Let's Hope This Is True

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#23 Apr 3, 2013
Niether of the Above wrote:
Post # 8
Another LIE!
That is 4 lies in less than 2 hours!!
Practice makes perfect.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#24 Apr 3, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Practice makes perfect.
Not only that, but he still thinks Stanford is a public university.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#25 Apr 3, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
<quoted text>
Practice makes perfect.
I see you're practicing and pretty poorly, with the senile liar, who calls the governor's mansion HER address..... because you pay taxes ????

Nice stretch.... why not pick a freeway off ramp ?? Seems more appropriate, for losers ??? LMAOROFU~!
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#26 Apr 3, 2013
Federal government’s “sequester” to have significant effects on research at Stanford
By Aaron Sekhri March 7, 2013

The inability of the federal government to avert the “sequester”— automatic and across-the-board spending cuts of $85 billion that came into effect last Friday — will seriously affect the state of ongoing and future research at Stanford, according to University administrators.

In a presentation to the Faculty Senate on Feb. 21, Vice Provost and Dean of Research Ann Arvin estimated that the sequester would reduce Stanford’s projected federal research revenues of $685 million for the 2013-14 fiscal year by $51 million.

Grants from federal agencies, from the National Institute of Health to the National Science Foundation, make up 17 percent of Stanford’s $4 billion budget and ultimately fund 80 percent of all research conducted at Stanford beyond the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.


According to Arvin, the impact of these federal discretionary spending cuts is “quite serious” for the state of Stanford research, forcing faculty to devise a number of measures that will attempt to bring down costs and manage their projects more economically.

“It will affect the amount [of research] and the speed, if you will, the timeline for how quickly the work can be done and the questions can be answered,” Arvin said.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#27 Apr 3, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
This is a public university,
This just in, Stanford is and always has been a private university. Too bad the vapid emptiness in slew's brain never allows him to acknowledge his mistakes while constantly attempting to point out the mistakes of others.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#28 Apr 3, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>This just in, Stanford is and always has been a private university. Too bad the vapid emptiness in slew's brain never allows him to acknowledge his mistakes while constantly attempting to point out the mistakes of others.
Again, practice makes perfect. Especially when you practice 16-18 hours a day.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#29 Apr 3, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>This just in, Stanford is and always has been a private university. Too bad the vapid emptiness in slew's brain never allows him to acknowledge his mistakes while constantly attempting to point out the mistakes of others.
This just in, they take federal funding...

Federal government’s “sequester” to have significant effects on research at Stanford
By Aaron Sekhri March 7, 2013

The inability of the federal government to avert the “sequester”— automatic and across-the-board spending cuts of $85 billion that came into effect last Friday — will seriously affect the state of ongoing and future research at Stanford, according to University administrators.

In a presentation to the Faculty Senate on Feb. 21, Vice Provost and Dean of Research Ann Arvin estimated that the sequester would reduce Stanford’s projected federal research revenues of $685 million for the 2013-14 fiscal year by $51 million.

Grants from federal agencies, from the National Institute of Health to the National Science Foundation, make up 17 percent of Stanford’s $4 billion budget and ultimately fund 80 percent of all research conducted at Stanford beyond the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

According to Arvin, the impact of these federal discretionary spending cuts is “quite serious” for the state of Stanford research, forcing faculty to devise a number of measures that will attempt to bring down costs and manage their projects more economically.

“It will affect the amount [of research] and the speed, if you will, the timeline for how quickly the work can be done and the questions can be answered,” Arvin said.
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#30 Apr 3, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
<quoted text>This just in, they take federal funding...
Federal government’s “sequester” to have significant effects on research at Stanford
By Aaron Sekhri March 7, 2013
The inability of the federal government to avert the “sequester”— automatic and across-the-board spending cuts of $85 billion that came into effect last Friday — will seriously affect the state of ongoing and future research at Stanford, according to University administrators.
In a presentation to the Faculty Senate on Feb. 21, Vice Provost and Dean of Research Ann Arvin estimated that the sequester would reduce Stanford’s projected federal research revenues of $685 million for the 2013-14 fiscal year by $51 million.
Grants from federal agencies, from the National Institute of Health to the National Science Foundation, make up 17 percent of Stanford’s $4 billion budget and ultimately fund 80 percent of all research conducted at Stanford beyond the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.
According to Arvin, the impact of these federal discretionary spending cuts is “quite serious” for the state of Stanford research, forcing faculty to devise a number of measures that will attempt to bring down costs and manage their projects more economically.
“It will affect the amount [of research] and the speed, if you will, the timeline for how quickly the work can be done and the questions can be answered,” Arvin said.
I never said they don't take public funding, but you did say that Stanford was a public university. Good one, unwashed masses wanna be.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#31 Apr 3, 2013
Stanford is a top notch school, but it's odd you're NOW in favor of Government funding.... Seems you're a convenient hypocrite...

So, you're arguing something DIFFERENT, than I wrote ??

What a DUMBASS !!!

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#32 Apr 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>I never said they don't take public funding, but you did say that Stanford was a public university. Good one, unwashed masses wanna be.
Most people can differentiate between a private school that accepts state or federal grant money and a public institution that is publicly funded. I suspect that even applies to slewche but he/she/it is hindered by a refusal to admit to either being wrong or just plain lying. But, you (and most everyone else) already knew that.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#33 Apr 4, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Stanford is a top notch school, but it's odd you're NOW in favor of Government funding.... Seems you're a convenient hypocrite...
Feel free to see I wrote GOVERNMENT FUNDING, troll... Of course, you cannot argue the point, you've already lost it.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#34 Apr 4, 2013
This just in, they take federal funding...

Federal government’s “sequester” to have significant effects on research at Stanford
By Aaron Sekhri March 7, 2013

The inability of the federal government to avert the “sequester”— automatic and across-the-board spending cuts of $85 billion that came into effect last Friday — will seriously affect the state of ongoing and future research at Stanford, according to University administrators.

In a presentation to the Faculty Senate on Feb. 21, Vice Provost and Dean of Research Ann Arvin estimated that the sequester would reduce Stanford’s projected federal research revenues of $685 million for the 2013-14 fiscal year by $51 million.

Grants from federal agencies, from the National Institute of Health to the National Science Foundation, make up 17 percent of Stanford’s $4 billion budget and ultimately fund 80 percent of all research conducted at Stanford beyond the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.

According to Arvin, the impact of these federal discretionary spending cuts is “quite serious” for the state of Stanford research, forcing faculty to devise a number of measures that will attempt to bring down costs and manage their projects more economically.

“It will affect the amount [of research] and the speed, if you will, the timeline for how quickly the work can be done and the questions can be answered,” Arvin said.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#35 Apr 4, 2013
The director of stem cell research at the Stanford University School of Medicine says he is troubled by draft guidelines issued today by the National Institutes of Health that would prohibit

**********FEDERAL funding**********

for research on stem cell lines created through a technique sometimes referred to as “therapeutic cloning” or somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Irving Weissman, MD, director of Stanford’s Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, said the SCNT technique is one way to create disease-specific human embryonic stem cell lines on which to conduct research and test therapies.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#36 Apr 4, 2013
Pretend, the FEDERAL FUNDING isn't the issue, use up all your monikers in your "important" endeavor....

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU TROLL ?
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#37 Apr 4, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
This is a public university, it's MOSTLY publicly & partly privately funded... Without the public funding, breakthroughs like this wouldn't happen.
Yeah, a public university claim, and then you have the gall to suggest the university is mostly publically funded, without showing any data.

Stanford is a private research university, and many of the university's research projects,$650 million annually, are publically funded. Of that, it is estimated the sequester will reduce that amount by $30 -$50 million.

But feel free to be wrong about what you said, and defend the heck out of it later.

Tell you what, just hold other posters to the same level of accountability you hold yourself in your postings to, none.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#38 Apr 4, 2013
Oh my, the lying troll wants more proof from me... No thanks... LMAOROTFU~!
non-starter

Saint Paul, MN

#39 Apr 4, 2013
Bushwhacker wrote:
Oh my, the lying troll wants more proof from me... No thanks... LMAOROTFU~!
You already proved again, yesterday and today, that you hold others accountable to a level of accuracy and truthfulness that you yourself cannot meet. I think that is the very definition of hypocritical in Websters.

From Webster's:

hyp·o·crite
noun \&#712;hi-p&#601;- &#716;krit\

2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Next time you bandy that word about, try to remember your own proven hypocrisy.
Bushwhacker

Seattle, WA

#40 Apr 4, 2013
It's interesting... your definition didn't belie your "thinking" ??? Keep pedaling, I'll keep investing and LMAO @ the troll...

FEDERAL FUNDING WAS THE POINT, keep pretending it wasn't.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#41 Apr 4, 2013
non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>You already proved again, yesterday and today, that you hold others accountable to a level of accuracy and truthfulness that you yourself cannot meet. I think that is the very definition of hypocritical in Websters.
From Webster's:
hyp·o·crite
noun \&#712;hi-p&#601;- &#716;krit\
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Next time you bandy that word about, try to remember your own proven hypocrisy.
Most people can differentiate between a private school that accepts state or federal grant money and a public institution that is publicly funded. I suspect that even applies to slewche but he/she/it is hindered by a refusal to admit to either being wrong or just plain lying. But, you (and most everyone else) already knew that.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#42 Apr 4, 2013
Prior to any mention of stem cell research or any other federally funded programs, back in POST # 8 in this thread:
This is a public university, it's MOSTLY publicly & partly privately funded... Without the public funding, breakthroughs like this wouldn't happen.
Anyone can go back and check it She is a pathological liar!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Minneapolis Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rocket man the New Democrat leader 2 hr Cat Fan 9
News Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing ga... 6 hr Harris 65
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 20 hr Fuggleton 37,425
Confirmed: trump was wiretapped 23 hr Hillary Blames ot... 4
Maggies Move to Minnesota Thu Irish 6
Who's Your Favorite Actress? Thu Irish 3
Irish: I'm Back Thu Irish 2

Minneapolis Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Minneapolis Mortgages