Rand Paul Continues Attempt to Block Chuck Hagel for Defense Vote: Does This Make Him an Interventionist?

This morning, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voted no on cloture on the Chuck Hagel appointment for Secretary of Defense--meaning he's voting to continue to block a vote on the nomination. Paul was in the minority of a 71-27 vote, and the actual vote on Hagel's nomination might happen as early as this afternoon.

A portion of the old Ron Paul-supporting conservative/libertarian non-intervention foreign policy intelligentsia believed very passionately that Sen. Paul should have supported Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary all the way, not tried to block him. Paul said as recently as yesterday that he wasn't sure whether he would actually vote for Hagel's nomination when the vote comes up, and that he generally respects the president's ability to pick his cabinet, as Politico reported.

Some of the reasons why a portion of the anti-intervention right is peeved at Paul over this, as expressed by Daniel Larison at the American Conservative, here and here. To sum up those objections to Paul's obstructionism on Hagel: Roughly, since Hagel is opposed by those who seem to want a more interventionist U.S. presence in the Middle East (for his supposedly being insufficiently passionate about fighting for Israel, and for later on having doubts about the Iraq War he at first supported), Paul needs to support him to prove his bonafides.

This belief that Paul needs to unambiguously be for Hagel to prove he will be a decent foreign policy voice seems to go beyond any firm belief that Hagel as Defense Secretary in the Obama administration will actually be an effective noninterventionist. That he will be is questionable, as Ed Krayewski blogged here at Hit and Run.

The belief that Rand Paul must support Hagel seems rooted rather in a sort of team-politics belief that being for Hagel unequivocally shows you can't be pushed around by the larger politico-cultural forces of interventionism. Paul, to this reading, won't satisfy such critics if he misses any chance to wage politico-cultural war against anyone seen as for interventionism, whether or not the action has a substantive connection to any real bad actions in the world, from a non-interventionist perspective.

For his part, Paul says he thinks the more important thing he's doing is obstructing John Brennan for CIA, over his thoughts on domestic drones, as discussed in Daily Caller and Business Insider.

My earlier blogging on Paul and Hagel. Recall that Paul's stated reasons for opposition have nothing to do with Hagel being insufficiently raring to fight in the Middle East--they were a belief that he's been insufficiently transparent about possible appearance-of-impropriety issues of who he'd taken money from in his career.

Deciding that one of the few Republicans making a concerted effort to talk about containment rather than war as a strategy to deal with any threats from a nuclear Iran or radical Islam (the anti-interventionists mad at Paul would rather he talk about how there really isn't any such threat at all) is now a villain over a Hagel cloture vote strikes me as premature. This cloture vote is not a simple vote for or against intervention; treating it as such may well underestimate how good a foreign policy Senator (or eventual presidential candidate) Rand Paul will be.

UPDATE: And Paul did indeed end up voting to confirm Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Without a Defense Secretary, the nation is at the mercy of its enemies.

    Why does senator Paul want America to be overrun and enslaved by the Caliphate?

  • Question of Auban||

    Caliphate? We should BE so lucky! We will be raised as food for the Kanamits!

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Catamites!

  • $park¥||

    IT'S A COOKBOOK!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It makes him a dick. RECESS APPOINTMENT!

  • Justin Raimondo||

    Tortured prose and tortured logic: Rand went with the neocons and the Christian Zionists. As for Rand's supposed committment to "containment," the irony here is that Hagel's supposed support for exactly that policy is denounced as near treason by Hagel's opponents. Add to this Rand's reported remark that he was "troubled" by the made up charge he received funding from the mythical "Friends of Hamas, and we come to the unfortunate conclusion that Paul the Lesser just isn't all that smart.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Raimondooooooooo!

  • Libertymike||

    Brilliant, measured response.

    Is your ego so large that you think you could take on Mr. Raimondo in debate and prevail?

  • Randian||

    "Christian Zionists" does not deserve a serious response.

  • Libertymike||

    Please, he would eviscerate you in debating this subject.

  • Randian||

    Let him try.

    There is simply no evidence that Rand Paul has adopted the foreign policy views of Hagel's neocon opponents.

    When Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 CRA, did that make him a racist just because racists also opposed it?

  • Cytotoxic||

    DISSENT IS TREASON

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    He's a lot closer than I thought he would be when he ran in 2010. You should check out his speech at Heritage on 2/6/13:

    http://www.policymic.com/artic.....ion-speech

    no less than 7 glowing references to George Kennan, lots of blather and bloviation on "radical Islam", and manages to get is nose nice and deep into Israel's fundament.

  • StephenDedalus||

    "There is simply no evidence that Rand Paul has adopted the foreign policy views of Hagel's neocon opponents."

    Ha ha Randian you are so funny...
    Here's a little game: who said this:

    'Any Attack On Israel Will Be Treated As An Attack On The United States'

  • Randian||

    We are very clearly talking about interventionism.

    And we have yet-another idiot taking a pretentious-as-fuck name.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Funny, I always picture SF as Buck Mulligan.

  • SugarFree||

    I am plump and more than a bit stately.

  • SugarFree||

    And we have yet-another idiot taking a pretentious-as-fuck name.

    A long time ago, when the actual Tony still posted, his name linked to a blog under a similiar handle to StephenDedalus.

  • StephenDedalus||

    Don't cry just because your statement is asinine and was proven so. Take it like a man. You asked the heavens for evidence and like manna it fell...

  • Irish||

    If an ally is attacked and you defend them, that isn't interventionism. I'm willing to bet that if someone invaded England we'd treat it as an attack on America too.

    I'm no fan of Israel, but your argument is absurd. Saying we'd fight to defend an ally if they were attacked is fairly standard operating procedure, isn't it?

  • StephenDedalus||

    Israel is not an ally of the US. "Ally" is a legal term and there is no formal mutual-defense treaty between the US and Israel. But I am sure you already knew that...right, smartypants?

  • Irish||

    My apologies. I should know never to use a word with colloquial meaning when it also has legal meaning. I'm sure I'm the only one stupid enough to do that.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.com/.....h-benefits

    Which is why Foreign Affairs magazine, funded by the Council on Foreign relations, refers to it as 'the U.S.-Israeli ALLIANCE.' How could I have been so foolish. It's not like Israel gets referred to as an ally of America constantly. Clearly I'm just not up to the intellectual standards of someone as intelligent as you. I mean, you named yourself after a James Joyce character! How could you be wrong about anything!

  • Irish||

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar...../MOUs.html

    How could I ever have considered a country with which we have all of these treaties to be an ally? Only two dozen of the treaties relate to security and defense. Hardly enough to be considered an ally! Who could possibly consider a country whose military we've helped to modernize to be an ally?

  • StephenDedalus||

    Typical Reason pussy. Caught spewing bullshit, go ad hominum.

  • Randian||

    So Rand Paul makes a statement that is consistent with US Foreign Policy, which is pretty much unified on the question of Israel and that makes him a "neocon"?

    You're absolutely full of shit.

  • Rich M||

    It makes him a hypocrite. His actions are 180* from his rhetoric on foreign policy. Just another lying cocksucker in DC. Go figure.

  • Irish||

    I posted two links. One to a respected foreign policy magazine referring to it as an alliance, one to a list of U.S.-Israel treaties. Heroic Mulatto pointed out that they are considered a Major non-Nato Ally since 1989. I was sarcastic, but provided you with evidence.

    You respond by calling me a pussy. I'm pretty sure you're the one who went ad hominem.

  • Irish||

    Hahahaha. I also just realized you called me a smartypants pretty much immediately. You went to the personal insults right out the gate and you're angry that I supposedly went ad hominem, a word you can't even spell.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's not quite true. In 1989, the administration of G.H.W. Bush named Israel (along with Japan, Egypt, South Korea, and Australia) as a "Major non-NATO ally" as per the Nunn amendment. It's not a treaty of mutual-defense, but it is still referred to as an "alliance".

  • Brandon||

    You fall back on the weakest of pedantry, and then call someone else 'smartypants?' Douchebag.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Please, he would eviscerate you in debating this subject.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHA Hero worship: not just for TEAM partisans.

  • Randian||

    I mean, if by eviscerate he means "runs away at the first demand of proof for Alex Jones-level conspiracies", then I consider myself vivisected.

  • ||

    This^

  • Voros McCracken||

    Debate? I think CN was looking more for a 'Thunderdome' type arrangement.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    This^

  • Cytotoxic||

    It was smarter than anything you or Raimondo have to say.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, how could anyone hope to debate the intellectual giant that is Justin Raimondo?

    I'd also like a cite for where Paul supported Christian Zionism, the belief that the return of Israel is a sign of the end times. The only evidence I see when I google Rand Paul Christian Zionism are a couple of conspiracy theory websites and an anti-war.com article...written by Justin Raimondo.

  • Irish||

    Oh, I'm sorry. There's also a Telegraph article which offers only one citation...to an anti-war.com article by Justin Raimondo.

  • Randian||

    Oh well now we know the Mossad got to you.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Christian Zionism is not a "belief that the return of Israel is a sign of the end times." As a former Christian, I used to believe that, but was still opposed to the State (of Israel, of anything or anyone). Christian Zionism includes, but is not limited to, the support of the state of Israel in whatever it undertakes.

    I would submit to the esteemed Raimondo that the only legitimate criticism of Hagel as DoD Sec is that the lesser of two, or any number of evils, is still evil. I'm all for pissing off the neocon war party establishment, but at the end of the day, Hagel is still a statist and an interventionist, and a pretty big one at that. So if it makes you happy to support Hagel and piss of the neocons, have at it, just don't think that you're really doing anything FOR the cause of liberty.

  • Irish||

    Are you sure? Whenever I've seen the term 'Christian Zionist' it's been directly related to the belief in the end times. I've never heard it used expressly in a political but not religious way.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Follow the logic: it is related to the end times, but that is not its critical, necessary nature. Christian Zionism must be, at its core, Zionism. The belief in the return of Israel (and what it may or may not portend) may or may not overlap with Zionism. Christian Zionists generally believe that the "return of Israel" (whatever that means) is a necessary step in the initiation of the eschcaton, and, since they fervently hope for such, that they must work diligently for those condition that they believe will produce said result. Even if (or especially if) said activity will destroy the world (The Apocalypse).

  • SugarFree||

    But the logic is not all there is. "Zionist" is just a general term of abuse in many parts of the world, used interchangeably with "kike" or to mean "Jew-lover." It's a damning insult in many circles to be associated with Jews or Israel.

    If you read it as "Rand went with the neocons and the Christian Jew-Lovers," I think the objection many are voicing is clear.

    Raimondo's hatred of Israel has always skirted the line between vehement policy differences and out-right Anti-Semitism. Interpreting his statement as I have isn't out of context for him.

    If he wants to walk it back, let him.

  • Fluffy||

    Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

    "Zionist" means one thing and one thing only: the belief that Jews should have a national state of their own, in territory roughly corresponding to some portion of the former British mandate of Palestine.

    It's not a term of abuse.

    Even when it's thrown around in a hostile manner (by Arab political figures, for example) it's still done so in a manner that is almost universally accurate - they use it to refer to people who believe that Jews are entitled to a national state in or around ancient Judea and Samaria, and the people they apply it to believe exactly that. It's a prosaic belief now, almost uncontroversial. By the historical meaning of the word I bet 80% of the population of the US are "Zionists".

  • SugarFree||

    Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

    Protocols of the Elders of Zion? ZOG: Zionist Organized Government? Zionist bankers conspiracy?

    OK. Yup, just a neutral term.

  • Randian||

    Point, Sugarfree.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "tortured logic: Rand went with the neocons and the Christian Zionists"

    Exhibit A

  • Libertymike||

    In support of what proposition?

  • Randian||

    Let's spell it out - reason said:

    This cloture vote is not a simple vote for or against intervention; treating it as such may well underestimate how good a foreign policy Senator (or eventual presidential candidate) Rand Paul will be.

    Justin Raimondo said that's "tortured logic" and his "proof" was that Paul's vote happens to align with neocons.

    As I said, just like my vote sometimes happens to "ally" with a Socialist. Or some Redneck. Just like Goldwater's vote "aligned" with the racists even though he was not a racist.

  • MJGreen||

    Yes, is Raimondo calling Doherty's logic tortured, or... his own? Because the colon, as well as the tortured logic following the colon, suggest the latter.

  • Bobarian||

    It sounds to me like most of Raimondo's logic centers around the colon.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Paul the Lesser just isn't all that smart.

    Or is the REAL Rand Paul being kept in a CIA Black Site while being impersonated a Project Monarch doppelganger created by the Lizard People Freemason JOOOZZZ in order to prevent the Illuminati from resurrecting Whitney Houston in a dark Satanic ritual during the Oscars????

    Wheels within wheels, Raimondo, wheels within wheels.

  • Libertymike||

    Debate him straight up without resort to any ad hominems or non-sequiturs.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No.

  • Randian||

    OK, other than "guilt by association", do you have any evidence that Paul's foreign policy has suddenly changed?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I was just being a wiseass.

    But perhaps Paul isn't on the Hagel train because he finds Hagel's homophobia to be distasteful.

  • robc||

    I will when he does. His post was full of ad hominems and non-sequiturs.

    Raimondo has a single track mind. And when someone veers off that track because they consider something else important, Raimondo cant deal with it.

  • Randian||

    I mean, just for the record, I got a little catty, but I refuted him point by point, and I see neither of you has seen fit to respond.

  • Brandon||

    LM, as pathetically idiotic as Raimondo is, it's even worse to be his toady.

  • Randian||

    Rand went with the neocons and the Christian Zionists.

    And when I want marijuana legalized, that sometimes mean I "go along with" leftists. And when I want taxes lowered, sometimes I "go along with" Tea Partiers. That doesn't make me either.

    As for Rand's supposed committment to "containment," the irony here is that Hagel's supposed support for exactly that policy is denounced as near treason by Hagel's opponents.

    Except for Rand, of course. And, so what? Do you have any evidence that "containment" is what Rand is blocking Hagel over?

    No, of course not. So far all you have done is attempt guilt by association.

    Add to this Rand's reported remark that he was "troubled" by the made up charge he received funding from the mythical "Friends of Hamas, and we come to the unfortunate conclusion that Paul the Lesser just isn't all that smart.

    Assuming at the time it was true, something like that doesn't make you pause? Oh wait I'm talking to the guy who fellates Putin like it's Saturday night at The White Swallow.

  • Marshall Gill||

    And when I want marijuana legalized, that sometimes mean I "go along with" leftists.

    No, it means you are a Christian Zionist. Why, because Pat Robertson is, and he has come out in favor of legalization.

  • Randian||

    Ah shit. Well, I knew it would happen eventually.

  • robc||

    well played.

    Raimondo-logic at its finest.

  • Libertymike||

    No, as to suggest otherwise is to buy the false equivalency Randian is peddling.

    To wit, the "left" is a far more ambiguous, empty, vacuous term than "neocon" or "christian zionist". Put another way, "neocon" and "christian zionist" are more precise descriptors than the "left".

    Of course, over time, as with many words and phrases, the meanings of "neocon" and "christian zionist" may evolve to the point where they become ambiguous and empty like the term "the left".

  • Randian||

    Non responsive.

    State your evidence that Rand Paul is an interventionist as Raimondo and yourself have so clearly implied.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Maybe he just wasn't very impressed with Hagel. I'm sure not.

  • Randian||

    Occam's Razor is a Jewish Plot, Fatty.

  • Paul.||

    Wait, aren't you the guy that took that Administration at 100% face value (because Obama "surely must know stuff that we don't") about the Benghazi attack? Because for a site called anti-war, you want to parrot the warring administration at every possible turn...

  • DRM||

    Oh, yeah, sure, the way to prove you're a non-interventionist is to vote for the guy who sponsored a bill to send US ground troops to intervene in the Kosovo war.

    If AIPAC and Bill Kristol announced that they're against jumping off bridges, you would demand Rand Paul jump off one to demonstrate opposition to them.

    You're an idiot, Mr. Raimondo.

  • Lyle||

    Radical Islam is threat to people around the world. No, they won't be building a flotilla to invade the United States, but with modern technology and not being state actors they can cause all kinds problems around the world.

    American interests don't just lie within the inside of our own borders, but wherever Americans are out and about in the world doing their thing, like America oil and gas interests in an Islamic part of the world. Reason surely believes Americans should be able to travel and do business wherever they want to in the world?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    i.e. The world is our oyster, and we'll shuck it whenever we please. (And any pearls? -- Ours, of course.)

  • ||

    And disagreement with that is immoral.

  • Lyle||

    No, it's not, but then you're against people freely moving wherever and doing whatever peacefully.

  • ||

    You either have me confused with someone else, or you're just being your usual shithead self. I'm an open borders guy, numbskull.

  • Lyle||

    I know man, that's my whole point. Pay closer attention to the arguments being made.

  • ||

    Your point is that you accused me of something I am adamantly against? Brilliant! I will, from now on, pay more attention to the arguments of people other than you. Congratulations on your winning argument.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Apt summary. The world will not magically seal itself off from America if America starts worshipping noninterventionism anymore than the world will become freer from America's nation-building efforts.

  • SugarFree||

    If you were smarter, you'd realize that Lyle is a sockpuppet satirizing your stances. Of course, if you were smarter you wouldn't be such an idiot, now would you?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Oh ho good one! So clever. You must impress everyone at the playground with your wit.

  • SugarFree||

    You forgot to use "butthurt." Or did you word-a-day toilet paper serve you up another word to overuse?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Now that you mention it, you sound pretty whiny.

  • SugarFree||

    Go on. Only 8 little letters. You know you want to...

  • Marshall Gill||

    But don't you consider "butthurt" a compliment?

  • BakedPenguin||

    SugarFree, why are you bothering with that Moloch-worshiping frat-boy?

  • SugarFree||

    *ding* *ding* *ding*

    Congratulations, Baked Penguin! You used the phrase of the day. And here's my lovely assistant Nikki with your year's supply of Turtle Wax and Rice-a-Roni, The San Francisco treat!

  • Lyle||

    You be wrong. Not unusual for a lot of the people who comment here.

  • Brandon||

    Nope, in fact almost universal for Tony, PB, pretty much any of the trolls with "Mike" somewhere in their names, Joe from Lowell, any of Mary Stack's personalities...

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    "Radical Islam" is a creation and puppet of western NATO intelligence. Everywhere Al-Qaeda pops up, they do NATO's bidding: they start a war. Afghanistan, Chechnya, Afghanistan II, Libya, Syria, and now Mali. Muslim Brotherhood was initially started and funded by MI6. Don't get your history from NPR.

  • Redmanfms||

    Oreally.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wait until he gets started with the Israeli Death Camps.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    You mean the one that Ariel Sharon ran in Lebanon? Or Deir Yassin? All governments suck, Israels more than most.

  • Irish||

    Citation?

  • Irish||

    What.

  • ||

    "Reason surely believes Americans should be able to travel and do business wherever they want to in the world?"

    Correct. We just don't believe Americans should be able to initiate the use of force wherever they want to in the world.

  • Lyle||

    How can people travel and do business around the world in peace, if that peace is not protected by violence at times?

    If someone is disturbing the peace, certainly the United States can use force to keep the peace.

  • ||

    Notice I said INITIATE force.

  • Lyle||

    When you're defending your interests you may actually have to initiate force.

  • ||

    It may be in my best interest to point a gun to your head and rob you. That doesn't make it moral, and it certainly doesn't keep the peace.

  • TycheSD||

    Whatever Rand Paul's motives are - and they're likely based on a calculus related to his future presidential aspirations - it appears that Paul has been cowed into voting no on Chuck Hagel by the far right of his party, whose foreign policy views Paul claims to be challenging.

  • Randian||

    "It appears" is code for "I have no proof but I'm glad to manufacture some ex rectum"

  • Cytotoxic||

    Thyis.

  • TycheSD||

    "It appears" means I see it that way, and I doubt that I'm alone.

    I look forward to Rand Paul's explanation as to why he declined to move Hagel's nomination forward and end the filibuster.

    Paul voted to confirm John Kerry because he felt presidents should be able to have the Cabinet choices they want. Why not Hagel?

  • Randian||

    "It appears" means I see it that way, and I doubt that I'm alone.

    So, yes, you are making it up.

    Where is your evidence?

    Paul voted to confirm John Kerry because he felt presidents should be able to have the Cabinet choices they want. Why not Hagel?

    RTFA:

    Paul said as recently as yesterday that he wasn't sure whether he would actually vote for Hagel's nomination when the vote comes up, and that he generally respects the president's ability to pick his cabinet,
  • robc||

    If I was in the Senate I would filibuster just about everything.

    Just on principle. I dont think you can assume anything about anything from Sen Paul voting against cloture.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    ^THIS^

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I look forward to Rand Paul's explanation as to why he declined to move Hagel's nomination forward and end the filibuster."

    “'That is also why I voted to not end debate on the Hagel nomination,' Paul said in a statement. 'I do not believe Sen. Hagel has adequately explained his activities and their financing since he left the Senate, and I believe this criteria is especially important when dealing with the revolving door between government and the private sector.'"

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/02.....z2M21x1bhx

    The interwebz...how do they work?

  • Cytotoxic||

    To answer the title of this article, NO. Only and idiot like Raimondo would believe that.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Correct. It does not MAKE him an interventionist. It does, however, possibly indicate that he might be one.

  • Randian||

    Not without some serious bootstrapping.

  • John||

    Just because someone agrees with you about something doesn't mean they can't be an unprincipled idiot and that is exactly what Hegel is and exactly why he should be opposed at every opportunity.

    Is Reason actually so stupid that they think Hegel won't sign off on any intervention the President proposes if doing so means saving his own skin? That is exactly what he would do and why his previous views on pretty much anything are irrelevant.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I don't think Reason is buying into this crap, but they are using their kid gloves when it deserves a harsher treatment.

  • John||

    Yup and all because Reason can't get over the Iraq War. They really have PTSD about it. They remind me of hippies still bitching about Vietnam in the 80s. Because Hegel opposed the Iraq War someone washes away his other sins. The fact that he voted for the Iraq use of force resolution and only turned against the war later when it was to his political advantage never seems to matter.

  • Randian||

    Just because some antiwar folks say dumb things does not mean you two get to sit here and satisfy each other's desperate need for war.

  • John||

    Yeah Randian, I have a desperate need for war. Completely. You don't believe that and if you do you are a complete moron, which is something I doubt.

  • Randian||

    What current piece of foreign policy as it relates to the War on Terror do you oppose? You defend the use of drones. You defend the worldwide theater. You defend GITMO and waterboarding.

    So, you tell me what restraints you want to see on Imperator up there.

  • John||

    Yes, I defend the use of drones, because they are a weapon. There nothing bad or good about drones, only how they are used.

    And I have never defended the use in every case. I said clearly that if the US is in fact striking a second time to get first responders is a war crime. I have also said that the killing of Al Awalaki was illegal even under the Administration's own memo. The only place where I have ever defended drones is in NW Pakistan which is functionally a theater of the Afghanistan war.

    I don't defend every use of drones at all. And you know it. You just consistently lose these arguments and don't like it. And your response is to pretend I believe things I don't actually do so that you feel better.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The only place where I have ever defended drones is in NW Pakistan which is functionally a theater of the Afghanistan war.

    Woah, woah, woah....functionally doesn't quite cut it.

  • John||

    Yes functionally does. Pakistan is allowing people to use its territory to make war on Afghanistan. When they do, Afghanistan and by extension NATO have every right to attack said people not allow Pakistan to become a safe haven.

    I have only explained that point about a thousand times on here. But you people will never listen because it doesn't fit the narrative. Better to yell dronezz and childrenzz than actually think about the issue.

  • Randian||

    So you explicitly deny the worldwide theater theory of the War on Terror? Yes or no?

  • John||

    So you explicitly deny the worldwide theater theory of the War on Terror? Yes or no?

    Since you know nothing about the subject, it is not surprising that you would demand a yes or no answer. If you knew anything, the answer would be it depends. Do we have a right to shoot any member of Al Quada on sight anywhere we find them? No. To say we do means that we could drone strike someone in Paris or San Antonio and that is clearly not the case.

    And it is probably not the case in Yemen either. Unless you can show me that Yemen is actually in a civil war with these people, I see no reason why you can't just arrest them. In NW Pakistan, it is clearly the case that that is a combat zone. Pakistan has no control over the area and the people there are using it as a safe haven to attack Afghanistan.

    The answer is, it depends.

  • Randian||

    That means your answer is "no", John.

    Good for you. You recognize some limits.

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself Randian and stop calling me a war monger. I am so fucking tired of that bullshit charge. It just infuriates me. You don't know shit about me or war. And I have been thinking about these issues a hell of a lot longer than you have. That doesn't mean I am right and it doesn't mean you have to agree with me. You don't. But it does mean you need to lay off questioning my motives and pretending that they only reason I think the way I do is that I am just dying to leave my family and get on a plane and go to some fucking hell hole or send other people to do the same.

  • Randian||

    Gee golly, John, given that you have pretty much vociferously argued in favor of expanded warmaking at almost every opportunity, I cannot imagine how you acquired such a reputation.

  • John||

    , John, given that you have pretty much vociferously argued in favor of expanded warmaking at almost every opportunity,

    I have done no such thing. You tell yourself I do because believing that is easier that actually answering my arguments.

  • Randian||

    Your arguments are "expanded warmaking at every opportunity"

    *shrug* wear the fitted shoe, John.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Pakistan is allowing people to use its territory to make war on Afghanistan.

    That's true, which is why we should have done the logical thing and either let the Afghani people defend themselves against Pakistan or we should have declared war on the thieving junta of generals and spies that is Pakistan.

    Can't have it both ways. Shadow wars always come back to bite one on the ass.

  • John||

    And regardless HM, Randian's charge that I support very use of every drone anywhere aspect of our terror policy is just not true and he knows it. He just pretends I do because it alleviates him of the need of responding to arguments he doesn't like.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Emotional baiting and dishonest argumentation: not just for liberals!

    Randjob, John and I have crushed your side everytime. That's why you're snivelling about our bad evil motives. It's classic if pathetic misdirection.

  • SugarFree||

    John and I have crushed your side everytime.

    HAHAHA! OYFG, that's funny.

  • Randian||

    Whatever you say, Chester. Ayn Rand was generally anti-war and you know it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes she was anti-war. Truly anti-war. She was I believe in favor of America ending the Islamic revolution by force, a truly pro-peace position unlike the false peace favored by peaceniks.

  • ||

    WAR IS PEACE

    Astounding.

  • John||

    So Warty,

    Do you disagree with Orwell then and don't believe pacifists were effectively pro Nazi back in the day?

  • ||

    Who's talking about pacifists? And the British pacifist groups back then were mostly Reds anyway, not principled pacifists at all. So fuck them.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    The Dialectic is strong with this one.

  • Randian||

    Well, no, you are wrong.

    You've let the dipshits at ARI warp her entire legacy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't feel like digging in my bookshelf right now, but I seem to remember an essay by Rand where she argues that it is moral for a country that respects individual rights to militarily intervene in a country that doesn't if it is in the interests of the former.

  • Randian||

    It is that country's *choice* to do so and that *choice* would be moral. In brief, a country that does not respect the rights of its citizens cannot lay claim to legitimacy and therefore *can* be invaded. But that is a secondary matter - the primary matter is "is it in the invading country's best interests"?

    I agree with the claim that a nation that does not respect individual rights is illegitimate. I also happen to think that 99% of the time it is against the invading country's self interest to invade.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I agree with the claim that a nation that does not respect individual rights is illegitimate. I also happen to think that 99% of the time it is against the invading country's self interest to invade.

    Fair dinkum.

  • SugarFree||

    I agree with the claim that a nation that does not respect individual rights is illegitimate.

    So we can be invaded?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So we can be invaded?

    Every day, I pray for the aliens to land.

  • SugarFree||

    Every day, I pray for the aliens to land.

    YouTube? I thought it would be a link to that Krugman column.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I thought it would be a link to that Krugman column.

    I'd link to child snuff porn before I'd link to filth of that caliber.

  • T||

    Have to find somebody that respects individual rights more, which might be a tough one. We're bad, but still better than the rest of the pack.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Ha!!!!

  • Randian||

    A cynical laugh is not a counterargument, Kyfho.

  • Randian||

    Provided the country in question has a superior notion of individual rights, yes. And would you not welcome that?

  • $park¥||

    Yes she was anti-war. Truly anti-war. She was I believe in favor of America ending the Islamic revolution by force, a truly pro-peace position unlike the false peace favored by peaceniks.

    Forgive me, but this sounds remarkably like:

    Cytotoxic| 2.26.13 @ 1:26PM |#

    Please, he would eviscerate you in debating this subject.

    AHAHAHAHAHAHA Hero worship: not just for TEAM partisans.
  • Cytotoxic||

    It's like their Citizens United or Roe vs Wade or some such. It's a shame that the noninterventionist zealots have been so successful in presenting their views as one and the same as libertarianism. Libertarianism used to be richer and more thoughtful on the subject. Those voices are coming back however. For instance, I'm here.

  • SugarFree||

    Libertarianism used to be richer and more thoughtful on the subject. Those voices are coming back however. For instance, I'm here.

    Comedy gold. Keep 'em coming.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I crush you! I crush you!

  • Cytotoxic||

    At first they laugh...

  • ||

    Then they laugh at you harder?

    "Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder."

  • Irish||

    When you resort to calling your own voice rich and thoughtful, it's a good sign that you are neither.

  • TycheSD||

    Rand Paul is not going to be a serious challenger for the presidency if he alienates a fairly substantial bloc of voters that supported his father. Where will Paul make up for the lack of support from the paleoconservatives?

  • Cytotoxic||

    It seems a substantial block of Ron Paul's supporters live in a perpetual state of alienation and indeed constitute a cult of personality. They are really not worth courting.

  • sarcasmic||

    Cult of personality? More like believers in principles.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Cult. Of. Personality. I'm sure there are many of principle, but the Paultards are also numerous.

  • sarcasmic||

    Apparently you do not know what cult of personality means.

    Ron Paul is not a cult of personality. It is his message that resonates with people. Sure the messenger has something to do with it, but if someone else took a stand on the same principles, his fans would gravitate to that person.

    Obama is a cult of personality. Doesn't matter what the guy says, it's right because he's the one who said it. His message, whatever it is, could not be taken up by another person because it's about him. His message is irrelevant. It's all about him.

    See the difference?

    Didn't think so.

  • Libertymike||

    I think he does: witness his worship of Rand(not ian).

  • Randian||

    Why the hell are paleocons so wedded to Chuck Hagel?

  • John||

    Good question. If Hegel had a principled bone in his body, I could understand their support for him. But he doesn't. He will do whatever the hell the President tells him and whatever he thinks is good for him. Given that, what difference does it make that he opposed the Iraq War? It is not like there is any reason to believe that is an accurate predictor of his future behavior. He would have to have values and principles for that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why the hell are paleocons so wedded to Chuck Hagel?


    Because he looks like a handsomer Pat Buchanan?

  • Randian||

    I mean, they want to dump Rand Paul for Chuck Hagel? That's like if John Mayer left Katy Perry to go back to Jennifer Aniston: WHY?

  • Libertymike||

    Perhaps Jennifer Aniston does more for Woodrow than Katy Perry?

  • MJGreen||

    Making it tough for a warmongering president to get his latest yes-man appointed alienates Paulites?

    I mean, considering how petty we can be (and especially paleoconservatives), I can see that being the case. But it's ridiculous that it would be.

  • ||

    This thread is missing something. Hmmmm...what is it...ah, I know.

    *Turns off lights, looks into mirror*

    Donderoman, Donderoman, Donderoman!

  • Randian||

    Don't you put that evil on me, Ricky Bobby!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You fool! You've doomed us all! Doooooooomed us aaaaaaallllll!

  • Irish||

    I wasn't around in the days of Dondero but I keep hearing his name. Who was he?

  • robc||

    He was a former Paul staffer who would claim that ANYONE was more libertarian than Ron, just out of spite for being fired. He supported Guiliani as "the libertarian choice" in 2008.

    And that only skims the surface, but everything he said had to be taken with that as the background info.

  • ||

    He would also show up in the comments, become argumentative, and challenge people to fights. Unsurprisingly, he was confirmed as being really, really short by a commenter who saw him at a Paul function one time.

  • Irish||

    Wait, he'd pick fights on an internet message board? If you pick fights on the internet, it's a good sign that the average 9 year old girl could kick your ass.

  • ||

    I see that you have divined DONDERRROOOOO's nature quite quickly, grasshopper. Well done.

  • robc||

    He is pretty much the reason I started posting here. I used to post on red state some and kept getting into fights with him. Due to rules and shit, he was slightly more sanish over there.

    I left there well before the Paulite purge, but even though I supposedly didnt get purged, due to being a paulite poster pre-2008, I never tried to see if I could still log in.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    a.k.a. Eric Rittburg. I have it on good authority (a fat chick I know who boned him) that he has a small penis.

  • SugarFree||

    ex-Ron Paul staffer who returned to being a pro-war, Muslims-are-gonna-kill-us! Republican but demanded to still be considered a libertarian. He wanted us to vote for Guiliania and then Perry as great libertarian figures. He's most remembered for his confabulations, tuff gui act, and his incoherent hatred of Ron Paul.

  • robc||

    incoherent

    It was very coherent. Ron fired him, ergo, he hated Ron.

  • SugarFree||

    OK, I'll grant that. How about "frothing" or "hilarious" hatred?

  • robc||

    Oh yeah, both.

  • ||

    Santorifous hatred.

  • ||

    Impotent hatred, NutraSweet. Impotent. Like you.

  • SugarFree||

    My hatred is as turgid as ever.

  • ||

    I wasn't talking about your hatred.

  • ||

    HERE IS MY CELL PHONE NUMBER! IF YOU DON'T CALL ME, IT MEANS YOU'RE A PUSSY!

    Dondero is a man of legend, a man of mystery, a man whose name shall live forevermore. It is said that he singlehandedly got Rudy Giuliani elected President by canvassing neighborhoods nationwide, barefoot and uphill both ways. It is said that he defeated the New Black Panther Obamaphone hordes using nothing but a used-up Thai prostitute he happened to have in his pocket. His political effectiveness is matched only by his skill with women and his impeccable moustache.

  • robc||

    His skill with women being so great that he had to pay for him.

    And this isnt some shit we just made up, he bragged about all the whores he used to bang when he was in the Navy.

  • SugarFree||

    His skill with women being so great that he had to pay for him.

    Did he did deny them his essence.

    Seriously, though. If you've never seen a picture like robc and I have, get thee to the googler. He's hilarifying looking.

  • Irish||

    http://www.zimbio.com/member/ericdondero

    How could this sexy bastard not get laid without paying?

  • SugarFree||

    I know, it's baffling. Of course, it depends on what he was paying for.

  • ||

    Wait, does that work for LoneWhacko too?!?

  • SugarFree||

    I love this fight. It's like final season of Lost confusing. The warboners can't stand Hagel, but they also want to fuck-over-by-proxy the Paulians. The Paulians want to denounce Rand for not towing the non-existent party line, and have to resort to conspiracy theory to do it. And Libertymike and Cytotoxic are in a slapfight that mostly consists of each trying to make their positions less attractive to almost everyone else on the board.

  • John||

    And there is a simple answer to the entire thing: Chuck Hegel is a dangerous, unprincipled idiot who has no business anywhere near authority. His position on the Iraq war or any other intervention doesn't change that fact.

  • Randian||

    I'm kind of looking forward to your neocon tears when he gets confirmed.

  • John||

    You will still be looking because first I am not a NEOCON, you only think I am because you are apparently too dishonest or too stupid to know what the word means. And second, at this point Hegel has been so discredited among anyone not in the "well he once was against the Iraq war he must be great camp" that he really isn't going to be able to fulfill his intended role of giving Obama bipartisan cover to damage the Pentagon.

  • sarcasmic||

    because you are apparently too dishonest or too stupid to know what the word means

    Magazine or clip?

  • Fluffy||

    Ummm...damage the Pentagon?

    How's he going to do that, exactly?

    I could stroll through the Pentagon with a flamethrower and it wouldn't change the fact that their spending has increased eleventy infinity times over since 2001.

  • John||

    Obama wants massive defense cuts. I firmly believe that Obama thinks the world would be a better place if the US had a much less effective military and he has every intention of doing what he can to make sure that happens. But he doesn't have the courage to come out and say that. So he wants a Republican at SECDEF to give him cover.

  • ||

    Obama wants massive defense cuts.

    So does almost everyone here.

  • ||

    John, you think the dronemurderer and interferer-in-chief wants massive cuts in the military? Did you hit yourself in the head with a hammer or something?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Horseshit. Absolute nonsense. Obama thinks nothing of the sort. He is establishment through and through, and has done nothing to indicate otherwise, any statement to the contrary is partisan demagoguery.

    Truly the dialectic is strong in this one.

    BTW, I want massive defense cuts. I firmly believe that the world would be a better place if the US had a much less effective military and I have every intention of doing what I can to make sure that happens.

  • kbolino||

    Obama wants massive defense cuts.

    Obama hasn't got the balls to do to the DOD what Clinton did, and those cuts were hardly "massive", since we still outspent any conceivable by foe by more than ten-to-one.

    I firmly believe that Obama thinks the world would be a better place if the US had a much less effective military

    He has an odd way of showing it. Also, defense cuts ≠ less efficient military. If anything, the opposite is true (or rather would be, if the Pentagon wasn't allowed to game what it cuts).

  • $park¥||

    Anyone know why John keeps bringing up the guy who started German Idealism?

  • T||

    Yeah. Hagel himself is the best reason not to vote for him as dogcatcher, much less SecDef.

  • ||

    It's quite entertaining and is amusing me as I try to de-dupe some data. The best part is that no matter who loses (which is pretty much everyone), we win.

  • Randian||

    Game of Groans

  • SugarFree||

    Wintdurr is coming.

  • Randian||

    House Derptheon.

  • ||

    HODERP

  • SugarFree||

    A Lannister always pays his derps.

  • ||

    Hear me DURRRRR!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    "Raimondo, I wish you had believed in me -- RP"

  • ||

    I love this fight. It's like final season of Lost confusing.

    It took me weeks to decipher it myself, and then I tried to explain it to my bf. It was interesting.

  • Fluffy||

    The reason this entire argument is stupid is because it doesn't matter one rat ass who the Defense Secretary is.

    The Senate could vote to confirm ME as Defense Secretary tomorrow and it would mean absolutely nothing.

    So here we are at each other's throats because of a dispute over who gets to shuffle papers around at Obama's direction for a couple of years. Who gives a damn? Not me.

  • ||

    This is the correct answer.

  • sarcasmic||

    I dunno. Didn't Rumsfeld really change how the military was structured?

  • ||

    Shut up, Fluffy! You might ruin the fu...who am I kidding. We love to fight too much to stop this.

  • $park¥||

    Shut up, fag.

  • SugarFree||

    Don't let the greasy wop hair and waxed chest fool you, Epi is in fact a fag.

  • ||

    Fuck you, I do not ride a loud Harley. I may be the gayest monster since gay came to Gaytown, but I am not a Harley-riding fag.

  • SugarFree||

    Burmd-bur-da-rum-rum-rum-rum.

  • $park¥||

    Wait a second, Epi is the biker dude from the Village People?

  • John||

    Sure it doesn't. I guess that is why Reason never cared that Rumsfeld was SECDEF. Right?

  • Fluffy||

    Rumsfeld sure was personally unpopular, but if Bush had sacked him and replaced him with another appointee of his choice, what would have changed?

    Anything?

    Nope.

    So who cares?

    If Holder quits the AG's office tomorrow and is replaced by Interchangeable Obama Lackey #8, what difference will it make?

    None that I can see.

  • Randian||

    I have to disagree with you here, Fluffy. Leadership does matter, and while it may not make *much* of a difference, it does make a difference.

  • Fluffy||

    Enough to fight about it?

    Enough to make it a litmus test of whether or not one is "anti-interventionist"?

    Is Hagel going to stop the interventions? If Barry O wants to intervene, that's pretty much it right there.

  • Randian||

    Changes on the margins in a positive direction are better than no change at all.

    Would you be saying the same thing if Radley Balko was nominated for AG?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    No. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

  • Teaching Student||

    I say keep the fight going. It's entertaining and it keeps the jackasses in the Senate busy... otherwise they'd be focused on increasing spending, and taxes, and all that jazz.

  • TycheSD||

    Interesting comment from Allahpundit at HotAir blog:

    "The most interesting no vote here was, of course, Rand Paul’s. That’s one I got badly wrong; I thought for sure he’d try to placate the isolationists in his base by voting yes this time after voting no last week. Nope. He stuck to his guns, even though he had political cover to vote yes from no less than interventionist extraordinaire John McCain. Amazing. I think he’ll lose more votes from disaffected Ron Paul fans in 2016 than he’ll gain from mainstream conservatives by opposing Hagel, but oh well. Hope he knows what he’s doing."

  • ||

    From DONDERRRRROOOOOOOOOO's site:

    MONDAY MORNING BOMBSHELL: High class hooker fingers Menendez as a client, calls him a "schmuck" who can't get dates with regular women
    By Eric Dondero on February 25, 2013 | From libertarianrepublican.net

    Loser boy Menendez doesn't "have the skills" to have a real girlfriend says hooker

    From Eric Dondero:

    Oh my. Oh, Eric.

  • John||

    It is just a matter of time before an underage hooker falls out of the woodwork. And Dondero is just jealous that Menendez can afford good hookers.

  • Fluffy||

    Correction:

    The crony bribing Menendez can afford good hookers.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Does This Make Him an Interventionist?"

    It makes him a racist of course.

  • kendiggler||

    Doherty, admit it: you are apologizing. "Tortured prose" (Thanks, Justin Raimondo) is right. Look at how many times you claim Rand's critics want "unequivocal", "all the way", "unambiguously for" support of Hagel. No one is talking about unequivocal anything. But the fact of the matter is, Hagel is the most moderate and sensible nominee for Secretary of Defense that we've seen offered in the last decade.

    Rand is busy trying to earn his mainstream stripes, and Doherty, I know you are the "Paul-man" here at Reason, but you better hold his feet to the fire when he makes errors in judgement.

  • Randian||

    You have absolutely no evidence to support any of your claims. None.

  • Brian Doherty||

    The reason for the adjectives like "unequivocal" and "all the way" and "unambiguously" were there for a reason I assumed was obvious then and should be quite obvious now: it's silly to talk of a Senator full on opposing a nominee that he eventually votes for, which Paul has now done.

  • trickamsterdam||

    Problem w/ the analysis in this article is we all know they're not really blocking him for financial issues, since he turned in everything that previous nominees were required to.

    This is about 2016, and I don't see how on earth he even has the slightest chance of winning w/out the non interventionist vote. There's too many other FiCons, who are more mainstream.

    Whatever else he doesn't understand, I now am no longer confident that he understands political strategy. I'm also sure that part of this was kissing up to neo macarthyite "Tex" Cruz, the noted Tea Party extremist.

  • Irish||

    Neo-McCarthyite? Do people just throw around words without even knowing what they mean around here? "Christian Zionist!," "Neo-McCarthyite!, "Neocon!..." Honestly, it's like people have a vague sense that certain things are supposed to be bad, so they just call other people those words and assume they won the argument.

  • trickamsterdam||

    Why don't you define "McCarthyite" for me. We could then figure out if Cruz fits the "neo" part. According to my definition what I heard in that armed services committee hearing about money and Iran and N. Korea was neo-McCarthyism. Charges w/ no evidence, and requiring things no other SoD nominee has ever had to produce, in order to taint his reputation and intimidate his supporters is...what I said.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When the Reps were standing as one against Hagel, then I can see Paul standing with them - why break with your own party for the sake of one of Obama's nominees?

    I'm not so sure now that the Republicans seem to be splitting on the issue. Why go with the anti-Hagel crowd in his own party rather than the pro-Hagel (or pro-cloture) folks?

  • Gladstone||

    I still don't get how Chuck Hagel has become some sort of anti-war litmus test. Whatever integrity he may have had has been destroyed by his accepting an appointment in the Obama administration.

    Also why are "anti-war" folks so willing to support an Obama appointee? I mean Raimondo was gushing over Obama back in 2008 and gushing that his re-election is some sort of anti-war statement today. I guess he wants to recreate the "anti-war" left. Good luck with that!

    And Raimondo's post is pure guilt by association. It's sad that if the non-interventionists stopped using guilt by association and ad hominem arguments then there might not even be any non-interventionist arguments!

  • ||

    one
    MY CONGRATULATIONS GOES TO ISRAEL, THEIR LOVE ONES IN DC DONUTHOLE AND WHOEVER OWES ZIONISTS BANKSTERS MONEY OR BRIBE SUSPECT. HAGEL CLOTURE PASSES 71-27; FINAL VOTE: The Senate voted to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, replacing Leon Panetta to win a 58-41 vote Republicans Finally End Their Filibuster of Chuck Hagel. That’s makes sense now to me. Nirupama Rao hangover influenced by DC Israelifirsters who probably promised her Chamcha and her family E-2 visas if she ever uses Indian stance to put Hagel vote to death. Hagel remarks ain’t unearthed Monday by Washington Free Beacon Israelifirsters. Hagel speech at Oklahoma's Cameron University is GoogledJunk for some time since 2011. Where’s the Indian Ambassador all these years? Nirupama Rao fast asleep for past 2 years. If Nirupama Rao took her 2 years to Google Hagel Speech - How would India sport Afghan Politics to rile Pakistan by Rao-Type at the helm in Delhi - Unless Pakistan exploiting Delhi superiority-complex to drain Indian treasury in stockpiling on arms for a war that both ain’t dare. Wow! Jonathan. I am waiting for this unforgettable moment of Truth.

  • ||

    two
    Chuck Hagel will be confirmed as Secretary of Defense when Senate reconvenes. Republicans abandoned delaying nomination. Stalwart friends of Israel Democrats closed ranks behind President Obama’s choice. Chuck Hagel ain’t ridiculed for his incompetent performance during confirmation hearing and troubling stands on Israel, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will be running Pentagon. As Orwell coined contradictory beliefs of hypocrisy and neutrality Pete the doublethinker wrote earlier today, having a “dim-witted” Secretary of Defense who isn’t up to task of helping to set policy is bad for National Security. Quit babooning ‘National Security’ ain’t child-play. You and Pete knew that you ain’t winning this battle but both of you continued promising your conscious of a victories that ain’t there. Give me in the seven thousands years of Jewish history one metaphor that begins with ‘Once upon a time......and ends.....and they lived happily ever after’. I feel sorry for both of you.

  • ||

    How about opposing Hagel because he's a senile clown who you wouldn't trust to be able to spell NATO?

  • BluthHousing||

    Hey, Rand voted for him, someone should update that.

    The four Republican senators who voted for his confirmation were Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Mr. Paul and Richard Shelby of Alabama.

  • trickamsterdam||

    I'd say he made the right decision, both politically and policy-wise.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement