The republican convention was tonight and Joe Lieberman was a speaker for McCain, his speach didn't make a whole lot of sense when you think of the common sense of the matter, majority of congress is Democats at the moment, his speech was mainly about getting things done and saying that both parties should unite, common sense should be if you have a majority and a democat with a good chance to win (who is in Liebermans own party), wouldn't you support that man?  Cause when a president is from the same party as a majority of Congress they can get more things done and do them fast.  The only reason I can fathom Lieberman's choice to do this is that Obama goes against a lot of Liebermans petty fights, unlike Lieberman Obama puts the responsibility of watching what games, music, and media kids watch on the parents and not try to censor everything cause it's indecent.  Lieberman is a bit of a conservative idiot with an agenda to pretty much destroy freedom to choose to do/watch/listen to "indecent" things cause he believes for some odd reason people can't think for themselves and the government should choose what people like apparently.

Lieberman spoke out against Obama a few times and supported McCain throughout his speech but never listed real reasons for either argument.  It was all McCain is great cause he's an experienced American and Obama is a great guy but he's just not ready, without a lot of examples to support anything he said, the only big example he gave was that McCain spoke out against Reagan who is one of McCains heroes, but didn't even list what he spoke out on?  I mean that argument was to show how much character McCain has but for all the audience knows McCain could have very well spoke in favor of killing puppies, but we'll never know cause Lieberman never gave examples.

Don't get me wrong I like both Obama and McCain and if either one gets elected they can do some good for our country but I think it was poor judgement on someones part to let Lieberman have a speech at the convention cause he only insults people's intelligence.

Yeah, Lieberman has been a little batty recently, but he's still a good guy. I have nothing against him.

Watching more people discuss it on TV makes me feel like no one really sees that Lieberman might have his own agenda when it comes to the speech he made, though at least they do see it was a stupid move on his part as he alienates himself from his own party. Just when I thought the guy couldn't get much worse =P

Yeah, damn Joe Liberman actually judge his policies and candidates based on his own opinions rather then toe the line for the party due to blind loyalty.

No seriously. Joe Liberman goes with what he thinks is best for the country.

Which is why the Democrats kicked him out of the party.  Liberman is an independent now... because the Democrats backstabbed him because he wouldn't tow the party line.

Yet he still won his election as an independent.  Why?  Because he looks out for repubicans and democrats alike in his state.

Joe Liberman isn't betraying his own party.  His own party betrayed him.

He has no agenda other then "What Joe Liberman thinks is best for the country." because Joe Liberman and John McCain agree on a lot of issues.  (Like a lot of moderate democrats agree with McCain.)

Heck they agree so much that John McCain's number 1 pick for VP was Joe Liberman.  Palin was just a compromise pick because everyone else in his campaign was afraid the super conserves would revolt and runaway in droves if he picked Joe.

I know he's trying to be a good guy but he's always been batty, he's the main reason we have the ESRB now, and way too strict policies for ratings on video games, he presented video games to the public as this horrible out of control media that could make every child an evil little demon, he really insults the intelligence of the people playing video games and then basically presents video games and video game players to voters and politicians as something bad which is a complete lie.  It's just irritating listening to the guy even if he's thinking he's doing good for everyone.

I don't agree with him, but he doesn't annoy me.

He is a reasonable man in an unreasonable environment.

I don't get this stance.  I mean... Joe Liberman and John McCain agree a lot more then Joe Liberman and Barak O'Bama.

Hence the support.

Heck, Liberman and McCain agree more then McCain and super rightwing people... because McCain and Liberman are both near the center.  McCain slightly right, Liberman slightly left.

Also, Maxwell... you don't have to worry about videogames under McCain as he also agrees it should be parents choice.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/13/john-mccain039s-video-game-platform-small-blogger-scores-scoop

The anti-videogame lobby seems to be mostly democratic anyway.

The republicans are too busy repressing their sexual desires by trying to censor porn and sex stuff.

Funny, the democrats repressing their violence urges, and republicans their sexual urges.  There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Though, Where did Obama say he believes it's primarily the parents responsibility anyway? 

The only things i've seen him say about videogames is that kids play too much of them... and that parents need to stop there kids from playing too much of them. 

Which isn't really anti-government regulation... since those wasteful games could just as eaisly be Carnival games as they are GTA 4.

I would never want a politician to have to agree with everything his party does, honestly I would hate anyone that would blindly follow others views just for votes, but I hate when someone presents things in a way that supports his own views, it's telling half the story and basically creating lies that people who just listen to him and not really look into the argument would just blindly agree to, which many people in politics do just that, if it's a subject they don't fully understand they take peoples word for it and typically don't get the whole story, there's no real politician that is out there arguing in support of freedom of creativity and taking away censorship, politcians like Lieberman create red herrings to support censoring media that shouldn't be censored.

That's what just about every poltician who isn't a Libretarian does.  Obama included. 

And not too many polticians are Libretarians... and even then some of them do the same things with stuff like Gay marriage.

Also... actually Libretarians do argue for freedom of creativity and taking away censorship... there just aren't a lot of them... and they're ignored and excluded from a lot of stuff.