Obama doesn't hate America. No, really. Please believe me.

[Perd Hapley]

In that first post, I said that hatred is action, not motivation; so I was very clearly positing a difference between motivation and action.

In my second post, I agreed that I have a tendency to over-state my point about the practical components of love and hate; and that hatred can include motivation, emotion, and action (which it does, even if your dictionary doesn't understand that).

So, no, I certainly have not claimed that action is the same as motivation. Quite the reverse.

But let's go to the Founders for a minute.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

They appeared to believe, and I agree with them, that constant abuse is an acceptable basis by which to judge motivation. It may not be proof-positive, but it is not without meaning.

With leftists (including Obama) we have more to go by than just action. Their words are often quite damning.

[griz]

But let's go to the Founders for a minute.
They appeared to believe, and I agree with them, that constant abuse is an acceptable basis by which to judge motivation. It may not be proof-positive, but it is not without meaning.

With leftists (including Obama) we have more to go by than just action. Their words are often quite damning.

I started to post an explanation about how the founders were judging the results of England's actions, not England's motivation.  But, as you put it, the dictionary disagrees with you on some of the words required to make the point.  So I'll just point out that the Declaration of Independence did not say "England hates the colonies".

[Perd Hapley]

But it does say that "a long train of abuses and usurpations" evinced "a design to reduce them to absolute despotism." The point is that they regarded a string of repeated actions as evidence for a particular motivation (to reduce the colonies to absolute despotism). In the real world, realistic people give at least as much weight to action as to words. You may continue, if you wish, as a Pollyanna believing the best about people that promote murder and constantly act to restrict your freedom. That never stop fomenting discord and hatred along racial, gender and class lines. I'm just pointing out the need for realism.

Now, how long are you two going to hump my leg on this topic?

[MicroBalrog]

You may continue, if you wish, as a Pollyanna believing the best about people that promote murder and constantly act to restrict your freedom.

I don't think we believe the best about the Republican Party.

[Perd Hapley]

Touche. 

[griz]

Well we have certainly covered our differences. If you feel like I'm humping your leg I'll bow out now.

[roo_ster]

For my own part, the noise coming out of someone's mouth is usually that: noise, a distraction from the mouth while the hands are doing something else entirely.  If you want to know their heart and/or what they truly value, watch their actions.  In many cases, watch how they spend their money.  In the case of policritters, how they act and spend OUR money.

Mealy mouthed platitudes attempting to assuage ire while giving to folks in the poop chute don't make the raping any less rapey.

[Balog]

If you recall, I agree that Obama et al hate America. I'm merely pointing out that your argument is flawed because it is based on changing the meaning of common and commonly accepted and understood words. Bad logic is bad logic, even when I agree with the erroneously arrived at conclusion. And I keep arguing because you continue to be obstinate in your illogic. That being said...

www.xkcd.com/386

[Perd Hapley]

As I've already said, I haven't changed the definitions of any words, merely pointed out correct definitions.

Are you saying that "hate" cannot refer to action, that it is limited to thought or feeling? If so, do dictionary definitions support this? For example, Merriam-Webster's defines hate as "intense hostility and aversion," and defines hostility as "deep-seated usually mutual ill will b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare." * So why do you say that "hate" refers only to hostile thoughts or feelings, not acts?   

And lastly, how does my allegedly heterodox definition of "hatred" amount to bad logic? There is a difference between bad premises and bad logic. One's premise can be flawed, as you argue that mine is, while one's logic is sound. I trust, if you presume to impeach another's logic, that you will agree with that commonly accepted principle.

*
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostility