banks NNS and CC the DT big JJ corporations NNS and CC dump VB onto IN poor JJ people NNS . . So IN the DT market NN would MD dictate VB it PRP . . You PRP ca MD n't RB commit VB fraud NN . . If IN you PRP need VBP detailed JJ regulations NNS , , you PRP can MD do VB it PRP at IN the DT state NN level NN . . But CC the DT federal JJ government NN is VBZ not RB authorized VBN to TO nitpick VB every DT little JJ transaction NN . . The DT way NN they PRP use VBP the DT interstate JJ commerce NN clause NN is VBZ outrageous JJ , , as RB far RB as IN I PRP 'm VBP concerned JJ . .
theori market societi govern
societi transit
regul regul regul
regul marketplac care
regul market bankruptci
bank corpor peopl
market
fraud
regul state level
govern transact
way commerc claus

What I said is, theoretically, you could -- it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs? They do as much harm as good. They don't take good care of us. Who gets -- who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy. But you would have private institutions that could become credible. And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not, and they don't need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.
What WP I PRP said VBD is VBZ , , theoretically RB , , you PRP could MD -- : it PRP could MD be VB privatized VBN , , but CC who WP ends VBZ up RP doing VBG the DT regulations NNS on IN the DT drugs NNS ? . They PRP do VBP as RB much JJ harm NN as IN good JJ . . They PRP do VBP n't RB take VB good JJ care NN of IN us PRP . . Who WP gets VBZ -- : who WP gets VBZ to TO write VB the DT regulations NNS ? . The DT bureaucrats NNS write VBP the DT regulations NNS , , but CC who WP writes VBZ the DT laws NNS ? . The DT lobbyists NNS have VBP control NN , , so IN lobbyists NNS from IN the DT drug NN industry NN has VBZ control NN of IN writing VBG the DT regulations NNS , , so IN you PRP turn VBP it PRP over RP to TO the DT bureaucracy NN . . But CC you PRP would MD have VB private JJ institutions NNS that WDT could MD become VB credible JJ . . And CC , , I PRP mean VBP , , do VBP we PRP need VB the DT federal JJ government NN to TO tell VB us PRP whether IN we PRP buy VBP a DT safe JJ car NN ? . I PRP say VBP the DT consumers NNS of IN America NNP are VBP smart JJ enough RB to TO decide VB what WP kind NN of IN car NN they PRP can MD buy VB and CC whether IN it PRP 's VBZ safe JJ or CC not RB , , and CC they PRP do VBP n't RB need VB the DT federal JJ government NN hounding VBG them PRP and CC putting VBG so RB much JJ regulations NNS on IN that DT our PRP$ car NN industry NN has VBZ gone VBN overseas RB . .
regul drug
harm
care
regul
bureaucrat regul law
lobbyist control lobbyist drug industri control regul bureaucraci
institut
govern car
consum america kind car govern regul car industri

Absolutely. And it would help the poor, the people who need a job. The minimum wage is a mandate. We're against mandates, so why should we have it? No, it would be very beneficial. But I was trying to get your attention a little while ago. There's eight of us up here. I'm a physician, but you sure weren't going to ask me any medical question. But I would like to address that just a little bit. First off, you know, the governor of Texas criticized the governor of Massachusetts for Romneycare, but he wrote a really fancy letter supporting Hillarycare. So we probably ought to ask him about that. But mandates, that's what the whole society is about. That's what we do all the time. That's what government does: mandate, mandate, mandate. And what we -- we talk so much about the Obama mandate, which is very important, but what about Medicare? Isn't that a mandate? Everything we do is a mandate. So this is why you have to look at this at the cause of liberty. We don't need the government running our lives. And I -- I do want to address the subject of $2 oil or gasoline, because I can do it much better than that. I can get you a gallon of gasoline for a dime.
Absolutely RB . . And CC it PRP would MD help VB the DT poor JJ , , the DT people NNS who WP need VBP a DT job NN . . The DT minimum JJ wage NN is VBZ a DT mandate NN . . We PRP 're VBP against IN mandates NNS , , so RB why WRB should MD we PRP have VB it PRP ? . No RB , , it PRP would MD be VB very RB beneficial JJ . . But CC I PRP was VBD trying VBG to TO get VB your PRP$ attention NN a DT little JJ while NN ago RB . . There EX 's POS eight CD of IN us PRP up RP here RB . . I PRP 'm VBP a DT physician NN , , but CC you PRP sure RB were VBD n't RB going VBG to TO ask VB me PRP any DT medical JJ question NN . . But CC I PRP would MD like VB to TO address VB that IN just RB a DT little JJ bit NN . . First RB off RB , , you PRP know VBP , , the DT governor NN of IN Texas NNP criticized VBD the DT governor NN of IN Massachusetts NNP for IN Romneycare NNP , , but CC he PRP wrote VBD a DT really RB fancy JJ letter NN supporting VBG Hillarycare NNP . . So IN we PRP probably RB ought MD to TO ask VB him PRP about IN that DT . . But CC mandates NNS , , that DT 's VBZ what WP the DT whole JJ society NN is VBZ about IN . . That DT 's VBZ what WP we PRP do VBP all PDT the DT time NN . . That DT 's VBZ what WDT government NN does VBZ : : mandate VB , , mandate NN , , mandate NN . . And CC what WP we PRP -- : we PRP talk VBP so RB much JJ about IN the DT Obama NNP mandate NN , , which WDT is VBZ very RB important JJ , , but CC what WP about IN Medicare NNP ? . Is VBZ n't RB that IN a DT mandate NN ? . Everything NN we PRP do VBP is VBZ a DT mandate NN . . So RB this DT is VBZ why WRB you PRP have VBP to TO look VB at IN this DT at IN the DT cause NN of IN liberty NN . . We PRP do VBP n't RB need VB the DT government NN running VBG our PRP$ lives NNS . . And CC I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP want VB to TO address VB the DT subject NN of IN $ $ 2 CD oil NN or CC gasoline NN , , because IN I PRP can MD do VB it PRP much RB better JJR than IN that DT . . I PRP can MD get VB you PRP a DT gallon NN of IN gasoline NN for IN a DT dime NN . .
peopl job
wage mandat
mandat
attent while
physician question
bit
governor texa governor massachusett romneycar letter hillarycar
mandat societi
time
govern mandat mandat
obama mandat medicar
mandat
everyth mandat
caus liberti
govern live
subject oil gasolin
gallon gasolin dime

Well, I've got to finish the sentence. You didn't give me time before. [ crosstalk ]
Well RB , , I PRP 've VBP got VBN to TO finish VB the DT sentence NN . . You PRP did VBD n't RB give VB me PRP time NN before RB . .
sentenc
time

OK, I'm going to finish the sentence then.
OK JJ , , I PRP 'm VBP going VBG to TO finish VB the DT sentence NN then RB . .
sentenc

OK, you can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations.
OK JJ , , you PRP can MD buy VB a DT gallon NN of IN gasoline NN today NN for IN a DT silver NN dime NN . . A DT silver NN dime NN is VBZ worth JJ $ $ 3.50 CD . . It PRP 's VBZ all DT about IN inflation NN and CC too RB many JJ regulations NNS . .
gallon gasolin today silver dime
silver dime
inflat regul

Oh, I need an answer on that. [ laughter ] [ crosstalk ]
Oh UH , , I PRP need VBP an DT answer NN on IN that DT . .
answer

I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four in Texas -- one of four members of Congress that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported his -- his -- all his issues and all his programs. But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message.
I PRP strongly RB supported VBD Ronald NNP Reagan NNP . . I PRP was VBD one CD of IN four CD in IN Texas NNP -- : one CD of IN four CD members NNS of IN Congress NNP that WDT supported VBD Reagan NNP in IN '76 CD . . And CC I PRP supported VBD him PRP all RB along RB , , and CC I PRP supported VBD his PRP$ -- : his PRP$ -- : all PDT his PRP$ issues NNS and CC all PDT his PRP$ programs NNS . . But CC in IN the DT 1980s CD , , we PRP spent VBD too RB much JJ , , we PRP taxed VBD too RB much JJ , , we PRP built VBD up RP our PRP$ deficits NNS , , and CC it PRP was VBD a DT bad JJ scene NN . . Therefore RB , , I PRP support VBP the DT message NN of IN Ronald NNP Reagan NNP . . The DT message NN was VBD great JJ . . But CC the DT consequence NN , , we PRP have VBP to TO be VB honest JJ with IN ourselves PRP . . It PRP was VBD not RB all PDT that DT great JJ . . Huge JJ deficits NNS during IN the DT 1980s NNS , , and CC that DT is VBZ what WP my PRP$ criticism NN was VBD for IN , , not RB for IN Ronald NNP Reagan NNP 's POS message NN . . His PRP$ message NN is VBZ a DT great JJ message NN . .
ronald reagan
texa member congress reagan
issu program
deficit scene
messag ronald reagan
messag
consequ
deficit 1980s critic ronald reagan messag
messag messag

Much more so, yes. Just take the HPV. Forcing 12-year-old girls to take an inoculation to prevent this sexually transmitted disease, this is not good medicine, I do not believe. I think it's social misfit. It's not good social policy. And therefore, I think this is very bad to do this. But one of the worst parts about that was the way it was done. You know, the governorship in Texas traditionally is supposed to be a weak governorship. I didn't even know they could pass laws by writing an executive order. He did it with an executive order, passed it. The state was furious, and the legislature, overwhelmingly, probably 90 percent -- I don't know exactly -- overwhelmingly repealed this. But I think it's the way it was passed, which was so bad. I think it's a bad piece of legislation. But I don't like the idea of executive orders. I, as president, will not use the executive order to write laws.
Much RB more RBR so RB , , yes RB . . Just RB take VB the DT HPV NNP . . Forcing VBG 12-year-old JJ girls NNS to TO take VB an DT inoculation NN to TO prevent VB this DT sexually RB transmitted JJ disease NN , , this DT is VBZ not RB good JJ medicine NN , , I PRP do VBP not RB believe VB . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ social JJ misfit NN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB good JJ social JJ policy NN . . And CC therefore RB , , I PRP think VBP this DT is VBZ very RB bad JJ to TO do VB this DT . . But CC one CD of IN the DT worst JJS parts NNS about IN that DT was VBD the DT way NN it PRP was VBD done VBN . . You PRP know VBP , , the DT governorship NN in IN Texas NNP traditionally RB is VBZ supposed VBN to TO be VB a DT weak JJ governorship NN . . I PRP did VBD n't RB even RB know VB they PRP could MD pass VB laws NNS by IN writing VBG an DT executive JJ order NN . . He PRP did VBD it PRP with IN an DT executive JJ order NN , , passed VBD it PRP . . The DT state NN was VBD furious JJ , , and CC the DT legislature NN , , overwhelmingly RB , , probably RB 90 CD percent NN -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB know VB exactly RB -- : overwhelmingly RB repealed VBN this DT . . But CC I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ the DT way NN it PRP was VBD passed VBN , , which WDT was VBD so RB bad JJ . . I PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ a DT bad JJ piece NN of IN legislation NN . . But CC I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB the DT idea NN of IN executive NN orders NNS . . I PRP , , as IN president NN , , will MD not RB use VB the DT executive JJ order NN to TO write VB laws NNS . .
hpv
girl inocul diseas medicin
misfit
polici
part way
governorship texa governorship
law order
order
state legislatur percent
way
piec legisl
idea execut order
presid order law

With the airlines that are responsible for carrying their cargo and their passengers. I mean, why -- why should we assume that a bureaucracy can do better? And look at the monstrosity we have at the airports. These TSA agents are abusive. Sometimes they're accused of all kinds of sexual activities on the way they maul people at the airport. So the airlines could do that.
With IN the DT airlines NNS that WDT are VBP responsible JJ for IN carrying VBG their PRP$ cargo NN and CC their PRP$ passengers NNS . . I PRP mean VBP , , why WRB -- : why WRB should MD we PRP assume VB that IN a DT bureaucracy NN can MD do VB better RBR ? . And CC look VB at IN the DT monstrosity NN we PRP have VBP at IN the DT airports NNS . . These DT TSA NNP agents NNS are VBP abusive JJ . . Sometimes RB they PRP 're VBP accused VBN of IN all DT kinds NNS of IN sexual JJ activities NNS on IN the DT way NN they PRP maul VBP people NNS at IN the DT airport NN . . So IN the DT airlines NNS could MD do VB that DT . .
airlin cargo passeng
bureaucraci
monstros airport
tsa agent
kind activ way peopl airport
airlin

The -- you know, I would -- I would think the airlines should treat passengers as well as a company that hauls money around, and they -- they protect their money. They have private guards. And -- and they could do it. Just remember, 9/11 came about because there was too much government. Government was more or less in charge. They told the pilots they couldn't have guns, and they were told never to resist. They set up the stage for all this. So, no, private -- private markets do a good job in protecting -- much better than this bureaucracy called the TSA, let me tell you.
The DT -- : you PRP know VBP , , I PRP would MD -- : I PRP would MD think VB the DT airlines NNS should MD treat VB passengers NNS as RB well RB as IN a DT company NN that WDT hauls VBZ money NN around RB , , and CC they PRP -- : they PRP protect VBP their PRP$ money NN . . They PRP have VBP private JJ guards NNS . . And CC -- : and CC they PRP could MD do VB it PRP . . Just RB remember VB , , 9/11 CD came VBD about RB because IN there EX was VBD too RB much JJ government NN . . Government NNP was VBD more JJR or CC less JJR in IN charge NN . . They PRP told VBD the DT pilots NNS they PRP could MD n't RB have VB guns NNS , , and CC they PRP were VBD told VBN never RB to TO resist VB . . They PRP set VBD up RP the DT stage NN for IN all PDT this DT . . So RB , , no DT , , private JJ -- : private JJ markets NNS do VBP a DT good JJ job NN in IN protecting VBG -- : much RB better JJR than IN this DT bureaucracy NN called VBD the DT TSA NNP , , let VB me PRP tell VB you PRP . .
airlin passeng compani money money
guard
govern
govern charg
pilot gun
stage
market job bureaucraci tsa

Well, what happened before 1979? We didn't have FEMA. And that -- FEMA just conditioned people to build where they shouldn't be building. We lose the market effect of that. But, yeah, my position is, we should have never had it. There's a much better way of doing it. I mean, this whole idea that the federal government can deal with weather and anything in the world, just got to throw a government there -- FEMA's broke. They're $20 billion in debt. But I'm not for saying tomorrow close it down. A lot of people pay the insurance. I work real hard to make it work, and I did that in my district, too. But I'll tell you how we should do it. We're spending -- believe it or not, this blew my mind when I read this -- $20 billion a year for air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq in the tents over there and all the air conditioning. Cut that $20 billion out, bring in -- take $10 off the debt, and put $10 into FEMA or whoever else needs it, child health care or whatever. But I'll tell you what, if we did that and took the air conditioning out of the Green Zone, our troops would come home, and that would make me happy. [ applause ]
Well RB , , what WP happened VBD before IN 1979 CD ? . We PRP did VBD n't RB have VB FEMA NNP . . And CC that DT -- : FEMA NNP just RB conditioned VBD people NNS to TO build VB where WRB they PRP should MD n't RB be VB building VBG . . We PRP lose VBP the DT market NN effect NN of IN that DT . . But CC , , yeah NN , , my PRP$ position NN is VBZ , , we PRP should MD have VB never RB had VBD it PRP . . There EX 's VBZ a DT much RB better JJR way NN of IN doing VBG it PRP . . I PRP mean VBP , , this DT whole JJ idea NN that IN the DT federal JJ government NN can MD deal VB with IN weather NN and CC anything NN in IN the DT world NN , , just RB got VBD to TO throw VB a DT government NN there RB -- : FEMA NNP 's POS broke VBD . . They PRP 're VBP $ $ 20 CD billion CD in IN debt NN . . But CC I PRP 'm VBP not RB for IN saying VBG tomorrow NN close NN it PRP down RP . . A DT lot NN of IN people NNS pay VBP the DT insurance NN . . I PRP work VBP real RB hard JJ to TO make VB it PRP work VB , , and CC I PRP did VBD that IN in IN my PRP$ district NN , , too RB . . But CC I PRP 'll MD tell VB you PRP how WRB we PRP should MD do VB it PRP . . We PRP 're VBP spending VBG -- : believe VBP it PRP or CC not RB , , this DT blew VBD my PRP$ mind NN when WRB I PRP read VBP this DT -- : $ $ 20 CD billion CD a DT year NN for IN air NN conditioning NN in IN Afghanistan NNP and CC Iraq NNP in IN the DT tents NNS over IN there EX and CC all PDT the DT air NN conditioning NN . . Cut NNP that IN $ $ 20 CD billion CD out IN , , bring VB in RP -- : take VB $ $ 10 CD off IN the DT debt NN , , and CC put VBD $ $ 10 CD into IN FEMA NNP or CC whoever WP else RB needs VBZ it PRP , , child NN health NN care NN or CC whatever WDT . . But CC I PRP 'll MD tell VB you PRP what WP , , if IN we PRP did VBD that IN and CC took VBD the DT air NN conditioning NN out IN of IN the DT Green NNP Zone NNP , , our PRP$ troops NNS would MD come VB home NN , , and CC that DT would MD make VB me PRP happy JJ . .
fema
fema peopl
market effect
yeah posit
way
idea govern weather anyth world govern fema
debt
tomorrow close
lot peopl insur
district
mind year air condit afghanistan iraq tent air condit
cut debt fema child health care
air condit green zone troop home

Obviously, it's a very big problem. I think we need to remove the incentive -- easy road to citizenship. Nobody has mentioned the fact that they qualify for benefits as well, you know, the welfare benefits. We shouldn't have to give -- the state of Texas shouldn't be forced to provide free health care and free education. But there is a mess down there, and it's a big mess. And it's the drug war that's going on there. And our drug laws are driving this. So now we're killing thousands and thousands of people. That makes it much more complicated. But the people who want big fences and guns, sure, we can secure the borders -- a barbed-wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. I don't believe that's what America is all about. I just really don't. We can enforce our law. If we had a healthy economy, this wouldn't be such a bad deal. People are worrying about jobs. But every time you think about this toughness on the border and I.D. cards and real ideas, think that it's a penalty against the American people, too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to lead with their capital. And there's capital controls and there's people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.
Obviously RB , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT very RB big JJ problem NN . . I PRP think VBP we PRP need VBP to TO remove VB the DT incentive NN -- : easy JJ road NN to TO citizenship NN . . Nobody NN has VBZ mentioned VBN the DT fact NN that IN they PRP qualify VBP for IN benefits NNS as RB well RB , , you PRP know VBP , , the DT welfare NN benefits NNS . . We PRP should MD n't RB have VB to TO give VB -- : the DT state NN of IN Texas NNP should MD n't RB be VB forced VBN to TO provide VB free JJ health NN care NN and CC free JJ education NN . . But CC there EX is VBZ a DT mess NN down IN there RB , , and CC it PRP 's VBZ a DT big JJ mess NN . . And CC it PRP 's VBZ the DT drug NN war NN that WDT 's VBZ going VBG on RP there RB . . And CC our PRP$ drug NN laws NNS are VBP driving VBG this DT . . So RB now RB we PRP 're VBP killing VBG thousands NNS and CC thousands NNS of IN people NNS . . That DT makes VBZ it PRP much RB more RBR complicated JJ . . But CC the DT people NNS who WP want VBP big JJ fences NNS and CC guns NNS , , sure RB , , we PRP can MD secure VB the DT borders NNS -- : a DT barbed-wire JJ fence NN with IN machine NN guns NNS , , that WDT would MD do VB the DT trick NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB believe VB that DT 's VBZ what WP America NNP is VBZ all DT about IN . . I PRP just RB really RB do VBP n't RB . . We PRP can MD enforce VB our PRP$ law NN . . If IN we PRP had VBD a DT healthy JJ economy NN , , this DT would MD n't RB be VB such JJ a DT bad JJ deal NN . . People NNS are VBP worrying VBG about IN jobs NNS . . But CC every DT time NN you PRP think VBP about IN this DT toughness NN on IN the DT border NN and CC I.D NNP . . cards NNS and CC real JJ ideas NNS , , think VBP that IN it PRP 's VBZ a DT penalty NN against IN the DT American JJ people NNS , , too RB . . I PRP think VBP this DT fence NN business NN is VBZ designed VBN and CC may MD well RB be VB used VBN against IN us PRP and CC keep VB us PRP in IN . . In IN economic JJ turmoil NN , , the DT people NNS want VBP to TO lead VB with IN their PRP$ capital NN . . And CC there EX 's VBZ capital NN controls NNS and CC there EX 's POS people NNS control NN . . So RB , , every DT time NN you PRP think VBP of IN fence NN keeping VBG all PDT those DT bad JJ people NNS out IN , , think VB about IN those DT fences NNS maybe RB being VBG used VBN against IN us PRP , , keeping VBG us PRP in IN . .
problem
incent road citizenship
nobodi fact benefit welfar benefit
state texa health care educ
mess mess
drug war
drug law
thousand thousand peopl
peopl fenc gun border fenc machin gun trick
america
law
economi deal
peopl job
time tough border i.d
card idea penalti peopl
fenc busi
turmoil peopl capit
capit control peopl control
time fenc peopl fenc

Well, I'm sure, when he did that, he did it with local government, and there's no rules against that. That'd be fine. So that doesn't imply that you want to endorse the entire welfare state. You imply I'd endorse all welfare. Any time I challenge it, you're going to challenge the whole welfare system. No. It isn't authorized in the Constitution for us to run a welfare state. And it doesn't work. All it's filled up with is mandates. And the mandates are what we're objecting to. I want to repeal all the mandates. But, yes, if there are poor people in Texas, we have a responsibility -- I'd like to see it voluntary as possible -- but under our Constitution, our states have that right -- if they feel the obligation, they have a perfect right to. So don't always try to turn around and say that we who believe in liberty, we lack compassion, because we who believe in liberty and understand the market, we're the only ones that really understand how people are taken care of, how they are fed, and how people have jobs. It's the market. It's never the government that does it. So this whole idea that there's something wrong with people who don't lavish out free stuff from the federal government somehow aren't compassionate enough. I resist those accusations. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP 'm VBP sure JJ , , when WRB he PRP did VBD that IN , , he PRP did VBD it PRP with IN local JJ government NN , , and CC there EX 's VBZ no DT rules NNS against IN that DT . . That DT 'd MD be VB fine JJ . . So IN that DT does VBZ n't RB imply VB that IN you PRP want VBP to TO endorse VB the DT entire JJ welfare NN state NN . . You PRP imply VBP I PRP 'd MD endorse VB all DT welfare NN . . Any DT time NN I PRP challenge VBP it PRP , , you PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO challenge VB the DT whole JJ welfare NN system NN . . No DT . . It PRP is VBZ n't RB authorized VBN in IN the DT Constitution NNP for IN us PRP to TO run VB a DT welfare NN state NN . . And CC it PRP does VBZ n't RB work VB . . All DT it PRP 's VBZ filled VBN up RP with IN is VBZ mandates NNS . . And CC the DT mandates NNS are VBP what WP we PRP 're VBP objecting VBG to TO . . I PRP want VBP to TO repeal VB all PDT the DT mandates NNS . . But CC , , yes UH , , if IN there EX are VBP poor JJ people NNS in IN Texas NNP , , we PRP have VBP a DT responsibility NN -- : I PRP 'd MD like VB to TO see VB it PRP voluntary JJ as IN possible JJ -- : but CC under IN our PRP$ Constitution NNP , , our PRP$ states NNS have VBP that DT right NN -- : if IN they PRP feel VBP the DT obligation NN , , they PRP have VBP a DT perfect JJ right NN to TO . . So RB do VBP n't RB always RB try VB to TO turn VB around RP and CC say VBP that IN we PRP who WP believe VBP in IN liberty NN , , we PRP lack VBP compassion NN , , because IN we PRP who WP believe VBP in IN liberty NN and CC understand VB the DT market NN , , we PRP 're VBP the DT only JJ ones NNS that WDT really RB understand VBP how WRB people NNS are VBP taken VBN care NN of IN , , how WRB they PRP are VBP fed VBN , , and CC how WRB people NNS have VBP jobs NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ the DT market NN . . It PRP 's VBZ never RB the DT government NN that WDT does VBZ it PRP . . So RB this DT whole JJ idea NN that IN there EX 's VBZ something NN wrong JJ with IN people NNS who WP do VBP n't RB lavish JJ out IN free JJ stuff NN from IN the DT federal JJ government NN somehow RB are VBP n't RB compassionate JJ enough RB . . I PRP resist VBP those DT accusations NNS . .
govern rule
welfar state
welfar
time welfar system
constitut welfar state
mandat
mandat
mandat
peopl texa respons constitut state right oblig right
liberti compass liberti market one peopl care peopl job
market
govern
idea someth peopl stuff govern
accus

Well, that's a difficult question because that's a long list. I would rather give you me the list of one of the things we should keep. That would be a short list. [ laughter ]
Well RB , , that DT 's VBZ a DT difficult JJ question NN because IN that DT 's VBZ a DT long JJ list NN . . I PRP would MD rather RB give VB you PRP me PRP the DT list NN of IN one CD of IN the DT things NNS we PRP should MD keep VB . . That DT would MD be VB a DT short JJ list NN . .
question list
list thing
list

Well, we should have a system of sound money and property rights and contracts. We should have a judicial system. We should have a government that -- and a defense of this country. That was not meant to be for the states. But not a heck of a lot else. We weren't supposed to have 100,000 federal bureaucrats who carry guns. People are supposed to carry the guns, not the bureaucrats. So, no, I think everything should be up for grabs, and it should be grossly reduced. And both parties have added departments endlessly for the last five, six, seven decades, and that's why freedom is not the issue anymore. It's tyranny, it's big government. We're trying to struggle, to hang on to this. But I think we're in a desperate state of affairs because it's slipping by. And with the economy in shambles like we have today, I think we're in much bigger trouble than a lot of people realize.
Well RB , , we PRP should MD have VB a DT system NN of IN sound JJ money NN and CC property NN rights NNS and CC contracts NNS . . We PRP should MD have VB a DT judicial JJ system NN . . We PRP should MD have VB a DT government NN that WDT -- : and CC a DT defense NN of IN this DT country NN . . That DT was VBD not RB meant VBN to TO be VB for IN the DT states NNS . . But CC not RB a DT heck NN of IN a DT lot NN else RB . . We PRP were VBD n't RB supposed VBN to TO have VB 100,000 CD federal JJ bureaucrats NNS who WP carry VBP guns NNS . . People NNS are VBP supposed VBN to TO carry VB the DT guns NNS , , not RB the DT bureaucrats NNS . . So RB , , no DT , , I PRP think VBP everything NN should MD be VB up RP for IN grabs NNS , , and CC it PRP should MD be VB grossly RB reduced VBN . . And CC both DT parties NNS have VBP added VBN departments NNS endlessly RB for IN the DT last JJ five CD , , six CD , , seven CD decades NNS , , and CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB freedom NN is VBZ not RB the DT issue NN anymore RB . . It PRP 's VBZ tyranny NN , , it PRP 's VBZ big JJ government NN . . We PRP 're VBP trying VBG to TO struggle VB , , to TO hang VB on IN to TO this DT . . But CC I PRP think VBP we PRP 're VBP in IN a DT desperate JJ state NN of IN affairs NNS because IN it PRP 's VBZ slipping VBG by IN . . And CC with IN the DT economy NN in IN shambles NN like IN we PRP have VBP today NN , , I PRP think VBP we PRP 're VBP in IN much RB bigger JJR trouble NN than IN a DT lot NN of IN people NNS realize VBP . .
system money properti right contract
system
govern defens countri
state
heck lot
bureaucrat gun
peopl gun bureaucrat
everyth grab
parti depart decad freedom issu
tyranni govern
state affair
economi shambl today troubl lot peopl

Well, the president has a limit to what he can do because the Federal Reserve was created by the Congress. It could be restrained by the Congress, it could be eliminated by the Congress. But the most important thing is for the people to understand the business cycle. Who causes the business cycle and how do we get into recessions and depressions? And it has to do with the Federal Reserve. So, you can't wave a wand and get the Federal Reserve to -- even I, who have written about and talked about the Federal Reserve, I don't say close the Federal Reserve down in one day, but I would like to at least see competition. Why can't we legalize the Constitution on money? Competing currency, let gold and silver be used for legal tender. Today, if you use gold and silver, you can go to prison. And the counterfeiters are over there at the Federal Reserve. [ laughter ]
Well RB , , the DT president NN has VBZ a DT limit NN to TO what WP he PRP can MD do VB because IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP was VBD created VBN by IN the DT Congress NNP . . It PRP could MD be VB restrained VBN by IN the DT Congress NNP , , it PRP could MD be VB eliminated VBN by IN the DT Congress NNP . . But CC the DT most RBS important JJ thing NN is VBZ for IN the DT people NNS to TO understand VB the DT business NN cycle NN . . Who WP causes VBZ the DT business NN cycle NN and CC how WRB do VBP we PRP get VB into IN recessions NNS and CC depressions NNS ? . And CC it PRP has VBZ to TO do VB with IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . So RB , , you PRP ca MD n't RB wave NN a DT wand NN and CC get VB the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP to TO -- : even RB I PRP , , who WP have VBP written VBN about IN and CC talked VBD about IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP , , I PRP do VBP n't RB say VB close RB the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP down RB in IN one CD day NN , , but CC I PRP would MD like VB to TO at IN least JJS see VBP competition NN . . Why WRB ca MD n't RB we PRP legalize VB the DT Constitution NNP on IN money NN ? . Competing VBG currency NN , , let VB gold NN and CC silver NN be VB used VBN for IN legal JJ tender NN . . Today NN , , if IN you PRP use VBP gold NN and CC silver NN , , you PRP can MD go VB to TO prison NN . . And CC the DT counterfeiters NNS are VBP over IN there RB at IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . .
presid limit feder reserv congress
congress congress
thing peopl busi cycl
busi cycl recess depress
feder reserv
wave wand feder reserv feder reserv feder reserv day competit
constitut money
currenc gold silver tender
today gold silver prison
counterfeit feder reserv

So we need -- and you join me, and Steve as well, on auditing the Fed. It's very important. I mean, what we found out, even though we didn't get the audit -- we passed it in the House, but not in the Senate -- but what we got in the audit was that we found out in the bailout, the Fed was involved with $15 trillion passing out to their buddies, one-third of it going to foreign banks. I mean, this is such an outrage. It's bigger than the Congress itself, so it has to be reined in. And at certain periods of time in our history, Jefferson got rid of a central bank, Jackson got rid of a central bank. And when issues of money goes before the people, they always vote for sound money because it makes sense to say, why should the politicians be able to spend at will and then just print money when they need it? And then they wonder why we get into trouble. So, yes, we have to take the Fed on, because it does cause the business cycle -- if you want to understand recessions and depressions, you have to understand the Federal Reserve system.
So RB we PRP need VBP -- : and CC you PRP join VBP me PRP , , and CC Steve NNP as IN well RB , , on IN auditing NN the DT Fed NNP . . It PRP 's VBZ very RB important JJ . . I PRP mean VBP , , what WP we PRP found VBD out RP , , even RB though IN we PRP did VBD n't RB get VB the DT audit NN -- : we PRP passed VBD it PRP in IN the DT House NNP , , but CC not RB in IN the DT Senate NNP -- : but CC what WP we PRP got VBD in IN the DT audit NN was VBD that IN we PRP found VBD out RP in IN the DT bailout NN , , the DT Fed NNP was VBD involved VBN with IN $ $ 15 CD trillion CD passing VBG out RP to TO their PRP$ buddies NNS , , one-third NN of IN it PRP going VBG to TO foreign JJ banks NNS . . I PRP mean VBP , , this DT is VBZ such JJ an DT outrage NN . . It PRP 's VBZ bigger JJR than IN the DT Congress NNP itself PRP , , so IN it PRP has VBZ to TO be VB reined VBN in IN . . And CC at IN certain JJ periods NNS of IN time NN in IN our PRP$ history NN , , Jefferson NNP got VBD rid JJ of IN a DT central JJ bank NN , , Jackson NNP got VBD rid JJ of IN a DT central JJ bank NN . . And CC when WRB issues NNS of IN money NN goes VBZ before IN the DT people NNS , , they PRP always RB vote VBP for IN sound JJ money NN because IN it PRP makes VBZ sense NN to TO say VB , , why WRB should MD the DT politicians NNS be VB able JJ to TO spend VB at IN will NN and CC then RB just RB print NN money NN when WRB they PRP need VBP it PRP ? . And CC then RB they PRP wonder VBP why WRB we PRP get VBP into IN trouble NN . . So RB , , yes UH , , we PRP have VBP to TO take VB the DT Fed NNP on IN , , because IN it PRP does VBZ cause VB the DT business NN cycle NN -- : if IN you PRP want VBP to TO understand VB recessions NNS and CC depressions NNS , , you PRP have VBP to TO understand VB the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP system NN . .
steve audit fed
audit hous senat audit bailout fed buddi one-third bank
outrag
congress
period time histori jefferson bank jackson bank
issu money peopl money sens politician will print money
troubl
fed busi cycl recess depress feder reserv system

Well, what you need to do is repeal about 70 years of bad economic policy, which isn't all that easy because we follow Keynesian economics, and Keynesian economics teaches that you need to spend more money. No matter how much people are in debt and the government is in debt, they advocate just more spending. So you have to reverse that concept. Now, we have to do a lot. We have to repatriate our capital. When you have a weak currency, capital leaves our country. So we've been issuing the reserve currency of the world so our dollars go out and buy goods and services, so our jobs go with it. So you have to change that. So it's a monetary issue. But you also have to look at the tax code. You know, everybody is talking about cutting a little bit on the capital gains. I want to get rid of the capital gains tax and get rid of the income tax, shrink the federal government. Believe me, you would have the jobs then. But of course it's not going to be easy, because half the people in this country, they sort of like receiving your money, and they're not going to go away easily. But what it's going to lead to is the destruction of our currency and the bankruptcy of the country. And that's going to be much worse than somebody withstanding a cut. But you have to change that. You have to change the regulatory code, the tax code, the monetary system. And really, I believe you have to change the foreign policy, because that's a drain. All great nations fail because they spread themselves too widely around the world, and we've done it as well.
Well RB , , what WP you PRP need VBP to TO do VB is VBZ repeal VB about IN 70 CD years NNS of IN bad JJ economic JJ policy NN , , which WDT is VBZ n't RB all PDT that DT easy JJ because IN we PRP follow VBP Keynesian JJ economics NNS , , and CC Keynesian JJ economics NNS teaches VBZ that IN you PRP need VBP to TO spend VB more JJR money NN . . No DT matter NN how WRB much JJ people NNS are VBP in IN debt NN and CC the DT government NN is VBZ in IN debt NN , , they PRP advocate VBP just RB more JJR spending NN . . So RB you PRP have VBP to TO reverse VB that DT concept NN . . Now RB , , we PRP have VBP to TO do VB a DT lot NN . . We PRP have VBP to TO repatriate VB our PRP$ capital NN . . When WRB you PRP have VBP a DT weak JJ currency NN , , capital NN leaves VBZ our PRP$ country NN . . So RB we PRP 've VBP been VBN issuing VBG the DT reserve NN currency NN of IN the DT world NN so IN our PRP$ dollars NNS go VBP out RP and CC buy VB goods NNS and CC services NNS , , so IN our PRP$ jobs NNS go VBP with IN it PRP . . So RB you PRP have VBP to TO change VB that DT . . So IN it PRP 's VBZ a DT monetary JJ issue NN . . But CC you PRP also RB have VBP to TO look VB at IN the DT tax NN code NN . . You PRP know VBP , , everybody NN is VBZ talking VBG about IN cutting VBG a DT little JJ bit NN on IN the DT capital NN gains NNS . . I PRP want VBP to TO get VB rid JJ of IN the DT capital NN gains NNS tax NN and CC get VB rid JJ of IN the DT income NN tax NN , , shrink VB the DT federal JJ government NN . . Believe VB me PRP , , you PRP would MD have VB the DT jobs NNS then RB . . But CC of IN course NN it PRP 's VBZ not RB going VBG to TO be VB easy JJ , , because IN half PDT the DT people NNS in IN this DT country NN , , they PRP sort VBP of IN like IN receiving VBG your PRP$ money NN , , and CC they PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO go VB away RB easily RB . . But CC what WP it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO lead VB to TO is VBZ the DT destruction NN of IN our PRP$ currency NN and CC the DT bankruptcy NN of IN the DT country NN . . And CC that DT 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB much RB worse JJR than IN somebody NN withstanding VBG a DT cut NN . . But CC you PRP have VBP to TO change VB that DT . . You PRP have VBP to TO change VB the DT regulatory JJ code NN , , the DT tax NN code NN , , the DT monetary JJ system NN . . And CC really RB , , I PRP believe VBP you PRP have VBP to TO change VB the DT foreign JJ policy NN , , because IN that DT 's VBZ a DT drain NN . . All DT great JJ nations NNS fail VBP because IN they PRP spread VBP themselves PRP too RB widely RB around IN the DT world NN , , and CC we PRP 've VBP done VBN it PRP as RB well RB . .
year polici econom econom money
matter peopl debt govern debt spend
concept
lot
capit
currenc capit countri
reserv currenc world dollar good servic job
issu
tax code
everybodi bit capit gain
capit gain tax incom tax govern
job
cours peopl countri money
destruct currenc bankruptci countri
somebodi cut
code tax code system
polici drain
nation world

Well, I would take the advice of the founders and I would take the advice of George Bush when he ran in the year 2000 -- no nation- building. You know, don't go be the policemen of the world. He was highly critical of Clinton. So, I would say that we should have a foreign policy of staying out of entangling alliances. I mean, why should we cheer on the entangling alliance of NATO and the United Nations? Look at the mess we're in, in Libya, today. So I would say we should all be out of all those international organizations, we should defend this country. But it would mean bringing our troops home. [ applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP would MD take VB the DT advice NN of IN the DT founders NNS and CC I PRP would MD take VB the DT advice NN of IN George NNP Bush NNP when WRB he PRP ran VBD in IN the DT year NN 2000 CD -- : no DT nation- JJ building NN . . You PRP know VBP , , do VBP n't RB go VB be VB the DT policemen NNS of IN the DT world NN . . He PRP was VBD highly RB critical JJ of IN Clinton NNP . . So RB , , I PRP would MD say VB that IN we PRP should MD have VB a DT foreign JJ policy NN of IN staying VBG out IN of IN entangling VBG alliances NNS . . I PRP mean VBP , , why WRB should MD we PRP cheer VB on IN the DT entangling VBG alliance NN of IN NATO NNP and CC the DT United NNP Nations NNPS ? . Look VB at IN the DT mess NN we PRP 're VBP in IN , , in IN Libya NNP , , today NN . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB we PRP should MD all DT be VB out IN of IN all PDT those DT international JJ organizations NNS , , we PRP should MD defend VB this DT country NN . . But CC it PRP would MD mean VB bringing VBG our PRP$ troops NNS home NN . .
advic founder advic georg bush year build
policemen world
clinton
polici allianc
allianc nato unit nation
mess libya today
organ countri
troop home

Let the troops come home and spend their money here. Now, that would be a monetary injection I could support. But no, we're subsidizing the wealthier state of Germany by paying for their defense, and Japan, as well as South Korea.
Let VB the DT troops NNS come VBP home NN and CC spend VB their PRP$ money NN here RB . . Now RB , , that WDT would MD be VB a DT monetary JJ injection NN I PRP could MD support VB . . But CC no DT , , we PRP 're VBP subsidizing VBG the DT wealthier JJR state NN of IN Germany NNP by IN paying VBG for IN their PRP$ defense NN , , and CC Japan NNP , , as RB well RB as IN South NNP Korea NNP . .
troop home money
inject
state germani defens japan south korea

Well, I don't want any chance that they would raise taxes to balance the budget. And I support the general concept of a balanced budget amendment, but I emphasize the spending side of the equation, you know, that we have to cut the concept of government, the appetite for big government. And again, the balanced budget amendment, we should do it. Jefferson wanted to have it. They rejected him. But if you don't deal with the Fed spending more money than we spend, you know, it doesn't accomplish anything. They spent trillions of dollars more, so we have to deal with that whole concept.
Well RB , , I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB any DT chance NN that IN they PRP would MD raise VB taxes NNS to TO balance VB the DT budget NN . . And CC I PRP support VBP the DT general JJ concept NN of IN a DT balanced JJ budget NN amendment NN , , but CC I PRP emphasize VBP the DT spending NN side NN of IN the DT equation NN , , you PRP know VBP , , that IN we PRP have VBP to TO cut VB the DT concept NN of IN government NN , , the DT appetite NN for IN big JJ government NN . . And CC again RB , , the DT balanced JJ budget NN amendment NN , , we PRP should MD do VB it PRP . . Jefferson NNP wanted VBD to TO have VB it PRP . . They PRP rejected VBD him PRP . . But CC if IN you PRP do VBP n't RB deal VB with IN the DT Fed NNP spending VBG more JJR money NN than IN we PRP spend VBP , , you PRP know VBP , , it PRP does VBZ n't RB accomplish VB anything NN . . They PRP spent VBD trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS more RBR , , so IN we PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN that DT whole JJ concept NN . .
chanc tax budget
concept budget amend spend side equat concept govern appetit govern
budget amend
jefferson
fed money anyth
trillion dollar concept

Assuming you think that's a restricting, a good restriction --
Assuming VBG you PRP think VBP that DT 's VBZ a DT restricting VBG , , a DT good JJ restriction NN -- :
restrict

-- yes, I would lean toward doing that, but I don't think it's enough restrictions on there, because I think there's a fallacy in our GDP, because, you know, if we rebuild a lot of buildings because we have hurricanes, the GDP goes up. So the GDP is not a good measurement of economic growth. But no, I would certainly -- you know, most likely, I would support that, but I don't like the GDP approach because it's a deceptive economic term.
-- : yes RB , , I PRP would MD lean VB toward IN doing VBG that IN , , but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB it PRP 's VBZ enough JJ restrictions NNS on IN there RB , , because IN I PRP think VBP there EX 's VBZ a DT fallacy NN in IN our PRP$ GDP NNP , , because IN , , you PRP know VBP , , if IN we PRP rebuild VBP a DT lot NN of IN buildings NNS because IN we PRP have VBP hurricanes NNS , , the DT GDP NNP goes VBZ up IN . . So IN the DT GDP NNP is VBZ not RB a DT good JJ measurement NN of IN economic JJ growth NN . . But CC no DT , , I PRP would MD certainly RB -- : you PRP know VBP , , most RBS likely JJ , , I PRP would MD support VB that IN , , but CC I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB the DT GDP NNP approach NN because IN it PRP 's VBZ a DT deceptive JJ economic JJ term NN . .
restrict fallaci gdp lot build hurrican gdp
gdp measur growth
gdp approach term

Well, it's going to be difficult unless we change the attitude of the people, because we're living now with a third or fourth generation that have been taught that entitlements are rights. And liberty and rights don't have anything to do with entitlements. Entitlements means that you can take somebody else's money, and the government is there to redistribute it. So you can't do it. You know, waste, fraud and abuse. We have to do whatever we can. But that's not it. It's the philosophy of the entitlements system. But every time -- so often when we think about the entitlement, generally we think about, oh, somebody is going to get food stamps. Well, let me tell you, the big entitlements go to the big corporations. That's where a lot of money goes. You have to look at everybody who gets a check. And a lot of corporations get special benefits and checks. So that whole idea of redistribution of wealth has to be challenged. But any program that you can, you know, chisel away at, I think you have to do it. But that's the crisis we face, because we have witnessed this already. Every time you go and make a little cut -- some of our state governors are trying to make cuts, and there's a lot of dissent. A lot of people get very angry over it, and we have to be prepared for that, because the financial crisis is going to get a lot of worse. By next summer, the big tax is coming, and that's going to be the inflation tax, because we have fallen back on this idea that we can spend and print money, and the devaluation of our currency every single day is being devalued sharply. And if you look at its relationship to gold, you realize how big of a trouble it is that we're facing.
Well RB , , it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB difficult JJ unless IN we PRP change VBP the DT attitude NN of IN the DT people NNS , , because IN we PRP 're VBP living VBG now RB with IN a DT third JJ or CC fourth JJ generation NN that WDT have VBP been VBN taught VBN that IN entitlements NNS are VBP rights NNS . . And CC liberty NN and CC rights NNS do VBP n't RB have VB anything NN to TO do VB with IN entitlements NNS . . Entitlements NNS means VBZ that IN you PRP can MD take VB somebody NN else RB 's POS money NN , , and CC the DT government NN is VBZ there RB to TO redistribute VB it PRP . . So RB you PRP ca MD n't RB do VB it PRP . . You PRP know VBP , , waste NN , , fraud NN and CC abuse NN . . We PRP have VBP to TO do VB whatever WDT we PRP can MD . . But CC that DT 's VBZ not RB it PRP . . It PRP 's VBZ the DT philosophy NN of IN the DT entitlements NNS system NN . . But CC every DT time NN -- : so RB often RB when WRB we PRP think VBP about IN the DT entitlement NN , , generally RB we PRP think VBP about IN , , oh UH , , somebody NN is VBZ going VBG to TO get VB food NN stamps NNS . . Well RB , , let VB me PRP tell VB you PRP , , the DT big JJ entitlements NNS go VBP to TO the DT big JJ corporations NNS . . That DT 's VBZ where WRB a DT lot NN of IN money NN goes VBZ . . You PRP have VBP to TO look VB at IN everybody NN who WP gets VBZ a DT check NN . . And CC a DT lot NN of IN corporations NNS get VBP special JJ benefits NNS and CC checks NNS . . So RB that IN whole JJ idea NN of IN redistribution NN of IN wealth NN has VBZ to TO be VB challenged VBN . . But CC any DT program NN that IN you PRP can MD , , you PRP know VBP , , chisel VBP away RB at IN , , I PRP think VBP you PRP have VBP to TO do VB it PRP . . But CC that DT 's VBZ the DT crisis NN we PRP face VBP , , because IN we PRP have VBP witnessed VBN this DT already RB . . Every DT time NN you PRP go VBP and CC make VBP a DT little JJ cut NN -- : some DT of IN our PRP$ state NN governors NNS are VBP trying VBG to TO make VB cuts NNS , , and CC there EX 's VBZ a DT lot NN of IN dissent NN . . A DT lot NN of IN people NNS get VBP very RB angry JJ over IN it PRP , , and CC we PRP have VBP to TO be VB prepared VBN for IN that DT , , because IN the DT financial JJ crisis NN is VBZ going VBG to TO get VB a DT lot NN of IN worse JJR . . By IN next JJ summer NN , , the DT big JJ tax NN is VBZ coming VBG , , and CC that DT 's VBZ going VBG to TO be VB the DT inflation NN tax NN , , because IN we PRP have VBP fallen VBN back RB on IN this DT idea NN that IN we PRP can MD spend VB and CC print VB money NN , , and CC the DT devaluation NN of IN our PRP$ currency NN every DT single JJ day NN is VBZ being VBG devalued VBN sharply RB . . And CC if IN you PRP look VBP at IN its PRP$ relationship NN to TO gold NN , , you PRP realize VBP how WRB big JJ of IN a DT trouble NN it PRP is VBZ that IN we PRP 're VBP facing VBG . .
attitud peopl generat entitl right
liberti right anyth entitl
entitl somebodi money govern
wast fraud abus
philosophi entitl system
time entitl somebodi food stamp
entitl corpor
lot money
everybodi check
lot corpor benefit check
idea redistribut wealth
program
crisi
time cut state governor cut lot dissent
lot peopl crisi lot
summer tax inflat tax idea money devalu currenc day
relationship gold troubl

-- the courts and the states could immediately do what they want and we wouldn't waste the last ten years trying to stop the abortion. But when you refer and use the 14th Amendment, it implies that the 14th amendment repeal the Ninth and 10th amendment. I don't read that into that, the people who use the 14th to do almost anything they want because it's now a federal government. And it is true, the 14th Amendment has been used to increase the size and scope of the federal government, which I disagree with, because I think it should be held on a local level. But in no way should you interpret the 14th Amendment as repealing the 10th amendment in particular.
-- : the DT courts NNS and CC the DT states NNS could MD immediately RB do VB what WP they PRP want VBP and CC we PRP would MD n't RB waste VB the DT last JJ ten CD years NNS trying VBG to TO stop VB the DT abortion NN . . But CC when WRB you PRP refer VBP and CC use VBP the DT 14th JJ Amendment NNP , , it PRP implies VBZ that IN the DT 14th JJ amendment NN repeal NN the DT Ninth NNP and CC 10th JJ amendment NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB read VB that IN into IN that DT , , the DT people NNS who WP use VBP the DT 14th JJ to TO do VB almost RB anything NN they PRP want VBP because IN it PRP 's VBZ now RB a DT federal JJ government NN . . And CC it PRP is VBZ true JJ , , the DT 14th JJ Amendment NNP has VBZ been VBN used VBN to TO increase VB the DT size NN and CC scope NN of IN the DT federal JJ government NN , , which WDT I PRP disagree VBP with IN , , because IN I PRP think VBP it PRP should MD be VB held VBN on IN a DT local JJ level NN . . But CC in IN no DT way NN should MD you PRP interpret VB the DT 14th JJ Amendment NNP as IN repealing VBG the DT 10th JJ amendment NN in IN particular JJ . .
court state year abort
amend amend repeal ninth amend
peopl anyth govern
amend size scope govern level
way amend amend

If that were the case, no states would be involved in dealing with murder, injuries, second degree murder, manslaughter, robbery, armed robbery. Everything is still states. So you just can't pick up one. You should have no state laws against murders. Under your circumstances, it should be a federal issue.
If IN that DT were VBD the DT case NN , , no DT states NNS would MD be VB involved VBN in IN dealing VBG with IN murder NN , , injuries NNS , , second JJ degree NN murder NN , , manslaughter NN , , robbery NN , , armed JJ robbery NN . . Everything NNP is VBZ still RB states NNS . . So RB you PRP just RB ca MD n't RB pick VB up RP one CD . . You PRP should MD have VB no DT state NN laws NNS against IN murders NNS . . Under IN your PRP$ circumstances NNS , , it PRP should MD be VB a DT federal JJ issue NN . .
case state murder injuri degre murder manslaught robberi robberi
everyth state
state law murder
circumst issu

Well, if you wanted to stretch the interpretation and enhance the power of the central government rather than enhancing the power of the local government, because they deal with all acts of violence. I think they're quite capable. Some of these things are more difficult. Some states have capital punishment, some places don't. And it's still -- it's still -- I can understand your argument, but it really rejects the notion that the states were part of this republic we created. So if you get gradualism more and more, soon it's the interstate commerce clause and soon it's the general welfare clause. I think when we can and we certainly can, we've done it for all our history to deal with violence or murder. This has always been a state issue. And I don't see why we would have to turn that into a federal issue. As a matter of fact, the founders never even thought we should have a federal police force, but we do. We have a federal police force. And you're sort of asking for more policemen, you know, at the federal level, and I -- I don't understand what -- why we've met so much resistance on removing the jurisdiction from the federal courts. If we'd done that 10 years ago you would have saved millions and millions of abortions being done because the states could have prohibited it right away. You could have done it with a majority vote with the president signing it. You wouldn't have to wait for the constitution to be changed. You wouldn't have to wait for Roe versus Wade to be repealed by the courts.
Well RB , , if IN you PRP wanted VBD to TO stretch VB the DT interpretation NN and CC enhance VB the DT power NN of IN the DT central JJ government NN rather RB than IN enhancing VBG the DT power NN of IN the DT local JJ government NN , , because IN they PRP deal VBP with IN all DT acts NNS of IN violence NN . . I PRP think VBP they PRP 're VBP quite RB capable JJ . . Some DT of IN these DT things NNS are VBP more RBR difficult JJ . . Some DT states NNS have VBP capital NN punishment NN , , some DT places NNS do VBP n't RB . . And CC it PRP 's VBZ still RB -- : it PRP 's VBZ still RB -- : I PRP can MD understand VB your PRP$ argument NN , , but CC it PRP really RB rejects VBZ the DT notion NN that IN the DT states NNS were VBD part NN of IN this DT republic NN we PRP created VBD . . So RB if IN you PRP get VBP gradualism NN more JJR and CC more JJR , , soon RB it PRP 's VBZ the DT interstate JJ commerce NN clause NN and CC soon RB it PRP 's VBZ the DT general JJ welfare NN clause NN . . I PRP think VBP when WRB we PRP can MD and CC we PRP certainly RB can MD , , we PRP 've VBP done VBN it PRP for IN all DT our PRP$ history NN to TO deal VB with IN violence NN or CC murder NN . . This DT has VBZ always RB been VBN a DT state NN issue NN . . And CC I PRP do VBP n't RB see VB why WRB we PRP would MD have VB to TO turn VB that DT into IN a DT federal JJ issue NN . . As IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , the DT founders NNS never RB even RB thought VBD we PRP should MD have VB a DT federal JJ police NN force NN , , but CC we PRP do VBP . . We PRP have VBP a DT federal JJ police NN force NN . . And CC you PRP 're VBP sort NN of IN asking VBG for IN more JJR policemen NNS , , you PRP know VBP , , at IN the DT federal JJ level NN , , and CC I PRP -- : I PRP do VBP n't RB understand VB what WP -- : why WRB we PRP 've VBP met VBN so RB much JJ resistance NN on IN removing VBG the DT jurisdiction NN from IN the DT federal JJ courts NNS . . If IN we PRP 'd VBD done VBN that IN 10 CD years NNS ago IN you PRP would MD have VB saved VBN millions NNS and CC millions NNS of IN abortions NNS being VBG done VBN because IN the DT states NNS could MD have VB prohibited VBN it PRP right RB away RB . . You PRP could MD have VB done VBN it PRP with IN a DT majority NN vote NN with IN the DT president NN signing VBG it PRP . . You PRP would MD n't RB have VB to TO wait VB for IN the DT constitution NN to TO be VB changed VBN . . You PRP would MD n't RB have VB to TO wait VB for IN Roe NNP versus CC Wade NNP to TO be VB repealed VBN by IN the DT courts NNS . .
interpret power govern power govern act violenc
thing
state capit punish place
argument notion state part republ
gradual commerc claus welfar claus
histori violenc murder
state issu
issu
matter fact founder polic forc
polic forc
sort policemen level resist jurisdict court
year million million abort state
major vote presid
constitut
roe wade court

Well, obviously, it should be a state issue. It shouldn't be a federal issue. You even admitted it doesn't work very well. 10 no, it should be a state issue. But it has a responsibility, if you understand the economic environment that's necessary that the federal government can create -- sound money, don't overregulate, don't overtax, don't run up deficits. That's the environment that the federal government creates, destroys the job. The whole system of taxation and monetary policy sends our jobs overseas. So, yes, they have a responsibility. But to say yes, there's only a few people who need our help, so we're going to give food stamps for the very needy. Well, what happens is you give food stamps for the very wealthy and endorse that principle 100 percent.
Well RB , , obviously RB , , it PRP should MD be VB a DT state NN issue NN . . It PRP should MD n't RB be VB a DT federal JJ issue NN . . You PRP even RB admitted VBD it PRP does VBZ n't RB work VB very RB well RB . . 10 CD no RB , , it PRP should MD be VB a DT state NN issue NN . . But CC it PRP has VBZ a DT responsibility NN , , if IN you PRP understand VBP the DT economic JJ environment NN that WDT 's VBZ necessary JJ that IN the DT federal JJ government NN can MD create VB -- : sound JJ money NN , , do VBP n't RB overregulate VB , , do VBP n't RB overtax VB , , do VBP n't RB run VB up RP deficits NNS . . That DT 's VBZ the DT environment NN that IN the DT federal JJ government NN creates VBZ , , destroys VBZ the DT job NN . . The DT whole JJ system NN of IN taxation NN and CC monetary JJ policy NN sends VBZ our PRP$ jobs NNS overseas RB . . So RB , , yes UH , , they PRP have VBP a DT responsibility NN . . But CC to TO say VB yes RB , , there EX 's VBZ only RB a DT few JJ people NNS who WP need VBP our PRP$ help NN , , so IN we PRP 're VBP going VBG to TO give VB food NN stamps NNS for IN the DT very RB needy JJ . . Well RB , , what WP happens VBZ is VBZ you PRP give VBP food NN stamps NNS for IN the DT very RB wealthy JJ and CC endorse VB that DT principle NN 100 CD percent NN . .
state issu
issu
state issu
respons environ govern money deficit
environ govern job
system taxat polici job
respons
peopl help food stamp
food stamp principl percent

Well, they didn't downgrade it mainly because they couldn't come to a conclusion. They couldn't come to a conclusion because they didn't know what was going on. The country's bankrupt, and nobody wanted to admit it. And when you're bankrupt, you can't keep spending. And all these proposed cuts weren't cuts at all. What you have to do is restore sound money. You have to understand why you have a business cycle, why you have booms and busts. If you don't do that, there's no way you can solve these problems. And the booms and busts comes from a failed monetary system that --- the interest rates that are way lower than --- than they should be encourages malinvestment and debt. And to get out of that, all this other tinkering, you cannot do that unless you liquidate debt. You don't bail out the people that are bankrupt and dump the debt on the people. That is what's happened. So you have to allow liquidation of debt, eliminate the malinvestment. Then you go back and you can get growth again by having a better tax structure, lower taxes, invite capital back into this country, get a lot less regulations. And under those conditions, you can have growth again.
Well RB , , they PRP did VBD n't RB downgrade NN it PRP mainly RB because IN they PRP could MD n't RB come VB to TO a DT conclusion NN . . They PRP could MD n't RB come VB to TO a DT conclusion NN because IN they PRP did VBD n't RB know VB what WP was VBD going VBG on RP . . The DT country NN 's POS bankrupt JJ , , and CC nobody NN wanted VBD to TO admit VB it PRP . . And CC when WRB you PRP 're VBP bankrupt JJ , , you PRP ca MD n't RB keep VB spending NN . . And CC all PDT these DT proposed VBN cuts NNS were VBD n't RB cuts NNS at IN all DT . . What WP you PRP have VBP to TO do VB is VBZ restore VB sound JJ money NN . . You PRP have VBP to TO understand VB why WRB you PRP have VBP a DT business NN cycle NN , , why WRB you PRP have VBP booms NNS and CC busts NNS . . If IN you PRP do VBP n't RB do VB that DT , , there EX 's VBZ no DT way NN you PRP can MD solve VB these DT problems NNS . . And CC the DT booms NNS and CC busts NNS comes VBZ from IN a DT failed VBN monetary JJ system NN that IN - : the DT interest NN rates NNS that WDT are VBP way RB lower JJR than IN - : than IN they PRP should MD be VB encourages VBZ malinvestment NN and CC debt NN . . And CC to TO get VB out IN of IN that DT , , all PDT this DT other JJ tinkering NN , , you PRP can MD not RB do VB that DT unless IN you PRP liquidate VBP debt NN . . You PRP do VBP n't RB bail VB out RP the DT people NNS that WDT are VBP bankrupt JJ and CC dump VB the DT debt NN on IN the DT people NNS . . That DT is VBZ what WP 's VBZ happened VBN . . So RB you PRP have VBP to TO allow VB liquidation NN of IN debt NN , , eliminate VB the DT malinvestment NN . . Then RB you PRP go VBP back RB and CC you PRP can MD get VB growth NN again RB by IN having VBG a DT better JJR tax NN structure NN , , lower JJR taxes NNS , , invite VB capital NN back RB into IN this DT country NN , , get VB a DT lot NN less JJR regulations NNS . . And CC under IN those DT conditions NNS , , you PRP can MD have VB growth NN again RB . .
downgrad conclus
conclus
countri nobodi
spend
cut cut
money
busi cycl boom bust
way problem
boom bust system interest rate malinvest debt
tinker debt
peopl debt peopl
liquid debt malinvest
growth tax structur tax capit countri lot regul
condit growth

Well ... [ Pause ] The divided Congress will exist for a long time to come. Yes, you would have to get it through a --- you'd have to get it through a divided Congress. But the one thing is, if you approach it constitutionally and if you approach it on the principles of liberty, you can bring people together. If we have to cut, maybe we wouldn't be so --- so determined that you can't cut one nickel out of the militarism around the world. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans want to cut that. So if you want to cut, you have to put the militarism on the table, as well.
Well NNP ... : The DT divided VBN Congress NNP will MD exist VB for IN a DT long JJ time NN to TO come VB . . Yes RB , , you PRP would MD have VB to TO get VB it PRP through IN a DT - : you PRP 'd MD have VB to TO get VB it PRP through IN a DT divided VBN Congress NNP . . But CC the DT one CD thing NN is VBZ , , if IN you PRP approach VBP it PRP constitutionally RB and CC if IN you PRP approach VBP it PRP on IN the DT principles NNS of IN liberty NN , , you PRP can MD bring VB people NNS together RB . . If IN we PRP have VBP to TO cut VB , , maybe RB we PRP would MD n't RB be VB so RB - : so RB determined JJ that IN you PRP ca MD n't RB cut VB one CD nickel NN out IN of IN the DT militarism NN around IN the DT world NN . . Neither CC the DT Democrats NNPS or CC the DT Republicans NNPS want VBP to TO cut VB that DT . . So RB if IN you PRP want VBP to TO cut VB , , you PRP have VBP to TO put VB the DT militarism NN on IN the DT table NN , , as RB well RB . .
well congress time
congress
thing principl liberti peopl
nickel militar world
democrat republican
militar tabl

I don't like putting the burden on our businessmen to be the policemen. That means he has to be policing activity. And I also resent the fact that illegals come into this country, and they do have problems, but if a church helps them and feeds them, we don't blame the church, or at least we shouldn't in a free society. But I have a strong position on immigration. I don't think that we should give amnesty and they become voters. But I do think we should deal with our borders. But one way that I would suggest that we could do it is pay less attention to the borders between Afghanistan and Iraq and Pakistan and bring our troops home and deal with the border. But why do we pay more attention to the borders overseas and less attention to the borders here at home? We now have a mess on the borders, and it has a lot more to do with it than just immigration, because we're financing some of this militarism against the drug dealers on the borders right now to the tune of over $1 billion. And there is a mess down there, but it's much bigger than just the immigration problem. But I do not believe in giving entitlements to illegal immigrants at all. And there should be no mandates on the states to make them do it. [ Applause ]
I PRP do VBP n't RB like VB putting VBG the DT burden NN on IN our PRP$ businessmen NNS to TO be VB the DT policemen NNS . . That DT means VBZ he PRP has VBZ to TO be VB policing VBG activity NN . . And CC I PRP also RB resent VBP the DT fact NN that IN illegals NNS come VBP into IN this DT country NN , , and CC they PRP do VBP have VB problems NNS , , but CC if IN a DT church NN helps VBZ them PRP and CC feeds VBZ them PRP , , we PRP do VBP n't RB blame VB the DT church NN , , or CC at IN least JJS we PRP should MD n't RB in IN a DT free JJ society NN . . But CC I PRP have VBP a DT strong JJ position NN on IN immigration NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB that IN we PRP should MD give VB amnesty NN and CC they PRP become VBP voters NNS . . But CC I PRP do VBP think VB we PRP should MD deal VB with IN our PRP$ borders NNS . . But CC one CD way NN that IN I PRP would MD suggest VB that IN we PRP could MD do VB it PRP is VBZ pay VB less JJR attention NN to TO the DT borders NNS between IN Afghanistan NNP and CC Iraq NNP and CC Pakistan NNP and CC bring VB our PRP$ troops NNS home NN and CC deal NN with IN the DT border NN . . But CC why WRB do VBP we PRP pay VB more JJR attention NN to TO the DT borders NNS overseas RB and CC less JJR attention NN to TO the DT borders NNS here RB at IN home NN ? . We PRP now RB have VBP a DT mess NN on IN the DT borders NNS , , and CC it PRP has VBZ a DT lot NN more JJR to TO do VB with IN it PRP than IN just RB immigration NN , , because IN we PRP 're VBP financing VBG some DT of IN this DT militarism NN against IN the DT drug NN dealers NNS on IN the DT borders NNS right RB now RB to TO the DT tune NN of IN over IN $ $ 1 CD billion CD . . And CC there EX is VBZ a DT mess NN down IN there RB , , but CC it PRP 's VBZ much RB bigger JJR than IN just RB the DT immigration NN problem NN . . But CC I PRP do VBP not RB believe VB in IN giving VBG entitlements NNS to TO illegal JJ immigrants NNS at IN all DT . . And CC there EX should MD be VB no DT mandates NNS on IN the DT states NNS to TO make VB them PRP do VB it PRP . .
burden businessmen policemen
activ
fact illeg countri problem church church societi
posit immigr
amnesti voter
border
way attent border afghanistan iraq pakistan troop home deal border
attent border attent border home
mess border lot immigr militar drug dealer border tune
mess immigr problem
entitl immigr
mandat state

No, the way I would understand the Constitution, the federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things. And I would consider that a very bad thing, but you don't send in a federal police force because they're doing it and throw them in a court. So they do have that leeway under our Constitution. But we have big trouble in this medical care problem. And we have drifted so far from any of our care being delivered by the marketplace. And once you get the government involved --- and both parties have done it. They've developed a bit of a medical care delivery system based on corporatism. The corporations are doing quite well, whether it's Obama or under the Republicans. The drug companies do well. The insurance companies do well. The organized medicine do well. The management companies do well. The patient and the doctors suffer. There's a wedge. Every time you have the government get in here with these regulations, and have these mandates, there's a wedge driven in between the doctor and the patient. We have to get the people more control of their care, and that's why these medical savings accounts could at least introduce the notion of market delivery of medical care. [ Applause ]
No RB , , the DT way NN I PRP would MD understand VB the DT Constitution NNP , , the DT federal JJ government NN ca MD n't RB go VB in IN and CC prohibit VB the DT states NNS from IN doing VBG bad JJ things NNS . . And CC I PRP would MD consider VB that IN a DT very RB bad JJ thing NN , , but CC you PRP do VBP n't RB send VB in IN a DT federal JJ police NN force NN because IN they PRP 're VBP doing VBG it PRP and CC throw VB them PRP in IN a DT court NN . . So RB they PRP do VBP have VB that DT leeway NN under IN our PRP$ Constitution NNP . . But CC we PRP have VBP big JJ trouble NN in IN this DT medical JJ care NN problem NN . . And CC we PRP have VBP drifted VBN so RB far RB from IN any DT of IN our PRP$ care NN being VBG delivered VBN by IN the DT marketplace NN . . And CC once RB you PRP get VBP the DT government NN involved VBN - : and CC both DT parties NNS have VBP done VBN it PRP . . They PRP 've VBP developed VBN a DT bit NN of IN a DT medical JJ care NN delivery NN system NN based VBN on IN corporatism NN . . The DT corporations NNS are VBP doing VBG quite RB well RB , , whether IN it PRP 's VBZ Obama NNP or CC under IN the DT Republicans NNPS . . The DT drug NN companies NNS do VBP well RB . . The DT insurance NN companies NNS do VBP well RB . . The DT organized JJ medicine NN do VBP well RB . . The DT management NN companies NNS do VBP well RB . . The DT patient NN and CC the DT doctors NNS suffer VBP . . There EX 's VBZ a DT wedge NN . . Every DT time NN you PRP have VBP the DT government NN get VB in IN here RB with IN these DT regulations NNS , , and CC have VBP these DT mandates NNS , , there EX 's VBZ a DT wedge NN driven VBN in IN between IN the DT doctor NN and CC the DT patient NN . . We PRP have VBP to TO get VB the DT people NNS more JJR control NN of IN their PRP$ care NN , , and CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB these DT medical JJ savings NNS accounts NNS could MD at IN least JJS introduce VB the DT notion NN of IN market NN delivery NN of IN medical JJ care NN . .
way constitut govern state thing
thing polic forc court
leeway constitut
troubl care problem
care marketplac
govern parti
bit care deliveri system corporat
corpor obama republican
drug compani
insur compani
medicin
manag compani
patient doctor
wedg
time govern regul mandat wedg doctor patient
peopl control care save account notion market deliveri care

Maybe he didn't want to face up to the challenge, for all we know. [ Applause ]
Maybe RB he PRP did VBD n't RB want VB to TO face VB up RP to TO the DT challenge NN , , for IN all DT we PRP know VBP . .
challeng

Oh, no. I'm very pleased that he's coming in, because he represents the status quo. And I feel like I'm sort of separated from the other candidates with my strong belief in liberty and limited government and different foreign policy, and wanting to deal with the Fed. So he'll just gather all their votes. [ Applause ]
Oh UH , , no DT . . I PRP 'm VBP very RB pleased JJ that IN he PRP 's VBZ coming VBG in RP , , because IN he PRP represents VBZ the DT status NN quo NN . . And CC I PRP feel VBP like IN I PRP 'm VBP sort NN of IN separated VBN from IN the DT other JJ candidates NNS with IN my PRP$ strong JJ belief NN in IN liberty NN and CC limited JJ government NN and CC different JJ foreign JJ policy NN , , and CC wanting VBG to TO deal VB with IN the DT Fed NNP . . So RB he PRP 'll MD just RB gather VB all DT their PRP$ votes NNS . .
status quo
sort candid belief liberti govern polici fed
vote

Well, even our own CIA gives me this information, that they have no evidence that they're working on a weapon. Just think of what we went through in the Cold War. When I was in the Air Force, after I was drafted in the Air Force, all through the '60s, we were --- we were standing up against the Soviets. They had like 30,000 nuclear weapons with intercontinental missiles. Just think of the agitation and the worrying of a country that might get a nuclear weapon some day. And just think of how many nuclear weapons surround Iran. The Chinese are there. The Indians are there. The Pakistanis are there. The Israelis are there. The United States is there. All these countries --- China has nuclear weapons. Why wouldn't it be natural that they might want a weapon? There'd be --- internationally, they'd be given more respect. Why should we write people off? There was --- you know, in the '50s, we at least talked to them. At least our leaders and Reagan talked to the Soviets. What's so terribly bad about this? And people --- countries that you put sanctions on, you are more likely to fight them. I say a policy of peace is free trade. Stay out of their internal business. Don't get involved in these wars. And just bring our troops home. [ Applause ]
Well RB , , even RB our PRP$ own JJ CIA NNP gives VBZ me PRP this DT information NN , , that IN they PRP have VBP no DT evidence NN that IN they PRP 're VBP working VBG on IN a DT weapon NN . . Just RB think VB of IN what WP we PRP went VBD through IN in IN the DT Cold NNP War NNP . . When WRB I PRP was VBD in IN the DT Air NNP Force NNP , , after IN I PRP was VBD drafted VBN in IN the DT Air NNP Force NNP , , all DT through IN the DT '60s NNS , , we PRP were VBD - : we PRP were VBD standing VBG up RP against IN the DT Soviets NNPS . . They PRP had VBD like IN 30,000 CD nuclear JJ weapons NNS with IN intercontinental JJ missiles NNS . . Just RB think VB of IN the DT agitation NN and CC the DT worrying JJ of IN a DT country NN that WDT might MD get VB a DT nuclear JJ weapon NN some DT day NN . . And CC just RB think VB of IN how WRB many JJ nuclear JJ weapons NNS surround VBP Iran NNP . . The DT Chinese NNPS are VBP there RB . . The DT Indians NNPS are VBP there RB . . The DT Pakistanis NNPS are VBP there RB . . The DT Israelis NNPS are VBP there RB . . The DT United NNP States NNPS is VBZ there RB . . All PDT these DT countries NNS - : China NNP has VBZ nuclear JJ weapons NNS . . Why WRB would MD n't RB it PRP be VB natural JJ that IN they PRP might MD want VB a DT weapon NN ? . There EX 'd MD be VB - : internationally RB , , they PRP 'd MD be VB given VBN more JJR respect NN . . Why WRB should MD we PRP write VB people NNS off IN ? . There EX was VBD - : you PRP know VBP , , in IN the DT '50s CD , , we PRP at IN least JJS talked VBN to TO them PRP . . At IN least JJS our PRP$ leaders NNS and CC Reagan NNP talked VBD to TO the DT Soviets NNPS . . What WP 's VBZ so RB terribly RB bad JJ about IN this DT ? . And CC people NNS - : countries NNS that IN you PRP put VBP sanctions NNS on IN , , you PRP are VBP more RBR likely JJ to TO fight VB them PRP . . I PRP say VBP a DT policy NN of IN peace NN is VBZ free JJ trade NN . . Stay NNP out IN of IN their PRP$ internal JJ business NN . . Do VBP n't RB get VB involved VBN in IN these DT wars NNS . . And CC just RB bring VB our PRP$ troops NNS home NN . .
cia inform evid weapon
cold war
air forc air forc 60s soviet
weapon missil
agit countri weapon day
weapon iran
chines
indian
pakistani
isra
unit state
countri china weapon
weapon
respect
peopl
leader reagan soviet
peopl countri sanction
polici peac trade
stay busi
war
troop home

No, I think that --- I think that thing --- that makes it much worse. Why would that be so strange, if the Soviets and the Chinese have nuclear weapons? We tolerated the Soviets; we didn't attack them. And they were a much greater danger --- they were the greatest danger to us in --- our whole history. You don't go to war against them. I mean, this whole idea of sanctions, all these pretend free traders, they're the ones who put on these trade sanctions. This is why we still don't have trade relationships with Cuba. It's about time we talked to Cuba and stopped fighting these wars that are about 30 or 40 years old. [ Applause ]
No RB , , I PRP think VBP that IN - : I PRP think VBP that DT thing NN - : that WDT makes VBZ it PRP much RB worse JJR . . Why WRB would MD that DT be VB so RB strange JJ , , if IN the DT Soviets NNPS and CC the DT Chinese NNPS have VBP nuclear JJ weapons NNS ? . We PRP tolerated VBD the DT Soviets NNPS ; : we PRP did VBD n't RB attack VB them PRP . . And CC they PRP were VBD a DT much RB greater JJR danger NN - : they PRP were VBD the DT greatest JJS danger NN to TO us PRP in IN - : our PRP$ whole JJ history NN . . You PRP do VBP n't RB go VB to TO war NN against IN them PRP . . I PRP mean VBP , , this DT whole JJ idea NN of IN sanctions NNS , , all PDT these DT pretend JJ free JJ traders NNS , , they PRP 're VBP the DT ones NNS who WP put VBP on IN these DT trade NN sanctions NNS . . This DT is VBZ why WRB we PRP still RB do VBP n't RB have VB trade NN relationships NNS with IN Cuba NNP . . It PRP 's VBZ about IN time NN we PRP talked VBD to TO Cuba NNP and CC stopped VBD fighting VBG these DT wars NNS that WDT are VBP about IN 30 CD or CC 40 CD years NNS old JJ . .
thing
soviet chines weapon
soviet
danger danger histori
war
idea sanction trader one trade sanction
trade relationship cuba
time cuba war year

OK, the senator --- the senator is wrong on his history. We've been at war in --- in --- in Iran for a lot longer than '79. We started it in 1953 when we sent in a coup, installed the shah, and the reaction --- the blowback came in 1979. It's been going on and on because we just plain don't mind our own business. That's our problem. [ Applause ]
OK JJ , , the DT senator NN - : the DT senator NN is VBZ wrong JJ on IN his PRP$ history NN . . We PRP 've VBP been VBN at IN war NN in IN - : in IN - : in IN Iran NNP for IN a DT lot NN longer JJR than IN '79 CD . . We PRP started VBD it PRP in IN 1953 CD when WRB we PRP sent VBD in IN a DT coup NN , , installed VBD the DT shah NN , , and CC the DT reaction NN - : the DT blowback NN came VBD in IN 1979 CD . . It PRP 's VBZ been VBN going VBG on IN and CC on IN because IN we PRP just RB plain RB do VBP n't RB mind VB our PRP$ own JJ business NN . . That DT 's VBZ our PRP$ problem NN . .
senat senat histori
war iran lot
coup shah reaction blowback
busi
problem

Well, I think she turns our rule of law on its head. She says that the terrorists don't deserve protection under our courts, but, therefore, a judgment has to be made. They're ruled a terrorist. Who rules them a terrorist? I thought our courts recognized that you had to be tried. And we've --- we've done this. And we've brought individuals back from Pakistan and other places. We've given them a trial in this country, over 300, or at least --- near 300, we tried and put them in prison. So this idea that we --- we have to turn it on its head and reject the rule of law, we already are at the point where this administration -- please let me finish --- half a second --- this administration --- this administration... [ Booing ] ... this administration already has accepted the principle that, when you assume somebody is a terrorist, they can be targeted for assassination, even American citizens. That affects all of us eventually. You don't want to translate our rule of law into a rule of mob rule. [ Applause ]
Well RB , , I PRP think VBP she PRP turns VBZ our PRP$ rule NN of IN law NN on IN its PRP$ head NN . . She PRP says VBZ that IN the DT terrorists NNS do VBP n't RB deserve VB protection NN under IN our PRP$ courts NNS , , but CC , , therefore RB , , a DT judgment NN has VBZ to TO be VB made VBN . . They PRP 're VBP ruled VBN a DT terrorist JJ . . Who WP rules VBZ them PRP a DT terrorist JJ ? . I PRP thought VBD our PRP$ courts NNS recognized VBN that IN you PRP had VBD to TO be VB tried VBN . . And CC we PRP 've VBP - : we PRP 've VBP done VBN this DT . . And CC we PRP 've VBP brought VBN individuals NNS back RB from IN Pakistan NNP and CC other JJ places NNS . . We PRP 've VBP given VBN them PRP a DT trial NN in IN this DT country NN , , over IN 300 CD , , or CC at IN least JJS - : near IN 300 CD , , we PRP tried VBD and CC put VBD them PRP in IN prison NN . . So RB this DT idea NN that IN we PRP - : we PRP have VBP to TO turn VB it PRP on IN its PRP$ head NN and CC reject VB the DT rule NN of IN law NN , , we PRP already RB are VBP at IN the DT point NN where WRB this DT administration NN -- : please VBP let VB me PRP finish VB - : half PDT a DT second JJ - : this DT administration NN - : this DT administration NN ... : ... : this DT administration NN already RB has VBZ accepted VBN the DT principle NN that IN , , when WRB you PRP assume VBP somebody NN is VBZ a DT terrorist JJ , , they PRP can MD be VB targeted VBN for IN assassination NN , , even RB American JJ citizens NNS . . That DT affects VBZ all DT of IN us PRP eventually RB . . You PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO translate VB our PRP$ rule NN of IN law NN into IN a DT rule NN of IN mob NN rule NN . .
rule law head
terrorist protect court judgment
court
individu pakistan place
trial countri prison
idea head rule law point administr administr administr administr principl somebodi assassin citizen
rule law rule mob rule

You've heard the war propaganda that is liable to lure --- lead us into the sixth war. And I worry about that position. Iran is a threat because they have some militants there. But believe me, they're all around the world and they're... [ Crosstalk }
You PRP 've VBP heard VBN the DT war NN propaganda NN that WDT is VBZ liable JJ to TO lure VB - : lead VB us PRP into IN the DT sixth JJ war NN . . And CC I PRP worry VBP about IN that DT position NN . . Iran NNP is VBZ a DT threat NN because IN they PRP have VBP some DT militants NNS there RB . . But CC believe VB me PRP , , they PRP 're VBP all DT around IN the DT world NN and CC they PRP 're VBP ... : [ FW Crosstalk FW } FW
war propaganda war
posit
iran threat milit
world

Excuse me. They're --- they're all around the world and they're not a whole lot different than others. Iran does not have an air force that can come here. They don't have --- they can't even make enough gasoline for themselves. And here we are building this case up...
Excuse VB me PRP . . They PRP 're VBP - : they PRP 're VBP all DT around IN the DT world NN and CC they PRP 're VBP not RB a DT whole JJ lot NN different JJ than IN others NNS . . Iran NNP does VBZ not RB have VB an DT air NN force NN that WDT can MD come VB here RB . . They PRP do VBP n't RB have VB - : they PRP ca MD n't RB even RB make VB enough JJ gasoline NN for IN themselves PRP . . And CC here RB we PRP are VBP building VBG this DT case NN up RB .. CD . .
world lot other
iran air forc
gasolin
case

Please. Please. They're building up this case like, just like we did in Iraq --- build up the war propaganda. There was no al Qaeda in Iraq. [ Bell sounds ]
Please VB . . Please VB . . They PRP 're VBP building VBG up RP this DT case NN like IN , , just RB like IN we PRP did VBD in IN Iraq NNP - : build VB up RP the DT war NN propaganda NN . . There EX was VBD no DT al JJ Qaeda NNP in IN Iraq NNP . .
case iraq war propaganda
qaeda iraq

And they had nuclear weapons and we had to go in. I'm sure you supported that war, as well. [ Crosstalk }
And CC they PRP had VBD nuclear JJ weapons NNS and CC we PRP had VBD to TO go VB in RP . . I PRP 'm VBP sure JJ you PRP supported VBD that DT war NN , , as RB well RB . . [ FW Crosstalk FW } FW
weapon
war

It's time we quit this. It's time --- it's trillions of dollars we're spending on these wars. [ Applause ] [ Booing ]
It PRP 's VBZ time NN we PRP quit VBD this DT . . It PRP 's VBZ time NN - : it PRP 's VBZ trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS we PRP 're VBP spending VBG on IN these DT wars NNS . .
time
time trillion dollar war

That is sort of like asking the question if the states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that. That so past reality that no state is going to do that. But on the issue of marriage, I think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman. And the federal government shouldn't be involved. I want less government involvement. I don't want the federal government having a marriage police. I want the states to deal with it if they need to, if they need to. But if you didn't need the states --- really, why do we have to have a license to get married? Why don't we just go to the church? What other individuals do, why can't we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine. Just so nobody else forces their definition of marriage on you. That is what we have to prevent. So I would say less government would be better if you have to have regulations let the state governments do it. [ Applause ]
That DT is VBZ sort NN of IN like IN asking VBG the DT question NN if IN the DT states NNS wanted VBD to TO legalize VB slavery NN or CC something NN like IN that DT . . That DT so RB past JJ reality NN that IN no DT state NN is VBZ going VBG to TO do VB that DT . . But CC on IN the DT issue NN of IN marriage NN , , I PRP think VBP marriage NN should MD be VB between IN a DT single JJ man NN and CC a DT single JJ woman NN . . And CC the DT federal JJ government NN should MD n't RB be VB involved VBN . . I PRP want VBP less JJR government NN involvement NN . . I PRP do VBP n't RB want VB the DT federal JJ government NN having VBG a DT marriage NN police NN . . I PRP want VBP the DT states NNS to TO deal VB with IN it PRP if IN they PRP need VBP to TO , , if IN they PRP need VBP to TO . . But CC if IN you PRP did VBD n't RB need VB the DT states NNS - : really RB , , why WRB do VBP we PRP have VB to TO have VB a DT license NN to TO get VB married VBN ? . Why WRB do VBP n't RB we PRP just RB go VBP to TO the DT church NN ? . What WP other JJ individuals NNS do VBP , , why WRB ca MD n't RB we PRP permit VBP them PRP to TO do VB whatever WDT they PRP call VBP it PRP that WDT is VBZ their PRP$ problem NN not RB mine JJ . . Just RB so IN nobody NN else RB forces VBZ their PRP$ definition NN of IN marriage NN on IN you PRP . . That DT is VBZ what WP we PRP have VBP to TO prevent VB . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB less JJR government NN would MD be VB better JJR if IN you PRP have VBP to TO have VB regulations NNS let VB the DT state NN governments NNS do VBP it PRP . .
sort question state slaveri someth
realiti state
issu marriag marriag man woman
govern
govern involv
govern marriag polic
state
state licens
church
individu problem
nobodi definit marriag
govern regul state govern

Not exactly. Because my position isn't that I'd closed the door down immediately, you can phase it out. But there are some other things that we could do in a transition phase. For instance, and I'm delighted that mainstream is catching up with this, these days, for auditing the Fed. This is great. [ Applause ]
Not RB exactly RB . . Because IN my PRP$ position NN is VBZ n't RB that IN I PRP 'd MD closed VBD the DT door NN down RP immediately RB , , you PRP can MD phase VB it PRP out RP . . But CC there EX are VBP some DT other JJ things NNS that IN we PRP could MD do VB in IN a DT transition NN phase NN . . For IN instance NN , , and CC I PRP 'm VBP delighted JJ that IN mainstream NN is VBZ catching VBG up RP with IN this DT , , these DT days NNS , , for IN auditing NN the DT Fed NNP . . This DT is VBZ great JJ . .
posit door
thing transit phase
instanc mainstream day audit fed

But I made a suggestion, which is a series of suggestions. And there's been quite a few who have supported me on this. We owe the Fed $1.6 trillion in treasury bills. Where'd they get the money to buy it? They created it out of thin air. So we pay them interest. Now that's on our books. So we literally, with legislation, could wipe $1.6 trillion off that is not a solution to the monetary problem or our spending problems, but it would give you a year to work this out. And wouldn't have had that --- any of that debate going on. Those were all scare tactics to try to scare people into doing things. But that is one thing that we could do. But eventually we have to deal with the fed, because the Fed creates the business cycle. If you don't understand the business cycle, you don't know why we have recessions, the sooner we learn that the better. [ Applause ]
But CC I PRP made VBD a DT suggestion NN , , which WDT is VBZ a DT series NN of IN suggestions NNS . . And CC there EX 's VBZ been VBN quite RB a DT few JJ who WP have VBP supported VBN me PRP on IN this DT . . We PRP owe VBP the DT Fed NNP $ $ 1.6 CD trillion CD in IN treasury NN bills NNS . . Where WRB 'd MD they PRP get VB the DT money NN to TO buy VB it PRP ? . They PRP created VBD it PRP out IN of IN thin JJ air NN . . So RB we PRP pay VBP them PRP interest NN . . Now RB that DT 's VBZ on IN our PRP$ books NNS . . So IN we PRP literally RB , , with IN legislation NN , , could MD wipe VB $ $ 1.6 CD trillion CD off IN that DT is VBZ not RB a DT solution NN to TO the DT monetary JJ problem NN or CC our PRP$ spending NN problems NNS , , but CC it PRP would MD give VB you PRP a DT year NN to TO work VB this DT out NN . . And CC would MD n't RB have VB had VBN that DT - : any DT of IN that DT debate NN going VBG on RP . . Those DT were VBD all DT scare NN tactics NNS to TO try VB to TO scare VB people NNS into IN doing VBG things NNS . . But CC that DT is VBZ one CD thing NN that IN we PRP could MD do VB . . But CC eventually RB we PRP have VBP to TO deal VB with IN the DT fed NN , , because IN the DT Fed NNP creates VBZ the DT business NN cycle NN . . If IN you PRP do VBP n't RB understand VB the DT business NN cycle NN , , you PRP do VBP n't RB know VB why WRB we PRP have VBP recessions NNS , , the DT sooner RBR we PRP learn VBP that IN the DT better JJR . .
suggest seri suggest
fed treasuri bill
money
air
interest
book
legisl solut problem spend problem year out
debat
scare tactic peopl thing
thing
fed fed busi cycl
busi cycl recess

I've been in politics for 35 years. My cause has been the cause of liberty. And I am convinced that liberty does not come from our government, but it comes from our creator. And --- and our goal should be peace and prosperity. It is under the principles of liberty that you have the greatest chance of achieving peace and prosperity. That is why I am so down on these wars that is costing us trillions of dollars, why we have to reform the monetary system, why we need honest money, a gold standard and not paper money out of the Federal Reserve system. But also, we need to change the environment for our businesses. We need to get --- lower the regulations, and --- and the taxes, and have private property rights and contract rights. Then we can achieve peace and real prosperity. [ Applause ]
I PRP 've VBP been VBN in IN politics NNS for IN 35 CD years NNS . . My PRP$ cause NN has VBZ been VBN the DT cause NN of IN liberty NN . . And CC I PRP am VBP convinced VBN that DT liberty NN does VBZ not RB come VB from IN our PRP$ government NN , , but CC it PRP comes VBZ from IN our PRP$ creator NN . . And CC - : and CC our PRP$ goal NN should MD be VB peace NN and CC prosperity NN . . It PRP is VBZ under IN the DT principles NNS of IN liberty NN that IN you PRP have VBP the DT greatest JJS chance NN of IN achieving VBG peace NN and CC prosperity NN . . That DT is VBZ why WRB I PRP am VBP so RB down RB on IN these DT wars NNS that WDT is VBZ costing VBG us PRP trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS , , why WRB we PRP have VBP to TO reform VB the DT monetary JJ system NN , , why WRB we PRP need VBP honest JJ money NN , , a DT gold JJ standard NN and CC not RB paper NN money NN out IN of IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP system NN . . But CC also RB , , we PRP need VBP to TO change VB the DT environment NN for IN our PRP$ businesses NNS . . We PRP need VBP to TO get VB - : lower JJR the DT regulations NNS , , and CC - : and CC the DT taxes NNS , , and CC have VBP private JJ property NN rights NNS and CC contract NN rights NNS . . Then RB we PRP can MD achieve VB peace NN and CC real JJ prosperity NN . .
polit year
caus caus liberti
liberti govern creator
goal peac prosper
principl liberti chanc peac prosper
war trillion dollar system money standard paper money feder reserv system
environ busi
regul tax properti right contract right
peac prosper

I am Congressman Ron Paul. I've been elected to the Congress 12 times from Texas. Before I went into the Congress, I delivered babies for a living and delivered 4,000 babies. Now I would like to be known and defend the title that I am the champion of liberty and I defend the Constitution. Thank you. [ Applause ]
I PRP am VBP Congressman NNP Ron NNP Paul NNP . . I PRP 've VBP been VBN elected VBN to TO the DT Congress NNP 12 CD times NNS from IN Texas NNP . . Before IN I PRP went VBD into IN the DT Congress NNP , , I PRP delivered VBD babies NNS for IN a DT living NN and CC delivered VBD 4,000 CD babies NNS . . Now RB I PRP would MD like VB to TO be VB known VBN and CC defend VB the DT title NN that IN I PRP am VBP the DT champion NN of IN liberty NN and CC I PRP defend VBP the DT Constitution NNP . . Thank VB you PRP . .
congressman ron paul
congress time texa
congress babi live babi
titl champion liberti constitut

Boy, that's a tough question. [ Laughter ] No, no, I can't think of anything, but may I answer the question that you alluded to before about whether or not 5 percent is too optimistic? No, there's nothing wrong without -- without setting a goal of 5 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent, if you have a free- market economy. We're trying to unwind a Keynesian bubble that's been going on for 70 years, and you're not going to touch this problem until you liquidate the bad debt and the mal-investment, go back to work. But you have to have sound money, and you have to recognize how we got in the trouble. We got in the trouble because we had a financial bubble, and it's caused by the Federal Reserve. If you don't look at monetary policy, we will continue the trend of the last decade. We haven't even -- we haven't developed any new jobs in the last decade. Matter of fact, we've had 30 million new people and no new jobs, and it's because they don't -- the people don't understand monetary policy and central economic planning things. Free markets will give you 10 percent or 15 percent growth or whatever [ ph ] and you will not have to turn it off because you think it's going to cause inflation. It doesn't work that way.
Boy NNP , , that DT 's VBZ a DT tough JJ question NN . . No RB , , no DT , , I PRP ca MD n't RB think VB of IN anything NN , , but CC may MD I PRP answer VB the DT question NN that IN you PRP alluded VBD to TO before IN about IN whether IN or CC not RB 5 CD percent NN is VBZ too RB optimistic JJ ? . No RB , , there EX 's VBZ nothing NN wrong JJ without IN -- : without IN setting VBG a DT goal NN of IN 5 CD percent NN or CC 10 CD percent NN or CC 15 CD percent NN , , if IN you PRP have VBP a DT free- JJ market NN economy NN . . We PRP 're VBP trying VBG to TO unwind VB a DT Keynesian JJ bubble NN that WDT 's VBZ been VBN going VBG on RP for IN 70 CD years NNS , , and CC you PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO touch VB this DT problem NN until IN you PRP liquidate VBP the DT bad JJ debt NN and CC the DT mal-investment NN , , go VB back RB to TO work NN . . But CC you PRP have VBP to TO have VB sound JJ money NN , , and CC you PRP have VBP to TO recognize VB how WRB we PRP got VBD in IN the DT trouble NN . . We PRP got VBD in IN the DT trouble NN because IN we PRP had VBD a DT financial JJ bubble NN , , and CC it PRP 's VBZ caused VBN by IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP . . If IN you PRP do VBP n't RB look VB at IN monetary JJ policy NN , , we PRP will MD continue VB the DT trend NN of IN the DT last JJ decade NN . . We PRP have VBP n't RB even RB -- : we PRP have VBP n't RB developed VBN any DT new JJ jobs NNS in IN the DT last JJ decade NN . . Matter NN of IN fact NN , , we PRP 've VBP had VBD 30 CD million CD new JJ people NNS and CC no DT new JJ jobs NNS , , and CC it PRP 's VBZ because IN they PRP do VBP n't RB -- : the DT people NNS do VBP n't RB understand VB monetary JJ policy NN and CC central JJ economic JJ planning NN things NNS . . Free JJ markets NNS will MD give VB you PRP 10 CD percent NN or CC 15 CD percent NN growth NN or CC whatever WDT and CC you PRP will MD not RB have VB to TO turn VB it PRP off RP because IN you PRP think VBP it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO cause VB inflation NN . . It PRP does VBZ n't RB work VB that DT way NN . .
boy question
anyth question percent
noth goal percent percent percent market economi
bubbl year problem debt mal-invest work
money troubl
troubl bubbl feder reserv
polici trend decad
job decad
matter fact peopl job peopl polici plan thing
market percent percent growth inflat
way

Pretty important because everything we've done in the last 20 or 30 years we've exported our jobs. And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money. You have to invite capital. The way you get capital into a country, you have to have a strong currency, not a weak currency. Today it's a deliberate job of the Federal Reserve to weaken the currency. We should invite capital back. First thing is, we have trillions of dollars, at least over a trillion dollars of U.S. money made overseas, but it stays over there because if you bring it home, they get taxed. If you want to, we need to get the Fed to quit printing the money and if you want capital, you have to entice those individuals to repatriate their money and take the taxes office, set up a financial system, deregulate and de-tax to invite people to go back to work again. But as long as we run a program of deliberately weakening our currency, our jobs will go overseas, and that is what's happened for a good many years, especially in the last decade.
Pretty NNP important JJ because IN everything NN we PRP 've VBP done VBN in IN the DT last JJ 20 CD or CC 30 CD years NNS we PRP 've VBP exported VBN our PRP$ jobs NNS . . And CC when WRB you PRP have VBP a DT reserve NN currency NN of IN the DT world NN and CC you PRP abuse VBP it PRP , , you PRP export VBP money NN . . That DT becomes VBZ the DT main JJ export NN so IN it PRP goes VBZ with IN the DT money NN . . You PRP have VBP to TO invite VB capital NN . . The DT way NN you PRP get VBP capital NN into IN a DT country NN , , you PRP have VBP to TO have VB a DT strong JJ currency NN , , not RB a DT weak JJ currency NN . . Today NN it PRP 's VBZ a DT deliberate JJ job NN of IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP to TO weaken VB the DT currency NN . . We PRP should MD invite VB capital NN back RB . . First JJ thing NN is VBZ , , we PRP have VBP trillions NNS of IN dollars NNS , , at IN least JJS over IN a DT trillion CD dollars NNS of IN U.S NNP . . money NN made VBD overseas RB , , but CC it PRP stays VBZ over IN there RB because IN if IN you PRP bring VBP it PRP home NN , , they PRP get VBP taxed VBN . . If IN you PRP want VBP to TO , , we PRP need VBP to TO get VB the DT Fed NNP to TO quit VB printing VBG the DT money NN and CC if IN you PRP want VBP capital NN , , you PRP have VBP to TO entice VB those DT individuals NNS to TO repatriate VB their PRP$ money NN and CC take VB the DT taxes NNS office NN , , set VBN up RP a DT financial JJ system NN , , deregulate VBP and CC de-tax VBP to TO invite VB people NNS to TO go VB back RB to TO work VB again RB . . But CC as RB long RB as IN we PRP run VBP a DT program NN of IN deliberately RB weakening VBG our PRP$ currency NN , , our PRP$ jobs NNS will MD go VB overseas RB , , and CC that DT is VBZ what WP 's VBZ happened VBN for IN a DT good JJ many JJ years NNS , , especially RB in IN the DT last JJ decade NN . .
pretti everyth year job
reserv currenc world money
export money
capit
way capit countri currenc currenc
today job feder reserv currenc
capit
thing trillion dollar dollar u.
money home
fed money capit individu money tax offic system peopl
program currenc job year decad

There shouldn't be any government assistance to private enterprise. It's not morally correct, it's legal, it's bad economics. It's not part of the constitution. If you allow an economy to thrive, they'll decide how R & D works or where they invest their monies. But when the politicians get in and direct things, you get the malinvestment. They do the dumb things. They might build too many houses. And they might not direct their research to the right places. So no, it's a fallacy to think that government and politicians and bureaucrats are smart enough to manage the economy, so it shouldn't happen.
There EX should MD n't RB be VB any DT government NN assistance NN to TO private JJ enterprise NN . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB morally RB correct JJ , , it PRP 's VBZ legal JJ , , it PRP 's VBZ bad JJ economics NNS . . It PRP 's VBZ not RB part NN of IN the DT constitution NN . . If IN you PRP allow VBP an DT economy NN to TO thrive VB , , they PRP 'll MD decide VB how WRB R NNP & CC D NNP works VBZ or CC where WRB they PRP invest VBP their PRP$ monies NNS . . But CC when WRB the DT politicians NNS get VBP in IN and CC direct JJ things NNS , , you PRP get VBP the DT malinvestment NN . . They PRP do VBP the DT dumb JJ things NNS . . They PRP might MD build VB too RB many JJ houses NNS . . And CC they PRP might MD not RB direct VB their PRP$ research NN to TO the DT right JJ places NNS . . So IN no DT , , it PRP 's VBZ a DT fallacy NN to TO think VB that DT government NN and CC politicians NNS and CC bureaucrats NNS are VBP smart JJ enough RB to TO manage VB the DT economy NN , , so IN it PRP should MD n't RB happen VB . .
govern assist enterpris
econom
part constitut
economi r d moni
politician thing malinvest
thing
hous
research place
fallaci govern politician bureaucrat economi

Well, I -- I would want to do much less, much sooner. The government shouldn't be involved. You take the bankruptcies, we've been doing a whole lot. We've been propping them up. We've had the Federal Reserve buy all the illiquid assets, which were worthless, stick it with the taxpayers. The people who've made the money when the bubble was being blown up, they're the ones who got bailed out. But you want the correction. Corrections are good. The mal- investment in the bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve and the government, and we keep propping it up. And that's why this is going -- it was predictable it would come. It's predictable it's lasted three years. And it's predictable, as long as we do what we're doing in Washington, it's going to last another 10 years. We're doing what we did in the depression. We're doing what the Japanese have done. You need to get the prices of houses down to clear the market, but they're trying to keep the prices up. They actually have programs in Washington which stimulating housing. You need to clear the -- clear the market and then we can all go back to work. But what we're doing now is absolutely wrong.
Well RB , , I PRP -- : I PRP would MD want VB to TO do VB much RB less JJR , , much RB sooner RBR . . The DT government NN should MD n't RB be VB involved VBN . . You PRP take VBP the DT bankruptcies NNS , , we PRP 've VBP been VBN doing VBG a DT whole JJ lot NN . . We PRP 've VBP been VBN propping VBG them PRP up RP . . We PRP 've VBP had VBD the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP buy VB all PDT the DT illiquid JJ assets NNS , , which WDT were VBD worthless JJ , , stick VB it PRP with IN the DT taxpayers NNS . . The DT people NNS who WP 've VBP made VBN the DT money NN when WRB the DT bubble NN was VBD being VBG blown VBN up RP , , they PRP 're VBP the DT ones NNS who WP got VBD bailed VBN out RP . . But CC you PRP want VBP the DT correction NN . . Corrections NNS are VBP good JJ . . The DT mal- JJ investment NN in IN the DT bubbles NNS are VBP caused VBN by IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP and CC the DT government NN , , and CC we PRP keep VBP propping VBG it PRP up RP . . And CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB this DT is VBZ going VBG -- : it PRP was VBD predictable JJ it PRP would MD come VB . . It PRP 's VBZ predictable JJ it PRP 's VBZ lasted VBN three CD years NNS . . And CC it PRP 's VBZ predictable JJ , , as RB long RB as IN we PRP do VBP what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG in IN Washington NNP , , it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO last VB another DT 10 CD years NNS . . We PRP 're VBP doing VBG what WP we PRP did VBD in IN the DT depression NN . . We PRP 're VBP doing VBG what WP the DT Japanese NNPS have VBP done VBN . . You PRP need VBP to TO get VB the DT prices NNS of IN houses NNS down RB to TO clear VB the DT market NN , , but CC they PRP 're VBP trying VBG to TO keep VB the DT prices NNS up RP . . They PRP actually RB have VBP programs NNS in IN Washington NNP which WDT stimulating VBG housing NN . . You PRP need VBP to TO clear VB the DT -- : clear JJ the DT market NN and CC then RB we PRP can MD all DT go VB back RB to TO work NN . . But CC what WP we PRP 're VBP doing VBG now RB is VBZ absolutely RB wrong JJ . .
govern
bankruptci lot
feder reserv asset taxpay
peopl money bubbl one
correct
correct
invest bubbl feder reserv govern
year
washington year
depress
japanes
price hous market price
program washington hous
market work

BlackBerry.
BlackBerry NN . .
blackberri

Well, under these conditions, it's not solvent and won't be solvent. You know, if you're -- if you're an average couple and you paid your entire amount into -- into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much. So a little bit of arithmetic tells you it's not solvent, so we're up against the wall on that, so it can't be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine. And I would think that if we don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money. And that's why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over. But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just -- you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can't we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves? [ Applause ]
Well RB , , under IN these DT conditions NNS , , it PRP 's VBZ not RB solvent JJ and CC wo MD n't RB be VB solvent JJ . . You PRP know VBP , , if IN you PRP 're VBP -- : if IN you PRP 're VBP an DT average JJ couple NN and CC you PRP paid VBD your PRP$ entire JJ amount NN into IN -- : into IN Medicare NNP , , you PRP would MD have VB put VBN $ $ 140,000 CD into IN it PRP . . And CC in IN your PRP$ lifetime NN , , you PRP will MD take VB out RP more JJR than IN three CD times NNS that IN much JJ . . So RB a DT little JJ bit NN of IN arithmetic NN tells VBZ you PRP it PRP 's VBZ not RB solvent JJ , , so IN we PRP 're VBP up RP against IN the DT wall NN on IN that DT , , so IN it PRP ca MD n't RB be VB made VBN solvent JJ . . It PRP has VBZ to TO change VB . . We PRP have VBP to TO have VB more JJR competition NN in IN medicine NN . . And CC I PRP would MD think VB that IN if IN we PRP do VBP n't RB want VB to TO cut VB any DT of IN the DT medical JJ benefits NNS for IN children NNS or CC the DT elderly JJ , , because IN we PRP have VBP drawn VBN so RB many JJ in IN and CC got VBD them PRP so RB dependent JJ on IN the DT government NN , , if IN you PRP want VBP to TO work VB a DT transition NN , , you PRP have VBP to TO cut VB a DT lot NN of IN money NN . . And CC that DT 's VBZ why WRB I PRP argue VBP the DT case NN that IN this DT money NN ought MD to TO be VB cut VBN out IN of IN foreign JJ welfare NN , , and CC foreign JJ militarism NN , , and CC corporate JJ welfare NN , , and CC the DT military JJ industrial JJ complex NN . . Then RB we PRP might MD have VB enough JJ money NN to TO tide NN people NNS over IN . . But CC some DT revamping NN has VBZ to TO occur VB . . What WP we PRP need VBP is VBZ competition NN . . We PRP need VBP to TO get VB a DT chance NN for IN the DT people NNS to TO opt VB out IN of IN the DT system NN . . Just RB -- : you PRP talk VBP about IN opting VBG out IN of IN Obamacare NNP ? . Why WRB ca MD n't RB we PRP opt VBP out IN of IN the DT whole JJ system NN and CC take VB care NN of IN ourselves PRP ? .
condit
coupl amount medicar
lifetim time
bit arithmet wall
competit medicin
benefit children govern transit lot money
case money welfar militar welfar complex
money tide peopl
revamp
competit
chanc peopl system
obamacar
system care

I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn't expect us to try to change morality. You can't teach people how to be moral. But the Constitution addresses this by saying -- literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn't talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws -- which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.
I PRP think VBP faith NN has VBZ something NN to TO do VB with IN the DT character NN of IN the DT people NNS that WDT represent VBP us PRP , , and CC law NN should MD have VB a DT moral JJ fiber NN to TO it PRP and CC our PRP$ leaders NNS should MD . . We PRP should MD n't RB expect VB us PRP to TO try VB to TO change VB morality NN . . You PRP ca MD n't RB teach VB people NNS how WRB to TO be VB moral JJ . . But CC the DT Constitution NNP addresses NNS this DT by IN saying VBG -- : literally RB , , it PRP says VBZ no DT theocracy NN . . But CC it PRP does VBZ n't RB talk VB about IN church NN and CC state NN . . The DT most RBS important JJ thing NN is VBZ the DT First NNP Amendment NNP . . Congress NNP shall MD write VB no DT laws NNS -- : which WDT means VBZ Congress NNP should MD never RB prohibit VB the DT expression NN of IN your PRP$ Christian JJ faith NN in IN a DT public JJ place NN . .
faith someth charact peopl law fiber leader
moral
peopl
constitut address theocraci
church state
thing first amend
congress law congress express faith place

The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment. But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it to go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.
The DT federal JJ government NN should MD n't RB be VB involved VBN . . I PRP would MD n't RB support VB an DT amendment NN . . But CC let VB me PRP suggest VB -- : one CD of IN the DT ways NNS to TO solve VB this DT ongoing JJ debate NN about IN marriage NN , , look VB up RP in IN the DT dictionary NN . . We PRP know VBP what WP marriage NN is VBZ all DT about IN . . But CC then RB , , get VB the DT government NN out IN of IN it PRP . . Why WRB does VBZ n't RB it PRP go VB to TO the DT church NN ? . And CC why WRB does VBZ n't RB it PRP to TO go VB to TO the DT individuals NNS ? . I PRP do VBP n't RB think VB government NN should MD give VB us PRP a DT license NN to TO get VB married VBN . . It PRP should MD be VB in IN the DT church NN . .
govern
amend
way debat marriag dictionari
marriag
govern
church
individu
govern licens
church

I would not work to overthrow it. We have to remember, rights don't come in groups. We shouldn't have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we would [ ph ] have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group. [ Applause ]
I PRP would MD not RB work VB to TO overthrow VB it PRP . . We PRP have VBP to TO remember VB , , rights NNS do VBP n't RB come VB in IN groups NNS . . We PRP should MD n't RB have VB gay JJ rights NNS . . Rights NNS come VBP as IN individuals NNS . . If IN we PRP would MD have VB this DT major JJ debate NN going VBG on IN , , it PRP would MD be VB behavior NN that WDT would MD count VB , , not RB the DT person NN who WP belongs VBZ to TO which WDT group NN . .
right group
right
right individu
debat behavior person group

Well, first off, we shouldn't have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn't give them easy citizenship. We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't make any sense to me. [ Applause ] But on -- on coming in, you know, there was a time when government wasn't -- we didn't depend on government for everything. There was a time when the Catholic Church actually looked after...
Well RB , , first RB off RB , , we PRP should MD n't RB have VB the DT mandates NNS . . We PRP bankrupted VBD the DT hospitals NNS and CC the DT schools NNS in IN Texas NNP and CC other JJ states NNS . . We PRP should MD n't RB give VB them PRP easy JJ citizenship NN . . We PRP should MD think VB about IN protecting VBG our PRP$ borders NNS , , rather RB than IN the DT borders NNS between IN Iraq NNP and CC Afghanistan NNP . . That DT does VBZ n't RB make VB any DT sense NN to TO me PRP . . But CC on IN -- : on IN coming VBG in RP , , you PRP know VBP , , there EX was VBD a DT time NN when WRB government NN was VBD n't RB -- : we PRP did VBD n't RB depend VB on IN government NN for IN everything NN . . There EX was VBD a DT time NN when WRB the DT Catholic NNP Church NNP actually RB looked VBD after IN .. CD . .
mandat
hospit school texa state
citizenship
border border iraq afghanistan
sens
time govern govern everyth
time cathol church

No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn't -- we shouldn't be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they're trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong. If we believed in our free society -- as a matter of fact, this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. People aren't coming over as much now because it's weak. When we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn't work [ ph ] and people flowed over here getting jobs. So there is an economic issue here, as well. But, no, if you have an understanding and -- and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. You don't have to say, oh, you're not going to have care or there won't be any care and everybody is going to starve to death and -- and die on the streets without medical care. That's the implication of the question. That's just not true, and you shouldn't accept it.
No RB , , they PRP should MD not RB be VB forced VBN to TO , , but CC we PRP would MD n't RB -- : we PRP should MD n't RB be VB penalizing VBG the DT Catholic NNP Church NNP , , because IN they PRP 're VBP trying VBG to TO fulfill VB a DT role NN . . And CC some DT of IN the DT anti-immigrants NNS want VBP to TO come VB down RP hard RB on IN the DT Catholic NNP Church NNP , , and CC that DT is VBZ wrong JJ . . If IN we PRP believed VBD in IN our PRP$ free JJ society NN -- : as IN a DT matter NN of IN fact NN , , this DT whole JJ immigration NN problem NN is VBZ related VBN to TO the DT economy NN . . People NNS are VBP n't RB coming VBG over RP as RB much RB now RB because IN it PRP 's VBZ weak JJ . . When WRB we PRP had VBD a DT healthy JJ economy NN , , some DT of IN our PRP$ people NNS did VBD n't RB work NN and CC people NNS flowed VBD over IN here RB getting VBG jobs NNS . . So RB there EX is VBZ an DT economic JJ issue NN here RB , , as RB well RB . . But CC , , no RB , , if IN you PRP have VBP an DT understanding NN and CC -- : and CC you PRP want VBP to TO believe VB in IN freedom NN , , freedom NN has VBZ solved VBN these DT kind NN of IN problems NNS before RB . . You PRP do VBP n't RB have VB to TO say VB , , oh UH , , you PRP 're VBP not RB going VBG to TO have VB care NN or CC there EX wo MD n't RB be VB any DT care NN and CC everybody NN is VBZ going VBG to TO starve VB to TO death NN and CC -- : and CC die VB on IN the DT streets NNS without IN medical JJ care NN . . That DT 's VBZ the DT implication NN of IN the DT question NN . . That DT 's VBZ just RB not RB true JJ , , and CC you PRP should MD n't RB accept VB it PRP . .
cathol church role
anti-immigr cathol church
societi matter fact immigr problem economi
peopl
economi peopl work peopl job
issu
understand freedom freedom kind problem
care care everybodi death street care
implic question

No. We -- we shouldn't have that power given to the government where they can take private land and transfer it to a private industry. The eminent domain laws are going to vary in different states, but we have the national eminent domain laws. It was never meant to take it from some people, private owners, and then take it and give it to a corporation because it's going to help that locality. And this goes back to the basic understanding of property rights. Property and free society should be owned by the people, and it shouldn't be regulated to death by the governments, whether it's Washington, D.C., or local governments. Right now, we really don't own our land. We just pay rent on our land and we listen to all these regulations. So I would say that courts should get out of the way, too. They should not have this right to take land from individuals to provide privileges for another group. [ Applause ]
No DT . . We PRP -- : we PRP should MD n't RB have VB that DT power NN given VBN to TO the DT government NN where WRB they PRP can MD take VB private JJ land NN and CC transfer VB it PRP to TO a DT private JJ industry NN . . The DT eminent JJ domain NN laws NNS are VBP going VBG to TO vary VB in IN different JJ states NNS , , but CC we PRP have VBP the DT national JJ eminent JJ domain NN laws NNS . . It PRP was VBD never RB meant VBN to TO take VB it PRP from IN some DT people NNS , , private JJ owners NNS , , and CC then RB take VB it PRP and CC give VB it PRP to TO a DT corporation NN because IN it PRP 's VBZ going VBG to TO help VB that DT locality NN . . And CC this DT goes VBZ back RB to TO the DT basic JJ understanding NN of IN property NN rights NNS . . Property NN and CC free JJ society NN should MD be VB owned VBN by IN the DT people NNS , , and CC it PRP should MD n't RB be VB regulated VBN to TO death NN by IN the DT governments NNS , , whether IN it PRP 's VBZ Washington NNP , , D.C. NNP , , or CC local JJ governments NNS . . Right RB now RB , , we PRP really RB do VBP n't RB own VB our PRP$ land NN . . We PRP just RB pay VBP rent NN on IN our PRP$ land NN and CC we PRP listen VBP to TO all PDT these DT regulations NNS . . So RB I PRP would MD say VB that IN courts NNS should MD get VB out IN of IN the DT way NN , , too RB . . They PRP should MD not RB have VB this DT right NN to TO take VB land NN from IN individuals NNS to TO provide VB privileges NNS for IN another DT group NN . .
power govern land industri
domain law state domain law
peopl owner corpor local
understand properti right
properti societi peopl death govern washington d.c. govern
land
rent land regul
court way
right land individu privileg group

Not quite. I served five years in the military. I've had a little experience. I've spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn't wait for my generals. I'm the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I'd bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn't start a war in Libya. I'd quit bombing Yemen. And I'd quit bombing Pakistan. I'd start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we're there, the worse things are and the more danger we're in as well, because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you.
Not RB quite RB . . I PRP served VBD five CD years NNS in IN the DT military NN . . I PRP 've VBP had VBD a DT little JJ experience NN . . I PRP 've VBP spent VBN a DT little JJ time NN over IN in IN the DT Pakistan/Afghanistan NNP area NN , , as RB well RB as IN Iran NNP . . But CC I PRP would MD n't RB wait VB for IN my PRP$ generals NNS . . I PRP 'm VBP the DT commander NN in IN chief NN . . I PRP make VBP the DT decisions NNS . . I PRP tell VBP the DT generals NNS what WP to TO do VB . . I PRP 'd MD bring VB them PRP home RB as RB quickly RB as IN possible JJ . . And CC I PRP would MD get VB them PRP out IN of IN Iraq NNP as RB well RB . . And CC I PRP would MD n't RB start VB a DT war NN in IN Libya NNP . . I PRP 'd MD quit VB bombing NN Yemen NNP . . And CC I PRP 'd MD quit VB bombing NN Pakistan NNP . . I PRP 'd MD start VB taking VBG care NN of IN people NNS here RB at IN home NN because IN we PRP could MD save VB hundreds NNS of IN billions NNS of IN dollars NNS . . Our PRP$ national JJ security NN is VBZ not RB enhanced VBN by IN our PRP$ presence NN over IN there RB . . We PRP have VBP no DT purpose NN there RB . . We PRP should MD learn VB the DT lessons NNS of IN history NN . . The DT longer RBR we PRP 're VBP there RB , , the DT worse JJR things NNS are VBP and CC the DT more JJR danger NN we PRP 're VBP in IN as RB well RB , , because IN our PRP$ presence NN there EX is VBZ not RB making VBG friends NNS let VB me PRP tell VB you PRP . .
year militari
experi
time pakistan/afghanistan area iran
general
command chief
decis
general
iraq
war libya
bomb yemen
bomb pakistan
care peopl home hundr billion dollar
secur presenc
purpos
lesson histori
thing danger presenc friend

Join the administration?
Join VB the DT administration NN ? .
administr

I would think everybody would qualify.
I PRP would MD think VB everybody NN would MD qualify VB . .
everybodi

I have to pick one? Hum? Let me look -- let me look them over. I would have to do a bit more quizzing. I would have to -- they haven't even told me how they feel about the Federal Reserve yet. They haven't told me about the foreign policy. So I have to do some more quizzing.
I PRP have VBP to TO pick VB one CD ? . Hum VB ? . Let VB me PRP look VB -- : let VB me PRP look VB them PRP over RP . . I PRP would MD have VB to TO do VB a DT bit NN more JJR quizzing NN . . I PRP would MD have VB to TO -- : they PRP have VBP n't RB even RB told VBD me PRP how WRB they PRP feel VBP about IN the DT Federal NNP Reserve NNP yet RB . . They PRP have VBP n't RB told VBN me PRP about IN the DT foreign JJ policy NN . . So RB I PRP have VBP to TO do VB some DT more JJR quizzing NN . .
bit quizz
feder reserv
polici
quizz

I've learned with the group here that disagrees on some issues, we can talk about it and be civil to each other.
I PRP 've VBP learned VBN with IN the DT group NN here RB that WDT disagrees VBZ on IN some DT issues NNS , , we PRP can MD talk VB about IN it PRP and CC be VB civil JJ to TO each DT other JJ . .
group issu

