Thread: Bill Gates Supports Fascism With His Money

Bill Gates Supports Fascism With His Money

Karen DeCoster
LRC Blog
Ju;y 26, 2008

He is teaming up with the fascist Bloomberg to stop people from smoking "around the globe." This is no private initiative. Bloomberg, as mayor of New York, is well-positioned to use government to make this happen.

The mayor’s initiative supports efforts to increase the tobacco tax, transform the glamorized image of tobacco, help people quit and protect nonsmokers from secondhand exposure.

"The reality is that all the money in the world will never eradicate tobacco use and that this problem is too big for any one person or organization to solve," Bloomberg said.

"It’s going to take a sustained commitment by government, community organizations and the entire global health community, including those who fund it."

This article mentions countries where "something" has been done already, and in each case it’s a government law, somewhere, that does something to ban or discourage smoking. According to Bloomberg, a world without tobacco "is a world in which people live longer and have happier lives." Am I the only person who gets tired of reading this kind of crap? Who is Michael Bloomberg to judge other peoples’ happiness and determine what does or doesn’t make them happy? Does anyone else stop and note that we can’t possibly collectivize happiness? Of course, we are talking about a man who believes that a centralized government owns your life and is responsible for determining what you should or should not be doing with your life.

Bloomberg is perhaps one of the worst offenders of individual freedom who is currently in a political position to empower government at the expense of individuals. His perch atop NYC is bad enough, but he enjoys using his wads of money to fund interventionist government efforts around the globe to extend fascist government policies and crush individual liberties. Bloomberg loves power, and he loves to control everything around him, and so the stench of his rottenness has no end in sight.



http://www.infowars.com/?p=3599

For all of us who feel only the deepest love and affection for the way computers have enhanced our lives, read on.
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX),Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated,

'If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon.'

In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release stating:

If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part ):

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash........
Twice a day.

2. Every time they repainted the lines in the road, you would have to buy a new car.

3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason. You would have to pull to the side of the road, close all of the windows, shut off the car, restart it, and reopen the windows before you could continue. For some reason you would simply accept this.

4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have to reinstall the engine.

5. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, was reliable, five times as fast and twice as easy to drive - but would run on only five percent of the roads.

6. The oil, water temperature, and alternator warning lights would all be replaced by a single 'This Car Has Performed An Illegal Operation' warning light.

7. The airbag system would ask 'Are you sure?' before deploying.

8. Occasionally, for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the key and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.

9. Every time a new car was introduced car buyers would have to learn how to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the same manner as the old car.

10. You'd have to press the 'Start' button to turn the engine off
-------------

I know this is serious but I couldn’t help my self! Sorry!

Originally Posted by MadInChicago

If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving cars with the following characteristics (and I just love this part ):

1. For no reason whatsoever, your car would crash........
Twice a day.

I would have to add:

"You would wake up the next morning to find that someone from India has driven off with your car because 'he is more qualified to operate your car because he has the right skill set and qualified Americans cannot be found who know how to drive your car"...

Thanks, everyone for all the posts. I am mad about the Gates/Bloomberg post, but Gates' response from GM is priceless. I laughed so hard tears were coming out. Nice touch MadInChicago & Millere.

I'm always mad at the Bloomberg God and throw in H2 Gates and the Show must Go On.

Reading what MadinChicago posted on GM's reply , leading up to #6 and 7 had me laughing so hard . Ain't it the truth
"Are You Sure"

You have to wonder, WHY??? WHY such a big effort to stop smoking? Why not alcoholism or child abuse or any number of things. I somehow think it's a giant social experiment to seek control of people and make them do certain things. Maybe it's just an experiment?! I was shocked when I heard the the millions being put into this effort trying to get people to stop using a LEGAL substance, NOT crack or coke but tobacco. It's weird!

The second-hand smoke deal is a big of a hoax as global warming. It's easily disproved. The W.H.O. did an extensive study and found NO link. Of course this has been covered up and a judge rule the EPA violated their own rules. When EPA adminstrator, Carol Brownlee was questioned about the lack of evidence, she said, "Well the American people certainly know it's dangerous..." Who cares about science, the people think it is, so that's all we need. The people think so, because they were TOLD so!

Hitler was anti-smoking, pro-animal rights, a vegetarian and enacted PC.

It seems that Hitler was a smoker in his youth but at some stage he became aware of its health hazards and, when in power (perhaps with the zeal of a convert), appeared to detest tobacco, which he called "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor." But the antismoking campaign reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as the Fuhrer's personal prejudices. The same could be said of Nazi efforts to discourage drinking and encourage a better diet.

The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"

"Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms.

He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.

Government would go berserk if everybody quit smoking. How would they replace the BILLIONS in taxes. Taxes are the biggest cost of cigarettes. Here it's over 2/3rds the price!

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/h ... t/id1.html

Originally Posted by gofer

You have to wonder, WHY??? WHY such a big effort to stop smoking? Why not alcoholism or child abuse or any number of things. I somehow think it's a giant social experiment to seek control of people and make them do certain things. Maybe it's just an experiment?! I was shocked when I heard the the millions being put into this effort trying to get people to stop using a LEGAL substance, NOT crack or coke but tobacco. It's weird!

The second-hand smoke deal is a big of a hoax as global warming. It's easily disproved. The W.H.O. did an extensive study and found NO link. Of course this has been covered up and a judge rule the EPA violated their own rules. When EPA adminstrator, Carol Brownlee was questioned about the lack of evidence, she said, "Well the American people certainly know it's dangerous..." Who cares about science, the people think it is, so that's all we need. The people think so, because they were TOLD so!

Hitler was anti-smoking, pro-animal rights, a vegetarian and enacted PC.

It seems that Hitler was a smoker in his youth but at some stage he became aware of its health hazards and, when in power (perhaps with the zeal of a convert), appeared to detest tobacco, which he called "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor." But the antismoking campaign reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as the Fuhrer's personal prejudices. The same could be said of Nazi efforts to discourage drinking and encourage a better diet.

The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"

"Robert Proctor presents a great deal of evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms.

He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.

Government would go berserk if everybody quit smoking. How would they replace the BILLIONS in taxes. Taxes are the biggest cost of cigarettes. Here it's over 2/3rds the price!

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/h ... t/id1.html

Ironic isn't it that our government/elites mimic what Hitler did?

Seems as though they are taking our individual rights away incrementally so that we gradually become conditioned to accept the NWO rule of law.
Just a thought...

Thanks for the info gofer.