AG Ashcroft Sings a different tune

December 9, 2002 12:58 PM

Ashcroft's new attitude about electronic snooping stands in sharp contrast to an article he wrote 5 years ago. [more inside]
posted by jasontromm (18 comments total)

Of course, 5 years ago the Clinton administration was in charge. Now that Ashcroft is in charge, he's singing a different tune.
posted by jasontromm at 12:59 PM on December 9, 2002

Double post.
posted by Pinwheel at 1:03 PM on December 9, 2002

Marijuana? Federal Authority!
Hand guns? State's Rights!
Moral consistancy? Santa Claus!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 1:05 PM on December 9, 2002

so what if it was a double post... i didn't see it the first time, and i am glad i DID get to see it.

don't act so suprised.... this is typical republican behavior. get used to it, or spread the word of it's stupidity.

moral consistency..santa clause..thats funny. that's very good.
posted by prescribed life at 1:13 PM on December 9, 2002

Of course, 5 years ago the Clinton administration was in charge.

Probably a bit more relevant is the fact that 5 years ago the World Trade Center was still standing.

Many people's attitudes about many things related to security and defense after 9/11 stand in "sharp contrast" to their attitudes pre-9/11. Gosh. How surprising.
posted by MidasMulligan at 1:27 PM on December 9, 2002

I've never quite understood why the label "big government" is applied to the Democratic party but not the Republican party. The truth is both parties are in favour of big government, they just are in favour of different forms of big government. In general Democrats take tax payers dollars and apply them to social programs, many which are horrendously wasteful, while the Republicans take tax payers dollars and apply them to programs that build up the federal governments power, many of which are horrendously wasteful.

The difference in the underlying ideology seems to be that Democrats spend money assisting the lower class (and in the process create work for highly paid people) while Republicans spend money assisting the upper class (since they run the corporations that build the new weapons and technologies) that is then supposed to trickle down to the lower classes.
posted by substrate at 1:27 PM on December 9, 2002

It's important to try to avoid double posts; the moderator has already expressed irritation at the increasing ammount of time he has to spend deleting posts.

But of course, it happens. I've done it myself several times. In this case, though, a simple search on "Ashcroft" would have prevented the mistake. (Not trying to the cop here - I just want to help keep this site around as long as possible.)
posted by Pinwheel at 1:27 PM on December 9, 2002

i wonder how long it'll be before the linked article "never existed."
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:38 PM on December 9, 2002

this is typical republican behavior

In the words of a great non-Republican, that depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.
posted by cell divide at 1:43 PM on December 9, 2002

so what if it was a double post... i didn't see it the first time

That's right: it's all about you.

</peeve>
posted by ook at 1:44 PM on December 9, 2002

substrate: President George W. Bush has presided over the largest increase in federal spending in 40 years. And yet, he's against big government. The words and the actions seem to be different shapes all together.
posted by four panels at 1:44 PM on December 9, 2002

Many people's attitudes about many things related to security and defense after 9/11 stand in "sharp contrast" to their attitudes pre-9/11.

Yes, we call those people 'idiots.'
posted by zekinskia at 2:05 PM on December 9, 2002

How Is Your Money Being Spent?

• Social Spending: 57%
• Interest on National Debt: 16%
• Military/Defense Spending: 13%
• Administrative Agencies: 9%
• Transportation: 3%
• Foreign Affairs: 1%
• Other: 1%

Look at all that wasteful money being spent assisting the upper class (since they run the corporations that build the new weapons and technologies). Golly, we could cut the defense budget and spend more on the nearly 3/5 of our budget we use for Social Causes...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:06 PM on December 9, 2002

Guess it all depends on how you calculate your statistics, Steve.

(Not that I'm saying my table is any more "correct" than yours... they're both skewed to fit an agenda.)
posted by ook at 2:20 PM on December 9, 2002

Well I guess I would tend to belive the House of Represnative's House Policy Committe 2001 Annual Report on The United States Government, over a group that is a "Quaker lobby" and has "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER" on its front page. I will say that my statistics are more "correct"...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:26 PM on December 9, 2002

"phony numbers! phony numbers!
fuzzy math! fuzzy math!"

who am I quoting, Steve?

ook, why don't you trust Rep. Cox, that notorious bleeding-heart Jesse-Jackson-loving liberal?

ps if Cox/Steve's "Social Spending" numbers include, as one suspects, Social Security and Medicare, well, thosa are supposed to be trust funds, aren't they? Fuzzy math!
Your social spending then would not be free money given to those lazy "Welfare Queens" (Reagan code word for Black and Urban, Steve), but to your grandparents, too.
That radical FDR hippie bastard, he implemented all those evil but insanely popular programs... And don't get me started on the evils of Medicare, all that wasteful spending when there's so many nice corporations in need of subsidies so that they can move offshore and evade US taxes like all their buddies...

Also, look at that huge 16% for interest on national debt....

And Steve: Richard Nixon was a Quaker too, don't slam them, they're often Republicans...
posted by matteo at 2:39 PM on December 9, 2002

Many people's attitudes about many things related to security and defense after 9/11 stand in "sharp contrast" to their attitudes pre-9/11.

Yes, we call those people 'idiots.'

In San Francisco, you probably do. Hope you don't mind if oh, some New Yorkers for instance, might have a slightly different view.

Changing one's mind towards seeing the need for greater security after 9/11 doesn't seem too farfetched. What does seem bizarre are the supporters of Al "Clipper Chip" Gore, who apparently now see less need for secuirty after 9/11 than they did when their man was in office.
posted by MidasMulligan at 2:53 PM on December 9, 2002

I didn't slam Quakers, simply implied that they might have an agenda against defense spending. (Nixon was raised a Quaker in the evangelical sect of Quakerism known as Friends Churches. This was more Methodists than Quaker, and bares little resemblance to the traditional 'unprogrammed' Quaker religion, with its silent worship, avoidance of paid clergy, and strict adherence to pacifism. So really it is an irrelevant comparison, not being a pacifist and all. More so, Nixon was not a practicing Quaker, anyways.)

As for your debt chart, matteo, well you can read that chart other ways than the site you linked to does.

But enough on the budget, since we can't agree, let me get back on track with the author of this post's intentions:

Boy that Ashcroft is one evil/sneaky/[insert expletive]/two faced sonofabitch...
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:58 PM on December 9, 2002