No, but they have certain similarities, including one major similarity that makes them both different from conservatism- they each put an academic understanding of an idealized value ahead of a practical sense of how the world operates. The real reason the things I say seem strange is because people don't read opinions they don't already agree with anymore.
Well, I’m not “people”.
From what I gather, “Libertarian” refers to the incentive for independence, such as a constitution. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives want a Constitution, a UN agenda (of course neither would admit to that). Liberals want the government to be able to change anything at any time, giving it the power of a Pharaoh/god. Conservatives want the government to bow only to predesignated agendas, making the predesignator into the god (Kings/Queens, Social Architects,…). Both play into the New World Order agenda (“21”). The Libertarian wants the God-wannabes to be restricted (which is why you never see one become President despite popular vote).
Eh. We can define the groups without demonizing any of them or getting melodramatic or conspiratorial about it.
Liberals are ideologues who’s driving ideal is equality.
Libertarians are ideologues who’s driving ideal is liberty.
Conservatives are skeptical of ideologues (or maybe just recent ideologues if you prefer).
I can see situations where any of the above could be for or against some element in the Constitution. The liberals the most, because they want to change the most. Libertarians less so, because their beliefs were shared by at least some of the founders, so a lot of what they want is already in the Constitution. The Conservatives the least, because they don’t have any sweeping reforms in mind that would require a change to the Constitution.
Well, yeah. We could lie.
Disagree
Agree
Skeptical of any new ideologies. They most certainly support prior ideologies (else none would be religious).
Disagree. But not surprised. I wasn’t expecting agreement. I was just curious how you were defining your words. Which group is “really up to what” is another matter. I see the world from a very, very different perspective from yours despite many things that I can agree with you about.
So okay, thks. 
Conservatives wanna shit on the 4th amendment if you’re dealing drugs or having gay sex, but not if you’re stockpiling weapons.
They also wanna shit on the 1st amendment, if you’re badmouthing the rich assholes who bought their votes, but not if it’s time to say a prayer at a public school.
Conservatives want to make it illegal to badmouth rich assholes? Show me.
You will get banned for life (with no forgiveness) if you badmouth Obama, or any prominent official (exclusive of Jesus), on the Catholic site.
I didn’t say illegal you tricky guy. Look at occupy wall street. That’s pretty fair. You remember when those people were getting herded like cattle and arrested by the pile? Or what about all the women they maced in the streets? Or all the people that got beat up w/ night sticks? Come on man you know conservatives love combining church and state, and you know they love to spend money making rich greedy assholes look like good candidates. In the last couple of years the new trend in being a conservative is to hate the poor and blame society’s problems on them. Don’t act like you don’t see this buddy.
You said they were trying to shit on the 1st Amendment. If they aren’t trying to change the laws, they aren’t attacking the Constitution…
How many women? How many people? Why? Right now all you’re doing is telling me a fantasy story. I want to see these screaming women knocking the hat of a police officer with their mouths all foaming up right before they get maced, so you can tell me I should feel bad for them. And lets not forget, the entire reason why people get maced now is because the left decided that actually hitting them is too brutal. So now you’re gonna bitch about the non-violent alternative too?
To return to the point you think you’re making, there are very clear rules about what you can and can’t do in a protest- making a public park into your new home is very clearly not on the list of acceptable protest behavior. I see protests on both sides going unmolested all the time, I haven’t heard a conservative propose one bit of legislation saying that the 1st Amendment rights of protestors should be changed in any way, so what are you talking about? A couple police officers did something you don’t like- hell, let’s call it unjustified police brutality for the sake of argument- and that adds up to a particular political faction wanting to tamper with the Constitution?
You’re talking out your ass and you know it.
Working outside of or with disregard to the Amendments, is “shitting on the Constitution”.
That hasn't been established with the examples Smears cited, if they even rise to the level of being 'examples'.
Not that putting restrictions on a private website is a violation of the 1st Amendment or anything, but,
Catholics haven’t been a conservative voting bloc since…
…ok, Catholics have NEVER been a conservative voting bloc.
You don’t have to be trying to change the law, you just have to be trying to violate the spirit of it all the time.
I maced a person once who broke into my mother’s house. I was charged with, “unlawful use of a chemical spray” and “unlawful imprisonment”. The guy had 3 pistols under the seat of his car that he stole from me earlier that day. I had to post an 18000 bond so that I could take my math final the next day. It took a grand jury to dismiss the charges. The way they wanted it to seem, was as though I’d done something extremely violent. So I dunno man. Have you ever been maced or pepper sprayed?
Yeah right. Try to tell that to a Liberal. 
You can’t even tell really obvious things to a liberal. Explaining to one that the Catholic vote isn’t conservative would take more skill than I posses.
But who is ‘you’? Like, if somebody on the street asks me to sign a petition, and I tell them to stfu, am I ‘violating the spirit of the 1st Amendment’?
Yeah. in my martial-arts crazy guy days, me and a bunch of the guys got together and had a pepper spray party. We sold the stuff in the dojo gift shop, and figured we (the more long-term members) ought to know how the stuff worked. So we each took a turn spraying each other. First thing I’d say is, it’s not very good for self-defense. You’ve got like a 3 second window where it just feels like water- more than long enough to shoot or stab or whatever you were in the middle of doing. But then, it fucks your shit up. Some of us were hitting each other on reflex, I ended up with my head in the toilet, it was a riot. Violent? It certainly hurts worse than a punch, but in the long run I’d rather be pepper-sprayed if only because I hate dentists. It certainly sucks enough that it ought to be criminal when done in the wrong circumstance.
What does not signing a petition have to do with the 1st amendment?
You should never use water on your face after being maced. Also, if you don’t think it’s effective for self defense you’re just not doing it right. I’ve maced a good handful of people, you gotta spray em in the face. And I don’t know what kinda mace you’re using, but those bitches usually hit the ground immediately.
Nono, it was telling the guy to shut the fuck up specifically that I was referring to.
You should also never hit somebody in the face for macing you when you ask them to do it, but you know. Heat of the moment and all that. I’m not sure if we knew about the water thing at the time or not.
Maybe we were selling an inferior brand, or maybe we were being stingy because we had one can for everybody at the party. Still, that was part of the experience we had, I specifically remember having time to think “Oh, this isn’t so ba-” before I hit the floor and crawled for the toilet. I suppose there’s also the surprise factor- we all knew we were being maced, and all but one of us got to see it’s effects on somebody else before it was our turn.
The first Amendment allows you to tell someone to shut up. It just doesn’t allow for you to enforce it. The police use that ploy quite often these days. They command people to do things that they are not allowed to enforce. But the Supreme Court ruled that they are not required to educate anyone on what rights they do or don’t have, so they just fool people into compliance, usurping authority.
Yes it does. I could tell you to shut up, and if you don’t shut up, I could kick you out of my house, or off my website, or out of my shoe store, or whatever. Not a first amendment issue in the least.
Oh, maybe. I’m still not getting how ‘here’s what some police did’ adds up to ‘here’s what conservatives are in favor of’.