2021 Biden Presidential Address to Congress (1 Viewer)

[B4YOU]

Blue collar, kids, elderly, and jobs. No middle class taxes.

Biden’s pacing isn’t great and his speech lacks some of those applause moments.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Blue collar, kids, elderly, and jobs. No middle class taxes.

Biden’s pacing isn’t great and his speech lacks some of those applause moments.

Doesn't help when it's not a full house either.

 

[JRad]

Doesn't help when it's not a full house either.

Yea this for sure. Though to be honest, I could do without the applause stops.

I am glad he spent a fair amount of time stressing moving to green energy, that part felt written specifically for Republicans.

I don’t know if I agree about the pacing so much, I think this is just Joe’s speaking style. He’s only had a couple tongue ties so far that I’ve caught. I’ve “enjoyed” it so far.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Holy crap. Biden is putting Ted Cruz to sleep...

 

[JRad]

Holy crap. Biden is putting Ted Cruz to sleep...

I WAS JUST COMING TO ASK IF HE WAS SLEEPING HAHAHAHA

Edit: So is he Sleepy Ted Cruz now?

 

[B4YOU]

I really appreciated the lack of shoutouts to random people in the gallery. The length was really good.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I really appreciated the lack of shoutouts to random people in the gallery. The length was really good.

Agreed. And it was a sincere speech as well. It didn't feel fake and forced.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

What the hell is Tim Scott talking about?

 

[superchuck500]

Oh no

 

[B4YOU]

What the hell is Tim Scott talking about?

Zero specific proposals by Republicans. He’s a better speaker that Biden, but zero substance doesn’t work as a rebuttal when Biden was so specific.

 

[JRad]

 

[JRad]

All I’ve seen of fact checks so far

 

[Xeno]

Oh no

He's right. Americans need to get this through their heads. They're called Amendments for a reason. We've repealed Constitutional Amendments before, there's no reason we can't repeal, revise or reinterpret them now.

 

[superchuck500]

He's right. Americans need to get this through their heads. They're called Amendments for a reason. We've repealed Constitutional Amendments before, there's no reason we can't repeal, revise or reinterpret them now.

Well if you consider reality to be a limitation, I’d say that’s a pretty good reason.

But I don’t think he was referring to new amendments, I think he was referring to legal limits. The rights contained in the bill of rights aren’t absolute, he’s right about that. The first amendment right has limits. The second amendment right has limits and so on. I think he’s referring to action by Congress (for example the assault weapons ban was never invalidated, it just expired).

But the fire in a crowded theater thing is just silly at this point - that’s the bad legal take.

 

[Xeno]

Well if you consider reality to be a limitation, I’d say that’s a pretty good reason.

But I don’t think he was referring to new amendments, I think he was referring to legal limits. The rights contained in the bill of rights aren’t absolute, he’s right about that. The first amendment right has limits. The second amendment right has limits and so on. I think he’s referring to action by Congress (for example the assault weapons ban was never invalidated, it just expired).

But the fire in a crowded theater thing is just silly at this point - that’s the bad legal take.

It's a colloquialism that people recognize, whether it's accurate or not. The point being that your free speech doesn't extend to putting other people in danger.

 

[superchuck500]

It's a colloquialism that people recognize, whether it's accurate or not. The point being that your free speech doesn't extend to putting other people in danger.

I suppose but the devil is in the details - the fire example suggests that the standard reflects a far more generalized basis of danger than what the law actually does provide. It comes from a (overturned) case decided in a rather dark time for the First Amendment and the because the “colloquialism” implies a broader, more generalized basis to restrict speech than the true contours of the First Amendment, it has a history of being used in rhetoric that advocates suppression of speech that is actually entirely legal.

 

[Xeno]

I suppose but the devil is in the details - the fire example suggests that the standard reflects a far more generalized basis of danger than what the law actually does provide. It comes from a (overturned) case decided in a rather dark time for the First Amendment and the because the “colloquialism” implies a broader, more generalized basis to restrict speech than the true contours of the First Amendment, it has a history of being used in rhetoric that advocates suppression of speech that is actually entirely legal.

I would use this quote to refute what you're saying:

Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are obvious.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The actual scope of the restriction isn't what registers with the average person. What registers is that reckless speech can (or at least should; in practice it's very difficult to prosecute) have consequences.

 

[superchuck500]

I would use this quote to refute what you're saying:

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The actual scope of the restriction isn't what registers with the average person. What registers is that reckless speech can (or at least should; in practice it's very difficult to prosecute) have consequences.

How do you define this “reckless speech” standard?