Hate Mail
Blah, blah, blah! Good point, but FUCK YOU anyway!
Well, I’ve only got one to share at the moment, though I’m sure there will be more to follow. In the past, I haven’t saved it – I’ve gotten plenty. So, no time to start like the present…
Feel free to add your personal hate mail to this page. I can take it.
- Here’s the first one I saved:
Who (sic) now I get it Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:59 PM From: “Jim Campbell”
Cock Breath, you can’t find one thing on my site that says I was for Qur’an burning. You are just another of a long line of ignorant liberal dupes ESODMF, don’t come by any longer until you take a course in reading comprehension. (This is in response to a comment I posted to his article that Muslims in Afghanistan had burned Bibles, and liberals were silent about it. I’d post my comment, but Jim didn’t see fit to allow dissenting points of view on his site. My response: Jim, thank you for showing concern about my education. I certainly will take your recommendation into consideration. I’m glad you enjoyed my comments and hope to hear from you again soon.)
- This is from one of my favorite bloggers. This woman is so angry and mean spirited that she never fails to amuse. I wrote a snarky and sarcastic. but G-rated response to one of her anti-immigration rants. Here is the thread that followed:
You said 3 hours ago:
I heard it was the Jewish gangs responsible for those bodies.
themadjewess said 2 hours ago:
Thats a typical response from a left wing NAZI, which is why you wont see THIS Jew Kike EVER vote in one of you treasonous rat bastards.
I think that you assholes should move to the border from Indianapolis, pronto and then we can watch how your ass is fucked and then they bury your tiny little dick too, then you can explain to God how you suddenly need a come to Jesus moment.
IT SO FIGURES MJ!!!!
These assholes think that people that are **illegal**, which means NOT LEGAL are OK. GET OUT OF OUR COUNTRY YOU LEFT WING PIECE OF SHIT! GO TO MEXICO since you love it better than AMERICA!
- I received this one about my post “Conservative Personal Ads: Men Seeking… Whatever (pt. 1)“
Go to Hell Friday, February 11, 2011 11:34 AM
From: “Alistar3475”
Screw you homo. I didn’t see your type tearing down youre beloved Clinton after his oral office blow jobs and then lying about it. You democraps take every chance you get to tear down good moral people on the right whenever they make a mistake, but act like it never happened when its one of your guys.
Why don’t you grow up or shut the hell up!
thebigotbasher
The_Conservative_Lie
The Conservative Lie 
You must be doing something right to get these idiots so worked up! Keep it up.
Just found your site. Love it. I will be back often, and link to you in my regular Facebook political arguments.
That letter is hy-larious. I get similar responses to editorials I write for my local paper, “The Charleston Gazette”.
I guess there really is something to those studies that correlate higher IQ with a tendency to be more liberal, and lower IQ with a robotic allegiance to conservatism.
thanks!!
I find this site interesting. I only have one question, well maybe two. Do all conservatives lie? Also, do liberals lie?
I think there are a lot of liars out there. Your site would be very useful pointing out all the lies. Keep up your good work.
Hello Cynthia.
I’ve posted about this before, and address it briefly in “About”. No, not all conservatives lie. Yes, many liberals lie. I think there is a difference though, and I graciously allow the good folks over at Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute bash the liberals.
Yes especially since Liberals do also lie, but he seems to hide it and say only the Conservatives do, someone needs to have an openmind sure would help a lot of people see things clearer. I am just sick of tired of Liberals going, “Blahh, Blahh Conservatives Lie” and then there’s the Conservatives doing the same thing back, I mean someone has to be right. Oh and nothing on your sight is Conservatives plain out “lieing.” If you’re a Conservative or Liberal you are going to have a bias on the subject it’s blantly facts that are opinionized in which MEDIA DOES ALL THE TIME!
.
Thanks for your response. I was being somewhat of a smart ass though because I am finding out that there really isn’t much difference between my conservative friends and me, they just want to do it differently.
I also think we should try to become one against the true problem we have today and that is most of our elected officials. If we truly look into most of their motives it is all about power. The big mouths like Limbaugh and Beck, well I don’t think they truly represent most of the people who are conservative in nature – they are trouble makers.
I love this site and the lies that it brings to light. Looking forward to many more interesting blogs, articles, and etc.
Republicani$m is not a mind set, it is a disease.
Wisconsin protesters have just stopped it from being terminal for our country.
fuc–n brilliant, lets spend more money we don’t have!@#$%^ Unions suck is why they are dwindling, teachers stats suck although they are overpaid, lib politicos accomplishments on par with Greece, no need to say more. Long live conservatives!!!!!!!!!!!!
@libsuk THANKS FOR THE ONLY OUNCE OF TRUTH FOUND ON THIS SITE!!!
Glenn Beck a large bag of shit!!!
he is so cool unlike you blood and money sucking leach!
Anthony, you once again fail to say anything intelligent and you want libs to keep running this country into the ground? Just another weak lib! Republicans will prevail in 2012 and bring us back to exceptionalism from the failed lib policies of Obama and his band of crooks. What a wasted 4 years and trillions of debt.
Great site, and happy that your was highly recommended by one of your followers. Keep up the good work.
I think themadjewess needs to have her “Jesus moment” before she lectures anyone else. Would Jesus approve of swearing like a sailor, calling people Nazis, and such inappropriate comments? Is that what right wingers call an intellectual argument? When people stoop so low, it is frustrating and makes me want to do the same. Then I remember that if you let yourself lose your cool in the face of such immaturity, then you have truly lost.
Except for there are a lot of Liberals who stoop so low, it only depends on the person in general. Just watch MSNBC if you don’t believe me, a bunch of sailors right there.
Months later I find that there are conservative lies via Boehner, TTP lies via Bachman, Obama lies, lies lies lies. I think it is time to replace them all and take a few people from this thread to run DC. Except for that Jewish woman. I consider myself moderate/conservative but she is some right wing nut job.
Love this site.
I am sick and tired of conservatives, liberals, resucklicans. I will always be a proud democrat and miss bill clinton and love obama. I believe resucklicans are the nazis that left Germany and want to screw everybody. How dare you not making the rich pay their fare share and everybody to deserve being healthy. When I am constapated, I think about resucklicans and I crap for hours. I thank them for that and only that. Boner, or whatever the spelling needs to cry again. He is such a douche bag. Obama will be reelected by a landslide, mark my word. Remember when hoover was trashed by FDR he caused the depression and FDR, a democrat, made the world better. My father lived during the depression and think that the resucklicans want this again. These piece of shit people who wanted the prohibition are narrow minded and dumber that shit. The taxes lost were crazy. They voted for the Volstad Act and were still drinking like crazy. Resucklicans are such hippocrites. God they suck, I can go on forever, but they still suck
can you say bye bye Bama and fat ass Flotus? Re-election poll numbers suck, wonder why? because you are all so wrong! What a dumb ass lib! Probably agree with Chavez too! You liberal, immoral, life sucking scum bag!
probably should watch the words, that never gets respect by anyone. do you really wanna stoop down to Scotts level? I mean come on, you really want to talk like a Lib? (:
don’t mean to correct you, but the only thing that helped the great depression was getting into WW11, anything else FDR did was basically pure crap that got nowhere, but somehow gave people relief. Also I do believe Hoover was president during the ROARING 20’s which was the best time in America, but you don’t seem to mention that.
angie, you seem to be ignorant of your history. The 20s were “Roaring” only for the upper class. the FACT is that income and wealth disparity was at an all-time high in the 20s, a point which we have recently reached again, just before the crash of ’08. And while the social programs of the 30s and 40s put Americans to work and built infrastructure, the Bush bank bail outs and weak stimulus we got thanks to republican watering down of Obama’s proposals only put a band aid on the problem and didn’t correct it as FDR’s initiatives did. Actually the GREATEST period of economic prosperity occured during the periods when FDR’s programs and government SPENDING due to WWII were the highest, as were taxes. We can see the decline of the American middle and working class coincide with the policies of Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush that favor corporations and the wealthy. These policies remove money from the working/spending class and concentrate wealth at the upper income brackets. In the short term this shows growth, due to increased investing and increased personal debt (which counts toward the GDP). In the long run, however, when the spending classes have no more money to spend and no more credit to use, people stop spending, jobs dry up and VIOLA! recession!!! It isn’t rocket science.
Libs are ruining this country with all of their reckless spending, wasteful and unnecessary social programs and over the top benefits putting us into debt faster than European countries. Why do people need FREE A/C, cell phones, 3 meals a day, housing, cash etc for free? Because they do not and NEVER will work. Racism has also become reverse racism where a white person cannot walk down the street in a black or Mexican neighborhood that we “pay for” but if they come into our neighborhoods and cause havoc, steal, etc. we are racist for defending ourselves? Things have gone TOO FAR! Damn Dems, Pelosi, Reid ad poor Curious George(Obama)!
No, you’re not racist. You refer to the President of the United States as a monkey in your comment, but obviously that isn’t racist. Idiot.
I’d consider Clinton a monkey too, hey he’s white doesn’t seem racist now… You guys take name calling like monkey and then you start comparing traits of a monkey and say that Conservatives are comparing black people to monkeys when that could be simply not the case. I think the one that points out the racism is clearly the true RACIST.
WTH. I read what the representative had to say about Mrs. Obama’s backside and I read about a failed Tea Party candidate calling for the assassination of the first family. I think this is just awful. The Obama’s are a beautiful family. By nature I am conservative as I believe in a small federal government. However, I will never want to be associated with these kind of idiots. Obama’s economic policies may get a C but he has done many other things that he gets an A++ for. He is our president and he should be respected.
Okay, I will Obama an A+ for telling his kids to stop watching “Keeping Up with the Khardishians”.
You know, if one takes the time to do the metrics on who is paying their fair share and who is not, it is the 50% of us who is not paying their fair share. Obama and other top dems make a pretty good case of pitting the working class against the “wealthy” and I would dive right into believing this except for the basic fact that one, they could eliminate the ridiculous tax codes that let corps like GE pay zero dollars in taxes, and two, they have seemed to place themselves above the law. The top 1% of our tax payers pay their fair share along with those of us who are lucky enough to have jobs. The 50% of the 99% need to step up to the plate – oh wait a minute – the economy sucks so that is not going to happen. Seems like a merry-go-round that was built by both the dems and repubs over the last 70 years.
For those of us who believe Obama is a one term president, I think we are going to be truly surprised in November. It just is not in the cards.
Why Do Liberals Think The Way They Do?
It’s easy to understand why those who are on the government dole want more from the government, so they vote for anyone who will promise them more. No big mystery there.
However, the successful, intelligent liberal is a different matter. I have long sought to understand why relatively intelligent people can so readily and enthusiastically fall for a collectivist ideology (statism). After reading, observing, and listening to liberals, I believe it can be explained, but requires an understanding of their psychology. I have concluded that there are several personality flaws that can explain their beliefs. These are comprised of either ignorance, misconceptions, a lack of critical thought, and/or ego defense mechanisms. These flaws usually exist together to reinforce a closed-mindedness which renders them incapable of drawing objective conclusions. This is by no means an exhaustive list of personality flaws that reinforce liberal beliefs, but some of these are:
• Ignorance
To believe in centralized government, one must be ignorant of philosophy, politico-economics, and history. The Founding Fathers were brilliant students of these disciplines which gave them ample evidence to understand what kind of government would be moral, and thus lead to prosperity (why morality leads to prosperity is a more lengthy philosophical discussion and will be discussed at the end of this article). They understood that government is to be feared because government is force. It can force you to do whatever it wants via laws. The grotesque examples of what government can and will do to its people liter history with images that rival the worst of nightmares. There is an inherent conflict of interest in that government makes the laws, but doesn‘t necessarily make them with the best interest of its people in mind. Politicians will skew things to either favor themselves in terms of acquiring power, money, and votes, and/or impose their own brand of solipsistic political philosophy. They will also manipulate the system in ways to undermine their opposition. If the citizens try to limit government in an ad hoc manor, politicians will use their power to render most rebellions ineffective. If a rebellion is successful, the price will all too often be counted in human lives and suffering. The Founders understood that government will always grow out of control at the expense and prosperity of its citizens, unless it is somehow kept in check. The Founders also understood that government is a necessary evil because a country at the very least needs an army, laws, and a mint to protect its citizens from external threats as well as internal chaos. The solution to this dilemma was the Constitution. It was written to severely limit the power of government in order to protect the people from otherwise inevitable government oppression. It did this by recognizing philosophically that the individual has inherent inalienable rights independent of government. In other words, it recognized individualism (the individual being an end in and of himself) as a moral imperative. It was brilliantly conceived to make it very difficult to change or amend (although not impossible). This led to the “Great Experiment” of implementing the morality of individualism via the only politico-economic system consistent with this: capitalism.
Today, we have the benefit of a much greater volume of history to demonstrate the inexorable failure of subjugating the individual to the government (i.e. statism – the antithesis of individualism where the state takes precedence to the individual) and what it does to society (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Castro – to name a few recent leaders who advocated statism). We also have the United States as the ultimate example of how individualism produced the greatest prosperity in the history of civilization. Ignorance is thus a poor excuse for a relatively intelligent and educated liberal, but this itself can be explained by a willful desire to remain ignorant.
• Insecurity
Someone who is secure in who they are doesn’t need to manufacture a reason to feel superior, nor do they have to lie to themselves to prevent their ego from being shattered. In order to counter insecurity (and consequent feelings of inferiority, a lack of self-worth and/or self loathing), one needs to make oneself feel in some way superior to others. A simple way to do this is to demonstrate one’s superiority by showing how charitable and sympathetic they are. They don’t really want to sacrifice on their own (because they aren’t truly charitable), so they demand that everyone should be forced to be “charitable“. This makes them feel that they do have worth, because they can force others to do what is “right”. Intellectual dishonesty, arrogance, laziness and prejudice all come, at least in part, from insecurity.
• Laziness
Someone who is lazy would like to believe that they can live comfortably with little or no effort. This means of course at someone else’s expense. They loath the idea that in order to get ahead, it is necessary to work hard, so they project their desires onto society by advocating a socialist ideology. They like the idea of “riding in the cart” while someone else pulls it. Laziness also reinforces ignorance because it takes some effort to become informed with respect to philosophy, politico-economics and history. Laziness frequently comes about in an individual because they don’t want to compete. They don’t want to compete because they fear failure. They fear failure because they don’t believe they have the ability to succeed. Again, insecurity rears its ugly head.
• Intellectual Dishonesty
Many liberals are unwilling to admit when they are wrong, even to themselves. They would rather be wrong than be confronted with the notion that they are wrong. They rationalize and/or use denial to protect a fragile ego. Since they are capable of ignoring facts, they are subject to emotional arguments rather than logical reasoning. Intellectual dishonesty comes from a need to protect oneself from the real truth about their mistaken beliefs (and who they really are) which again stems from insecurity. This willful deflection of facts makes them particularly closed-minded which perpetuates their ignorance.
• Entitlement
For whatever reason (be it psychological or upbringing), many liberals feel entitled to whatever they might happen to be given. Perhaps they have been spoiled by doting parents or they rationalize that they somehow deserve whatever it is they get. They have no sense of shame when it comes to being supported by someone else. They in turn, project this sense of entitlement onto society, so they figure everyone is entitled to whatever they are given. They see nothing wrong with taking from someone who has worked hard all of their life and giving it to someone else. They indeed think that this act (essentially thievery) is the moral thing to do.
• Liars, Thieves & Sociopaths
These people could care less about political ideology and its ramifications to society. They are only interested in exploiting their fellow man and will do and say whatever they think it takes to achieve this end. A lot of (if not most) politicians fall into this category. This is a very strong argument to eliminate the concept of a “career politician” by implementing strict term limits as well as eliminating perks and pensions. Rampant political corruption is omnipresent and strangely tolerated by society. If anything, much greater punitive measures should be imposed on corrupt politicians because their crimes can devastate society. If any criminal needs to be made an example of, it should be them. After all, they have been entrusted by society to represent our best interests. Politicians are indeed the reason government is to be feared.
• Egalitarian Thought
The liberal mind seems to be unable (or unwilling) to differentiate between certain concepts and they thus clump them together. This is either just another convoluted mechanism to rationalize their indefensible beliefs and/or may stem from ignorance. For example: They equate success and thievery. As far as they are concerned, if someone is successful, the liberal figures that someone must have somehow taken advantage of someone else. This thinking can be the result of believing that money is quantitatively fixed and thus if someone acquires a given amount, that means there is less for everyone else to share. This makes them prone to the class warfare argument and they thus need to “pay their fair share”. In the same way, they equate freedom with lawlessness. They can’t seem to understand that freedom does not mean you are free to violate the law or someone else’s rights. This is a justification for more government which results in the erosion of freedom. They also equate capitalism and corruption. They think that because corruption exists within a capitalist system that the cause of the corruption is capitalism. This is a logical informal fallacy. There will always be those who seek to take advantage of their fellow man, regardless of the politico-economic system in place. When corruption does take place, the government is frequently the instigator. The examples of this are protean. Again, that doesn’t mean that capitalism is the cause of the corruption. It demonstrates the need to hold politicians accountable and make them obey their own laws (by vigorously prosecuting them) rather than implementing even more government. A corrupt government in collusion with a private business undermines competition and is an act of thievery. This is so called “crony capitalism”. I dislike the phrase because it gives capitalism a bad name. Since it undermines competition, it is anything but capitalism. Inherent within capitalism is competition. This is what gives us the best goods and services at the lowest cost, with the greatest availability. Liberals have disdain for corporations because they focus on the corruption that occurs (frequently as a result of government collusion) and they blame the corporation rather than the criminal. This is another blatant display of faulty reasoning. Again, that doesn’t mean that corporations are inherently corrupt. To have complete faith in government as not being corrupt and thus believing that more government is needed to correct the corrupt corporations, is not only naive, but a further display of illogical thinking to justify their beliefs and in many cases, protect their egos.
• Guilt
Guilt arises out of ignorance, prejudice and/or laziness.
Ignorant guilt comes from the misconception that their own financial success means that they took it away from someone else. They are economically ignorant because they believe that all available money is like a static poker-pot rather than what it really is: an infinitely expandable resource based on productivity.
They are also guilty because they know that it is wrong to be prejudicial, but they just can’t help feeling that way (a reaction formation to their feelings of inferiority).
Some are also guilty because they know that they are lazy, and deep down, they know this is wrong too.
To appease their guilt, they demand that more be taken from others to be given to the “inferior” members of society. This makes them feel noble and superior about who they are rather than what they really feel and have repressed-namely guilt and a sense of inferiority.
• Prejudice
The notion that one is superior to others because they belong to a group is a pathetic attempt at unearned greatness (e.g. I’m special because I’m white, or black, or Christian, or Jewish, etc.). They don’t believe in themselves as individuals, so they need to identify themselves with a group to feel special. They believe that the members of their group should be in charge of those who are their “inferiors“. Ironically, they see this as the exact opposite of prejudice and view themselves as noble and superior. This is again, a reaction formation to not believing in oneself as an individual.
• Arrogance (Elitism)
It takes great arrogance to believe something and not feel the need to actually know the facts. One would have to believe that they are so smart or superior, that what they want to believe is all that is required. If they have deluded themselves to this point, it’s not hard to see why they have the audacity to think that they are so enlightened that they (or their liberal cronies) will have the ability to make a utopian society a reality as long as they are in a position to tweak and modify it as they go along. Historic evidence becomes unimportant because they figure the problem is that people not as smart as they are have heretofore been in power. This sense of self aggrandizement is a reaction formation to insecurity.
• Anal Retentiveness (Control Freak)
This is a Freudian terms which means that someone is partially fixated at an early stage of development (the anal stage) where they feel the need to gain control. These people seek power as a result of a pathological personality. Imposing their will on others gives them this sense of control. Feeling in control gives them a sense of satisfaction that they otherwise lack. Control to them is like a life-preserver to someone who is drowning. Lots of politicians (especially liberals) have this pathology.
• Liberal Zombies
These are the liberals who have been raised and/or indoctrinated into thinking that liberalism is synonymous with righteousness. They have been told for so long that liberalism is good and conservatism is bad that they automatically go along with any liberal position that their liberal friends, media or family take. They are “team players” and will automatically pull the democrat lever while voting. These are the people who can’t or won’t think for themselves. Another flaw that goes along with this thinking is gullibility. They buy whatever they are told (as long as it’s from a liberal). Their thinking goes no deeper than: Democrat good; Republican bad. Ironically, they think that being a liberal is synonymous with being open-minded. They will use any means to defend their “team” even when it is indefensible. For instance, when a liberal zombie is confronted with the fact that one of their political leaders has been shown to be corrupt, their defense will frequently be to point out the corruption of someone else in the other political party. They think that this somehow justifies the behavior of their political leader.
• All Form and no Substance
If you listen to the liberal pundits on TV, their arguments turn into nothing more than debate tactics to defend indefensible positions. All that matters to them is that they win the debate “game” for the sake of the debate itself. Anthony Wiener used to be a prime example of this. If he could forcefully stick to his guns no matter how ridiculous his position, he would be smugly satisfied that he won the debate. It was truly pathetic to watch. This is probably just another mechanism for them to lie to themselves (intellectual dishonesty), because they have to figure that the truth is irrelevant and the game is what really matters. People like this will argue that black is white until they turn blue in the face. It becomes pointless to use logic to debate them. In the end, all their opponent can do is logically show them why they are wrong, but that doesn’t stop the liberal from presenting the exact same illogical argument in a different manner. These people are all form and no substance. It becomes pointless to demonstrate what is real when they just continue to deny reality. It seems that the objective of their debate is to make it pointless to debate them. It would be laughable if it weren’t so incredibly tragic.
What is important to understand is that this is not some pointless intellectual exercise with no consequences. These are the people who are in charge of our country and are in a position to irrevocably damage our futures, and they are advocating statism. If statism is given any moral credibility (even partially), it will consume capitalism (and thus freedom) until it no longer exists. There can be no compromise between these two ideologies because individualism and collectivism are diametrically opposed. If individualism is defeated, it will mean the end of the United States and everything that made it great. This is the crossroads we are at in history right now. This is an intellectual fight for freedom pitting logic against irrationality. If we lose this fight, our children will pay a terrible price.
• A Little Bit of Socialism
This is the idea that a so-called mixed politico-economic system consisting of some socialism and some capitalism is superior to capitalism alone. Proponents of this (liberals) seem to think that the socialist part will keep the evil capitalist part from creating an ever growing number of victims which would eventually result in a lopsided distribution of wealth. History shows that the exact opposite is true. Any statist government results in a wealthy ruling class, while everyone else lives in relative squalor. The implementation of capitalism resulted in raising the standard of living for all its inhabitants and created thousands of millionaires with an infinite number of opportunities for anyone willing to try. It was the greatest accumulation and redistribution of wealth in the history of civilization. The idea that statism and individualism can coexist is an oxymoron. Individualism is either respected by government as the moral imperative, or it is not. The legitimization of some degree of statism as being morally desirable or necessary will totally negate individualism and unchain government from the bonds that keep it in check, and it will grow inexorably to the detriment of its citizens. This is made manifest by entitlement programs and government alliances with unions and private business. What this does is give politicians the ability to promise something for nothing in order to glean power, money, and votes. They implement a means of taking from the producers in society (via a progressive income tax) and redistribute this to a much larger group in exchange for their vote. The politicians make sure they pocket plenty for themselves in this process. This becomes a competition between politicians to promise more and more of what they have no right to promise in the first place. That is why both parties have stooped to this destructive modus operandi. There is no moral mechanism to keep this system in check and there never will be because it is based on an immoral premise. This approach punishes productivity and rewards sloth. It happens because it is politically expedient, but leads inexorably to the bankruptcy of the country. The result is where we are as a country right now. We currently have some 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liability which is more money than exists in the entire world. It cannot be sustained, and this is acknowledged by both political parties. However, their solution is to either seek a means to perpetuate these programs which will result in an inevitable disaster (e.g. Greece), or to spend and promise even more! There is no admission that these programs were ill-conceived, immoral ideas and doomed to fail from their inception. This lack of keeping government in check has all but doomed our country, unless drastic actions are taken to reverse course now.
• Subjective Morality
There are three approaches to what determines the “Good” (as per the brilliant Ayn Rand).
1. Subjective morality
2. Intrinsic morality
3. Objective reality
Subjective morality is the notion that whatever one deems to be arbitrarily good is what comprises being moral. There are no absolutes when it comes to determining right from wrong. As Ayn Rand put it: Subjective morality is the notion that the “good” is nothing more than an arbitrary postulate, or an emotional commitment. So you can decide what’s right by the way you feel. It’s not hard to see how this ties in with all of the personality flaws listed above. Subjective morality is indeed the liberal approach to morality.
Intrinsic morality is the idea that the good is the good in and of itself without respect to the beneficiary. In other words, it doesn’t matter if anyone benefits or suffers from whatever defines “good”, but the definition is what it is. The prime example of this is The Ten Commandments (i.e. religion). If you follow them its good; if you don’t that’s evil. This is the approach that most conservatives take to morality. This approach has caused millions to be slaughtered and tortured in the name of what’s right. It is also what is currently threatening the survival of mankind. The founders indeed understood why there needs to be separation of church and state.
Objective morality states that a beneficiary must first be determined in order to decide what is good and what isn’t. Without getting into a very protracted philosophical discussion, it turns out that morality applies only to mankind (as opposed to plants and other animals) because we are the only species who exist primarily by reason (via making choices as opposed to instinctive behavior – If you can’t make a choice, morality is not an issue). The “good” for mankind is thus determined by whatever facilitates our ability to survive and thrive as a species. The evil is anything that facilitates our demise. Since we use our free will to exist (i.e. by making choices), anything that facilitates the use of our free will is good. Anything that prevents us from using our free will is evil.
Politics is nothing more than morality applied to a population. The only politico-economic system that facilitates the use of free will is capitalism. All others subjugate free will to the state. The historic contrast between these political philosophies (individualism vs. statism) is stunning in terms of the results on society. Individualism (capitalism) led to undreamed of prosperity. Statism (socialism, communism, Marxism, Nazism, and/or fascism -take your pick, they are all based on collectivism.) has at the very best resulted in the equal distribution of poverty with a wealthy political ruling class, and at worst has resulted (all too often) in mass murder (over 65 million for Mao, over 43 million for Stalin and over 20 million for Hitler). A political career offers power and control, so it attracts elitist, anal retentive sociopaths. Statism unshackles these bastards to pursue their perverse desires at everyone else’s expense. This is an undeniable historic fact, yet you have elitist, uber-wealthy, liberal sycophants touting the ideal of some form of collectivism. An example is Michael Moore making a film to demonstrate the supposed superiority of the Cuban healthcare system over that of the United States. That is so patently absurd that it demonstrates his irrationality (if he actually believes it). He is what Lenin referred to as a “useful idiot”. This continued desire to return to a collectivist politico-economic system is fueled by ignorance, wishful thinking, and pathological personalities. This is the reason that historic atrocities are repeated. This demonstrates the ultimate importance of understanding philosophy as it relates to the real world. If this is not understood and taught in the schools and echoed by the media, history will continue to make the same tragic mistake over and over. We need to heed the lessons of history or we will suffer the consequences. The price of freedom is indeed eternal vigilance.
Unfortunately, vigilance requires a countries people (especially the media, teachers, and intelligentsia) to understand the difference between individualism and statism, and why individualism represents rationality and thus the proper moral approach to government, while statism in any form or any amount is inherently evil.