For Dogman

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:

And our debt keeps increasing because the American people can't yet
get it across to our elected representatives that we want them to STOP
THE SPENDING! PERIOD!

Any politician who votes for greatly reduced spending votes for reduced
services and thus is not reelected. It's a feedback loop that across
history all democracies have fallen into.

One of the historical feratures of democracies (of all types including
republics) is that they last while fiscally responsible people are in
charge. Eventually the masses figure out that they can vote themselves
the public treasury and the democracy goes broke. This is currently
happening world wide and for any one democracy it's a matter of time.
Some are in less trouble than others but done are doing well.

You bet, Doug. Those chickens are finally coming home to roost.

Greece takes down the Euro. UK smiles at the wisdom of not joining the
Euro. Then the UK, US and pretty much everyone else fails as well.

But ... Plenty of countries have had their currency fail in history.
They recovered. Argentina is doing fine. It will be rough but the
currency failure won't be the end. Just another cycle.

The low carb tie in is very loose. The poor must eat high carb diets
because they can't afford the better quality low carb meat and vegitable
based diet. Economic decline means more poor people in developed
countries and more starving in undeveloped countries. Eventually world
trade and off shoring well put an end to hunger but it will take a few
more decade long economic up and down cycles. Until then we'll have
people who eat cattle fodder because they can't afford to feed it to the
livestock.

I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating
low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the
respective governments would get out of the way. What were once
subsistence farmers (and doing rather well)

More and more land gets dedicated to grain. Other crops are not as
calorie efficient. It's why civilization started in the first place and
as our population grows that same fact pushes grain even more. It will
take time for the value of other crops to dominate.

are now often forced to
move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or
international aide. That's not by accident either, because government
wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. What
better way could a government want as a way to control its people?

Have you read the theory of "water monopolies"? That's a more effective
way. Not a "better" way.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:07 +1000, Elmo
wrote:

On 17/10/2011 11:13 PM, wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, wrote:
Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible
for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe.
You really don't know much about govt, do you. You might find
a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen
that from you, let alone the entire Congress.

Your president is lying?

Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for
the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and
Greece.

Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the
transcripts from congress, upper and lower?

Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from
Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper
and lower.

No? What is the senate?

It's one of two CO-EQUAL houses, moron. Neither is higher than the
other.

We keep telling you that you should stick to what you know (whatever
the hell that might be), than to things you obviously know nothing
about, but you just won't listen.

In other words, you have no such economist.

I have a fistful of them, but then I don't go through life with my eyes
wide shut.

Post proof or retract!


Socialism is to blame - even in countries that are not socialist. Good
trick - if it were true. Providing for the citizens of a country is a
government's job, it has nothing to do with socialism as a political
direction.

No, it's not. The job of any just government is to provide for the
citizens who are UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES!

But the governmet should leave the rest of us alone. We can provide
for ourselves.

So, if they
held debt obligations linked to those markets, how
is it the fault of the USA and not their own greed
and stupidity?

They trusted the US when it kept saying that it could control things
fiscally.



LOL. Who exactly said that? No one needed to say it
because no one saw the real estate meltdown coming.

Many did, it was headlined and discussed well before it finally
happened. The US kept assuring all concerned that it would be
controlled. A bit like the WMDs, all bull****.

Post proof or retract!

That's how it goes with most financial meltdowns and
recessions. To believe your case, you'd have to believe
banks in Europe had exposure to real estate in the USA
without knowing how fast it had gone up, how far, and
that loans were being made with little or nothing down.

They did, they were heavily invested.

But the question remains: Why would anyone in his or her right mind
invest in a security comprised of securities like that?

Think about that a while before you reply.

Yes, I'll have another helping of a billion dollars of
those CMO's please, no need to check them out....

Are Canadian bankers that stupid that they can't
figure out how secure any of their investments are?
And when some of them blow up, instead of being
adults and taking responsibility, do they whine about
it being the US that "mislead" them?

Canada has reduced its debt considerably over the past decade - the US
has increased its debt. That link that the not so bright dogboy provided
whilst trying to denigrate Canada had this to say.

"In 1990, 38 cents of every dollar taken by Ottawa was spent just paying
the annual interest on our federal debt. Thanks to increased tax
revenues, lower interest rates and 11 straight years of debt repayment,
that figure is down to 13.5 cents. Why would we want to go back?"

In 2010, the U.S. spent $197 billion on interest, and generated $2,162
billion in tax revenues (in a down year)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ederal_budget).

According to my math (which shouldn't be too different from the
Canadian version), that equals 9.12% (or 9.12 cents), substantially
less than your current rate of 13.5%.

So why is your interest expense (as a percentage of revenues) STILL so
much greater than ours?

Canada has it "US styled" politicians too, but people are turning on
them.

Did you not notice our 2010 election results?

At least Canada's debt is measured in billions, not trillions.

We have ~ 10 times as many citizens as you do (except in January and
February, when you all visit Florida), and the world's largest
economy.

I think that you have a problem with reality.

Really? You're the one that claimed China owns
all the US debt, when in fact it's 8%.

I said that China holds the majority of US foreign debt,

Just how stupid are you? 8% is NOT a majority.

Just how stupid are you? Your own Government makes this claim.

Tip: Look up the words "majority" and "plurality" in your Funk &
Wagnall.

that it holds
more than any other nation. It does, that is indisputable. The US is in
hock to China.

As far as foreign countries, yes, China does hold the most.

Since when is "most" not a majority?

See: Above.

It is pointless discussing anything with you, you contradicts yourself
from one sentence to the next.

It's narrowly more than that which Japan owns. It's 8% of
the total debt. So what? What countries own Canada's debt?
Foreign countries are lining up to buy US debt because
they know that in these uncertain times, it's still one of the
safest investments in the world.

Bull****! They are only trying to protect initial investments. No one
trusts the US currency - it is why the US credit rating has just been
downgraded

By one rating house!

Jeez, you're one of the most ignorant, uninformed people I've ever
encountered.

You should move down here and become a Democrat. You'd fit right in.

--
Dogman

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:33:12 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:

And our debt keeps increasing because the American people can't yet
get it across to our elected representatives that we want them to STOP
THE SPENDING! PERIOD!

Any politician who votes for greatly reduced spending votes for reduced
services and thus is not reelected. It's a feedback loop that across
history all democracies have fallen into.

That's because we have very few politicians who even know how to
explain our situation clearly. I'm hoping the GOP comes up with
someone who can do just that.

One of the historical feratures of democracies (of all types including
republics) is that they last while fiscally responsible people are in
charge. Eventually the masses figure out that they can vote themselves
the public treasury and the democracy goes broke. This is currently
happening world wide and for any one democracy it's a matter of time.
Some are in less trouble than others but done are doing well.

You bet, Doug. Those chickens are finally coming home to roost.

Greece takes down the Euro. UK smiles at the wisdom of not joining the
Euro. Then the UK, US and pretty much everyone else fails as well.

But ... Plenty of countries have had their currency fail in history.
They recovered. Argentina is doing fine. It will be rough but the
currency failure won't be the end. Just another cycle.

Yes, but people are impatient, and maybe a little soft.

The low carb tie in is very loose. The poor must eat high carb diets
because they can't afford the better quality low carb meat and vegitable
based diet. Economic decline means more poor people in developed
countries and more starving in undeveloped countries. Eventually world
trade and off shoring well put an end to hunger but it will take a few
more decade long economic up and down cycles. Until then we'll have
people who eat cattle fodder because they can't afford to feed it to the
livestock.

I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating
low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the
respective governments would get out of the way. What were once
subsistence farmers (and doing rather well)

More and more land gets dedicated to grain. Other crops are not as
calorie efficient. It's why civilization started in the first place and
as our population grows that same fact pushes grain even more. It will
take time for the value of other crops to dominate.

Yes, but history always moves slowly.

are now often forced to
move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or
international aide. That's not by accident either, because government
wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence. What
better way could a government want as a way to control its people?

Have you read the theory of "water monopolies"? That's a more effective
way. Not a "better" way.

Sure, but the same thing applies to water.

How can there ever be a shortage of water?

We have ~ 326 million trillion gallons of water!
http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...uestion157.htm

What's missing are better ways to desalinize, capture, store,
transport, etc. water, and make it easier for us to get at it.

And governments would probably prefer to keep things just the way they
are. "You want some water? Go see our Water Czar, Madam Mildred
Higginbothom, Esq., she'll get you what you need. And don't forget to
vote for me in the next election!" Sheesh.

--
Dogman

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:59:46 -0400, Patricia Martin Steward
wrote:

[...]
BWAH!!!

TROLL.

--
Dogman

On 10/17/2011 3:21 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 14:19:41 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:

And our debt keeps increasing because the American people can't yet
get it across to our elected representatives that we want them to STOP
THE SPENDING! PERIOD!

One of the historical feratures of democracies (of all types including
republics) is that they last while fiscally responsible people are in
charge. Eventually the masses figure out that they can vote themselves
the public treasury and the democracy goes broke. This is currently
happening world wide and for any one democracy it's a matter of time.
Some are in less trouble than others but done are doing well.

You bet, Doug. Those chickens are finally coming home to roost.

The low carb tie in is very loose. The poor must eat high carb diets
because they can't afford the better quality low carb meat and vegitable
based diet. Economic decline means more poor people in developed
countries and more starving in undeveloped countries. Eventually world
trade and off shoring well put an end to hunger but it will take a few
more decade long economic up and down cycles. Until then we'll have
people who eat cattle fodder because they can't afford to feed it to the
livestock.

I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating
low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the
respective governments would get out of the way. What were once
subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) are now often forced to
move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or
international aide. That's not by accident either, because government
wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence.

Do they? Why? Do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory?

What
better way could a government want as a way to control its people?

There's already no good reason for anyone on this planet to ever
starve, if governments would just stay out of the way. I'd worry more
about the damage done by too much food than by too little.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:28:36 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating
low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the
respective governments would get out of the way. What were once
subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) are now often forced to
move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or
international aide. That's not by accident either, because government
wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence.

Do they?

Yes.

Why?

I told you why.

Do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory?

See: the history of virtually any African country (start off with
Zimbawe), some Southeast Asian countries, some Central and South
American countries, etc.

And it's no "conspiracy theory."

It's just what leftist tyrants do.

That's even what the Democrats do (or try to do), which is now a
radical lefist party.

--
Dogman

On 18/10/2011 4:58 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:07 +1000,
wrote:

On 17/10/2011 11:13 PM, wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, wrote:
Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible
for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe.
You really don't know much about govt, do you. You might find
a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen
that from you, let alone the entire Congress.

Your president is lying?

Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for
the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and
Greece.

Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the
transcripts from congress, upper and lower?

Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from
Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper
and lower.

No? What is the senate?

It's one of two CO-EQUAL houses, moron. Neither is higher than the
other.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_senate

"United States Senate

The United States Senate is the upper house of the bicameral legislature
of the United States, and together with the United States House of
Representatives comprises the United States Congress. The composition
and powers of the Senate are established in Article One of the U.S.
Constitution.[1] Each U.S. state is represented by two senators,
regardless of population. Senators serve staggered six-year terms. The
chamber of the United States Senate is located in the north wing of the
Capitol, in Washington, D.C., the national capital. The House of
Representatives convenes in the south wing of the same building."

On 18/10/2011 4:00 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:48:38 +1000,
wrote:

[...]
Again, moron, you asked why the debt is increasing. It's because we
keep spending more than taxes bring in.

I know why it is increasing, as does anyone who is sentient and capable
of reading. I just wanted you to admit it.

I've been saying that from the get-go. So has everyone else.

That you're just now figuring it out, well, you must be a member of
Mensa too, EH?

you spend huge amounts but
have nothing to show for it

The most powerful nation on earth has nothing to show for it?

The US is no longer the most powerful nation on earth. It was for a
while, but those days are gone. China is the next superpower.


Producers of the most technology,

Bull****.

the most food,

Bull****.
the best health-care

Laughable.

system, the most medical advancements,

Hilarious.

the best pharmaceutical drugs,

You have to be kidding. The most prolific, not the best. The best are
those that work best, not those that are promoted the best.

the most scientific advancements,

Yeah, the Hadron Collider is under Washington - right?


the best military,

Yes, that's why they fire off nearly a quarter of a million rounds for
every enemy hit while other countries' troops only fire a few hundred
for every hit. Your own congress had a big bitch about this little fact
a few years back. Much of the rest of the world, since WW2 has refereed
to Yankee troops as "Ice Cream Soldiers". The only thing that the US
military had was a government that would spend more money on them. The
US army was usually better equipped, but never better soldiers.

the best
institutions of higher learning,

Is that why so many Americans are semi-literate. You can always tell an
American online - their poor standard of English gives them away. You
haven't been following the internationals tertiary standards and
subsequent debate about falling US tertiary standards, have you?


one of the highest standards of
living, etc.

Wasn't it you who posted a link not long ago that showed several other
countries, including Australia and Denmark being much higher?


have nothing to show for it?

Yes, you have nothing to show for all the wasted trillions.


Are you from Canada, or from Pluto?

Yes


other than more enemies and less
international respect.

I think it's a pretty good exercise, actually, to be judged by the
kinds of countries who hate us, and are our enemies.

You mean most of the western world?


Knowing that countries like Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela,
Cuba, etc. hate us, well, that just brings a smile to my face.

Most countries' debts are a results of spending
that has given their citizens advantage.

U.S citizens have had it pretty good for a long, long time, if they
were willing to work hard for a living. A lot of that debt is due to
providing a safety net for those who are unable or unwilling to work
for a living.

That is bull****, as the safety net spending is relatively recent. You
were trying to catch up to other western countries who already had such
things in pace. Even now you are not even close to Canada, the UK,
Australia etc., with regard to basic social and medical services.


And when we send you the bill for living under our nuclear umbrella
all these years, your debt is going to go through the roof.

Dream on, US nuclear armed or powered ships have been banned, barred
access in many western ports for decades. They are neither wanted nor
needed.

It's really that simple, which
means that you won't be able to understand it.

I can understand you and there isn't much around that is simpler than
you are.

Well, there is one thing...

Tell you what...you worry about Canada's debt, and I'll worry about
America's.

I am not worried about Canada's debt, Canadians, aren't governed by
fiscal illiterates,

Then how did you get all that debt?

Canada doesn't start wars

But what it does, of course, is live safely under our nuclear
umbrella, for which Americans pay.

By the way, we don't start wars either. But we're pretty good at
finishing them.

Bull**** again. You have not won any war, including the war of
independence, unaided.


Canada will eventually overcome it

Of course you will. And so will the U.S.

And it'll happen that much faster by you worrying only about YOUR
problems, while we worry about ours, you pompous, arrogant, ungrateful
little prick.

You have it wrong, I am not worried about the US disintegration, I am
amused by it. The US' Karma has finally run over its Dogma.


With neighbors like you, we don't need enemies.

You might not need them, but have sure go them.

On Oct 17, 2:58*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:07 +1000, Elmo
wrote:





On 17/10/2011 11:13 PM, wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:41 pm, *wrote:
Show us where the entire Congress said the USA is responsible
for the financial problems in Ireland, Greece or the rest of Europe.
* *You really don't know much about govt, do you. *You might find
a loon or two out of 500 that said that, but we haven't even seen
that from you, let alone the entire Congress.

Your president is lying?

Show us where Obama said the USA is responsible for
the world's financial problems in places like Ireland and
Greece.

Ever heard of newspapers, news reports, magazines, media? Ever read the
transcripts from congress, upper and lower?

Apparently you've never read newspapers or transcripts from
Congress, because if you did, you'd know there is no upper
and lower.

No? What is the senate?

It's one of two CO-EQUAL houses, moron. Neither is higher than the
other.

Exactly.




We keep telling you that you should stick to what you know (whatever
the hell that might be), than to things you obviously know nothing
about, but you just won't listen.

In other words, you have no such economist.

I have a fistful of them, but then I don't go through life with my eyes
wide shut.

Post proof or retract!

Clearly he has not even one such economist. Do you
notice this with libs too Dogman? It's all emotion,
rarely fact. And when presented with actual facts
they just ignore it. Or they can't use the facts in
any kind of reasonable comparison.

I was listening to one particularly ignorant lib on the
radio yesterday. She was trying to make the case
that American companies are shifting jobs and
money overseas to avoid taxes. There is certainly
some truth to that. But what does she bring up as
examples? Apple and Google. Unbelievable, right?

It took me about 30 seconds to use Google to
get the 10K on both companies. Google made
like $10bil in profit and paid 21% of it in tax.
Apple paid about 25%. And we both know they
are classic American success stories with most
of the high paying jobs here in the USA. Yet,
knowing she was going to be on the radio,
it was still to hell with the facts, let's just spew
emotion based on lies and villify solid US
companies that we should be using as role
models.



Socialism is to blame - even in countries that are not socialist. Good
trick - if it were true. Providing for the citizens of a country is a
government's job, it has nothing to do with socialism as a political
direction.

No, it's not. The job of any just government is to provide for the
citizens who are UNABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES!

But the governmet should leave the rest of us alone. *We can provide
for ourselves.

Exactly.







So, if they
held debt obligations linked to those markets, how
is it the fault of the USA and not their own greed
and stupidity?

They trusted the US when it kept saying that it could control things
fiscally.

LOL. *Who exactly said that? *No one needed to say it
because no one saw the real estate meltdown coming.

Many did, it was headlined and discussed well before it finally
happened. The US kept assuring all concerned that it would be
controlled. A bit like the WMDs, all bull****.

Post proof or retract!

Exactly. Like you Dogman, I actually live here and know
what went on. As with much of his nonsense, it's not even
clear what he's referring to. Assurances? About exactly
what? By whom, the govt? Prior to the sub-prime meltdown
really hitting the fan, there was not even discussion of it
being a problem, let alone assurances.




That's how it goes with most financial meltdowns and
recessions. *To believe your case, you'd have to believe
banks in Europe had exposure to real estate in the USA
without knowing how fast it had gone up, how far, and
that loans were being made with little or nothing down.

They did, they were heavily invested.

But the question remains: *Why would anyone in his or her right mind
invest in a security comprised of securities like that?

Think about that a while before you reply.


He has thought about it and knows there is no answer
other than those that invested in those securities were
just as greedy and foolish as the other parties that got
burned.




Yes, I'll have another helping of a billion dollars of
* those CMO's please, no need to check them out....

Are Canadian bankers that stupid that they can't
figure out how secure any of their investments are?
And when some of them blow up, instead of being
adults and taking responsibility, do they whine about
it being the US that "mislead" them?

Canada has reduced its debt considerably over the past decade - the US
has increased its debt. That link that the not so bright dogboy provided
whilst trying to denigrate Canada had this to say.

"In 1990, 38 cents of every dollar taken by Ottawa was spent just paying
the annual interest on our federal debt. Thanks to increased tax
revenues, lower interest rates and 11 straight years of debt repayment,
that figure is down to 13.5 cents. *Why would we want to go back?"

In 2010, the U.S. spent $197 billion on interest, and generated $2,162
billion in tax revenues (in a down year)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ederal_budget).

According to my math (which shouldn't be too different from the
Canadian version), that equals 9.12% (or 9.12 cents), substantially
less than your current rate of 13.5%.

So why is your interest expense (as a percentage of revenues) STILL so
much greater than ours?

And why does he claim the USA is broke and can't meet it's
debt obligations when our interest payments are a lower
percent of tax revenue than Canada, where everything is
peachy keen? Also, keep in mind that 9% is with tax
receipts still being kept down by an economy barely
growing. When the economy is growing at 3% again
as we all know it will, that 9% will shrink dramatically.




Canada has it "US styled" politicians too, but people are turning on
them.

Did you not notice our 2010 election results?

At least Canada's debt is measured in billions, not trillions.

We have ~ 10 times as many citizens as you do (except in January and
February, when you all visit Florida), and the world's largest
economy.

Unbelievable. Just like with debt to GDP, no sense of how one
fairly compares anything.



I think that you have a problem with reality.

Really? * You're the one that claimed China owns
all the US debt, when in fact it's 8%.

I said that China holds the majority of US foreign debt,

Just how stupid are you? *8% is NOT a majority.

Just how stupid are you? Your own Government makes this claim.

Tip: Look up the words "majority" and "plurality" in your Funk &
Wagnall.

And he's the one bitching about the educational system
in the USA? He's incapable of even using a dictionary.





that it holds
more than any other nation. It does, that is indisputable. The US is in
hock to China.

As far as foreign countries, yes, China does hold the most.

Since when is "most" not a majority?

See: Above.

LOL +1




It is pointless discussing anything with you, you contradicts yourself
from one sentence to the next.

It's narrowly more than that which Japan owns. *It's 8% of
the total debt. *So what? *What countries own Canada's debt?
Foreign countries are lining up to buy US debt because
they know that in these uncertain times, it's still one of the
safest investments in the world.

Bull****! They are only trying to protect initial investments. No one
trusts the US currency - it is why the US credit rating has just been
downgraded

By one rating house!

I see. The reason everyone from grandma to China is
buying more US bonds is because they want to protect
their investment. I wonder how that works for him in
his portolio? Stock is at 50, buy some. Company is
doing poorly, stock at 20, buy more to protect it.
Stock at 5, buy even more. When it hits 2 cents on
the pink sheets he'll have the maximum protection.
A real financial genius we have here.

Elsewhere in the thread, he claimed the US isn't
a leader in high tech. Gee, I wonder where the
Canadian Intels, Microsofts and Apples are?
Why, even a kid in a college room created Dell
and Facebook here in America.

Oh, and how about scince? The USA has 270
Noble prize winners.
Canada? 12. But unlike the troll, I'll be fair.
The US has about 9 times the population.
So if we had the same population as Canada
we'd have 270/9, or about 30 compared to
their 12. Nuff said.

On 10/17/2011 6:25 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:28:36 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I'm not sure that I totally agree with that, Doug. Yes, eating
low-carb can be expensive, but it doesn't really have to be, if the
respective governments would get out of the way. What were once
subsistence farmers (and doing rather well) are now often forced to
move to the cities (to make a living) and live off the government or
international aide. That's not by accident either, because government
wants its citizens dependent on the them for their existence.

Do they?

Yes.

Why?

I told you why.

Do you have evidence for this conspiracy theory?

See: the history of virtually any African country (start off with
Zimbawe), some Southeast Asian countries, some Central and South
American countries, etc.

And it's no "conspiracy theory."

It's just what leftist tyrants do.

That's even what the Democrats do (or try to do), which is now a
radical lefist party.


Actually governments depend on their citizens for their existence.
You have it backwards.

The Democrats are not radical left, you are radical right.