Support NeoGAF

[JinjoUnchained]

I'm sure that people expressed the exact same sentiment when electricity became a public utility back in the 1930s.

Also, cars are a luxury.

They probably did, but it's not like there aren't valid critiques to make about utilities in general. With modern technology, it's easier for people to generate their own power now, but the utilities have been known to stifle that in order to protect their monopoly. Utilities have had their own issues with public access, much like internet service providers.

I'm not necessarily objecting to the premise of a utility: that certain goods are fundamental to basic human operation, but require a natural monopoly to supply, thus necessitating extra oversight. But I don't think that high speed internet access falls in that category, it's not exactly a luxury, but by necessity it's closer to having a personal car then having heat in the winter. Again, my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Millions, if not billions, of people today manage to get by without electricity in remote corners of the world. If you ask them they won't agree that electricity is a basic necessity required for living.

You're applying two standards at the same time. If you want to argue that the internet is technically a luxury because it's not absolutely required for staying alive, you can certainly make the same statement about electricity.

You're absolutely right; of the major utilities, electricity is the least necessary to basic individual function. It's also the one that people can most easily supply themselves if they have a generator. I really didn't want to get in the weeds on electricity here, that discussion could easily sidetrack this thread; so I'll say it's much closer to being a utility in America then high speed internet.

 

[EatinOlives]

The fact that the only people upset about it are the ones raking in billions of dollars from it tells me all I need to know about whether this was the right thing to do.

And it happened on the day my ISP cranked up all of its customer's speed to 50Mb, too. Can't complain.

Verizon's response is rich, considering I left their internet service because they were repeatedly fucking me over while at the same time raising my rates. Sure, they're the victim here.

The other group of people who are upset about it are people who have absolutely no idea how the internet works but are doing the same song-and-dance against "government regulation" like the Pavlovian dogs they have been trained to be.

 

[demon]

Boo-urns! So access to hentai and twitter = access to gas and running water, got it. Internet is great if used properly, but it's not a utility in my book

If the internet as a whole were to suddenly go down it would be catastrophic for the economy and society. Our society runs on the internet now. It is absolutely a utility. Water is a utility as well, even though you can use it to grow pot plants and have water balloon fights.

 

[toadsworth]

This is great, I really hope that the Republicans don't totally shut it down if they take the White House.

 

[AstroNut325]

This is great, I really hope that the Republicans don't totally shut it down if they take the White House.

Let this be a lesson. Get out and vote AND don't vote Republican or Libertarian. Problem solved.

 

[Unknown One]

I feel like there should be some kind of social media movement to get people to vote. Quite sad actually.

 

[pompidu]

Comcast and Time Warner specifically? $0

Lots of government money given to telecom's.

0$ ?
http://stopthecap.com/2014/12/23/time-warner-cable-using-tax-dollars-expand-broadband-benefit-wealthy-rural-new-yorkers/

 

[Rebel Leader]

Boo-urns! So access to hentai and twitter = access to gas and running water, got it. Internet is great if used properly, but it's not a utility in my book

I dare you to disconnect from the internet for 12 months

 

[JinjoUnchained]

If the internet as a whole were to suddenly go down it would be catastrophic for the economy and society. Our society runs on the internet now. It is absolutely a utility. Water is a utility as well, even though you can use it to grow pot plants and have water balloon fights.

I'm critical of that too. In the business world, we always have business recovery and contingency plans if normal business operations are interrupted. Not saying it wouldn't be very difficult and painful if the internet went down, but people should be prepared for it.

I dare you to disconnect from the internet for 12 months

It would make life much more inconvenient. But I got by before the internet, I wouldn't die or anything. If there were a medical emergency in the family and I had to get rid of things to help pay for it, I would gladly suspend my internet access.

 

[demon]

I'm critical of that too. In the business world, we always have business recovery and contingency plans if normal business operations are interrupted. Not saying it wouldn't be very difficult and painful if the internet went down, but people should be prepared for it.

I think you're drastically understating the effect of the entire internet going down...

Business that rely on the internet (and there are few) would have trouble doing business, for one thing.

I got by before the internet, I wouldn't die or anything.

I got by before telephones, I wouldn't die or anything.

I got by before electricity, I wouldn't die or anything.

I got by before roads, I wouldn't die or anything.

I got by before the written word, I wouldn't die or anything.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It would make life much more inconvenient. But I got by before the internet, I wouldn't die or anything. If there were a medical emergency in the family and I had to get rid of things to help pay for it, I would gladly suspend my internet access.

You wouldn't die if you didn't have access to running water and electricity for a year, either. That's not what utilities are.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

Seems like a lot of good historical information, but man... around 30 minutes in I just had to look the guy up after hearing his colored opinions.

Lo and behold, he appears to be a pretty diehard libertarian.

Yeah, I agree, though I tend to not listen to people opinions and concentrate mostly on the facts he is presenting, which are pretty solid and help to paint the picture as it actually happen. I may agree or not with his conclusions but I can't argue with how he presented the facts. I still think that the FCC setting a stop to ISP is a good think though I see the historical precedence of how a heavily FCC intervention caused the telecom bumble on the early 00's and how the change of heavy regulated to unregulated completely burst the bubble.

 

[Amir0x]

When will we finally admit it's time to topple King Obummer already? I'm sure the bells of Revolution are stirring. He can't hide behind the Qu'ran much longer.

 

[Ryuuroden]

I'm critical of that too. In the business world, we always have business recovery and contingency plans if normal business operations are interrupted. Not saying it wouldn't be very difficult and painful if the internet went down, but people should be prepared for it.

Yeah um, there's certain things that there really is no backup for that really works. The company I own has 100's of contacts across the United States that we deal with and we need to deal with in some immediacy. I own a small business and without email I would have to hire many more people just to handle all communication by phone and since we travel everywhere it would be much much harder to get paperwork sent to places. No internet would put me out of business so, um, kindly take your ideas of internet not being necessary and gtfo, thanks.

EDIT: And yes, you're right about one thing, we used to not have internet and things ran just fine, but now that we have it, people have much different expectations of efficiency and pricing. No one would accept going back to the old standards of inefficiency. It is no longer a non-essential product in advanced nations.

 

[Kevin]

I asked my brother about what he thought about all of this. This was his response:

So far, so good, but the end is not quite here yet. The FCC will now start a process in which regulators will deliberate over the new policies - in secret, I might add - before formally adopting them as "official" regulations. This could take several months, which means it won't be until sometime this summer that we can finally breathe a collective sight of relief.

Then what?

If a Republican president is elected, all of this could unravel. A Republican president, combined with a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, would almost certainly pass legislation overturning the FCC regulations and giving the big ISPs what they've always wanted.

So bottom line is this: it is even MORE important now that Americans understand what is at stake here, and vote accordingly in the next presidential election. The unfortunate part is that, over the next two years, all of this boring "net neutrality" talk is likely to fade into the background and not get the attention that it rightly deserves.

Wait and see, I guess. But don't forget to vote!

 

[Admiral Woofington]

What is your internet speed?

And also: have you ever had a time when Netflix and/or YouTube seemed to be really low quality, despite the speed that you're paying for?

Also: have you ever browsed a niche/smaller website? Maybe, for example, NeoGaf? Have you ever wondered what would happen to your browsing of neogaf if Gawker media made a deal with [your ISP] that they would get a "fast lane" and any competitors of Gawker media were put into a "slow lane"? Since Kotaku could be seen as a competitor of NeoGaf, then [your ISP] will make it so that neogaf takes over 5 seconds to load text, and 10 seconds to load images.

Would that be a bad thing?

Sorry I'm being horrible at expressing my thoughts today lol

I understand what net neutrality means, most of my bitching comes from them not enforcing anything price-wise. I was of the mind that even if companies were able to momentarily give advantages to certain companies in terms of broadband, that the shit wouldn't last long. So while I appreciate net neutrality that's like personally saying (for me) that I'm glad they didn't take away something I already had.

 

[ramuh]

When will we finally admit it's time to topple King Obummer already? I'm sure the bells of Revolution are stirring. He can't hide behind the Qu'ran much longer.

Huh?

 

[Vincent Alexander]

I made the mistake of reading the comments section of an MSN article about this. My god, it is a goldmine.

 

[Cse]

That's exactly what I'm worried about - this ruling is merely transient. At a minimum, this will likely only last for a few years.

The ISPs will file lawsuits, and this will be debated in courts for the next few years. Meanwhile, if a Republican is elected for the presidency in 2016, then the right could unilaterally pass congressional legislation that would overturn the FCC's ruling and limit the power of the FCC to institute such a ruling in the future. Or, the new Republican president could simply appoint a conservative FCC commissioner, who could then overturn the ruling in another 3-2 vote.

This is going to be attacked from multiple angles in the near future.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

I made the mistake of reading the comments section of an MSN article about this. My god, it is a goldmine.

......... 'internet is like a welfare' needs to go on an inspirational quote.

The mental gymnastics in here lol.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Yeah um, there's certain things that there really is no backup for that really works. The company I own has 100's of contacts across the United States that we deal with and we need to deal with in some immediacy. I own a small business and without email I would have to hire many more people just to handle all communication by phone and since we travel everywhere it would be much much harder to get paperwork sent to places. No internet would put me out of business so, um, kindly take your ideas of internet not being necessary and gtfo, thanks.

I'm sure the internet isn't the only thing that would make you go out of business if you didn't have access to it tomorrow. I don't know your business, of course, but what would happen if gasoline prices quadrupled due to natural disasters or if commercial airlines were all grounded? Are car fuel and airline tickets utilities?

Not trying to sound insensitive about your business, but trying to make the point that there are many many things we all need to do our job or run our business that could go away at any time. And people don't like to think about it because it's frightening, but that fear shouldn't cause us to label every daily need a utility or "human right". My concern is that doing that dilutes the meaning of those terms.

 

[Poltergust]

I'm critical of that too. In the business world, we always have business recovery and contingency plans if normal business operations are interrupted. Not saying it wouldn't be very difficult and painful if the internet went down, but people should be prepared for it.

A lot of businesses nowadays simply cannot function without the internet.

I made the mistake of reading the comments section of an MSN article about this. My god, it is a goldmine.

On an off-topic note, I don't understand why people block the names of people posting in public forums. If it is a private message or whatever, then sure, that's perfectly reasonable. But on something that literally anyone could see, there is no point. It's not like they had to post in the first place.

If you have a problem with what people have to say, name and shame them.

EDIT:

I'm sure the internet isn't the only thing that would make you go out of business if you didn't have access to it tomorrow. I don't know your business, of course, but what would happen if gasoline prices quadrupled due to natural disasters or if commercial airlines were all grounded? Are car fuel and airline tickets utilities?

Not trying to sound insensitive about your business, but trying to make the point that there are many many things we all need to do our job or run our business that could go away at any time. And people don't like to think about it because it's frightening, but that fear shouldn't cause us to label every daily need a utility or "human right". My concern is that doing that dilutes the meaning of those terms.

Once again, I need to reiterate that cars and commercial flights are luxuries. The internet is not comparable to them considering how necessary it is in our daily lives.

 

[demon]

That's exactly what I'm worried about - this ruling is merely transient. At a minimum, this will likely only last for a few years.

The ISPs will file lawsuits, and this will be debated in courts for the next few years. Meanwhile, if a Republican is elected for the presidency in 2016, then the right could unilaterally pass congressional legislation that would overturn the FCC's ruling and limit the power of the FCC to institute such a ruling in the future. Or, the new Republican president could simply appoint a conservative FCC commissioner, who could then overturn the ruling in another 3-2 vote.

This is going to be attacked from multiple angles in the near future.

Sure but the courts have already said that the FCC is fully within their rights to do this. And the 2016 Presidential race is looking pretty damn bleak for republicans. Once enough time has passed and people realize that this is a good thing, it will be much harder to convince the populace otherwise and take it away. That's probably why Republicans have been so desperate to kill it before it's even enacted. Sound familiar, anyone?

 

[The_Inquisitor]

I have lost any faith in the ability of our legislative branch to do anything right. Our current system is broken.

 

[metalslimer]

Millions, if not billions, of people today manage to get by without electricity in remote corners of the world. If you ask them they won't agree that electricity is a basic necessity required for living.

Your standards for a first world country and, allegedly the most technologically advanced country in the world, are bizarre. Electricity, heat, and water are still considered luxuries in many, many parts of the world, but in the United States they're considered basic necessities. That's what separates 1st world countries from 3rd. Confusingly, you then jump back into the 3rd world country standard and say because internet is still a luxury (it isn't in the US for many, many people), that therefore the internet isn't a basic need. Internet access is required for the careers of millions of people in the US. Just because they're not literally going to starve doesn't mean it's not a necessity. And I should point out you've got a very uninformed view of the US and 1st world countries in general if your idea of necessities are "not die".

You're applying two standards at the same time. If you want to argue that the internet is technically a luxury because it's not absolutely required for staying alive, you can certainly make the same statement about electricity.

Exactly, the logic doesn't follow at all. Also, it seems like the people against this have more of an ideological problem with it as opposed to actual practical problems; mostly seems like diehard libertarians outside of the usual republicans.

Also this is why voting matters.

 

[Spat_triate]

I'm glad this went through but what's to stop a republican led commission from reclassifying it again in 10 years?

 

[Dai101]

Huh?

Sarcasm.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

I'm glad this went through but what's to stop a republican led commission from reclassifying it again in 10 years?

An even louder public outcry.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

EDIT:

Once again, I need to reiterate that cars and commercial flights are luxuries. The internet is not comparable to them considering how necessary it is in our daily lives.

Cars aren't necessary to every day business operations for some companies? I only brought it up because an earlier poster said that their business would go down without the internet. The same is true for cars with many businesses.

 

[Cse]

Sure but the courts have already said that the FCC is fully within their rights to do this. And the 2016 Presidential race is looking pretty damn bleak for republicans. Once enough time has passed and people realize that this is a good thing, it will be much harder to convince the populace otherwise and take it away. That's probably why Republicans have been so desperate to kill it before it's even enacted. Sound familiar, anyone?

My concern is that the FCC didn't apply "full" title II to the ISPs, they cherry-picked which statutes to enforce. Specifically, the ISPs won't have to pay into the USF, and they won't be subjected to rate regulation or unbundling. This is good, but it's a possible point of concern when assessing the judicial viability of this ruling.

Additionally, I wouldn't say that 2016 is looking bleak for Republicans - let's not forget what happened with the most recent round of elections. The Republicans pretty much had a clean sweep, and now they have more control over Congress than either party has had in decades. The anti-Obama sentiment is actually quite strong, and if the Republicans nominate someone like Rubio who could appeal to minority voters...watch out.

 

[Elfforkusu]

Another great step. Well done FCC!

I'm glad this went through but what's to stop a republican led commission from reclassifying it again in 10 years?

There's no way we'll go back*, because it's going to be a huge improvement long term.

* the exception would be if the GOP and the telcos can do something over the next couple years, before this bears fruit.

 

[Ferrio]

I'm glad this went through but what's to stop a republican led commission from reclassifying it again in 10 years?

In 10 years the generation of kids/teens that grew up with the internet will be voting.

 

[Poltergust]

Cars aren't necessary to every day business operations for some companies? I only brought it up because an earlier poster said that their business would go down without the internet. The same is true for cars with many businesses.

You said personal cars, not company-owned cars that the general public cannot have access to anyways.

Also, going by a numbers standpoint, there are a heck of a lot more businesses reliant on the internet than reliant on cars. Actually, pretty much any company that needs a car would most likely need the internet as well, while the reverse is not true at all.

 

[demon]

My concern is that the FCC didn't apply "full" title II to the ISPs, they cherry-picked which statutes to enforce. Specifically, the ISPs won't have to pay into the USF, and they won't be subjected to rate regulation or unbundling. This is good, but it's a possible point of concern when assessing the judicial viability of this ruling.

Additionally, I wouldn't say that 2016 is looking bleak for Republicans - let's not forget what happened with the most recent round of elections. The Republicans pretty much had a clean sweep, and now they have more control over Congress than either party has had in decades. The anti-Obama sentiment is actually quite strong, and if the Republicans nominate someone like Rubio who could appeal to minority voters...watch out.

Republicans kept the House with the help of gerrymandering, won the Senate because the seats that happened to be up for election favored them, and benefited from the typical midterm election low turnout which always favors Republicans?

 

[danm999]

Cars aren't necessary to every day business operations for some companies? I only brought it up because an earlier poster said that their business would go down without the internet. The same is true for cars with many businesses.

In your analogy the more appropriate comparison would be roads, not cars.

After all, this ruling does not state computers are a public utility.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I still think that the FCC setting a stop to ISP is a good think though I see the historical precedence of how a heavily FCC intervention caused the telecom bumble on the early 00's and how the change of heavy regulated to unregulated completely burst the bubble.

I don't have any more information at hand than what he presented in the video, but I do wonder if it would have been a bubble (that popped so spectacularly) if it weren't for the lawsuit that the telecoms won in 2000, allowing them to jack up their prices and put the independent carriers and ISPs out of business. I also wonder if, without those approximately three years of regulation in the form of fixed bandwidth resell prices, we would have had such a surge in Internet adoption and technological investment. If the telecoms were allowed to charge whatever they wanted from the beginning, I wonder if the Internet and all of the associated services would have ever taken off like it did in the first place.

So, yeah, it goes without saying that I'm extremely skeptical of his "blame everything on government intervention!" approach.

 

[demon]

I'm sure the internet isn't the only thing that would make you go out of business if you didn't have access to it tomorrow. I don't know your business, of course, but what would happen if gasoline prices quadrupled due to natural disasters or if commercial airlines were all grounded? Are car fuel and airline tickets utilities?

Not trying to sound insensitive about your business, but trying to make the point that there are many many things we all need to do our job or run our business that could go away at any time. And people don't like to think about it because it's frightening, but that fear shouldn't cause us to label every daily need a utility or "human right". My concern is that doing that dilutes the meaning of those terms.

Automobiles and airplanes use all sorts of publicly funded infrastructure. You're just being ridiculous.

 

[davepoobond]

Republicans kept the House with the help of gerrymandering, won the Senate because the seats that happened to be up for election favored them, and benefited from the typical midterm election low turnout which always favors Republicans?

You forget people who want to be screwed by telecoms

 

[BertramCooper]

My concern is that the FCC didn't apply "full" title II to the ISPs, they cherry-picked which statutes to enforce. Specifically, the ISPs won't have to pay into the USF, and they won't be subjected to rate regulation or unbundling. This is good, but it's a possible point of concern when assessing the judicial viability of this ruling.

Additionally, I wouldn't say that 2016 is looking bleak for Republicans - let's not forget what happened with the most recent round of elections. The Republicans pretty much had a clean sweep, and now they have more control over Congress than either party has had in decades. The anti-Obama sentiment is actually quite strong, and if the Republicans nominate someone like Rubio who could appeal to minority voters...watch out.

:lol at the idea that the GOP is going to nominate Rubio.

 

[JMDSO]

Does this mean I can finally use my cable bill as proof of address?

 

[Epsilon-delta]

My concern is that the FCC didn't apply "full" title II to the ISPs, they cherry-picked which statutes to enforce. Specifically, the ISPs won't have to pay into the USF, and they won't be subjected to rate regulation or unbundling. This is good, but it's a possible point of concern when assessing the judicial viability of this ruling.

Additionally, I wouldn't say that 2016 is looking bleak for Republicans - let's not forget what happened with the most recent round of elections. The Republicans pretty much had a clean sweep, and now they have more control over Congress than either party has had in decades. The anti-Obama sentiment is actually quite strong, and if the Republicans nominate someone like Rubio who could appeal to minority voters...watch out.

Not going to happen. Young voters don't turn out for mid-term elections, and Rubio won't win or even come close to winning the presidency. And this net neutrality might just light a fire under millenial's asses when it comes to their Internet and vote for Hillary on that alone.

Hillary 2016 easy. I'll take a ban bet on it.

 

[cackhyena]

Not going to happen. Young voters don't turn out for mid-term elections, and Rubio won't win or even come close to winning the presidency. And this net neutrality might just light a fire under millenial's asses when it comes to their Internet and vote for Hillary on that alone.

Hillary 2016 easy. I'll take a ban bet on it.

Easy? Naw. Jeb is getting in on this. Like it or not, he's gonna be a force to reckon with. I really don't like it, but it's happening none the less.

 

[Epsilon-delta]

Easy? Naw. Jeb is getting in on this. Like it or not, he's gonna be a force to reckon with. I really don't like it, but it's happening none the less.

Jeb is not going to do squat.

 

[demon]

If all the Republicans can pull out of their ass is Bush III and Scott Walker, they're pretty right fucked.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Easy? Naw. Jeb is getting in on this. Like it or not, he's gonna be a force to reckon with. I really don't like it, but it's happening none the less.

Why would he be a contender?

I bet he'd be disqualified on looks alone for a lot of voters.

 

[Ryuuroden]

I'm sure the internet isn't the only thing that would make you go out of business if you didn't have access to it tomorrow. I don't know your business, of course, but what would happen if gasoline prices quadrupled due to natural disasters or if commercial airlines were all grounded? Are car fuel and airline tickets utilities?

Not trying to sound insensitive about your business, but trying to make the point that there are many many things we all need to do our job or run our business that could go away at any time. And people don't like to think about it because it's frightening, but that fear shouldn't cause us to label every daily need a utility or "human right". My concern is that doing that dilutes the meaning of those terms.

That's a horrible analogy for some pretty obvious reasons. I don't think I need to list them. You should be able to figure it out by re-reading it.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

You said personal cars, not company-owned cars that the general public cannot have access to anyways.

Also, going by a numbers standpoint, there are a heck of a lot more businesses reliant on the internet than reliant on cars. Actually, pretty much any company that needs a car would most likely need the internet as well, while the reverse is not true at all.

You're right, I shouldn't have limited it to personal cars. But the example of quadrupled gas prices would equally effect personal or company-owned cars. As for a statistical breakdown of who needs cars vs internet, I haven't done that kind of research so I'm not qualified to make any conclusions on that. It's more the point that, before and after the internet, there were many businesses that relied on cars without them being a utility. And that relationship worked fine without turning cars or gasoline into utilities.

I guess I'd put it this way, what's the real value of the internet? Making businesses and governments run more efficiently, or decentralizing information to the common man? Public figures are under much more pressure to act like decent human beings because the internet can quickly transmit news of their misdeeds. Human rights groups can more easily research and share information through the web and organize their campaigns. My concern is that if the government views the internet as a public utility, then the government or big businesses can start to suppress information that makes them look bad. It was my same concern with SOPA and PIPA before they were shut down. In other words, I'd be just as concerned with the FTC monitoring your internet access as I would with Verizon doing it. It comes down to who you're more worried about, the FTC and their censoring motive, or Verizon and their profit motive? There's no wrong answer, but I personally am more concerned about the FTC.

In an ideal world, we'd have easy access to Internet for businesses, students, and activists alike that respects free speech. The question is how to preserve that.

 

[cackhyena]

Jeb is not going to do squat.

Oh okay.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You're right, I shouldn't have limited it to personal cars. But the example of quadrupled gas prices would equally effect personal or company-owned cars. As for a statistical breakdown of who needs cars vs internet, I haven't done that kind of research so I'm not qualified to make any conclusions on that. It's more the point that, before and after the internet, there were many businesses that relied on cars without them being a utility. And that relationship worked fine without turning cars or gasoline into utilities.

Roads, man. Roads are the Internet. Cars are the computers that use those roads.

Water utilities do not come with a free faucet.
Electricity utilities do not come with free light bulbs and appliances.
Roads do not come with free cars or other vehicles.
Internet does not come with free computers or Internet capable devices.

It's about making sure that the backbones that enable all of these things are not giving preferential treatment to anyone.

I guess I'd put it this way, what's the real value of the internet? Making businesses and governments run more efficiently, or decentralizing information to the common man? Public figures are under much more pressure to act like decent human beings because the internet can quickly transmit news of their misdeeds. Human rights groups can more easily research and share information through the web and organize their campaigns. My concern is that if the government views the internet as a public utility, then the government or big businesses can start to suppress information that makes them look bad. It was my same concern with SOPA and PIPA before they were shut down. In other words, I'd be just as concerned with the FTC monitoring your internet access as I would with Verizon doing it. It comes down to who you're more worried about, the FTC and their censoring motive, or Verizon and their profit motive? There's no wrong answer, but I personally am more concerned about the FTC.

In an ideal world, we'd have easy access to Internet for businesses, students, and activists alike that respects free speech. The question is how to preserve that.

Does classifying the Internet as a utility suddenly give the government more ability to monitor and censor? I must have missed that part.

 

[Amir0x]

Sarcasm.

You'll be sarcastic alright as Obama marches his jackboots into your home and roughs up your family for refusing to worship Allah. Just wait until it all comes unraveled as he issues the first ever executive order overturning the constitution singlehandedly and without congress and allowing himself three terms.