You are correct, Permafrost. The 3-2 FCC action this week represented a sell out by the majority Republicans to the massive corporate interests of the big telecommunication and other internet service providers. I am conservative on most matters, but reasonable regulation of monopolistic corporate and big business interests is in the PUBLIC interest. The big boys will exercise their newly-minted economic power slowly, insidiously, and, principally - effectively.
I practiced regulatory law for many, many years, and can smell a monopoly/quasi-monopoly skunk from a long way off. Analogy can be drawn to the repeal of the essential Glass-Steagall legislation, which led DIRECTLY to the financial crisis and mortgage implosion of 2007-08. The downside of the net neutrality repeal should be considerably less dangerous to the overall economy, but of the same pattern.

You seem to me to be making a common mistake of the never-Trump Group, in not “getting it”.
By this I mean that those who support the 2016 e*******l revolution which elected President Trump
do not, in supporting that result, thereby endorse all of President’s personal past, past or present behaviors,
tweets, etc. I believe that it is Mr. Trump’s bold policies which led to his e******n, beginning
with getting our disastrous i*****l A***n invasion problem under control, enforcing our borders,
crushing ISIS, and re-adopting the Rule of Law rather than political correctness and one-world
globalism.

I place much of the responsibility for what I call the "Coarsening of Society" - just my words for the topic, which words I have
used for at least 30 years - upon the acceptance by legitimate regulatory bodies - whether the Federal Communications
Commission or Hollywood's former arbiters (now substantially or totally abandoned) of extreme language and extreme violence in
the public sphere: movies, satellite radio, television, radio, etc. I call what now passes for entertainment "gratuitous sex and
violence", which has surrendered beauty and meaning in presentation. That and the gradual secularization of society have resulted in
where we are - which is not a pretty place. Even once ordinary disputes, which used to be settled on the schoolyard, now lead to
k*****g with the ubiquitous firearms which are another phenomenon of relatively recent times.

As to the common, coarse, easy, crass, lazy language which now predominates, part at least of the trend of the last 50 years and
abominable lack of present day standards results from the feminine revolution beginning in the 1960s (which itself partly resulted
from the new female freedoms consequent upon "The Pill"). Women surrendered their traditional roles (in this and many other
areas) as ultimate arbiters of acceptable conduct. Once upon a once, men who acted trashily didn't get where they wanted to
be (in a meaningful, deep, loving married relationship with a woman) - can you spell SEX? But women gave up all of their power
with the sexual/feminine/e******y/equal rights movement. The result is that men can now behave in ways which formerly would
never have resulted in sex with a desirable woman. Such behavior is no longer demanded of our former behavioral arbiters. Women
may now be more "equal". But equal to WHAT?

This country must BEGIN the long, hard trek towards rational gun policy. The current situation of mass shootings and the even more
prevalent inner city daily murders result inevitably from the notion that "just anyone" can have access to firearms. Wait, you say - there
are already legal restrictions on gun ownership. But realistically and from a common sense perspective, with over 300 million firearms
in the United States, "just anyone" can quite easily, with minimum trouble and expense, obtain what he wants.
Next step in the progression - when "just anyone" can access a weapon, the worst among us will not only DO SO, but will use their
weapon(s) for nefarious purposes which are not in the best interests of anyone.
The solution I suggest, of allowing only licensed and regulated individuals to possess guns, will require a sea change in many peoples'
attitudes. It will not happen in my lifetime, and maybe not for a century. I am a very conservative 79 year old white man, and retired
attorney. I have personally lived through and observed the deterioration of safety from firearm death in my medium-sized Southern city
go, quite literally, from a firearm murder being front page headline news, to there being almost daily k*****gs on the streets and in the
homes and apartments of the inner city and nearby areas.
The gun insanity in the USA is completely unparalleled in modern First World industrialized societies. The Second Amendment has been
distorted, even by the Supreme Court, such that the current out-of-control situation on the streets (witness, e.g., Chicago, New Orleans,
Newark) is lived (and died) every day.
When "just anyone" has access to firearms, the worst among us will gain such access, and use them for ill.
I personally own seven guns of various types, and am a lifelong h****r and outdoorsman. I know gun insanity when I see it. I see it
every day.
Please don't play the "we need guns to protect us from the Government" card. That is a stupid and incorrect assertion.
If there are no more restraints on gun access than at present, then the Second Amendment needs to be changed to require strict licensing
and regulation.

Agree. I believe that Trump’s supporters are in a gradual and longer term process of doing just what you suggest.

The REAL factor that elected Obama was the disastrous Presidency of his immediate predecessor, who set the Middle East aflame with his
unwarranted invasion of Iraq and allowed big finance and Wall Street to directly lead to the greatest economic failures since the Great
Depression. We elect Presidents to lead in two MAJOR arenas - 1) international policy and protection of the security interests of the United States;
2) stewardship of the long-run best interests of the United States domestically and economically. Baby bush, as I call him, significantly
failed in both, and thus in his entire Presidency. He had neither the instincts nor the intelligence for the Presidency. That Presidency led
DIRECTLY to the pendulum's swinging so far in the other direction as to elect the poseur, Obama.

What is going on is that there are too many guns in too many hands. If the 2nd Amendment literally means what the NRA (and even the Supreme Court, seemingly) says it means, then we have the current situation - in which guns are so readily available in the United States that the "bad guys", be they thugs, gang members, the mentally ill, jealous spouses, headline seekers, etc., etc., etc., can wantonly k**l the innocent. We have gun insanity in a gun-crazed society. Someday, sanity will come to this situation. Just not in my lifetime. We need to have a situation in which every firearm is: initially surrendered; then registered and licensed to responsible individuals. We need not fear the government (the last resort of the gun nuts "We need to be armed to save ourselves from the gub-mint"), but rather those who daily abuse the current system of "a gun in every hand".