"So what, they're actually considering making a sequel to Call of Duty every few years, you think that's good?"
If the games are good, I can't see what's that bad about it

"Activision are worse because they make shit sequels, shit games, have crappy support (at least in my experience) and think of money."
In your opinion they make shit sequels. I don't think so (if you're thinking of CoD4 - If not, then what?). Wouldn't know if they have crappy support, never needed it. And wow, a company that thinks of earning money? Damn, that's gotta be a world-first.

"I find it easier to believe that the core will explode and we will all burn in a fiery explosion tomorrow than believing Activision won't influence Blizzard in any way."
It's two different things. One is saying that Activision will tell Blizzard what to do and what not to do, the other is being influenced by each other. There's quite a difference. One is "Do this!" the other is "Hey, Activision does this, let's try that". Of course they're going to influence Blizzard, they're the same company now. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard will automatically turn into a direct replica of Activision.

"Neither does making half-assed sequels of games when we need more ORIGINAL IP's." Again, how is it half-assed "sequels"? Which are you thinking about? They made the original CoD, made an agreement for someone else to do some of the sequels, and then made No. 4 (not sure if they made 2 or 3), followed by CoD 5 which was NOT made by Activision. Explain what you mean. (Oh, and what are IPs?)

"So maybe I just don't like Activision because they, like most other "big" gaming companies, want to monopolize on everything"
What are they trying to monopolize? They haven't got a monopoly on... anything