McCain/Obama Debate II: 10/07/08

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated?

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.

The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.

It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”

Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!

So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?

Wartime. W-A-R-T-I-M-E. That’s all that needs to be said. Why that even needs to be said, I don’t know.

Because it’s the same clause and neither can be forbidden under a constitutional interpretation that allows for one. The Constitution is not your personal plaything where you’re free to pick one interpretation that supports a normative outcome you like and then simply discard it in another situation where you wouldn’t like the results.

Madison and Jefferson and all other Founders who adopted your interpreation did not feel the federal government should have power to enact measures not specifically authorized by the Constitution in order to wage war either.[/quote]

What measures are we talking about again? I must have skipped something. I obviously don’t find commandeering homes to be constitutional. But, it’s obvious the Government was empowered to raise an army and provide for it. Is that not an enumerated power? I certainely don’t see providing healthcare listed.

182

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated?

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.

The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.

It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”

Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!

So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?

Wartime. W-A-R-T-I-M-E. That’s all that needs to be said. Why that even needs to be said, I don’t know.

Because it’s the same clause and neither can be forbidden under a constitutional interpretation that allows for one. The Constitution is not your personal plaything where you’re free to pick one interpretation that supports a normative outcome you like and then simply discard it in another situation where you wouldn’t like the results.

Madison and Jefferson and all other Founders who adopted your interpreation did not feel the federal government should have power to enact measures not specifically authorized by the Constitution in order to wage war either.

What measures are we talking about again? I must have skipped something. I obviously don’t find commandeering homes to be constitutional. But, it’s obvious the Government was empowered to raise an army and provide for it.[/quote]

I’m talking about rationing. Among other things. During WWII, the government commandeered any and every aspect of civilian life. It completely controlled the distribution of resources during WWII. The government controlled what families received from cars to sugar, to gasoline to shoes to milk. What each family could afford and thought it needed was irrelevant.

Now, I think this was good and probably necessary at the time. But there’s no explicit language in the Constitution granting the government the authority to do anything of the sort and enact this kind of control. It’s justified by the authority of the federal government to tax and spend for the Common Defense and General Welfare.

Conversely, I don’t always agree with programs the federal government funds or how it spends our money. But I think it’s equally supported by this clause. I don’t think the federal government’s hands should be tied and that there’s an absolute prohibition on it spending money on something not expressly enumerated in the constitution. While I often don’t approve what it spends on, I don’t agree there is a constitutional limitation to only those things expressly listed in the constitution.

183

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Are you a complete ignoramus with no knowledge of history? Madison diametrically opposed Hamilton and had a completely different view. [/quote] when? always? before the consitution was being ratified? Read what I said and then go back and create a timeline for us. smarty pants[quote]
Your view. He believed that spending had to be tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers. And that the General Welfare clause was not a specific grant of power. Merely a statement of purpose that qualified the power to tax.

The debates between the two were famous, well-documented, and legendary. [/quote] Again, read what I said and then go and create a timeline for us. You might learn something. [quote]And far from being ‘mislead’ by them, other scholars and ratifiers of the time participated in the debates and took sides. Nothing you say in this thread can be given credit. There most certainly was a most spirited debate abou what the General Welfare clause meant [/quote] very good. what was hamilton’s position before it was ratified? What was it after he became treasury secretary? Are you following yet?[quote] and what the Constiutiton was designed to do. Both before and after it was ratified.[/quote]

So let me recap your homework.

Were Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (can’t forget that jackass)always at odds?

When where the federalist papers published?

When was the consitution ratified?

Was Hamilton advocating a strong central gov’t during the ratification process or was he trying to appease fears of a strong federal gov’t?

When did Madison and Jefferson split from Hamilton and Jay?

That should be enough for you at this point.

184

JS,

Many of the institutions that “commandeered” aspects of the economy during WWII were New Deal organizations newly-fitted to war purposes. Mostly the same people too.

However, by that time the Constitution had already been thoroughly trampled on by FDR and his Supreme Court appointees.

Abusing the Commerce Clause was one of the ways this travesty was achieved.

FDR should have been impeached.

185

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
JS,

Many of the institutions that “commandeered” aspects of the economy during WWII were New Deal organizations newly-fitted to war purposes. Mostly the same people too.

However, by that time the Constitution had already been thoroughly trampled on by FDR and his Supreme Court appointees.
[/quote] are you talking about him threatening addional appointees to get them to rule in his favor, or did he actually have appointees to the original 9. I can’t recall.

[quote]
Abusing the Commerce Clause was one of the ways this travesty was achieved.

FDR should have been impeached. [/quote]

186

[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Are you a complete ignoramus with no knowledge of history? Madison diametrically opposed Hamilton and had a completely different view. when? always? before the consitution was being ratified? Read what I said and then go back and create a timeline for us. smarty pants
Your view. He believed that spending had to be tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers. And that the General Welfare clause was not a specific grant of power. Merely a statement of purpose that qualified the power to tax.

The debates between the two were famous, well-documented, and legendary. Again, read what I said and then go and create a timeline for us. You might learn something. And far from being ‘mislead’ by them, other scholars and ratifiers of the time participated in the debates and took sides. Nothing you say in this thread can be given credit. There most certainly was a most spirited debate abou what the General Welfare clause meant very good. what was hamilton’s position before it was ratified? What was it after he became treasury secretary? Are you following yet? and what the Constiutiton was designed to do. Both before and after it was ratified.

So let me recap your homework.

Were Madison, Hamilton, and Jay (can’t forget that jackass)always at odds?

When where the federalist papers published?

When was the consitution ratified?

Was Hamilton advocating a strong central gov’t during the ratification process or was he trying to appease fears of a strong federal gov’t?

When did Madison and Jefferson split from Hamilton and Jay?

That should be enough for you at this point.

[/quote]

You have no credibility. Before. After. Always. Madison always favored a weaker, more decentralized government (until he largely caved 30 years LATER as president). Hamilton always favored a strong, central executive. Both men supported ratification of the Constitution. And wrote the Federalist papers BEFORE the Constitution was ratified. Used the Federalists papers, the portions written by each radically different, to push ratification. Each argued for their own vision. And these two competing visions were fiercly championed by each at the Constitutional Convention.

A concensus on the proper distribution of powers was never reached. The only thing everyone agreed on was that the Constiution in its entirety was preferable to the Articles of Confederation. Madison and Hamilton WERE unified in their push for the adoption of the Constitution. But they never shared the same fundamental view of government under it. This is reflected by his actual writings in the Federalist papers. With the exception of the Virgina Plan compromise, nothing he did endorsed a strong central government. And he promoted his views in the debates. He just didn’t make it a lynchpin because the overall goal was to get the Constitution passed. No true concensus was ever reached. Probably why the Constiution is such a convulted document. What with the neceassy and proper clause. The reservation of powers not mentioned left to the states. And the ambisous Taxing and Spending clause. This is a fundamental tension that has persisted throughout this country’s existence.

Maybe your mispercetpion is based on belief of earlier Madison scholars that he did an about face. Understandable, I suppose. Modern Madison scholars, including Antonin Scalia, reject this view.

And yes. After the Constituion passed, Madison assumed an open and active opposition of Hamitlon and any strong, centralized government.

187

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
JS,

Many of the institutions that “commandeered” aspects of the economy during WWII were New Deal organizations newly-fitted to war purposes. Mostly the same people too.

However, by that time the Constitution had already been thoroughly trampled on by FDR and his Supreme Court appointees.

Abusing the Commerce Clause was one of the ways this travesty was achieved.

FDR should have been impeached. [/quote]

At least you are consistent. But that interpretation of the Constitution had been ‘trampled,’ if you will, long before that. Back in 1791 with the establishment of Hamilton’s bank. It gained a brief resurgence during Jefferson’s administration. But pretty much lost out after that. Even Madison largely abandoned it when he came to power, rechartering the bank in 1816.

Many would like to return to it. As this thread shows. And tensions have persisted throughout our history. Fundamentally different visions of America, not the least of which was states rights v. a strong federal government, was at the root of the Civil War as much as slavery. But it hasn’t stopped the massive expansion of the federal government. And this began long before Roosevelt.

188

[quote]dhickey wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
JS,

Many of the institutions that “commandeered” aspects of the economy during WWII were New Deal organizations newly-fitted to war purposes. Mostly the same people too.

However, by that time the Constitution had already been thoroughly trampled on by FDR and his Supreme Court appointees.
are you talking about him threatening addional appointees to get them to rule in his favor, or did he actually have appointees to the original 9. I can’t recall.

Abusing the Commerce Clause was one of the ways this travesty was achieved.

FDR should have been impeached.

[/quote]

If I remember right they weren’t actual justices as he knew that wouldn’t fly, but were some kind of associate types. Or maybe it was actual full justices. I can’t remember now either. It was one of the existing justices, whose name also escapes me at the moment, who finally caved to spare the court the indignity of the fight over the fiat appointment of additional members. Something along those lines. It’s been a while since I read about this.

The bottom line is there was wide and loud opposition to the new deal that FDR found a way to overcome, constitution be damned. He did have heavy support in both houses of congress though and a very vulnerable public bowed before their radios for those fireside chats and off we went.

189

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated?

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.

The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.

It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”

Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!

So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?

Wartime. W-A-R-T-I-M-E. That’s all that needs to be said. Why that even needs to be said, I don’t know.

Because it’s the same clause and neither can be forbidden under a constitutional interpretation that allows for one. The Constitution is not your personal plaything where you’re free to pick one interpretation that supports a normative outcome you like and then simply discard it in another situation where you wouldn’t like the results.

Madison and Jefferson and all other Founders who adopted your interpreation did not feel the federal government should have power to enact measures not specifically authorized by the Constitution in order to wage war either.

What measures are we talking about again? I must have skipped something. I obviously don’t find commandeering homes to be constitutional. But, it’s obvious the Government was empowered to raise an army and provide for it.

I’m talking about rationing. Among other things. During WWII, the government commandeered any and every aspect of civilian life. It completely controlled the distribution of resources during WWII. The government controlled what families received from cars to sugar, to gasoline to shoes to milk. What each family could afford and thought it needed was irrelevant.

Now, I think this was good and probably necessary at the time. But there’s no explicit language in the Constitution granting the government the authority to do anything of the sort and enact this kind of control. It’s justified by the authority of the federal government to tax and spend for the Common Defense and General Welfare.

Conversely, I don’t always agree with programs the federal government funds or how it spends our money. But I think it’s equally supported by this clause. I don’t think the federal government’s hands should be tied and that there’s an absolute prohibition on it spending money on something not expressly enumerated in the constitution. While I often don’t approve what it spends on, I don’t agree there is a constitutional limitation to only those things expressly listed in the constitution.[/quote]

I can’t keep going round and round with you. You’ve taken a reference to the immediately following list of enumerated powers (WHICH DOES PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE US) and turned it into some opened ended enumerated power that can mean anything and everything (which also would mean there are no powers left to the states). And the whole point was simply to empower the government to raise the revenue so it could exercise it’s limited range of duties.

190

[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government is limited in what it decides it should spend on or tax to support.

The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states.

I have no idea how you don’t see the contradiction.

Because the power to tax and spend is expressly granted to the federal government both for defense and the general welfare. And this is no written limitation on this power.

But how can it spend money on powers not stated?

You did say, The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states

I don’t see a stated power to set up and maintain a healthcare system.

The powers are specifically stated: 1. Common defense. 2. General welfare. No one has any beef over the federal government having sole discretion over necessary taxing and spending for defense.

It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

Common defense and General welfare is shorthand for “the STATED powers, that aren’t reserved for the states.” What you’re quoting is meant to spell out the obvious, “yes the federal government can tax to carry out it’s powers.”

Otherwise, your own statement The Constituion does say that powers not stated are reserved for the states makes absolutely no sense, because the government can now do anything and everything. Own and operate the means of production and distribute the goods to everyone, equally? And decide how scarce resources are going to be used? It’s for the general welfare! Set a limit on how much a CEO or doctor can be paid? It’s for the General welfare!

So, are you just as against all the heavy wartime measures that were undertaken as you are against programs not expressly mentioned in the Constitution? If not, what is the CONSTIUTIONAL authority from which they derive?

Wartime. W-A-R-T-I-M-E. That’s all that needs to be said. Why that even needs to be said, I don’t know.

Because it’s the same clause and neither can be forbidden under a constitutional interpretation that allows for one. The Constitution is not your personal plaything where you’re free to pick one interpretation that supports a normative outcome you like and then simply discard it in another situation where you wouldn’t like the results.

Madison and Jefferson and all other Founders who adopted your interpreation did not feel the federal government should have power to enact measures not specifically authorized by the Constitution in order to wage war either.

What measures are we talking about again? I must have skipped something. I obviously don’t find commandeering homes to be constitutional. But, it’s obvious the Government was empowered to raise an army and provide for it.

I’m talking about rationing. Among other things. During WWII, the government commandeered any and every aspect of civilian life. It completely controlled the distribution of resources during WWII. The government controlled what families received from cars to sugar, to gasoline to shoes to milk. What each family could afford and thought it needed was irrelevant.

Now, I think this was good and probably necessary at the time. But there’s no explicit language in the Constitution granting the government the authority to do anything of the sort and enact this kind of control. It’s justified by the authority of the federal government to tax and spend for the Common Defense and General Welfare.

Conversely, I don’t always agree with programs the federal government funds or how it spends our money. But I think it’s equally supported by this clause. I don’t think the federal government’s hands should be tied and that there’s an absolute prohibition on it spending money on something not expressly enumerated in the constitution. While I often don’t approve what it spends on, I don’t agree there is a constitutional limitation to only those things expressly listed in the constitution.

I can’t keep going round and round with you. You’ve taken a reference to the immediately following list of enumerated powers (WHICH DOES PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE US) and turned it into some opened ended enumerated power that can mean anything and everything (which also would mean there are no powers left to the states). And the whole point was simply to empower the government to raise the revenue so it could exercise it’s limited range of duties.[/quote]

ME? I didn’t realize I was alive 200 years ago and created this vision of federal government with Alexander Hamilton and half of the the other delegates. Or fostered this interpretation and nurtured its application through each succsessive adminstration. I must’ve been really drunk. What a blackout.

I fully respect the merits of your opinion and your committment that it is the correct one. But stop pretending that this is an interpreation I concocted today and hasn’t been the dominant view over the last two centuries. This is a view of what America was and should be that originated before the Constitution was written.

191

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
That sure is an ugly audience. Where did they dig up these people?[/quote]

That is all I could think of the entire time.

192

I don’t know why I’m even arguing with you guys. The proper of meaning of this clause has been one of if not the most contensious element of the Constiution since it was drafted. And even before.

The distribution of power between states and the federal government wast the biggest stumbling block to ratification of the Constitution. And never truly settled.

I suppose it’s also your business if you want to think this was never an issue until Roosevelt’s expansion of federal power rather than hundreds of years earliler.

193

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
<<< I suppose it’s also your business if you want to think this was never an issue until Roosevelt’s expansion of federal power rather than hundreds of years earliler. [/quote]

It moved from a contentious point of principle onto the street in the most concrete way to date under Roosevelt until last week.

Wilson unlocked it and Roosevelt swung the door open. It blew in the wind until the 60’s when LBJ put a stopper under it and soon we will kick the door off it’s hinges altogether.

It’s inevitable human nature. When not forced to fend for themselves people will surrender their liberties to false government security.

The fact of BO is proof positive of this undeniable truth.

194

I heard McCain said he knows how to find Osama Bin Laden. Selfish bastard, why hasn’t he told anyone else?

197

Neither of these people deserve my vote, we are forced into picking the better among the horrible.

198

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
<<< I suppose it’s also your business if you want to think this was never an issue until Roosevelt’s expansion of federal power rather than hundreds of years earliler.

It moved from a contentious point of principle onto the street in the most concrete way to date under Roosevelt until last week.

Wilson unlocked it and Roosevelt swung the door open. It blew in the wind until the 60’s when LBJ put a stopper under it and soon we will kick the door off it’s hinges altogether.

It’s inevitable human nature. When not forced to fend for themselves people will surrender their liberties to false government security.

The fact of BO is proof positive of this undeniable truth.

[/quote]

Hmm…well, if you are talking about increased expansion of federal government, that is valid. But it hasn’t been a point of principle in over 200 years. We’ve never had a government Madison and those who espouse his principles would find approprite and constitutional. That’s why I think we’ve really wasted our time disputing this.

It’s a done deal. That’s why I think the focus needs to be what I said pages ago. Reigning in the excesses of government. Not worrying about whether any programs not expressly described by the constitution are constitutional. You may not like the result, but the verdict on that was out a long time ago. Any argument that a particular federal program/initiative is unconstitutional should be replaced by that argument that it’s wasteful, innappropriate, and should not be implemented. That’s an argument that actually has legs today.

199

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
It’s only the General Welfare part that gets some. I know it would be much easier if these words weren’t there. But they are. You can explain them away with an interpretation and claim they too only were meant to refer to security and defense. But you can’t just ignore them.

Government sponsored health care is not “general welfare”.

General welfare is spending that benefits everyone. Healthcare, welfare, and all the other social programs benefit some at the expense of others.

It is not that hard to understand that taking money from one group for the benefit of another group is not what the founding fathers intended.

That was why they started the damn revolution in the first place: unfair taxation.

Now, the left wants to do exactly what England did to us over 200 years ago. Tax the shit out of some so that others don’t have to do anything.

We need another fucking revolution.

I am not in favor of national healthcare myself. I just don’t believe it’s unconstitutional.

Yea, and I’m in favor of candy and nuts and powder puffs for all who want them. WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THIS?

SHEESH.

Why are liberals so freaking stupid? No really how come they can’t figure out that taking more from those who have is a BAD idea for so many very good reasons.

[/quote]

I don’t know why the liberals are stupid.

200

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Our relationship with Israel is not the reason for their hatred. The should be on their knees thanking us for keeping Israel leashed up and muzzled.

Can you imagine the carnage of the muslims if we let Israel go and take care of the Middle East?
[/quote]

Rainjack…I beg to differ on this one…and this is just my view point. And I want to preface this by saying I respect what you post here.

Do you really think Israel would be this powerful without the billions of dollars we give them ?

There is a hate between Arabs and Jews that is in their blood. I know first hand…my grandparents were 100% Arab and I lived with them…they were both born in Lebanon ( which was a beautiful country…the jewel of the Med prior to all the shit that happened to that country. And…predominantly a Christian country prior to all the garbage there now). They REALLY hated Israel and ‘those damn Jews’ ! I would ask them why…no particular answer…just that they did and babble something about taking land away. You know the story. Point is, they did not have a valid answer as to why they hated Israel…possibly because their parents did, and their parents did, etc.

It’s been that way for thousands of years and the people over there have been living their way of life for thousands of years. Do you really think the reason they hate us is our way of life ? It could be a small part, but it is not the main reason.

Lebanese people do have a hatred of Israel and Jews. And they are not Muslim, so our way of life does not contradict any Islamic rules, etc.

They want us out of there, and they don’t like us supporting Israel in any way… we are just like Israel in their eyes.

And in a perverse way, I really believe they want Israel to unleash weapons of mass destruction on them. To them, it would then be the ultimate Jihad.