“That’s why the Internet is so potentially disruptive.”

So your saying it would be bad for unknown names to get involved with a presidential race through the internet? I don’t see the internet as disruptive to politics but rather an equalizer. So your saying only the front runners with the most money should be covered by the mainstream media and it’s bad that the internet might disrupt that? You don’t see the potential dangers and corruption that could take place? You don’t see any problems with a two party system?

When I thought Brad Pitt cheated with Angelina Jolie I was personally offended. Then I realized that *they don’t give a crap what I think*, lol. Not only that but they’re people – Not Gods. Whether that means they are flawed like anyone else, or just that what they believe/want/do is not of my affair, at the end of the day, I don’t have to look at them in the mirror when I go to bed at night.

Which leads me to think that we are so harsh with other people we admire because we’re secretly harsh with ourselves. We judge people by what we *perceive* to be their worst actions because that’s how we judge ourselves.

I have no idea what the Ron Paul post was about because I’ve been on a self-imposed technology vacation, but I do know that whatever you said I’ll respect as your opinion on your own personal blog and continue to respect your opinion on other things. If other people don’t do the same, well, that’s okay too. Cuz at the end of the day….

I do not find your political posts (or point-of-view) fun, quirky, folksy, enjoyable, educational OR entertaining. Personally, I’d keep the things “on mission” and post political opinion elsewhere, but it’s your call.

Since you’ve made that call, I’ll have to move on.

I personally think Ron Paul is naive and dangerous when it comes to national security. He has absolutely no chance of winning the election so in my opinion he has gotten more publicity than he deserves.

And I can tell you that most of the people commenting on that post are NOT my readers. They showed up for the first time. A lot of this is total spin, not based in reality.

What I don’t like is you are trying to speak for me. Having “huge” success online? Please. Over on Facebook one university arranged a Barack Obama rally with 4,000 people. Has anything like that happened with Ron Paul? I haven’t seen it.

Also, the media picks two or three candidates from each party to focus on because they are the most likely to go the distance.

I sat with Dan Balz for hours — he’s been covering politics for the Washington Post since the 1970s. He explained that they were going to throw more resources into covering Clinton and Obama than they were in covering Edwards. Why? Because in their experience the story was Clinton and Obama.

The entire political system works this way and it’s up to an outsider candidate (Edwards is one on the Democratic side of the fence) to get through that problem and get the support anyway.

That’s why the Internet is so potentially disruptive.

But with all the supposed “success” that Ron Paul is having he’s still only pulling 1% poll numbers (USA Today, see my comments for a link).

With Howard Dean I learned that what the “nutroots” support is probably not going to be what the average everyday person supports.

Beware of putting your entire faith into a little hype on the Internet.

Ron Paul isn’t going to go anywhere. I’ll bet you $100 on that.

And the other thing I like: you DO something. You’re not just blathering. You’re bringing up information, learning, sharing, re-educating.

It’s be really good stuff, Chris. Rock on (or whatever the kids says these days).

As a fellow geek, I know for a fact that there is nothing more that will continue to hold back and damage the incentive to create new technology and innovate than the way the current government is run, tied in with the way that capitalism is currently exercised from big business owners’ special interests who are running it. In fact, it has been building up to this near breaking point for years. If something doesn’t change now, the bough WILL break and everyone WILL fall who follows the current meme that all too many have followed to basically just be good sheeple. Black, or White. 1 or 2, With us or not with us, etc.

Back to 1912 when the modern industrial age was in full swing and the incentive, work, and business ethics of the nation began to change, something else quickly changed too. For years our grandparents and great grandparents have been groomed to believe what they are told, stemming from the way they were brought up to to trust “daddy”. Rather, I should say, where it once may have been safer to believe what you are told back in the time of the birth of our nation. Due to the fact that the motivation wasn’t just money, but survival. The select few who were quickly gaining massive amounts of money and power politically because of the growing size of their business (which is the initial and our ongoing downfall right there) were taking advantage of this naivety and turned that more into a believe us, or else situation. For far too many Uncle Sam became “daddy”.

This is why, outside of some parts of Russia and communist China, we are about the only nation in the world who has a majority who truly fears our government and what they might do if we don’t follow along quietly. The only difference is that who runs this country it isn’t just simply a tyrannical fascist, or tyrant in control who would just summarily kill you and end your “disloyalty” right there. They can be easily overthrown. No, it’s by near immortal industrial business entities. They give us the guise of freedom while making policy in law to corral us into financial bondage all the while draining our tax dollars creating things to only give them more business such as War (Which, for them, is how this smorgie began. Always stick with what works, right?).

This brainwashing of trusting “daddy” was then reinforced only 2 years later starting with world war 1 and onto world war 2, then Korean war. What happened? Big businesses only got bigger, and more powerful and more tied in with government corrupting the system even further and forcing even the few who may disagree to agree somehow. Only the “flower children” started to ask questions by the time the Vietnam war came. Except the majority of them were the wrong questions. It wasn’t just a governmental conspiracy. Man. It was much deeper than that. They almost had it, but not quite. A revolution needed to be made, but it wasn’t of the sexual drug induced kind.

I could write volumes on the history of this. I do believe you are on the right track Chris, and especially about what you are posting to your blog. Personal or not, I am one technology junky (who is of like mind, age, and interests as you Chris, scarily similar in fact, if you only knew me you’d think we were related) that is tired of the same regurgitated crap companies who are not only strong in the consumer market but do indeed have the largest of them with very deep influence in the government, keep spitting up. Almost to an entirety (Halliburton anyone?).

The time is soon coming when the majority will be asking the RIGHT questions. It just starts with us Chris. Keep posting my friend. If anything, talking about this is more about technology and the future than even talking about the latest and greatest cell-phone of the present. Thats really the bottom line.

Doesn’t bother me, though I guess it doesn’t hurt that my political views are close to yours.