Draugnar it wasn't a multiple choice question.

Yes, it was. You asked if it was this or that. Multiple choice and, more specifically, only two choices. Not my fault you can't properly form your questions.

And, more to the point, you asked it in a loaded manner. Instead of too liberal or too conservative, you asked if too liberal or not liberal enough (leading the witness would be the cry in court).

"The question Draugnar was what was krellins views on that particular branch of liberalism, not what I thought of them. "

thank you...give a Libtard enough rope, and he'll hand himself.

Libertarians are **not** in any, way, shape or form a branch of "Liberalism", moron.

Enough said..no point in having a discussion with your about the merits of Libertarians, since you clearly haven't a clue...

@Oscar - I'll give you kudos for being the only one around here to *correctly* answer my "sky is blue" point. Most Libtards don't have the intellectual rigor you demonstrated to accurately break down the issues. their attacks tend to be much more banal and course....you know, the exactly kind they spend sooooo very much time complaining about...

Oscar...you better watch it, buddy...I'm starting to like you...<wink>

Ok krellin I did try against my better judgment to have a sensible conversation with you, but instead it's no direct answers, just a load of bluster and poorly attempted misdirection.

You don't know the difference between all the forms of liberalism which is why you won't answer, so cut the crap. I knew you wouldn't which is why I asked in the first place. ;-)

@Lord Baldy. ----> "Jobs for Libtar...I mean My WebDip Friends"

Need I remind you of the OP, your silly boy. I don't engage Libtards who are fully ensconced in their Libnial in ridiculous conversations about defining your mental deficiencies ESPECIALLY in such an obvious Troll-bait thread for which...god help us all...you just can't resist joining. You clearly are of too low an intellect to comprehend any nuanced discussion of what a Libtard is vs. an intellectually honest Liberal, vs. a Libertarian (**wholly** different beast, despite the seeming similarity in names....)

There is no attempted misdirection here, you ridiculous assclown! But...you might have won the driver's seat in a new profession <--- Please refer to OP...

Let me clarify for you, Libtard Baldy -- the OP linked to an article about how the US is in danger of running our of qualified CLOWNS....we have a pending CLOWN GAP...

....and, to my utter delight...you jumped in to fill the void.

I *do* sincierely appreciate you playing, though. In the absence of clown, you Libtards always provide me with great, endless amusement with a minimum of effort.

@Baldy - You clearly don't know that Libertarianism is a *conservative* view. So now who is the moron?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

A little light reading for the fucktard named *Baldy*. Liberals like big gubment. Libertarians like *small* gubment. Conservatives in general prefer *small* gubment.

Erm..krellin, yes I can read, and you don't seem to realize that thread hijacking can go two ways. ;-)

And please don't attempt any more liberal definitions, the history of liberalisim didn't start in the 1950's, American politics is an infant compared to ours, we give the lessons out around here, just remember that. :-)

You give lessons but don't know shit about the subject. Want to review libertarianism again, fucktard?

And we gave you a lesson in the late 18th century and showed again in two more wars in the early 20th century why you are a meaningless little fucking island nation.

"Libertarians are **not** in any, way, shape or form a branch of "Liberalism", moron."

Haven't read the whole thread, but saw this and as a sometime card-carrying Big-L Libertarian felt a need to interject. Libertarianism is a form of Liberalism. It has its philosophical roots in the 18th/19th century liberal tradition of the anti-church/anti-state enlightenment thinkers, and Jefferson and many of the Founders, and forked off only as the bulk of the philosophical left was seduced by socialism/communism over the last century and change. While modern Libertarianism certainly has a conservative grandparent or two (particularly among Paleo-Libertarians), its philosophical lineage goes back more to the left than the right. "Classical Liberal" is often used as a synonym for Libertarian.

lol Wow...just wow. It's hillarious to watch the Libtards squirm when they're backed in to a corner. The forthing at the mouth, the incoherent, detached statements that bear little semblence to reality and refer to nothing that has been spoken of...it's siply amazing to watch an already-dull-witted mind descend in to utter frantic chaos...

Delightful...

If only Thucy woudl show up, my day would be complete. (Thucy Thucy Thucy....seeing is the old sounding of the three works...)

Draugnar the reason I asked krellin the libertarian question was to trip him up over his anti-liberal views, he clearly has no idea which is why he avoided answering it, obviously they are on the right wing of liberalism, however they are still liberals, no amount of wiki reading will change that. ;-)

@Tolstoy - Thanks for the history lesson, but Baldy was referring to libertarianism now, which is a conservative view of small government and individual freedom. Historically, the Republican Party ala Lincoln was once the Democratic Party. But that is history, not present day.

Thanks for that Tolstoy, you have added a bit of normality to proceedings! No amount of rational argument or facts will ever convince them of the truth however. ;-)

Tolstoy - could really care less about 18th and 19th century roots of a modern American political movement that truly has nothing to do with what you are talking about, and 99% of the time is pulling from the Conservative side of the isle, not the liberal side. (Which is why, of course, Lord Baldy is a moron and not worthy of any further time)

You are just fundamentally wrong when discussing modern terminology in present day application.

That why I have to laugh as all the morons around here who love to blow off their ancient philosophical tomes and pretend they are smart.

Libertarianism has a really varied history that makes it a little difficult to claim as conservative or progressive. I see it as fundamentally progressive in orientation, but I also find most if not all historical representations of libertarianism inadequate or unsatisfying; those who have more fond views about the Founding Fathers, for instance, tend to view libertarianism as fundamentally conservative.

I was also referring to libertarianism now. "small government and individual freedom" are not conservative values - just ask all the "values voters" who still constitute the Republican Party's "base" and think civilization will collapse if cannabis is legalized for personal use, believe that service to the state in the military is the highest and most honorable professional calling, and call for the executions of those who expose and undermine the government's ability to surveil the public.

TODAY....here and now....2014 America...Libertarianism is **far** closer to "conservative" thinking than it is to "liberal" thinking, and if you look at the flow of individuals moving from one "brand" of politics to another It isn’t from Liberal/Democrat party to “Libertarian/Tea Party” (and the Tea Party is the closest thing we have to a nationalized “Libertarian” movement) – it is people flowing between the Conservitard and Libertarian brand, because they are the most closely related in *2014* United States.

You can mentally masturbate all you want with “Well, in 1896, Joe Blow said…” crap..because it really has nothing to do with what the Libertarian movement represents today – just as the Democrat party of today bears little to no resemblance to the Democrat party of Jack Kennedy, and equating the two is simply ridiculous.

""small government and individual freedom" are not conservative values"

Thenyou apparently also have no idea what conservative values are....#TolstoyIsBrainwashed

The very fact that you interchanged "Republican party" with "conservative values" is an indication that you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason people are fleeing the Republipuke party is because they have no values anymore, conservative or otherwise.

Republican = party
Conserviatve = philosophy.

Not equal. Apples and oranges.

Dude, can you not read? I didn't interchange them. I pointed out that conservatives still make up the bulk of Republican voters. Trust me, I've been in the trenches for the last 7 years dealing with these people - I know we libertarians have profound differences with conservatives, something you're not going to 'get' from watching Fox News media personalities who are trying to expand their audiences as wide as possible.

And no, small government and individual freedom are not conservative values. Not core ones, anyway. Conservatives seek to conserve what is and what they remember from their youth. They value strong social institutions (with the military being a particular favorite) and conformity to 'community standards' first and foremost, which are at odds with libertarianism. The fact that there is lots of overlap between conservatives and libertarians on tax and fiscal issues has more to do with conservatives' strong sense of responsibility (combined with the knowledge that current policies are profoundly *irresponsibile*) than any moral or philosophical underpinnings. Same destination in one (or a handful of) major issues, but very different paths in getting there.

If I had a nickel for every time someone was accused of illiteracy on this forum, I could buy a car.

"(and the Tea Party is the closest thing we have to a nationalized “Libertarian” movement)"

That's a funny statement, seeing how the libertarians who started the Tea Party movement have all been pushed out and it has been completely co-opted by the conservatives and the Washington power-brokers.

Fun how words have different meanings in different countries

Conservative = party
Republican = socialist nutcase

Conservatism doesn't exist in the United States. Cannot have conservatism when you do not have a monarchy, an established church, or a landed gentry. Both conservatives and so-called libertarians are just glorified neoliberals with a particularly social darwinist view of fiscal policy. And as individualist as libertarians claim to be, they seem to have little problem prioritizing the 'rights' of collectives (regional governments/states) over the civil rights of individuals (hence why Rand Paul can say he opposes the Civil Rights Act), a sentiment which finds a happy home among the religious right (Falwell got his start as a segregationist, first and foremost). The only real division seems to be on national security, between the Taft Republicans and the Eisenhower heresy. They're both united, however, in their interventionism when it came to the Cold War era. Now that the Soviet Union is gone they've grown apart. Which is why 'libertarians' like Pat Buchanan can claim to be non-interventionist now while having supported the arming of Contra guerillas in the 1980s as well as the Vietnam war.