Andy Farmer said:

---

goodAg80 said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Does that count the oil field "workers" and families that move from place to place? Is there a building boom in upscale housing in most of the towns?

---

I do recognize that most of the smaller towns are declining in pop but places like Amarillo and Lubbock (and Midland Odessa and the like) are absorbing those declines.

---

That's not real growth, you doofus. It's migration to bigger cities, making them even bigger while towns around them die. You're arguing against your own original point but don't realize it.

---

Did i say anywhere that they are growing exclusively because of the drop of pop in rural locations? No?

Plus, I said prior that the High Plains had grown at 4pct between 2010 and 2017.

Dumbass.

---

It doesn't matter what you said the reason for the growth was. You didn't give a damn reason being because you have no idea what it is. But that IS THE REASON.

---

So much stupid.

---

You are such an oblivious moron. READ YOUR OWN POST. You're so turned around stupid you can't see how idiotic your post is. Read the bold. So what if you didn't say this? You NOT saying has zero bearing on the point because that's why they're growing. And because THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GROWING RATHER THAN SOME OTHER REASON, the reason put forward by Tech for needing a vet school - to meet growing demand for large animal vets in small Texas towns - doesn't stand scrutiny. The only way that's true, assuming what you've claimed is true, is if despite dwindling populations, those small towns have a converse increase in the numbers of large animals requiring vet care.

Absolutely unreal.

---

30% increase in Animal Production jobs on High Plains between 2007 and 2017. Since I am having to look **** up for you.

---

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE MY ARGUMENT OR SUPPORT YOURS?

Good Lord how much ****ing hand holding do you need someone to give you to lead you down the path of actually MAKING A POINT?

---

30 pct increase. Guess that vet school makes sense.

---

The level of stupidity one has to achieve in order to not even realize he's completely missing the point...all the while believing he's making his.... is hard to really capture or quantify.

You are one unbelievably stupid ****.

---

Still wound the **** up

---

You still can't respond because you're too stupid to see the very obvious Grand Palo Duro Canyon esque hole in your ridiculous argument. It's like watching a dog chase it's own tail. The truly stupid ones spend hours doing it, never figuring it out. It's actually amazing that you're this dumb.

---

---

So the hole in my argument is smaller than anticipated?

---

Never heard of anybody calling their penii "argument".

Ed Torian said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

goodAg80 said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Bucketrunner said:

---

Does that count the oil field "workers" and families that move from place to place? Is there a building boom in upscale housing in most of the towns?

---

I do recognize that most of the smaller towns are declining in pop but places like Amarillo and Lubbock (and Midland Odessa and the like) are absorbing those declines.

---

That's not real growth, you doofus. It's migration to bigger cities, making them even bigger while towns around them die. You're arguing against your own original point but don't realize it.

---

Did i say anywhere that they are growing exclusively because of the drop of pop in rural locations? No?

Plus, I said prior that the High Plains had grown at 4pct between 2010 and 2017.

Dumbass.

---

It doesn't matter what you said the reason for the growth was. You didn't give a damn reason being because you have no idea what it is. But that IS THE REASON.

---

So much stupid.

---

You are such an oblivious moron. READ YOUR OWN POST. You're so turned around stupid you can't see how idiotic your post is. Read the bold. So what if you didn't say this? You NOT saying has zero bearing on the point because that's why they're growing. And because THAT'S WHY THEY'RE GROWING RATHER THAN SOME OTHER REASON, the reason put forward by Tech for needing a vet school - to meet growing demand for large animal vets in small Texas towns - doesn't stand scrutiny. The only way that's true, assuming what you've claimed is true, is if despite dwindling populations, those small towns have a converse increase in the numbers of large animals requiring vet care.

Absolutely unreal.

---

30% increase in Animal Production jobs on High Plains between 2007 and 2017. Since I am having to look **** up for you.

---

HOW DOES THIS REFUTE MY ARGUMENT OR SUPPORT YOURS?

Good Lord how much ****ing hand holding do you need someone to give you to lead you down the path of actually MAKING A POINT?

---

30 pct increase. Guess that vet school makes sense.

---

The level of stupidity one has to achieve in order to not even realize he's completely missing the point...all the while believing he's making his.... is hard to really capture or quantify.

You are one unbelievably stupid ****.

---

Still wound the **** up

---

You still can't respond because you're too stupid to see the very obvious Grand Palo Duro Canyon esque hole in your ridiculous argument. It's like watching a dog chase it's own tail. The truly stupid ones spend hours doing it, never figuring it out. It's actually amazing that you're this dumb.

---

---

So the hole in my argument is smaller than anticipated?

---

Never heard of anybody calling their penii "argument".

---

Flexbone said:

---

Let me hold your hand like a small child and point you in the right direction, Andy.

Tech wants a vet school.

Tech's position is that there's a growing need in rural areas of the state, particularly West Texas small towns, for large animal vets, and the current vets being graduated by Texas A&M aren't meeting this need.

Tech believes that because they are located in West Texas - where this perceived need is most acute - that the solution is for them to create a brand new vet school, because, somehow, kids going to school there will be more likely to go to those small towns in that region.

You've acknowledged that said small towns' populations are dwindling. You don't dispute it. But, you argue, the populations of cities like Lubbock and Amarillo - which are not, by definition, rural or small, are growing. Ok? And?

You've also stated that there's been a "30% increase" in "large animal production" on the "High Plains", but given no specifics as to WHERE on the High Plains that stated growth comes from.

On top of all this, you haven't stated why Tech's plan to create a brand new school from scratch is superior to any plan A&M might have to address such a need, accounting for the fact that A&M wouldn't be starting from scratch and already has existing infrastructure in place. Nor have you addressed why graduates of Tech's proposed school are more likely to stay in West Texas/work in these small, dwindling towns (that supposedly create the need Tech aims to address) than graduates from Texas A&M might already be willing to do, or might be willing to do under any new proposal A&M might have to address any such need.

Please advise.

---

It has been "advised" literally dozens of ways, including Tech's Vet School webpage, of how Tech perceives the need for a Vet School.

Yeah, I did say some of rural high plains Texas towns are dropping in population. I didn't say ONLY Lubbock or Amarillo are increasing, however. I said there are some other high plains towns that have seen an increase too and the overall REGION is up 4%. Ya know, growth.

And are you really expecting me, or Tech, to guarantee that Vets will stay in west Texas after their degree? I believe the assumption is that since there are several hundred more applicants to A&Ms vet school than get accepted that Tech will absorb some of those that WTAMU won't take on, even in its expansion.

So animal production job growth of 30%, plus REGIONAL pop growth of 4%, plus several hundred (400 or 500 rejected, i think) rejected applicants that presumably go out of state means Tech sees a need. Seems right.

Quote:

---

And are you really expecting me, or Tech, to guarantee that Vets will stay in west Texas after their degree?

---

Why not? That is THE JUSTIFICATION that Tech gives for a Vet School.

https://www.lubbockonline.com/news/20190517/more-than-17m-in-texas-tech-vet-school-funding-advances-in-legislature

Quote:

---

"The Texas Tech University School of Veterinary Medicine (TTUSOVM) will help address the shortage of large and mixed animal veterinarians in rural parts of the state.

---

https://www.ttuvetmed.com/#scope

Quote:

---

Amarillo is the epicenter of livestock production for the state and nation....Currently, the closest veterinary schools to Amarillo are not in Texas;

---

https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2019/04/Stories/svm-out-of-state-student-issues

Quote:

---

West Texas needs vets who can live in rural areas and focus on small animals and large animals.

---

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/30/rural-texas-needs-veterinarians-texas-tech-good-plan

Quote:

---

But there's a larger issue here beyond Tech vs. A&M: Investing in West Texas....

This is why Texas Tech may be uniquely positioned to develop a pipeline of rural veterinarians. Tech attracts mostly students who grew up in West Texas, and many want to work in rural communities upon graduation and are willing to accept lower pay at the outset of their careers to do so.

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Let me hold your hand like a small child and point you in the right direction, Andy.

Tech wants a vet school.

Tech's position is that there's a growing need in rural areas of the state, particularly West Texas small towns, for large animal vets, and the current vets being graduated by Texas A&M aren't meeting this need.

Tech believes that because they are located in West Texas - where this perceived need is most acute - that the solution is for them to create a brand new vet school, because, somehow, kids going to school there will be more likely to go to those small towns in that region.

You've acknowledged that said small towns' populations are dwindling. You don't dispute it. But, you argue, the populations of cities like Lubbock and Amarillo - which are not, by definition, rural or small, are growing. Ok? And?

You've also stated that there's been a "30% increase" in "large animal production" on the "High Plains", but given no specifics as to WHERE on the High Plains that stated growth comes from.

On top of all this, you haven't stated why Tech's plan to create a brand new school from scratch is superior to any plan A&M might have to address such a need, accounting for the fact that A&M wouldn't be starting from scratch and already has existing infrastructure in place. Nor have you addressed why graduates of Tech's proposed school are more likely to stay in West Texas/work in these small, dwindling towns (that supposedly create the need Tech aims to address) than graduates from Texas A&M might already be willing to do, or might be willing to do under any new proposal A&M might have to address any such need.

Please advise.

---

It has been "advised" literally dozens of ways, including Tech's Vet School webpage, of how Tech perceives the need for a Vet School.

Yeah, I did say some of rural high plains Texas towns are dropping in population. I didn't say ONLY Lubbock or Amarillo are increasing, however. I said there are some other high plains towns that have seen an increase too and the overall REGION is up 4%. Ya know, growth.

And are you really expecting me, or Tech, to guarantee that Vets will stay in west Texas after their degree? I believe the assumption is that since there are several hundred more applicants to A&Ms vet school than get accepted that Tech will absorb some of those that WTAMU won't take on, even in its expansion.

So animal production job growth of 30%, plus REGIONAL pop growth of 4%, plus several hundred (400 or 500 rejected, i think) rejected applicants that presumably go out of state means Tech sees a need. Seems right.

---

So...why wouldn't it be better for A&M to just....open more spots for admission? Isn't that the easiest "fix" to the "issue"?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

And are you really expecting me, or Tech, to guarantee that Vets will stay in west Texas after their degree?

---

Why not? That is THE JUSTIFICATION that Tech gives for a Vet School.

https://www.lubbockonline.com/news/20190517/more-than-17m-in-texas-tech-vet-school-funding-advances-in-legislature

Quote:

---

"The Texas Tech University School of Veterinary Medicine (TTUSOVM) will help address the shortage of large and mixed animal veterinarians in rural parts of the state.

---

https://www.ttuvetmed.com/#scope

Quote:

---

Amarillo is the epicenter of livestock production for the state and nation....Currently, the closest veterinary schools to Amarillo are not in Texas;

---

https://today.ttu.edu/posts/2019/04/Stories/svm-out-of-state-student-issues

Quote:

---

West Texas needs vets who can live in rural areas and focus on small animals and large animals.

---

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/30/rural-texas-needs-veterinarians-texas-tech-good-plan

Quote:

---

But there's a larger issue here beyond Tech vs. A&M: Investing in West Texas....

This is why Texas Tech may be uniquely positioned to develop a pipeline of rural veterinarians. Tech attracts mostly students who grew up in West Texas, and many want to work in rural communities upon graduation and are willing to accept lower pay at the outset of their careers to do so.

---

---

It's clear we're wasting our breath. The guy simply can't understand what he's not understanding.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

The alleged driver behind Tech's Vet School has always been the shortage of large animal vets in West Texas.

This, of course, ignores the true driver, which is their small phallus syndrome, but I digress.

The absolute easiest, most effective way to ease that shortage is money. The average vet graduates with about $144K in debt, and of those with debt, the average is about $168K. So let's make it an even $150k.

Want more large animal vets in West Texas? Offer to pay off their student loans. Say $30K a year, or $150K at the end of 5 years. Or even make it sliding scale, increasing with years of service, total of $150K in five years.

Tech got a Texas House committee (not the Senate, not a bill signed by the Gov) to allocate $17,350.000.

Turn that into debt repayment, you will immediately, not in 10 years, have 115 vets ready to work in the Panhandle.

Or take the $90 million that Amarillo area folks have pledged. Put that in a mutual fund at 12% interest. That will throw off $10.8 million a year forever. That's 72 new vets a year, forever, and you never touch the principle. Heck, double the deal, pay off $30K a year in student loans and give them a $30K stipend, and you're still drawing 36 new vets to West Texas.

If only a few out of each class stay at the end of the five years, so what? You've got 36 more coming.

But, scholarships and actual results don't mean anything in a phallus-measuring contest. And you've got to have shiny new buildings for insecure donors to put their names on. Not to mention the regents and chancellors who get to pad their resumes and put their names on plaques in the new buildings.

---

This is exactly, 100% correct. Andy asked about how could we possibly guarantee they'd stay. He's an idiot, and what you've said has been said multiple times. Take the funds that are otherwise earmarked for a new vet school, and use them to attract vets that A&M is already producing to West Texas. Believing they're going to stay in West Texas because they went to school there is ridiculous. I went to law school in West Texas, and so did all of my classmates obviously. How many of us do you think stayed there to practice? Very few. I'm in The Woodlands/Houston, most of them are in DFW, some in Austin, etc. People go where the jobs and money are. They have to, because they almost all have debt to repay, and they almost all went to professional school to at least try and achieve an upper-middle class plus lifestyle.

As you said though, this doesn't matter, because Tech is dead set on getting a vet school. People like Andy will plug their ears, close their eyes, and scream at the top of their lungs to ignore information that makes it clear that their school "winning" isn't really winning anything.

Flexbone said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

The alleged driver behind Tech's Vet School has always been the shortage of large animal vets in West Texas.

This, of course, ignores the true driver, which is their small phallus syndrome, but I digress.

The absolute easiest, most effective way to ease that shortage is money. The average vet graduates with about $144K in debt, and of those with debt, the average is about $168K. So let's make it an even $150k.

Want more large animal vets in West Texas? Offer to pay off their student loans. Say $30K a year, or $150K at the end of 5 years. Or even make it sliding scale, increasing with years of service, total of $150K in five years.

Tech got a Texas House committee (not the Senate, not a bill signed by the Gov) to allocate $17,350.000.

Turn that into debt repayment, you will immediately, not in 10 years, have 115 vets ready to work in the Panhandle.

Or take the $90 million that Amarillo area folks have pledged. Put that in a mutual fund at 12% interest. That will throw off $10.8 million a year forever. That's 72 new vets a year, forever, and you never touch the principle. Heck, double the deal, pay off $30K a year in student loans and give them a $30K stipend, and you're still drawing 36 new vets to West Texas.

If only a few out of each class stay at the end of the five years, so what? You've got 36 more coming.

But, scholarships and actual results don't mean anything in a phallus-measuring contest. And you've got to have shiny new buildings for insecure donors to put their names on. Not to mention the regents and chancellors who get to pad their resumes and put their names on plaques in the new buildings.

---

This is exactly, 100% correct. Andy asked about how could we possibly guarantee they'd stay. He's an idiot, and what you've said has been said multiple times. Take the funds that are otherwise earmarked for a new vet school, and use them to attract vets that A&M is already producing to West Texas. Believing they're going to stay in West Texas because they went to school there is ridiculous. I went to law school in West Texas, and so did all of my classmates obviously. How many of us do you think stayed there to practice? Very few. I'm in The Woodlands/Houston, most of them are in DFW, some in Austin, etc. People go where the jobs and money are. They have to, because they almost all have debt to repay, and they almost all went to professional school to at least try and achieve an upper-middle class plus lifestyle.

As you said though, this doesn't matter, because Tech is dead set on getting a vet school. People like Andy will plug their ears, close their eyes, and scream at the top of their lungs to ignore information that makes it clear that their school "winning" isn't really winning anything.

---

I agree with you guys, allocate money for loans and even some yearly hazard pay for living in the panhandle (Andy you can think of this as a bonus), and a bonus on top of that if you handle >50% large animals. That is the only way to get vets to do the work that isn't getting done now. And it will be cheaper than a new school that just pumps out more vets for Fifi.

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Let me hold your hand like a small child and point you in the right direction, Andy.

Tech wants a vet school.

Tech's position is that there's a growing need in rural areas of the state, particularly West Texas small towns, for large animal vets, and the current vets being graduated by Texas A&M aren't meeting this need.

Tech believes that because they are located in West Texas - where this perceived need is most acute - that the solution is for them to create a brand new vet school, because, somehow, kids going to school there will be more likely to go to those small towns in that region.

You've acknowledged that said small towns' populations are dwindling. You don't dispute it. But, you argue, the populations of cities like Lubbock and Amarillo - which are not, by definition, rural or small, are growing. Ok? And?

You've also stated that there's been a "30% increase" in "large animal production" on the "High Plains", but given no specifics as to WHERE on the High Plains that stated growth comes from.

On top of all this, you haven't stated why Tech's plan to create a brand new school from scratch is superior to any plan A&M might have to address such a need, accounting for the fact that A&M wouldn't be starting from scratch and already has existing infrastructure in place. Nor have you addressed why graduates of Tech's proposed school are more likely to stay in West Texas/work in these small, dwindling towns (that supposedly create the need Tech aims to address) than graduates from Texas A&M might already be willing to do, or might be willing to do under any new proposal A&M might have to address any such need.

Please advise.

---

It has been "advised" literally dozens of ways, including Tech's Vet School webpage, of how Tech perceives the need for a Vet School.

Yeah, I did say some of rural high plains Texas towns are dropping in population. I didn't say ONLY Lubbock or Amarillo are increasing, however. I said there are some other high plains towns that have seen an increase too and the overall REGION is up 4%. Ya know, growth.

And are you really expecting me, or Tech, to guarantee that Vets will stay in west Texas after their degree? I believe the assumption is that since there are several hundred more applicants to A&Ms vet school than get accepted that Tech will absorb some of those that WTAMU won't take on, even in its expansion.

So animal production job growth of 30%, plus REGIONAL pop growth of 4%, plus several hundred (400 or 500 rejected, i think) rejected applicants that presumably go out of state means Tech sees a need. Seems right.

---

So...why wouldn't it be better for A&M to just....open more spots for admission? Isn't that the easiest "fix" to the "issue"?

---

Not enough spots even with expansion is my understanding.

...and WT in Canyon/Amarillo already is funded, has facilities either in place and expansion capability already has approved funding in addition to plenty of readily available space for large animal holding and is already poised and producing vets equal to what TTech proposes... Why duplicate that effort in when a real pipeline to real Vet licensing by finishing the education and training in an existing $200+M Vet teaching hospital/complex in College Station that has an impeccable top-10 reputation and producing vets at a level consistent with the total requirements of the state of Texas??

The stock yards and feed lot production in and around Amarillo already have "specialists" who serve their ownership for disease, nutrition and production and from what I understand are not crying for more licensed Vets. When they need a Vet they either have one on staff or on call commission and/or retainer. They HAVE TO HAVE to meet USDA requirements. So where's the other "need"?

The vast ranches that cover much of the area from Wichita Falls to Dalhart to El Paso also have their favorite vets either on staff or on call commission and retainer. - they are that big and that capable

So just who in the remaining rural open spaces of West Texas and the Panhandle is this "need" going to serve.? Certainly the number of Vets per square mile is indeed less in the far reaches of West Texas and the Panhandle than in the more populated areas of Texas, ...and travel to and from one sick cow to another will for certain be burdonsome, but there simply isn't enough "business" to warrant flooding the area with vets with nothing to do except go bankrupt from Vet overpopulation. The world of "All Creatures Great and Small" is idealistic and quaint in jolly old England - which has 50,346 Square Miles total and a population density of over 1000/SqMi. The Panhandle of Texas alone has 25,887 Square Miles - West Texas another 150,000 or so Square miles with a total population density of less than 10/SqMi. Take out the feed lots and ranches and who are all these future Vets going to serve??

The argument that there are other vet schools closer to Amarillo than College Station is also bogus. Regardless of where a vet attended an accredited Vet school he/she still has to be licensed in the state of Texas to practice. Guess where that occurs?? When/if remedial work is necessary, guess where that additional classwork is provided?

Not to derail but just for information, A&M is doing major work in the Cotton industry that Lubbock is the central location for... https://today.tamu.edu/2018/10/16/edible-cottonseed-research-at-texas-am-receives-usda-approval/

https://www.wfaa.com/video/features/originals/wfaa-original-theres-only-one-veterinary-school-in-all-of-texas-thats-about-to-change/287-bae69711-8d9a-43c3-aa7d-ae2c524b1565

Aggie1 said:

---

Not to derail but just for information, A&M is doing major work in the Cotton industry that Lubbock is the central location for... https://today.tamu.edu/2018/10/16/edible-cottonseed-research-at-texas-am-receives-usda-approval/

---

The TAMU Research Center north of Lubbock has been Cotton Central for 40+++ years and TAMU Nuts been around since the 80's. Glad USDA got around to approving Glandless Cottonseed!

Cholula Verde said:

---

Aggie1 said:

---

Not to derail but just for information, A&M is doing major work in the Cotton industry that Lubbock is the central location for... https://today.tamu.edu/2018/10/16/edible-cottonseed-research-at-texas-am-receives-usda-approval/

---

The TAMU Research Center north of Lubbock has been Cotton Central for 40+++ years and TAMU Nuts been around since the 80's. Glad USDA got around to approving Glandless Cottonseed!

---

Point being that Texas A&M has had and continues to have vested interest in the Texas Panhandle in various ways for a looong time.

The 86th Texas Legislature began on January 8, 2019, and concluded on May 27, 2019

Has anyone heard a final word on the TTech vet school issue from this session? Link??

Aggie1 said:

---

The 86th Texas Legislature began on January 8, 2019, and concluded on May 27, 2019

Has anyone heard a final word on the TTech vet school issue from this session? Link??

---

Senate and House Budget Comm approved $17mill in funding. Must be approved by Chambers and Governor.

Aggie1 said:

---

The 86th Texas Legislature began on January 8, 2019, and concluded on May 27, 2019

Has anyone heard a final word on the TTech vet school issue from this session? Link??

---

The lege provided additional funding.

Andy Farmer said:

---

Aggie1 said:

---

The 86th Texas Legislature began on January 8, 2019, and concluded on May 27, 2019

Has anyone heard a final word on the TTech vet school issue from this session? Link??

---

ESenate and House Budget Comm approved $17mill in funding. Must be approved by Chambers and Governor.

---

Latest news only mentioned the house committee

And even if approved, then signed by Abbot, still contingent on HECB

https://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=53713

Need an update please.

Abbot hasn't signed the spending bill yet.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Abbot hasn't signed the spending bill yet.

---

https://twitter.com/AmarilloMatters/status/1140049145891348480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1140049145891348480&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftexastech.forums.rivals.com%2Fthreads%2Fttu-vet-school.127030%2F

ABCDE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Abbot hasn't signed the spending bill yet.

---

https://twitter.com/AmarilloMatters/status/1140049145891348480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1140049145891348480&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftexastech.forums.rivals.com%2Fthreads%2Fttu-vet-school.127030%2F

---

Hmmmmmm.......... your turn Canyon.

Andy Farmer said:

---

Need an update please.

---

You realize A&M's budget is $120M annually, right?

Again, you're here bragging about opening a vet school that will be so far behind the premier one in the state, it's hard to put into words. Again, tell us about that A&M law school Tech tried to block? How's it doing?

ABCDE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Abbot hasn't signed the spending bill yet.

---

https://twitter.com/AmarilloMatters/status/1140049145891348480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1140049145891348480&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftexastech.forums.rivals.com%2Fthreads%2Fttu-vet-school.127030%2F

---

Bingo.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Abbot hasn't signed the spending bill yet.

---

Wrong. Told you this is happening.

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Need an update please.

---

You realize A&M's budget is $120M annually, right?

Again, you're here bragging about opening a vet school that will be so far behind the premiere one in the state, it's hard to put into words. Again, tell us about that A&M law school Tech tried to block? How's it doing?

---

So now it has turned from "LOLZ Sharp put ****** Tech in its place...no vet school for those losers..." to "We have more money and our law school rocks".

Which are we arguing here, counselor?

Cholula Verde said:

---

ABCDE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Abbot hasn't signed the spending bill yet.

---

https://twitter.com/AmarilloMatters/status/1140049145891348480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1140049145891348480&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftexastech.forums.rivals.com%2Fthreads%2Fttu-vet-school.127030%2F

---

Hmmmmmm.......... your turn Canyon.

---

Someone doesn't know how to embed Twitter.

And, big damn deal. Last time I heard TV news on Saturday, he hadn't signed. Sometime Saturday night, he signed.

Now it's up to the HECB to say whether you can spend that 5% of what it takes to run a Vet School for a year.

Andy Farmer said:

---

Flexbone said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Need an update please.

---

You realize A&M's budget is $120M annually, right?

Again, you're here bragging about opening a vet school that will be so far behind the premiere one in the state, it's hard to put into words. Again, tell us about that A&M law school Tech tried to block? How's it doing?

---

So now it has turned from "LOLZ Sharp put ****** Tech in its place...no vet school for those losers..." to "We have more money and our law school rocks".

Which are we arguing here, counselor?

---

Do you have a quote from me saying that? No. Quit conflating peoples' statements. It makes you look like an even bigger idiot than we already know you are.

This whole issue is hilarious because I, and most here have said from the beginning that we don't care if Tech gets a vet school if that in fact is best for the state's taxpayers. But it doesn't appear to be. For you though, you just want to "get" a school that you're insanely jealous of. And you think getting some third rate vet school that will clearly be ranked at the bottom of American vet schools accomplishes that. It's absolutely pathetic.

Andy Farmer said:

---

Need an update please.

---

I checked Wikipedia and tech still sucks.

goodAg80 said:

---

Andy Farmer said:

---

Need an update please.

---

I checked Wikipedia and tech still sucks.

---

But are we getting a vet school?

Won't solve the rural large animal issue

It will just waste more of the tax payers money which is the only thing TCEH does well