you might not be willing to read (or able to reflect on) your own posts, but the 'partisanship' angle is something YOU chose to focus on (while ironically trying to make excuses for the ultra partisan hacks jordan and meadow), since it was the official petext to justify the suggestion not to cooperate with the investigation.

you can backpedal all you want now, but it is blatantly obvious which side you supported in this, and i don't think anyone would have trouble identifying the reason for it either.

again, just because you could characterise someone as 'partisan' (something that would apply to basically every single politician, especially the two hacks you're so desperately trying to defend) does not mean misrepresenting their words in order to undermine their goals is justified.
only a gullible fool would not be able to identify their intentions and allegiances in this matter, and rather swallow their transparent little excuse hook, line, and sinker.

no, deliberately exaggerated, out of context quotes are neither proof of someone's partisanship, nor a valid reason to side with price gouging drug companies over customers. your pathetic attempts to rationalise such actions can not hide the fact that republicans once again chose big pharma over the people - and it's comprehensively despicable that you lack the honesty to call that out just because it's your side that's being shitty...

This post was edited by fender on Apr 10 2019 07:09pm

Cummings is a partisan as is the investigation.
Thats a given, not his or my key point of contention.

The letter is mostly about bad actions and statements by cummings as they relate to the investigation, while omitting Republican members from the process.
He factually reported that cummings did not consult with Republican members before launching the investigation and contrasted this with previous investigations under previous congresses.
He reported that Cummings unilaterally cherry-picked and leaked sensitive information.
He also cited Cummings comments about the investigation tanking stock prices, while giving his own reasonable opinion that tanking stock prices is not the proper role of a government investigation, particularly when there is bipartisan support for 'real oversight of prescription drug prices"

You would know all this if you carefully read the letter.

I didnt insist on focusing on determing whether cummings is partisan or not.
I was more focused on your lies and smears and despicable behavior directed towards me when i posted the relevant letter thats a key piece of the issue in question.



There is literally no backpedaling by me.
I think Jordan's position and comments are well warranted and I firmly stand against you smearing people who disagree with you.

The reason is the fact I value liberty, honesty and the truth.


oh so now it applies to everyone and Jordan and I were totally correct when we mentioned it.
Interesting "backpedal"


ah right, only "a gullible fool" would dare disagree with you and not buy into your delusions about their allegiances.
Dishonest and trashy framing in place of an argument.

You might feel that cummings claiming that he saves the taxpayers money is relevant or important to make him sound better, but it does not remove the fact that he spoke glowingly of tanking their stock prices.

No one claimed that he didnt have additional reasons for wanting more funding or additional statements he made that put him in a better light.
You can feel free to think its 'misleading' to quote what he said without including additional comments that might make him sound better, but it doesn't remove the fact that the letter and quote is factual and relevant to the topic at hand. Nor does it excuse you of your terrible behavior. The fact that he claims to save taxpayer money does not remove the fact that he spoke fondly of tanking their stock prices, nor does it remove the relevance of Jordan's letter.

I find it interesting that someone so obsessed with smearing other people as dishonest, blind, evil, partisan hacks etc doesn't realize his own constant false demonization and misrepresentations of republicans and libertarians and blind obedience to the leftist/democrat buzzfeed narratives are evidence of his own partisan hackery and dishonesty/delusions.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 10 2019 07:37pm

no matter how many essays full of dishonest pivots, hilarious projection, and non-sensical spins you type, the fact that you side with republicans trying to undermine the investigation into price gouging drug companies speaks for itself. it's not a 'smear' to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

it would, however, greatly amuse me to see how far you are willing to go with this. for example, in what way is their letter to those companies, suggesting not to cooperate with the investigation, going to help the investigation and fight the price gouging? why would they address the targets of this investigation and not cummings and the committee itself, if their concern really was just the partisan nature (which you still haven't provided any proof for, let alone an explanation how it hurts the cause) of it?

sorry, but if you were capable of critical thinking and not just a low info partisan hack, you would have asked those questions yourself and quickly realised what a pathetic and flimsy excuse that really is...

Again, vomiting out the usual string of insults and buzzwords.

I never said their concern was just the partisan nature.
You make no real points, respond constructively to no points, and ask me to provide proof about a strawman you want to attack and hinge your post on it. nice.
Its hard to tell whether your dishonesty, incivility or stupidity is the driving factor of your ineptitude here.

Alleging i'm dishonest or spinning is not an argument.
It is just further exposing your own intellectual bankruptcy at this point.


btw price gouging is not the real issue here either.
They are talking about high/rising drug prices, which are due to a number of factors.

Excessive regulations, patent laws, high drug approval costs, restrictions on imports and other anti-competitive edicts play a significant role.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 10 2019 08:19pm

unsurprisingly you don't have a reply to my questions, so you just continue with your brainless ad homs and projections.

like i said, just the tiniest amount of critical thinking would inevitably have lead you to the same questions, but of course you would never challenge the motives of your side, so even that ridiculously low bar becomes an insurmountable intellectual obstacle.

a shame really, but rest assured that your allegiances are duly noted. you siding with the hacks trying to undermine the investigation into drug pricing because they are more concerned with the stock value of pharma companies than the well-being of americans - and all it takes for you is the magic (R) next to their name and a flimsy narrative to 'justify' it...

it's a fender/cambo episode

I explicitly explained how your question was based on a strawman.
I dont have to answer your questions to support an argument i'm not making that you falsely claim I am.
Its an irrelevant question.


Of course explaining this to you and not answering your irrelevant strawman question is just secret proof of my "allegiance" and means i care more about big pharma's stock than peoples lives.. according to a deranged and despicable individual.
But when you refuse to address all of my valid points its not proof of anything I suppose? or is it proof of how right and great of a critical thinker you are? LOL

Joke of a man.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 10 2019 09:06pm

'b-b-but i didn't explicitly say i support the hacks undermining the drug pricing investigation, i just spent hours typing essays to rationalise their behaviour with flimsy excuses and completely ridiculous spins'

yeah, like i haven't heart that tune before. again, it's blatantly obvious which side you're on - your lazy 'i never actually said what i support / think, i'm just calling you out for blah blah blah' shtick is becoming old, camboy...

fact is that republicans once again care more about the stock value of their corporate puppeteers than the well-being of americans, and you're uncritically peddling their propaganda, hack...

At the end of the day thats all you have, pretending people who disagree with you are shills or evil or dumb.. any way to try to discredit and malign others without having to become educated or consider their views.
no need to reflect on what you have said when you are arguing against someone who 'cares more about pharma stocks than human lives' etc. In your mind you are the good guy here.
Making shit up about other people to pretend they dont have a legitimate and reasonable view that differs from your own indoctrinated and emotionally compromised leftist hyperstatism.
wholly pathetic, despicable and anti-intellectual.

I challenge you to not be a terrible anti-intellectual person in future posts.
Take a minute and reflect on what you are, who you are not, and who you want to be.
We both know you are probably capable of more than just insults and lies.

i didn't pick your side, you did - the last couple of pages document that abundantly.

jordan and meadows chose to side with big pharma over the people - and you uncritically accepted their flimsy excuses for doing so, while attacking me for posting an article exposing that. again, it was YOUR choice to defend them, not mine... so maybe take your own advice for once, hack.

This post was edited by fender on Apr 10 2019 09:54pm