A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
For someone who claims to be intelligent, at least try spelling the "ideology" you don't support correctly.

Whatever. Its called a typo kiddo. Get over it. It doesnt make your argument any better that i made a little typo.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistMerriam-Webster definition: Ad-hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made. You have not posted any evidence to support your ridiculous claims, have not answered any of the questions I have posed, but opted to a poor attempt at ridicule. Not the brightest bulb in the box?

"not the brightest bulb in the box?" Oh, and thats not ad hominem? Hahah. Hypocrite.

And no, my comment was not ad-hominem since i was calling your statement stupid, not you... Once again, i thought you were smart. Guess not... Too bad webster couldnt even help you this time...

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistNope, I base my opinion and argument on historical precedence. Man started out as a small tribe to become the nation states that we see today. If we can come that far, logically, a global government is not too far off (give it a few more centuries).

The problem here is that you assume historical precedence is logical when it is not logical, it is based on events which can contain no logic whatsoever. I.e. the holocaust. You think that the forming of nation states and tribes is due to logic? I thought you were educated. hahah There are these little things called emotions that tend to factor in...

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistYou're a creationist, aren't you? There is sufficient evidence that the big bang explains the origin of the universe, much more evidence in fact than there is to your fantasies of a globalist elite. I don't have the time to post all of the experiments conducted in peer-reviewed articles when you would most likely disregard it and claim it to be apart of the "global elitist" agenda.

No im not a creationist. Not even close. And i know for a fact that you cannot explain the timeline of the bigbang with supporting evidence. Last semester i took astronomy 220 and learned that most of the timeline of the big bang has no supportive argument or evidence according to my professor who has a P.hd ( a.k.a. smarter than you).. These words are from his own mouth, in fact he was rather annoyed that science fills in gaps with wild guesses. He said we shouldnt have moved past until we figured it out.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistYou clearly must suffer from convenient amnesia. I countered your arguments and inquired for evidence, you personally attacked me and called me a troll, I responded. If you can't handle the heat, I suggest you stay out of the kitchen. By the way, you had no argument simply because you have no evidence. Therefore, it is all but assumptions at best.

Haha, i didnt personally attack you, stop crying like a little baby. You cry like a little baby when you feel attacked yet you turn around and do the same thing.

Plus, you have no "evidence" of your claim that a one world government is inevitable. Still waiting for your "evidence" to support you claim. Therefore, your argument is also assumption at best..

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistI've already answered that. Perhaps if you had the attention span to read the first post, you'd know that.

Um, no you didnt. And there you go being a hypocrite again with your little insults. Cry more. LOL.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistInteresting. I use historical precedence and scientific facts via evolution to come to my conclusion. What do you use? Radical claims, quotes taken out of context, and youtube videos created by people who have mental health issues.

Hahaha. Historical precedence is not evidence. It is fallible. Evolution is also fallible. Sorry. Until you can find the missing link. hahaha. LOL @;;@

Oh, and i forgot, you're also such a talented clinical psychologist. You can diagnose people with mental health issue over the internet. *sarcasm

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistDo you even know what kind of mathematics the theory of relativity is based upon? There were countless experiments done and countless scrutiny of Einstein's mathematical proofs. I find it comedic how you are comparing your delusions and fantasies that have no EVIDENCE AT ALL to an established scientific fact.

Dude, clean out your ears. I said when einstien first published his theory, there existed no evidence.

A theory is a theory because there is not yet evidence for it. Yet there are many theories that are accepted by the "scientific" community. Therefore, there are things that exist in science which do not have supporting evidence, they are called theories. LMFAO

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicistThis seems to be a recurring theme on this website. Insult the sceptic who asks for evidence, because, that is the only way you can ever hope to appear that you discredited their arguments.

Aw, cry more. No one likes your globalist propaganda. So now youre gonna whine about how there is no "EVIDENCE" which like i said, is the disinformationists "move of desperation"

You think youre so smart, but you're really quite average according to your thought processes. Hate to break it to you.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

You are clearly delusional and paranoid. I suggest you take your medication. You have no proof that I am apart of this "globalist elite", in fact, you have no proof they even exist.

And yet, take note of the elitist attitude that permeates that sentence like the stench of manure. I have proof you exist, you are demonstrably elitist, and you are vehemently advocating a "one world government".

It is quite typical of the loony conspiracy theorist to assume anyone who disagrees with their fantasies must be apart of the "system" and is in the "know".

Now you rely upon the strawman fallacy. Contrary to your silly assertion, I most certainly did not even imply that you were in the "know", and in fact handily demonstrated how woefully ignorant you actually are.

Third world is not an elitist term.

Say's who? You? Do you even know how the term "Third World" entered the lexicon? The term was coined by French anthropologist Alfred Sauvy and in its original language is "Tiers Monde" Here is what Sauvy had to say about it:

"...because at the end this ignored, exploited, scorned Third World like the Third Estate, wants to become something too".

Using the term "Tiers Monde" as analogous with the "Third Estate", which was a part of the so called "Estates of the Realm" which "were the broad social of the hierarchically conceived society...". Broken down into to three Estates, there was the First Estate, which was the clergy, the Second Estate, which was the "nobles", and finally the "Third Estate" which were known as "commoners".

Your reification is absurdly foolish.

Unlike you, I would love to see them develop and be at the level of first world countries.

Now you rely upon bifurcation, assuming that because you believe you "would love to see them develop", and since I have made clear you are an ignoramus and clearly do not agree with you, that I must not want undeveloped nations to develop. Arrogance is a presumption of knowledge. You continually demonstrate your profound lack of knowledge while presuming you have it. Elites are quite well known for their arrogance.

I am a humanist, but you seem to be the elitist who would prefer that third-world countries do not develop and are to be exploited by first-world countries. Also, you have no evidence that "third-world" is an elitist term. It is an opinion, and as you should know, you cannot argue an opinion.

Care to retract this foolish remark, or will you stupidly entrench yourself in your own foolishness?

Do you even know what a fallacy is? For your education, when you call an argument a "fallacy", you are expected to elaborate. Maybe you haven't been in a debate or do not understand the dynamics of an argument, but simply saying "you're wrong and stupid" does not invalidate an argument. Perhaps, it does with you loony conspiracy theorists, but not among educated people.

Obviously you do not know what "argument by dismissal" means, and even more obviously, you have no idea what fallacy means. You incredibly place quotes around "you're wrong and stupid" as if you're quoting me, but all thinkers who enter this thread and read my post know you to be a liar. If your cause is so just, why the need to lie and deflect by pretending I am against humanity? Indeed, where I am strongly advocating the rights of all individuals, you are advocating a centralized world wide government, under the auspices of democracy, and have shown no regards at all for the rights of individuals.

And if you have a better idea than democracy, tell me, what is it?

How foolish are you going to insist on being? If you cannot understand that I am strongly advocating the federalism I spoke to in my original post, where a "diffusion" of power exists, and that this power flows directly from the people, then I am just wasting my time here. Buffoonery is amusing as entertainment, but never works in debate, my ignorant friend.

You prefer a dictatorship or communism? Or do you naively believe that humans should not be governed and will respect the property and rights of others without there being a law-enforcement? Typical lolbertarian nonsense.

All through this thread, you play this silly little game, where apparently you think all you have to do is dismiss another argument by using fallacy, then when called on it, fallaciously claim the person who called you on it doesn't know what a fallacy is, and now you go from lumping my political beliefs into a "dictatorship", "communism" and "libertarianism". The silly little laughing emoticons only make you look clownish at this point.

More ad-hominem fallacies. Why is this form argument so popular with you loony conspiracy theorists? Is it because you lack complete evidence and try discrediting your opponents by attacking their character? It is truly no wonder that no educated person subscribes to these fantasies.

You quite clearly do not even know what an ad-hominem is. Ad-hominem's are an attack on the person, whereas I spoke to the "elite", of which you deny their existence. You want to distinguish yourself from elitism, but when I attack elitism you take it personally, but hey...if the shoe fits...

The process is democracy, but the country is a constitutional republic.

Contradictions do not exist. When confronted with one such as the one above, it is prudent to check the premise. The "process" is not democracy, and only some elements of election simulate democracy. The process is wholly republic and designed as such to keep democracy from trampling all over the rights of individuals. The process is about the rights of the people, not democracy.

Are you saying that this cannot be emulated on a global scale? Of course, because you either believe in the nonsensical ideology that there should be no law enforcement or government because humans can govern themselves or a fundamentalist religious nut-job.

More bifurcation wrapped up in ad-hominems and straw man arguments coming from the ignoramus that accused me of ad hominems. Of course, thieves always lock their doors, it makes sense that fallacious people assume all people are fallacious.

It is too unfortunate the vast majority of people disagree with your ideology.

Why? Because this is a democracy and the majority rules? Do the "vast majority of people disagree" that all people everywhere have unalienable rights? Is this your contention? If so, you have just demonstrated how it is that out of democracy tyranny rises.

Libertarianism is only popular amongst uneducated toothless hicks and high-school dropouts who are addicted to drugs.

Okay, so you're a troll, who has created a thread for the express purpose of trolling, haven't you? You might ask yourself how it is a thread with only four flags managed to accumulate seven pages now. I would suggest because the vast majority of people in this site have low to no tolerance for tyrants and tyranny. Your mistaken belief that the "vast majority of people disagree" with freedom is your problem, sport. Pretending to be erudite will not make you so, you will have to necessarily put effort into gaining knowledge before you can possess it.

MathematicalPhysicist says:

David Rockefeller is a philanthropist and it is possible he may have said such statements, but like all philanthropists and humanists, his personal views only stop with him. He is not a politician, has no power, etc. and can't enact anything. Personally, I find your statements libelous and you have yet to produce ANY documented evidence of him or Bill Gates stating such things.
----------------------------------------------------
Surely you jest! David Rockefeller, Page 405 of his book, "Memoirs":

"...Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it..."
------------------------------------
Did you notice the words SECRET CABAL, CONSPIRING, ONE WORLD--then he admits it's true and he's proud of it! I would like to know why he hasn't been arrested for Treason.

I did not read all the comments in this nonsensical (imo) thread, so if the above has already been addressed, I apologize for the repeat.

I, for one, am not against a One World Government, per se. I do believe "we" are all brothers and sisters. However, at this point in time, I do not believe it would work. Those currently pushing for One World Government do NOT have the interests of the people in mind; they are motivated by their own greed and thirst for power. And democracies never work; a democracy has oft been defined as: "Two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner." I also get sick and tired of hearing my government officials, etc. stating they are spreading or trying to spread democracy throughout the world. Then go live somewhere else because the USA was set up as a Republic. If you think democracy is so great, go live in one!

Imo, at this point in history, Republics (free, individual, independent) offer the most Freedom. There are many of us here in the USA who are working hard trying to restore this country back to the great Republic she once was--back to respecting and following the Constitution, the Law of the Land...working on getting rid of the ever-increasing corruption. WE WILL NEVER GIVE UP! We can best benefit mankind right now by leading by example!

Someday, when the time is right, someday when peace, brotherhood, and love are the motivating factors behind the quest for a "One World Government", then our Planet will unite, I believe.

Originally posted by BanMePlz
Whatever. Its called a typo kiddo. Get over it. It doesnt make your argument any better that i made a little typo.

At the very least, I have an argument.

Originally posted by BanMePlz"not the brightest bulb in the box?" Oh, and thats not ad hominem? Hahah. Hypocrite.

No, it is not. I called you an idiot and discredited your argument, at the same time. That does not constitute ad-hominem.

Originally posted by BanMePlzAnd no, my comment was not ad-hominem since i was calling your statement stupid, not you... Once again, i thought you were smart. Guess not... Too bad webster couldnt even help you this time...

Actually, it was. You probably have poor reading comprehension. You said my argument fails BECAUSE I asked for evidence and are an idiot, which is ad-hominem. If you elaborated on why my argument is invalid and dismissed me as a disinformation agent, then it would not be ad-hominmen, but you did not. Am I going a little too fast for you? I'll try to slow down.

Originally posted by BanMePlzThe problem here is that you assume historical precedence is logical when it is not logical, it is based on events which can contain no logic whatsoever. I.e. the holocaust.

Red-herring fallacy. The holocaust has nothing to do with globalization and was a tragedy which was the result of hatred and fear, while globalism promotes the exact opposite. Nice try, though.

Originally posted by BanMePlzYou think that the forming of nation states and tribes is due to logic? I thought you were educated. hahah There are these little things called emotions that tend to factor in...

Yes, it is. For what reason did people form tribes and small communities? So, they can enjoy the benefits of the collective while contributing to the community. Homosapiens are a social creature and cannot survive as an individual but as a collective group. But, you would prefer we return to the days before the hunter-gatherers came about, wouldn't you?

Originally posted by BanMePlzNo im not a creationist. Not even close. And i know for a fact that you cannot explain the timeline of the bigbang with supporting evidence. Last semester i took astronomy 220 and learned that most of the timeline of the big bang has no supportive argument or evidence according to my professor who has a P.hd ( a.k.a. smarter than you).. These words are from his own mouth, in fact he was rather annoyed that science fills in gaps with wild guesses. He said we shouldnt have moved past until we figured it out.

Appeal to authority fallacy. By that logic, I am a grad-school student and, therefore, I am smarter than you are. Why are you debating with me, then? There is sufficient evidence for the big bang and it is accepted by the vast majority of astronomers and astrophysicists. Sure, we don't have the full picture and we will either fill in the gaps as we move along or postulate new theories as old ones become obsolete. As for now, we can consider the many experiments and peer-review articles that hint to the big-bang being quite accurate.

Originally posted by BanMePlzHaha, i didnt personally attack you, stop crying like a little baby. You cry like a little baby when you feel attacked yet you turn around and do the same thing.

So, what is this then? Is this not a personal attack? You, clearly, are not mature enough to handle a rational debate.

Originally posted by BanMePlzUm, no you didnt. And there you go being a hypocrite again with your little insults. Cry more. LOL.

You couldn't come up with witty insults at the very least? If you are going to result to personal attacks instead of providing evidence for your claims, at least be witty about it. A third grader can come up with better material, seriously.

Originally posted by BanMePlzHahaha. Historical precedence is not evidence. It is fallible. Evolution is also fallible. Sorry. Until you can find the missing link. hahaha. LOL @;;@

Originally posted by BanMePlzOh, and i forgot, you're also such a talented clinical psychologist. You can diagnose people with mental health issue over the internet. *sarcasm

Oh, of course, all of those conspiracy theorists who spend their time either doing drugs and having "epiphanies" or creating videos are the true sane ones, while the vast majority of the population is brainwashed and stupid.

Originally posted by BanMePlzDude, clean out your ears. I said when einstien first published his theory, there existed no evidence.

There existed decent evidence via mathematical proofs. Experimentation was conducted to see if it was consistent with the physical world, and it was. When relativity was published, it had much more evidence than the conspiratorial nonsense that you and the many others spew on here. How come no mathematician or scientist actually takes the conspiracy of a global elite existing seriously, but Einstein's theory of relativity was taken seriously? Clearly, if there is more evidence for this conspiracy than there was when Einstein published relativity, there would be many scientists and mathematicians accepting it as fact. How come there aren't any? Not even one?

Originally posted by BanMePlzA theory is a theory because there is not yet evidence for it. Yet there are many theories that are accepted by the "scientific" community. Therefore, there are things that exist in science which do not have supporting evidence, they are called theories. LMFAO

You're wrong. A theory is established when countless experimentation has proven it to be consistent with the real world and has been rigorously peer-reviewed. Until it is proven otherwise, it can be considered scientific fact but not yet established as a law because we simply do not know everything about it, as of yet. Electromagnetism is just a theory, so you disbelieve in it, don't you?

Originally posted by BanMePlzAw, cry more. No one likes your globalist propaganda. So now youre gonna whine about how there is no "EVIDENCE" which like i said, is the disinformationists "move of desperation"

Why is it you can come up with no other retort than "CRY MORE, BABY!!"? Is your wit that limited? And as I said before, educated people require evidence. If you dismiss all educated people that ask for evidence as "disinformationists", then there must be millions of people who are in the "know", right? Sure, a conspiracy involving millions of people can be kept secret for so long.

Originally posted by BanMePlzYou think youre so smart, but you're really quite average according to your thought processes. Hate to break it to you.

I never implied that I am "so smart", you incorrectly inferred that. All I asked is for evidence, and you kept deflecting my arguments and resorting to preschool immaturity. It would have been more mature of you to say, "We have no evidence, but we believe out of the bottom of our hearts that there is this imaginary global agenda to control the world, despite no human group can be that perfect and secret for so many centuries". I would have at least respected your beliefs and delusions if you put it like that, but then you ridiculously compared that fantasy with no basis in reality to scientifically established facts. Time to don the tin-foil hat, as I am going to start emitting EM waves that will brainwash you into accepting the globalist agenda.

I'm sure someone has stated this, but would you trust a one world currency? if somehow our system did fall, no one would be there to pick it back up on it's feet, but a one world government has never been tried before, and if the governing body had our best interest in mind, I would certainly support it, but as it stands now, no

What we have here is a member posting a thread of their OPINION, and defending that opinion to the death, ignoring facts and established truths. A supreme troll/political baiter of the highest order.

Deny ignorance, people. Ignore this thread and let the OP wallow in his own little world.

Only 4 flags in 7 pages - that's gotta tell ya something, OP.

Originally posted by Nobama
I'm sure someone has stated this, but would you trust a one world currency? if somehow our system did fall, no one would be there to pick it back up on it's feet, but a one world government has never been tried before, and if the governing body had our best interest in mind, I would certainly support it, but as it stands now, no

Of course it is destined to fail if all countries are not on the same level. Just, for example, look at the EU. They started off great, until they let in some countries with questionable economics and governing practices, such as Greece. Greece is not an economic powerhouse such as Germany, France, and the many other countries in the EU. Greece was not ready to gain acceptance into the EU, maybe after 50 years of economic growth and some catching up to do. A world government is infeasible in this day simply because humans are not ready for it, whether it be economically, culturally, or psychologically. I was not advocating for a one-world government immediately, just speaking of its inevitability and it is inevitable. It's not a matter of if but when. Personally, I think it will be established by the time we have colonies in space and accomplish successful interstellar travel. If you don't like it, just find your own planet and start your own world government.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
What we have here is a member posting a thread of their OPINION, and defending that opinion to the death, ignoring facts and established truths. A supreme troll/political baiter of the highest order.

What established truths? Quotes taken out of context? Youtube videos?

What experiments can I conduct to prove that this "globalist agenda" exists? You liken it to scientific fact, and yet, I cannot do any experiments to prove as such. Why is that? I require evidence before entertaining a claim, but it is evident that you don't and are satisfied with youtube videos.

Originally posted by AwakeinNMOnly 4 flags in 7 pages - that's gotta tell ya something, OP.

Ad-populum fallacy. If enough people disagree with you, that means you're wrong? By that logic, the vast majority of people in the world believe there is no global conspiracy, that 9/11 was not an inside job, and that there is no illuminati. Surely, they are telling the truth and you are the liars, by your logic, of course.

We should have a open source online government. Every kid will have to learn how to read/write the code (not to good on techno babble) too make sure it never gets corrupt. Everyone gets 1 vote can be done only online and you can view results live. I see there be alot of upsides to this but there are probably some bad points which i haven't thought about. like how to make the whole system unhackable right down to the persons computer.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
So, tell me, what would you do when an alien threat presents and starts attacking the world? Let me guess, the free-market and liberty will take care of it, after all, human liberty is more powerful than beings who are capable of interstellar travel?

I'm not sure what aliens have to do with anything, but if they happened to show up, why would they necessarily have to be a threat and start attacking the world? Surely, "beings who are capable of interstellar travel" who so desired to wipe us out could do so quite easily, before any one of us had a moment to crap our pants.

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist
Obviously, I am fully aware that a one-world government in today's time will just not work, but it will be of greater importance in the distant future. That is all I am saying, so what is to hate about that? None of you will be alive to see it, either way.

You won't be alive either, so why do you care enough to be blatantly abrasive and condescending?
Incidentally, your constant use of the eye roll and lol emoticons do nothing to further your assertion of being more intelligent and educated than most here. In fact, it makes you appear childish, pot stirring, and overly obvious.

Originally posted by TiggersTheMan
I'm not sure what aliens have to do with anything, but if they happened to show up, why would they necessarily have to be a threat and start attacking the world? Surely, "beings who are capable of interstellar travel" who so desired to wipe us out could do so quite easily, before any one of us had a moment to crap our pants.

Why would they not? If beings are capable of interstellar travel, they won't willingly expend all of the resources required to traverse such a distance only for tourism and to make peaceful contact. Of course they can destroy us without realizing it, however, they would have no reason to unless they wanted resources (whether it be Earth or slaves) and that would require a form of direct warfare. Whether the possibility is slim or not, we must prepare ourselves as a species and promote space research and R&D.

Originally posted by TiggersTheManYou won't be alive either, so why do you care enough to be blatantly abrasive and condescending?
Incidentally, your constant use of the eye roll and lol emoticons do nothing to further your assertion of being more intelligent and educated than most here. In fact, it makes you appear childish, pot stirring, and overly obvious.

Actually, I respect the people who rationally disagree and can present their points validly and defend them. I am being condescending towards those who show no evidence, call me an idiot and a "disinformation agent", and claim there is no evidence for scientific facts but there definitely is for their conspiratorial lunacy. All I was giving was my opinion based on personal observations of historical events and current trends of a "global culture" if you will that is slowly emerging thanks to the information age.

Either a one world govt arises or we blow ourselves up.
Everyone insists on holding onto their differences and demanding "equality", when in actuality, they want superiority, not equality. When cultures meld and assimilate into each other great things can happen (e.g. Texmex, so tasty).

No one wants to give ground to anyone else but in the end we will have to or die. Forgive, forget, and move forward.

However, if i were to wager which will happen......lets just say I wouldn't be around to collect my winnings.
You say cynical,i say realist.

I dont know why people flip out so much when it comes to a One World Government/Religion. That would basically make us united at a species. I see nothing wrong with it. As long as everyone has they're own free will everything will be ok. So i dont know what all the fear mongering is all about.

Your assuming that this level of technology is sustainable...your also assuming that democracy/majority rule, will be the system in place. I don't think one world government is sustainable in either case. It is a doomed proposition to begin with.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Your assuming that this level of technology is sustainable...your also assuming that democracy/majority rule, will be the system in place. I don't think one world government is sustainable in either case. It is a doomed proposition to begin with.

Any reason why you think that? Of course, a world government cannot work in our current state and will most likely be totalitarian. However, if and when all countries are on the same level in terms of development, people are more united, and another industrial revolution has occurred, why would it not be feasible and desirable to slowly assimilate all countries into a global government?

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


Yea i agree with you. I think were just going to keep going around and around. theres no such thing as Perfect.

reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist


Everything you mention about the NWO is almost very accurate! I just dont get, why you actually try to convince the people here who are "mostly" against it. This is the same with telling a moslem that his religion is based upon moon goddess or god and await to see a positive reaction like quitting it!

So it wont happen here either! I support your claims! But dont forget that people are pumped with fear amplifications via videos or questionable wihistleblower sources. They will never really understand HOW stuff works in this world. The %90 reduction is a myth! Why should they do this? There is a colony collapse theory which shows already this is not their intention but whom do you want to explain it? Oh, yeah the Georgia Guide Stone and its 500.000.000 thing. (It means if sh*t happens like a major uncontrollable catastrophe, than try to keep human population under 500mil, not kill off the %90 with a killer instinct)

For most, being feared is easier than facing the hard and painfull truths! Anyway good work and nice try OP. Unfortunately you waste your time by explaining the why's and how's. They want to have a scape goat to blame all the sh*t that caused unkowingly by themselves.

Anyway, good job!

Originally posted by darkl0rd
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

 

Everything you mention about the NWO is almost very accurate! I just dont get, why you actually try to convince the people here who are "mostly" against it. This is the same with telling a moslem that his religion is based upon moon goddess or god and await to see a positive reaction like quitting it!

:

Some people just have to bring religious hate into every subject.

JUST ONE MORE STEP CLOSER TO 1984...ALEX JONES also warned us about this type of "SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY" some time ago...KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR THIS B.S.