Gyroscopic Investing

The DHS is purchasing another 200 million rounds of ammunition including 176,000 rounds of .306 calibre hollow points to be used by snipers. This brings the total recent purchases to 200 million rounds by the DHS over the next four years. And they won't say why.

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-2 ... mmunition/

The total number of bullets purchased by the DHS over the last 6 months alone is 1.4 billion with a "B"!

Vote accordingly.

I'm unsure how this should make me want to vote. The agency's creation act received bipartisan votes in Congress, and was signed into law by a Republican president, and these large ammo purchases are occurring under a Democratic administration. Seems both major parties like the DHS. Should I vote Green or Libertarian?

Isn't there another thread in here discussing the best way to stockpile guns and ammo?  Seems like the DHS is hedging risk.... maybe they hired an economist.

Pointedstick wrote: Should I vote Green or Libertarian?

The core tenet of the U.S. Libertarian party is the rejection of the initiation of violence.  This applies also to government.  Live and let live as sovereign individuals.

Adjunct with that is the belief in gov't as small as possible.

http://www.lp.org/platform

My impression of the Green party is that they are NOT small government, but would use the power of government to enforce their views.  Quite the opposite of small gov't and sovereign individuals.

http://www.gp.org/committees/platform/2010/index.php

Personally I'm strongly leaning toward Gary Johnson as the candidate who best represents my idea of good government.  But I keep being tempted by the thought of voting "against the alternative" instead of for my beliefs.  But then I remember Ford and Arthur in Douglas Adams, "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" Ch36:

DouglasAdams wrote: F: On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.
A: Odd, I thought you said it was a democracy.
F: I did. It is.
A: So why don't the people get rid of the lizards?
F: It honestly doesn't occur to them. They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.
A: You mean they actually vote for the lizards?
F: Oh yes, of course.
A: But why?
F: Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.

So if I vote my beliefs and somebody else wins, at least I didn't vote for them.  But if the wrong lizard wins, and I didn't vote against him...  But which is the wrong lizard?

AgAuMoney, it was sort of more of a rhetorical question, designed to highlight the fact that both the Democrats and Republicans have horrible records on this (and most) issues. I imagine that the Green Party is not very happy about the DHS, but don't worry, I'm a full-blown Libertarian and have every intention of voting for Gary Johnson, not that it matters since Obama would carry California if a video surfaced of him starving a kitten to death.

Pointedstick wrote: AgAuMoney, it was sort of more of a rhetorical question

Yeah, I figured it was.  But I took it as an opportunity. 

Reub wrote: Voting for Gary Johnson is voting for Barack Obama.

If you're in swing state like Florida or Ohio, sure. But do you really think that a vote for a third party candidate will make a lick of difference in a place like Texas or California?

I'm pretty sure Obama has California in the bag, and it's not his "media machine" telling me that, either; Democrats simply have a ridiculous demographic advantage here. Can you come up with any possible scenario in which Romney carries California? I'm having trouble imagining it.

Pointedstick wrote: I'm pretty sure Obama has California in the bag, and it's not his "media machine" telling me that, either; Democrats simply have a ridiculous demographic advantage here. Can you come up with any possible scenario in which Romney carries California? I'm having trouble imagining it.

I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where Romney carries the electoral votes.  Unless there's some kind of Wag the Dog moment soon, he is done.

I am registering to vote after a 21-year hiatus.  I was a devout believer in Browne's direct means to freedom, but crony corporate interests have co-opted the political process to such a degree that is now impossible to ignore.  Besides, I think maturity requires one to respect both the economic and coercive means to freedom, not choose either/or.

Reub wrote: It could matter in states that Obama's media machine would have you believe are in his pocket when they may not be. Don't waste your vote on Johnson.

Hah, a vote for who a person wants in their government isn't a waste, it's how our country is supposed to work.

Reub wrote: A vote that splits the anti-Obama vote is counter productive.

I agree, so long as you're in a swing state. If I lived in Florida or Ohio, I'd be voting for Romney, because the eventual winner's margin of victory will be slight enough that third parties are a real consideration. But I don't live there. I live in California, where Obama has about a 99.999% chance of winning.

Voting for Johnson helps Obama win only if you believe that Romney has any chance at all of taking California. Do you?

Reub wrote: A vote that splits the anti-Obama vote is counter productive.

From the point of view of someone who just doesn't want Obama to win, that would make sense, but not everyone shares that perspective.