The most devastating video on the internet

[JGalt]

Two-faced lying rat-bastard Democrats.

 

[progressive hunter]

need personal content

 

[Dogmaphobe]

and here, I thought this was the most devastating video ever.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Rules for thee, but not for me and my crackhead son hunter! Typical for democrats.

 

[francoHFW]

Two-faced lying rat-bastard Democrats.

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

What was racist about it?

 

[Muhammed]

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

And of course you're lying again, as usual.

Joe Biden claimed that he drafted that law.

 

[Hossfly]

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

Joe was a Republican? Well, sheeeit!

 

[Thinker101]

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

Wow, Biden promoting a racist law, who woulda guessed.

 

[Muhammed]

Wow, Biden promoting a racist law, who woulda guessed.

Then after he found out his son was a crackhead, he changed his tune.

Hell, Joe Biden was probably on cocaine too. That would explain those brain aneurysms and stroke that caused him to have emergency brain surgery twice when he was only in his mid-40s. Cocaine can certainly do that to a guy.

Brain aneurysm - Causes

Brain aneurysms are caused by a weakness in the walls of blood vessels in the brain. There are several reasons why this may happen, although an exact cause isn't always clear.

www.nhs.uk

Cocaine abuse​

Cocaine abuse is considered to be another risk factor for brain aneurysms. Cocaine can inflame the walls of the blood vessels and raise your blood pressure. The combination of these 2 factors increases your risk of developing a brain aneurysm.

 

[Rigby5]

Two-faced lying rat-bastard Democrats.

Even though far left, usually voting democrat, that video showed an extremely sleazy Biden that was promoting an illegal, fascist, federal, war on drugs that makes hope someone assassinates him.

 

[Rigby5]

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

Does not matter when because the Constitution always prohibited any federal drug laws.
Just like it prohibits any federal firearm laws.
Those are supposed to entirely be state jurisdiction.
And the way Biden went on about asset forfeiture, where he was proud the government could steal everything you had, was beyond the pale.
No one should ever say things like that, but for someone to say them in congress, makes him a traitor.

 

[Rigby5]

By the way, this has to be Biden's 1994 Federal Crime bill, which not only included the war on drugs, but the illegal 3 strikes, illegal mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
I knew it was bad, but to hear him say those disgusting things, makes me determined to never vote democrat again.
It will have to be Green Party I suppose.

 

[sear]

Greetings R5.
Nice to read you.

I'm not pro-Drug War. But if that video is over half a decade old, I'd recommend leniency.
Since then many States have circumvented federal Drug War, taking a shred of Liberty into their own hands.
Sooner or later Drug War must fizzle. I'd hoped Trump would do it on a lark.

Perhaps Biden will do it out of principle, or set the groundwork for President Harris to do so in 2025.

 

[OKTexas]

30 years apart totally irrelevant. Also it was a racist law. GOP behind it of course.

xiden and Strom Thurmond were GOP? Somehow I think you're lying.

.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Two-faced lying rat-bastard Democrats.

Did you notice the time/date stamp in the lower left that reads on the video 6-20-91? I read that as June 20, 1991! So what exactly is your point which you haven't disclosed which ties this to a speech over 30 years ago????

 

[Rigby5]

Greetings R5.
Nice to read you.

I'm not pro-Drug War. But if that video is over half a decade old, I'd recommend leniency.
Since then many States have circumvented federal Drug War, taking a shred of Liberty into their own hands.
Sooner or later Drug War must fizzle. I'd hoped Trump would do it on a lark.

Perhaps Biden will do it out of principle, or set the groundwork for President Harris to do so in 2025.

Good to see you in print.
I can try to excuse the fact there was ignorance and fear about drugs back then, so that is not what I hold against Biden for this 1994 law.
It is that politicians are supposed to be lawyers and know the law.
And clearly the federal government is denied any and all medical jurisdiction that would allow for any federal drug law at all.
It was even worse to watch the video where he went on about how they intended to steal everything you own if you have more cocaine than a quarter size.
I don't particularly like cocaine, but the fact he would gleefully endorse such immoral and illegal abuse of government authority was appalling.
The 3 strikes and sentence mandates also clearly violate about half of the Bill of Rights.
{...

Sixth Amendment​

Main article: Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.[95]

The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial:

• to a speedy and public trial
• to trial by an impartial jury
• to be informed of criminal charges
• to confront witnesses
• to compel witnesses to appear in court
• to assistance of counsel[112]

In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Court ruled that the amendment guaranteed the right to legal representation in all felony prosecutions in both state and federal courts.[112]

Seventh Amendment​

Main article: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.[95]

The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials. In Colgrove v. Battin (1973), the Court ruled that the amendment's requirements could be fulfilled by a jury with a minimum of six members. The Seventh is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not to be incorporated (applied to the states).[113]

Eighth Amendment​

Main article: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[95]

The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation.[114] The most frequently litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment.[115][116] This clause was only occasionally applied by the Supreme Court prior to the 1970s, generally in cases dealing with means of execution. In Furman v. Georgia (1972), some members of the Court found capital punishment itself in violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect "evolving standards of decency" as public opinion changed; others found certain practices in capital trials to be unacceptably arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively halted executions in the United States for several years.[117] Executions resumed following Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which found capital punishment to be constitutional if the jury was directed by concrete sentencing guidelines.[117] The Court has also found that some poor prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment, as in Estelle v. Gamble (1976) and Brown v. Plata (2011).[115]

...}​

United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Did you notice the time/date stamp in the lower left that reads on the video 6-20-91? I read that as June 20, 1991! So what exactly is your point which you haven't disclosed which ties this to a speech over 30 years ago????

Time is not very relevant to this speech that had to have been made after Biden's 1994 federal crime bill was passed.
The point is it was not just evil and illegal, but is still enforced, half a million people imprisoned by it, and a very large % of Black prevented from voting due to felony drug convictions because of it.
There are likely no laws as evil, in the last 100 years.

 

[Rambunctious]

Dems can get away with this....no one is watching them....no one holds them to account....so they have gone over the edge with corruption...and lies...and they are becoming a caricature of themselves...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Time is not very relevant to this speech that had to have been made after Biden's 1994 federal crime bill was passed.
The point is it was not just evil and illegal, but is still enforced, half a million people imprisoned by it, and a very large % of Black prevented from voting due to felony drug convictions because of it.
There are likely no laws as evil, in the last 100 years.

Care to point that out by citing that portion you have gleaned from the six words laid down in the OP? I see no clear linkage between those words in the OP and what you wrote directly above!