Arizona Republic speaks illegalese

Tucked in among the plethora of hearing aid ads aimed at its mostly senior readership, the  Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) newspaper’s headline, “Regents reject step toward lower migrant tuition,” sits atop a report bemoaning the fact that the Arizona Board of Regents rejected a motion to lower tuition for…..you guessed it …..”undocumented” students.

The República’s brief report uses the term “undocumented immigrants” 8 times, twice in abutting sentences. Although much of the anorexic newspaper’s feed is sourced from AP, this article was written by staffer Anne Ryman.

The article would be laughable if not so bizarre. Written in accordance with the latest AP Stylebook standards outlined in ‘Illegal immigrant’ no more, in which Senior VP and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll last April explained the changing manner of “how we describe people living in a country illegally.”

The Washington Times editorially addresses this attempt at language control by correctly stating altering words “doesn’t’ change facts.” The Times contends the term “illegal alien” is highly specific and accurately describes the problem, unlike “undocumented immigrant,” which purposefully removes a stigma that should rightly remain.

In December 2010 Seeing Red AZ reported that the Diversity Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists was calling on news reporters nationwide to stop using the term “illegal immigrant” in their news coverage.  Seeing Red AZ will continue to use the appropriate term “illegal aliens” to describe those invading our nation. We direct you to our primer “How to decipher Republicese,” which includes a link to the popular “Lingo.”

In 2006 a law (Prop. 300), passed by 71 percent of state voters prohibited “a student who does not have lawful immigration status from qualifying as an in-state student for tuition purposes.” It also prevents such students from receiving any financial aid paid from state funds. The in-state and non-resident tuition and mandatory fee schedules can be seen here.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne has said the intention of the law is clear and in June he sued the community college district for violating state law by giving such benefits to illegal alien students. Bravo to Horne for enforcing the law!

22 Responses to Arizona Republic speaks illegalese

  1. ZOO says:

    According to uslegal.com the noun “illegal alien” is in fact a legal term:

    “…An Illegal alien or an Undocumented alien or worker is a foreign national who has entered the United States without legal permission, authorization or inspection; or who entered the U.S. legally but has since fallen out of status by overstaying or by violating the terms of legal entry. An illegal alien is subject to deportation if apprehended…”

    Oddly, it was nearly two years ago this month that I was taken to task (on another site that shall remain shameless) for use of the term “anchor baby”. My response was to post the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:

    “… a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family…”

    Today’s SRAZ post spurred my curiosity to research it once more. What I found is that almost the same time I quoted AHD, they were pressured by an “immigrant advocacy group” and now “anchor baby” in AHD is referred to as “as a disparaging term.” I wonder how they would feel about “future gangster larvae?”

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/define-anchor-baby-american-heritage-dictionary/1#.UpOMJbOA204

    • ZOO says:

      And in a related story: Wow, here’s a shocker! Paul Gosar is challenging spoiled brat Facebook owner Mark Zuckerbert over his amnesty whining, and has invited him to visit the border. This comes as the vaudevillian team of McCain & Flake are on east McDowell today to song and dance for Mexicanization.

      http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/24/AZ-GOP-congressman-challenges-Facebook-s-Zuckerberg-to-tour-insecure-US-border-with-him

      • Maggie says:

        Mark Zuckerberg is a committed liberal. He won’t be going to the border with Gosar antime soon since reality doesn’t play into his agenda. Zuckerberg is part of  the large and influential FWD.US the open borders conglomerate.
        https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/october-22-2013/tech-giants-push-amnesty.html

        He recently joined in the repulsive San Francisco “Gay Pride” festivities with his own float. Check out Michelle Malkin’s Folsom Street Parade, if you dare. The photos are nauseating.
        http://michellemalkin.com/category/folsom-street-fair/

      • American Dad says:

        ZOO,
        Any site that chastises a commenter for using the accurate term of “anchor baby,” is not conservative. Anchor babies are alive and well and their mothers come not just from Mexico where there is actually an organized business promoting such births on American soil, but also from China, India, the Mideast and other nations who aim to undermine us.

        I easily located this instructive article “Anchor babies and “birth tourism” making the news” by Googling Seeing Red AZ and anchor babies. I remember reading about this issue here previously. Check out the links. This post is from 2009. There are others.

        https://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/anchor-babies-and-birth-tourism-making-the-news/

      • ZOO says:

        American Dad,
        Thanks for the SRAZ link back to 2009. The comments were very entertaining, especially AZ Conservative Guy’s. The other thing missing from the alleged “Johnny Mac” was “build the dang fence!”

      • eubykdisop says:

        Well, ZOO, are you still willing to support Randy Pullen even though he and Raul Grijalva share the opinion that Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion was the right thing to do?

    • eubykdisop says:

      Ah, our resident Liberal Obama troll, ZOO, is Johnny on the spot with the first comment, attempting to regain the appearance of being conservative so that he may periodically dump Liberal propaganda here at SRAZ. Sorry, Bucko, no free pass here for Liberal Obama trolls like you!

      First, ZOO supported having Conservatives contact the Corporation Commission to demand a change in net metering for rooftop solar power. That was in support of what APS wants but APS is a government-created monopoly, with a guaranteed profit, which flies in the face of the free market competition of Capitalism which Conservatives support. In addition, Dianne Feinstein, Liberals and tree huggers have attempted to use environmental “concerns” to kill solar power in the southwest because the Liberal bastions in the northeast, like New York and Massachusetts, can’t compete in the solar arena. The changes in net metering which ZOO supports would help to kill the expansion of rooftop solar power in Arizona, which is just what Feinstein and the Liberals want to see!

      But that’s not all, Folks!

      ZOO then argued in support of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion and is still willing to vote for Randy Pullen despite the fact that Pullen encouraged the Republican leadership to “follow the Governor’s lead”. Just what was the “lead” that ZOO’s boy, Pullen, wanted the Republican leadership to follow?

      Because the votes required to implement a new tax to support Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion weren’t there, Brewer called the tax an “assessment” in order to get around the requirement, stipulated by Prop 108, of approval by 2/3 of both chambers for any new tax. Why did Arizona voters pass Prop 108 in 1992? Because they had seen their taxes raised 8 times in 9 years! What is the result of following the Governor’s lead as ZOO’s boy, Randy Pullen, urged the Republican leadership to do?

      Brewer, and her supporters in the legislature, have nullified Prop 108, giving the authority to tax to state bureaucrats who are not elected! Was Prop 108 effective before Brewer, backed by Randy Pullen, nullified it? The Obamacare Medicaid expansion marks the first time that the legislature has directly raised taxes since Prop 108’s passage in 1992, an indication of the constitutional protection’s strength when followed.

      This is why, despite the propaganda by ZOO and his boy, Randy Pullen, 36 Republican legislators are suing Brewer, attempting to reassert the ruling authority of Prop 108 so that the will of the people regarding taxation may be carried out.

      So ZOO has a track record in this blog of supporting the interests of a government-created monopoly, with guaranteed profit, arguing in favor of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion and supporting Pullen who urged the Republican leadership to follow Brewer’s lead in nullifying Prop 108.

      That ain’t Conservative. That’s Liberal!

      • Army Of One says:

        There is an issue posted here that deserves comments. ZOO is not that issue. And as far as being “Johnny on the spot with the first comment,’ who cares? You’ve often been the first commenter. Someone has to be. Take your fight to the alley.

        We don’t all agree on each and every candidate. That’s why there are primary elections.

        As relatesd to the post at hand, I agree that Tom Horne is to be commended for his strong stance against in-state tuition for illegals. We sure wouldn’t have that with liberal retread Felecia Rotellini or Goldwater Institute-trained Mark Brnovich. The GI is a libertarian group that is strongly in the pro-amnesty camp.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Ah, yes, Army of One to the rescue… yet again! Ain’t that something!

        Army of One wrote: “ZOO is not that issue.”

        Wrong! ZOO IS that issue because he has repeatedly supported Liberal positions, using his “conservative” sounding comments as cover and to give himself an aura of “conservative” credibility.

        Army of One wrote: “We don’t all agree on each and every candidate. That’s why there are primary elections.”

        ROFL! Nice try but no cigar, LOL! We don’t all agree on each and every candidate and that’s why we address their positions in Conservative blogs like SRAZ! That way when Conservatives go to the polls, they are informed!

        What you conveniently gloss over is that ZOO argued in support of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion, that he is willing to support Randy Pullen, who urged the Republican leadership to follow Brewer’s lead, and that ZOO, Brewer and Pullen are supporting the position of the Liberal Democrat caucus in the Arizona legislature.

      • ZOO says:

        @ eubykdisop

        Haven’t you been ‘keeping up’, psychopath? The 5-REPUBLICAN Corporation Commission voted 3-2 to invoke a token (small) reduction in solar owner subsidies, with future reductions to come as the number of solar systems increase. The 2 “no” votes were from Commissioners who thought the initial subsidy reduction was ‘inadequate’.

        Your abominable, groundless, and vicious attack on Russell Pearce was all for naught. You should now only be a faint memory here for that sub-maniacal display alone.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Bwa, ha, ha, ha! Oh, now your getting seriously desperate, ZOO!

        First of all, because the Arizona Corporation Commission did something doesn’t mean that it was good, right or in the best interests of Arizona or Arizonans. You may believe that the Arizona Corporation Commission can do no wrong but you are entirely alone in that delusion, LOL!

        ZOO wrote: “Your abominable, groundless, and vicious attack on Russell Pearce was all for naught. You should now only be a faint memory here for that sub-maniacal display alone.”

        Really? I’m sure you won’t mind if, instead of accepting your subjective characterization, we review the actual FACTS instead!

        Pearce sent out a letter asking Conservatives to send emails “urging” the Arizona Corporation Commission to “fix net metering so that it’s fair for all Arizonans!” Pearce’s contention was that current net metering is not fair for all Arizonans in that “…net metering forces homeowners that don’t use rooftop solar to pay for those that do.” Unfortunately, Pearce failed to provide any evidence in his letter to support that contention.

        The truth is that a case has been made on BOTH sides of that issue but Pearce chose to fail to inform Conservatives of that. He simply took up one side and tried to rally Conservatives to do his bidding, supporting the government-created monopoly with a guaranteed profit, APS.

        You, ZOO, posted this:

        “ZOO says:
        November 3, 2013 at 1:26 am”

        “A 2010 study sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission showed that NEM costs slightly outweighed NEM benefits, and thus there was a small cross-subsidy from non-NEM customers to NEM customers; a utility-sponsored study came to the same result. Other recent studies sponsored by solar advocates have shown that NEM benefits may slightly outweigh the costs.”

        “The results of Black & Veatch’s study in California are pending, but the bottom line is that while NEM customers should get full credit for the energy they generate and the benefits they provide to the utility, there are “sunk” infrastructure costs which PV generation does not avoid.”

        “A potential solution to this issue may be further “unbundling” of utility rate structures to allow them to charge customers for the individual services used, eliminating cross-subsidies. The topic is controversial—some solar advocates disagree that a cross-subsidy even exists, and many stakeholders do not yet believe that a major rate structure overhaul is necessary. Black & Veatch’s study may be one of the most detailed and comprehensive to date on the subject of NEM, but it will not be the last.”

        Instead of doing a search and presenting BOTH sides of the issue, you chose to cherry pick, just as Pearce did, and present only one side. I responded by posting these study results:

        “eubykdisop says:
        November 3, 2013 at 5:23 am”

        “Evaluation of Net Metering in Vermont Conducted Pursuant to Act 125 of 2012.”

        “Public Service Department January 15, 2013″

        “4.4 Concluding Remarks on Cross-Subsidization”

        “The analysis presented in the preceding sections indicates that net metered systems do not impose a significant net cost to ratepayers who are not net metering participants.”

        Click to access 285580.pdf

        So my statement that there was evidence on BOTH sides of the issue was true, correct and accurate as was my claim that Pearce was NOT presenting the whole, complete and accurate picture to Conservatives and, by the way, neither were you!

        Conservatism isn’t about personalities. It’s about principles. Those who steadfastly adhere to Conservative principles are supported by Conservatives. Those who go astray lose that support.

        Feel free to engage in blind hero worship but don’t expect principled Conservatives to follow your misguided example!

      • ZOO says:

        You’re a liar.

        When I posed ‘technical questions’ to you about the wholesale buying and selling of electric power, your first responded (true to your shallow-ass nature) “Irrelevant” “Irrelevant” “Irrelevant”

        THEN, you tried to spin the topic by accusing me of defending Russell Pearce. NOW, your claiming separation of the two.

        Get bent!

      • eubykdisop says:

        Excuse me? A liar? There’s not one word I’ve written in my comment which is not true and I even went so far as to quote both you and I verbatim and even quoted, verbatim, from Pearce’s letter. You, on the other hand, continue to make accusations without offering a single shred of evidence.

        Of course, that is precisely how Liberals work. Don’t bother Liberals with facts. They certainly won’t bother Conservatives with facts. That’s because the facts are not on the side of Liberals like you so they avoid them at all costs.

        Your did ply me with questions BUT you had not a single question for Pearce who simply dropped an emotional appeal, which was not fact based, and make himself scarce. Furthermore, you were too damned lazy, like all Liberals, to research the facts for yourself. Your strategy was to send me on fact finding missions while you simply raised question after question. Sorry, Bucko, but this Conservative didn’t just fall off the hay wagon, LOL!

        If you want facts to make a case, YOU round them up and don’t think that you are going send a Conservative off to do your work for you!

        Now you, Governor Brewer, Randy Pullen and Raul Grijalva all have yourselves a wonderful Obamacare Medicaid expansion evening! :-)

    • ZOO says:

      @ eubykdisop

      As long as we’re thumbing through the ol’ dictionary, why not put it to good use?

      It’s time to strip away that “WE Conservatives” shield you’ve been hiding behind and define what you genuinely are. Unfortunately, these come up considerably short in addressing your deep-seated obsessive and paranoiac psychosis. Maybe for Christmas I’ll sympathetically surprise you with a gift card to Passages Gila Bend.

      “…Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one’s own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. To them, self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than are thoughts about others and other-relevant information. Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people’s opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept…”

      “…In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion…”

      “…Cyber-stalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include the making of false allegations or statements of fact (as in defamation), monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information that may be used to harass. The definition of “harassment” must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress…”

      • eubykdisop says:

        Gee, I guess one double post deserves another, LOL!

        Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha! Oh, oh, oh! TOO Liberal, LOL! We simply MUST dissect this classic specimen of Liberal “squirming on the hook”!

        The single most important thing to notice about ZOO’s comment is that it is completely devoid of any hard facts about any of the political issues or positions which ZOO has articulated here at SRAZ. Why is that? That’s because ZOO’s stated positions on major issues are Liberal and cannot be justified with Conservative principles or reconciled with Conservative positions. It’s the old Liberal tactic that if you can’t prevail on the facts of the matter, baffle ‘em with BS, LOL! Sorry, ZOO, but the garbage in your comment does NOT constitute a defense of your political positions!

        The Liberal tactic which ZOO is employing here is well known and has even been given a name and described in detail!

        “Liberals and their Tactics”

        “Tactic Number Two: Bomb-Throwing”

        “This one is not used as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a liberal to victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It is called “bomb-throwing,” and essentially it is the use of name calling, accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition. These attacks are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only designed to do three things:”

        “•Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong
        •Coerce you to change the subject by trying to defend yourself from these attacks (a natural human impulse on your part)
        •Anger you and force you to lose your cool, and thus appear immature and unprofessional”

        “Time and time again, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for it.”

        So ZOO is simply using a tired old run of the mill tactic from the worn out Liberal play book in an attempt to hide the fact that he supports Liberal positions! Sorry, ZOO, but you have failed again!

        You see, Liberals like ZOO actually believe that Conservatives are stupid Neanderthals who can be easily dismissed. What a “brilliant” Liberal like ZOO doesn’t realize, however, is that by employing a well known, well documented tactic like “Bomb-Throwing”, he simply further proves that he is, in fact, a Liberal!

        Duh! ;-)

  2. ZOO says:

    @ eubykdisop

    As long as we’re thumbing through the ol’ dictionary, why not put it to good use?

    It’s time to strip away that “WE Conservatives” shield you’ve been hiding behind and define what you genuinely are. Unfortunately, these come up considerably short in addressing your deep-seated obsessive and paranoiac psychosis. Maybe for Christmas I’ll sympathetically surprise you with a gift card to Passages Gila Bend.

    “…Egocentrism is characterized by preoccupation with one’s own internal world. Egocentrics regard themselves and their own opinions or interests as being the most important or valid. To them, self-relevant information is seen to be more important in shaping one’s judgments than are thoughts about others and other-relevant information. Egocentric people are unable to fully understand or to cope with other people’s opinions and the fact that reality can be different from what they are ready to accept…”

    “…In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion…”

    “…Cyber-stalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group of individuals, or an organization. It may include the making of false allegations or statements of fact (as in defamation), monitoring, making threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sex, or gathering information that may be used to harass. The definition of “harassment” must meet the criterion that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress…”

    • eubykdisop says:

      Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha! Oh, oh, oh! TOO Liberal, LOL! We simply MUST dissect this classic specimen of Liberal “squirming on the hook”!

      The single most important thing to notice about ZOO’s comment is that it is completely devoid of any hard facts about any of the political issues or positions which ZOO has articulated here at SRAZ. Why is that? That’s because ZOO’s stated positions on major issues are Liberal and cannot be justified with Conservative principles or reconciled with Conservative positions. It’s the old Liberal tactic that if you can’t prevail on the facts of the matter, baffle ’em with BS, LOL! Sorry, ZOO, but the garbage in your comment does NOT constitute a defense of your political positions!

      The Liberal tactic which ZOO is employing here is well known and has even been given a name and described in detail!

      “Liberals and their Tactics”

      “Tactic Number Two: Bomb-Throwing”

      “This one is not used as much, as it tends to get offensive, but when it is used, it can lead a liberal to victory in a debate through nothing more than sheer shock-value. It is called “bomb-throwing,” and essentially it is the use of name calling, accusations, and vicious attacks to shut down the opposition. These attacks are usually not even true, but this does not matter- for the attacks are only designed to do three things:”

      “•Shock the audience and perhaps paint you out to be evil and wrong
      •Coerce you to change the subject by trying to defend yourself from these attacks (a natural human impulse on your part)
      •Anger you and force you to lose your cool, and thus appear immature and unprofessional”

      “Time and time again, liberals use this tactic, and it is effective, because conservatives are simply not ready for it.”

      So ZOO is simply using a tired old run of the mill tactic from the worn out Liberal play book in an attempt to hide the fact that he supports Liberal positions! Sorry, ZOO, but you have failed again!

      You see, Liberals like ZOO actually believe that Conservatives are stupid Neanderthals who can be easily dismissed. What a “brilliant” Liberal like ZOO doesn’t realize, however, is that by employing a well known, well documented tactic like “Bomb-Throwing”, he simply further proves that he is, in fact, a Liberal!

      Duh! ;-)

  3. eubykdisop says:

    ZOO:

    Now if you’re done with your “Bomb-Throwing” tactic, let’s get back to the FACTS of the ISSUE, shall we? Here are your Liberal positions and actions. Let’s talk about THOSE!

    1 – Minimizing the importance of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

    “Some conservative pundits are touting 2014 and 2016 will have to be the time to “get 60% of what you want.” I hate that forecast, but in this particular race I’ll accept it. In my situation, Obrewercare expansion is not the end of the world. There are burning issues that usurp it.” – ZOO

    “I don’t recall ever coming here to rant about the Medicaid expansion because as I honestly said, I just don’t see it as an earthshaking issue when then are much more crushing/destructive issues at hand.” – ZOO

    2 – Summarizing ALL of the points made in FAVOR of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion from an article by Randy Pullen.

    “ZOO says:
    November 7, 2013 at 9:19 pm”

    “RECAP OF PULLEN EXPANSION ASSESMENT”

    “1) In 2000, voter-passed Prop 204 mandates AHCCCS–cover all adults up to 100% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)”

    “2) Court allowed reduction during recession, state now has surplus”

    “3) Trigger PROP 204 lawsuit if 100% FPL not restored”

    “4) Loss of Federal matching funds if 100% FPL not restored”

    “5) Prop 200 funding as passed – a)tobacco tax b)tobacco companies settlement c)state general fund”

    “6) Provider assessment (hospitals) covers cost to 100% FPL, expansion to 138% FPL, and state general fund contribution mandated by Prop 204″

    “7) Assessment cannot be passed back to patients, or non-AHCCCS privately-insured policyholders”

    “8) Federal subsidy for under 100% FPL restricted to legal aliens, not citizens”

    “9) If not restored to 100% FPL, cost of uncompensated care to childless adult citizens responsibility of hospitals”

    “10) Hospitals report 81% increase in these costs over the last 6-months”

    “11) Without restoration 60,000 will be dropped from AHCCCS next year-increasing uncompensated care to hospitals–rural hospitals worse–financial distress–result in closings”

    “12) Without restoration, Arizona employers will be subject to $45 Million to $60 million in increased taxes under Obamacare “shared responsibility”–expansion stops tax increase”

    “13) AHCCCS/Medicaid will remain, even if Obamacare repealed”

    “14) Higher taxes to AZ taxpayers whether Medicaid expanded or not–due to government expansion to 138% FPL”

    “15) Government expansion to 138% FPL–participation will lower cost to state”

    “16) If government pulls funding–reset provision takes expansion back to 100% FPL”

    3 – Claiming that Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion will SAVE Arizona money.

    “The reality here is that the Federal government has expanded the Medicaid program to 138% of FPL (above and separate from Obamacare), and the expansion of AHCCCS addresses that issue – to reduce the bottom line expense to the state under the Federal expansion.” – ZOO

    4 – Claiming that arguments against Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion are based on “what if” scenarios.

    ”The arguments of others you have dropped here appear to be based on “what if?” scenarios, instead of addressing the reality (Federal Medicaid expansion) at hand.” – ZOO

    That, of course, completely ignores these hard, dollars and cents facts:

    “For the first three years, the federal government has promised to cover 100% of the medical costs for the newly eligible Medicaid enrollees, and yet the cost to Arizona’s General Fund for the first year alone would be $154 million. The costs to the state are a result of the fact that the federal reimbursement rate of 100% applies only to the direct medical expenses of the newly eligible enrollees, not the additional administrative costs. Additionally, the 100% reimbursement rate does not apply to those new enrollees who were previously eligible but either did not know it or otherwise failed to enroll.”

    5 – Finding that the ONLY fault with Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion is that it’s a tax rather than objecting to it on the principle that it is “the encroachment of socialism”, as SRAZ so astutely put it.

    6 – Still being willing to support Randy Pullen despite his propaganda piece backing Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

    Now defend those positions and actions based upon Conservative principles and Conservative positions.

    We’re all ears, ZOO. You have the floor. Explain to SRAZ readers how all of the above constitutes Conservatism rather than Liberalism on your part.

    • eubykdisop says:

      I posted the above comment at 2:56 pm. You made a new comment, ZOO, higher up in the thread, at 4:21 pm but have yet to respond to my 2:56 pm comment where I challenge you to explain to SRAZ readers how your positions and actions regarding Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion constitute Conservatism rather than Liberalism. That’s called “avoidance” and the reason you are avoiding is that you can’t justify your Liberal positions and actions with Conservative principles and Conservative positions.

      You love to engage in Liberal “Bomb-Throwing” but you want to have nothing to do with a FACT based debate. That’s because you have no defense at all to offer. You staked out a Liberal position on Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion and there is no way you can pass that off as “conservative”.

      You’ve been busted, ZOO, for the Liberal Obama troll that you are. In short, you’re toast! We can stick a fork in ZOO! ;-)

      • Anthem Al says:

        The shame of this pettiness is that this site is once again being taken over by sniping and ridiculous nagging, made worse by the collecting of words of others and hurling them back with invectives added. I’ve come to the conclusion that eubykdisop’s intent is to drive others from this readable and conservative site. HE must be the “troll,” not those who might have opposing views to him. I didn’t realize we all had to walk in lockstep with one reader/commenter. It’s impossible to have a differing opinion without being called names and harassed. Terming a stranger a “psychopath” for their political viewpoint is over the top. Timing comments and waiting for a reply that doesn’t come soon enough is odd to say the least. I suggest that ZOO stop responding to these comments, so the rest of us can read SRAZ in peace. I mainly read and comment infrequently, but enjoy this site. Both of these people make good points at various times. In fact until recently, I thought they were friends.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Bwa, ha, ha, ha, ha! Too funny! Yet another “frequent poster” comes out of the woodwork doing the classic “concern troll” routine, LOL!

        What you fail to mention is that MULTIPLE TIMES, across threads, I have confronted ZOO with the hard facts of the positions he has chosen to take and challenged him to explain to SRAZ readers how those positions constitute Conservatism rather than Liberalism. This IS a political blog and this IS a Conservative blog and debating Liberal versus Conservative positions, based upon the FACTS, is entirely legitimate.

        Now if you find that you are too fragile, Anthem Al, to handle fact based political debate, then might I suggest that you visit someplace more appropriate to your failing constitution, like the Disney website.

  4. eubykdisop says:

    Based upon the comment by Anthem Al, we seem to have a problem with FACT based Liberal versus Conservative debate! So let me restate the FACTS so that ZOO may respond to those FACTS! This sort of debate and discussion about DOCUMENTED FACTS is entirely appropriate and legitimate in a political blog and ESPECIALLY in a Conservative blog. So, ZOO, here, once again, are your FACTUAL, DOCUMENTED stated positions and actions:

    1 – Minimizing the importance of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

    “Some conservative pundits are touting 2014 and 2016 will have to be the time to “get 60% of what you want.” I hate that forecast, but in this particular race I’ll accept it. In my situation, Obrewercare expansion is not the end of the world. There are burning issues that usurp it.” – ZOO

    “I don’t recall ever coming here to rant about the Medicaid expansion because as I honestly said, I just don’t see it as an earthshaking issue when then are much more crushing/destructive issues at hand.” – ZOO

    2 – Summarizing ALL of the points made in FAVOR of Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion from an article by Randy Pullen.

    “ZOO says:
    November 7, 2013 at 9:19 pm”

    “RECAP OF PULLEN EXPANSION ASSESMENT”

    “1) In 2000, voter-passed Prop 204 mandates AHCCCS–cover all adults up to 100% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL)”

    “2) Court allowed reduction during recession, state now has surplus”

    “3) Trigger PROP 204 lawsuit if 100% FPL not restored”

    “4) Loss of Federal matching funds if 100% FPL not restored”

    “5) Prop 200 funding as passed – a)tobacco tax b)tobacco companies settlement c)state general fund”

    “6) Provider assessment (hospitals) covers cost to 100% FPL, expansion to 138% FPL, and state general fund contribution mandated by Prop 204″

    “7) Assessment cannot be passed back to patients, or non-AHCCCS privately-insured policyholders”

    “8) Federal subsidy for under 100% FPL restricted to legal aliens, not citizens”

    “9) If not restored to 100% FPL, cost of uncompensated care to childless adult citizens responsibility of hospitals”

    “10) Hospitals report 81% increase in these costs over the last 6-months”

    “11) Without restoration 60,000 will be dropped from AHCCCS next year-increasing uncompensated care to hospitals–rural hospitals worse–financial distress–result in closings”

    “12) Without restoration, Arizona employers will be subject to $45 Million to $60 million in increased taxes under Obamacare “shared responsibility”–expansion stops tax increase”

    “13) AHCCCS/Medicaid will remain, even if Obamacare repealed”

    “14) Higher taxes to AZ taxpayers whether Medicaid expanded or not–due to government expansion to 138% FPL”

    “15) Government expansion to 138% FPL–participation will lower cost to state”

    “16) If government pulls funding–reset provision takes expansion back to 100% FPL”

    3 – Claiming that Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion will SAVE Arizona money.

    “The reality here is that the Federal government has expanded the Medicaid program to 138% of FPL (above and separate from Obamacare), and the expansion of AHCCCS addresses that issue – to reduce the bottom line expense to the state under the Federal expansion.” – ZOO

    4 – Claiming that arguments against Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion are based on “what if” scenarios.

    ”The arguments of others you have dropped here appear to be based on “what if?” scenarios, instead of addressing the reality (Federal Medicaid expansion) at hand.” – ZOO

    That, of course, completely ignores these hard, dollars and cents facts:

    “For the first three years, the federal government has promised to cover 100% of the medical costs for the newly eligible Medicaid enrollees, and yet the cost to Arizona’s General Fund for the first year alone would be $154 million. The costs to the state are a result of the fact that the federal reimbursement rate of 100% applies only to the direct medical expenses of the newly eligible enrollees, not the additional administrative costs. Additionally, the 100% reimbursement rate does not apply to those new enrollees who were previously eligible but either did not know it or otherwise failed to enroll.”

    5 – Finding that the ONLY fault with Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion is that it’s a tax rather than objecting to it on the principle that it is “the encroachment of socialism”, as SRAZ so astutely put it.

    6 – Still being willing to support Randy Pullen despite his propaganda piece backing Brewer’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

    Now, ZOO, explain to SRAZ readers how your actions and positions, as accurately and factually presented above, constitute Conservatism rather than Liberalism. Let’s discuss and debate your actions, statements and positions in terms of a Liberal versus Conservative paradigm.