DAYTON, Minn. -- Vice President Joe Biden has told Democrats at a Minnesota fundraiser that he'll "strangle" members of the GOP who complain about the federal budget.

According to a pool report from Tuesday's event in Dayton, Biden was telling the crowd that Democrats know how to balance the budget. He said, "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them."

He quickly added: "To the press, that's a figure of speech."

Biden joined former Vice President Walter Mondale at the fundraiser for 350 people paying at least $150.

Earlier in the day, Biden spoke at a rally at Macalester College in St. Paul and focused on the Obama administration's efforts to turn the economy around.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/06/biden-says-hell-strangle-republicans/

THere is a nice picture showing how evil the man is at the link. That is a Felony threat and I want him brought up on charges. I am a Republican activist and I fear for my safety with that remark.

Any other person who says they will strangle another would be in jail facing Felony charges, he should be held to the same standards.

another issue in america, over litigiousness and frivolous complaints tying up the system from more fruitful work,,,

No, that is a death threat. He said it our of anger.

politics is not for those without balls,

and freedom of speech does not just apply to non politicians, are we going to start policing metaphors and similes now?

amen to that.

A threat is a threat. Biden is a looser too. I hope he gets strangled instead! it will be the first assassination of a Vice President and one not involving a gun!

What a twist!

if one VP can shoot a citizen in the face and not go to jail,
it should be alright if another talks about strangling someone...

lolol


yeah, so much for defending the constitutional rights,,,

now even obvious metaphors (or personal compliments) should be a target for lawsuit,,lol

free speech indeed, but total accountability for one's own speech as well, is the best that we can create just now?

if a common man, stood in front of a microphone, perhaps a plumber or electrician, waitress or retail clerk, and was overheard by all the world, saying "i will strangle them", many would lose their job, be brought up on charges, in the real world, which more and more is a different world than the world the elite reside in, for indeed, one poor bloke just lost his job at CNN, for such as the same, in a country purported to have free speech?

if a retail clerk for a large chain, was overheard saying such about one of their customer's, they would indeed be fired, and in most cases, charged with ISSUING A THREAT TO INDUCE BODILY HARM?

if any add, "just a figure of speech", does this release from accountability"?

if such is true, then any can walk down the street, and say unto another, "i will kill you", and when accosted by police, simply smile and add, "oh, it was just a figure of speech"???

so, either we have total free speech, with no accountability for speech, being able to speak anything, and are only obligated to cause no other bodily harm, or, we have free speech, with total accountability of speech, applied uniformly and evenly unto ALL, for is a lawmaker above the law that itself hath created???

if so, then we have created a prison and dungeon in advance for any that do not make the law?

so, it can be claerly seen, that just because one add, "just a figure of speech", under current laws that apply to ALL, such does not release ANY from accountability?

for how could it?

many a suspected terrorist, would have to be freed, for many are held only due to speaking, and not doing?

all taped recordings of any speech would not be able to be entered into a court proceedings?

all person's convicted of crimes, only using eyewitness acount testimony, would have to be freed, for if there is no accountability of speech, then any or all of these may have been purgering themself under oath, for free speech would mean any can or could lie, with no regard to any consequence?

if we indeed have free speech, then NO LAW COULD BE ENVOKED OR BROUGHT TO BEAR PENALITY AGAINST ANYONE, CERTAINNLY NONE ARRESTED, OR BROUGHT FOR INVESTIGATION, for any words spoken from the human mouth?

this means, ALL SURVIELANCE, CAPTURING THREATS FROM ANYONE, OR ANY SPEECH DIVULGING CRIMMINAL ACTIVITY, WOULD NOT BE GROUNDS FOR GUILT?

Al Capone's family would have ot be issued a formal apology, as all that he was recored saying was merely for a book, that he was about to write, and had been pondering within himself, and was not remotely related to any real life activities?

and, this would have to be proven as a total impossibility, for any jury to convict him of any crime?

oh, but even there, one can see the serious lacking within the judicial system, totaly open for emotional tampering, left prey and wide open, for any power entity to use influencing to determine the outcome?

if case you have not noticed, the entire system was stacked against true justice from it's very inception, whether due to actual intent or to less intelligence in past days, being of no regard as to what still exist?

the common people have never had free speech, nor free action's, as these have always been governed by the governing entities at any time in human civilization?

even the so famous saying, "do as you will, but harm no one", has NEVER ACTUALLY APPLIED WITHIN HUMAN CIVILIZATION, for what is "harm" would have to be decided in advance, and that is and always has been subjective, decided whose "feelings" hath the most power in a society?

so, we are left with purported free speech, but each day the more, irrational random assessment and prosecution of what actual accountability is, and to whom it shall apply, and to whom shall serve any penalty for trespassing such """so-called""" accountability...

for the entire system of humankind is based upon hundreds of laws based upon the "emotion's", most and all of them completley illogical and impossible to enforce uniformly, threaten to strangle the intelligence of an entire civilization, reducing all to mere soilder's all doing what they are told, creating a environment where all are treated as small children, being treated as if they should obey the parent without question?

but, then no wonder society as a whole has taken on this mentality, since many a self declared good parent teach this exact same thing to their own children, and these children to their's...

and so the laws being contrived are based upon the notion of " protecting human emotion", and "create revenue"...

laws passed for such reasons have no other choice but to result in total societal breakdown in due time, AS AGAIN, WHOSE EMOTION'S SHALL RULE AS DECIDER OF ALL?

these type laws having been passed into effect at a greater and greater rate each day, actually hasten and increase the downward spiral into disharmony and no peace possible amoung human PERIOD, as for each word that is made illegal, IT NOW HAS THE POWER TO ENVOKE TREPASS OF THE HUMAN EMOTION OF ANYONE AT ANYTIME?

in essence, to outlaw any speech, should be outlawed, for there can be no dividing line between good and bad speech?

so the laws have to be reworked, and revamped, to fit the needs and increased intelligence of a civilization that is increasing in intelligence, being able to make up new words each day, as we march forward?

the tendency of any established society as it marches toward what is believed to be the protection of offense from other's, has always fallen prey to this, in ALL CASES thus far in human history, and in ALL CASES, causing the ultimate demise of that society itself by it's own hand?

but, now in these days, when the "society", has become the entire world as one, all peoples being bound more tightly together by way of modern technologies, then FEELINGS EVEN MORE SO, can in no way be used to shape the laws that govern the entire world, FOR AGAIN, WHOSE """FEELINGS""" SHALL BE THE GUIDE FOR ALL LAWS FOR ALL IN THE WORLD?

again, right back to, the FEELINGS OF WHOM HOLD THE MOST POWER, which is directly tied to whom have the most influence, which indeed is directly tied in EXACT order to whom have the most money, which indeed is directly tied to whom first had the MOST INFLUENCE, WHICH INDEED IS DIRECTLY TIED TO WHOM HAS THE MOST POWER TO START WITH, WHICH INDEED IS DIRECTLY TIED TO THE SAME PEOPLE PASSING DOWN THE TORCH OF INFLUENCE FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION, FRIEND TO FRIEND, and so the cycle that creates all human's know is left to create the same thing over and over, and then there is wonderment as to WHY HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF IN ALL DAYS PAST?

there NEVER HAS BEEN any true BEST GOVERNING SYSTEM EMPLOYED AS OF YET, no true democracy ever to start with, for any true democracy ever created thus far, was flawed in it's very inception, IF any that purport to serve the best interest of the people, recieve any monetary compensation at all FOR IT?

for indeed, this began to create the very first fundemental flaw of all governing systems that ever were, since anyone whom NEEDS money to SURVIVE, will want money, and any that want money, have automatic conflict of interest envoked within by no other choice, for any PERSON whom give to them the MOST money, or favor's, such shall create naturally more regard being given unto these, in time, these human's seen AS HAVING MORE VALUE AS HUMAN'S THAN THOSE THAT DO NOT GIVE UNTO THE GOVENING BODY OF MEMBERS?

THEN, the words "i will strangle them", indeed can be seen to tell precisely of a mentality, of a thinking process, that see's little value in any other human, that does not DO AS SELF WISHES?

LITTLE VALUE TO ANY HUMAN LIFE, whom has an opposing viewpoint as themself?

showing a total inclination and will to self validate and only use selective hearing, to hear's and value only what agree's with itself.

if it is thought, that every word out of the human mouth is not a precise tell as to the character and interior thought process of another human, then think again, for each word indeed be the tell, of what the motive is that be at work as the hidden propulsion system of all mortal being's.

I concede our freedoms are not free, but beyond that I dont really get your point

convictions are not made merely because of what people SPEAK, there also has to be some other types of evidence to clarify the intent or context of what was spoken,, I dont know of any evidence that Biden has or would actually strangle anyone, and its an obvious figure of speech unlike the types of suspicious(matched with actions) words I imagine are involved in investigations

but people can sue over just about anything,,thats my point


and criminal accountability is a different standard from professional accountability

my job can let me go for being a smoker, but I cant be ARRESTED for being one ( I am not one, just an example)


free speech does not supercede contractual law
an employer makes a contract with us to do or not do certain things
similarly an oath is a type of CONTRACT agreeing to tell the truth



show me the cases where anyone was INDICTED on charges over use of a metaphor....especially where they specifically pointed out, in the NEXT Sentence(not later on when confronted as in your example) that it was just a metaphor,,,, ?

Cant stand Biden myself and he is from where I live.........but I agree he has a right to voice his frustration and he did state not literally.......Biden would not strangle anyone........and it is a common statement of frustration.......often hear people say I am so frustrated I could strangle someone.......but apparently they have not passed a budget plan, but then again a budget plan hasnt been passed in lord I cant even remember how long........

Free speech is free speech until it tramples on the rights of others and making a death threat or a threat in general tramples on the rights of others.

we dont have the room in jail to house everyone who makes superficial threats or metaphorical ones..... its not the law

the context used was metaphorical and therefore not against any law

So that makes it right? If soemone made that threat to me the police wouldn't get there fast enough.

And a Felony is a Felony.

oh come now, since wnen does being legal have anything to do with being right?

alcoholism, legal
adultery, not prosecutable(except in divorce court consideration)
blaspheme, legal
insulting, legal



legally, the man did no more wrong than someone in this thread who implied the harm they would do IF they saw someone burning their own flag,,,,

no reasonable person believes the statement was an actual threat,,,

Putting someone in jail for words spoken is just the dumbest law ever......ridiculous.......

accountability within a society must be in all cases, or there is no accountability.

but, such is the very first flaw within our system already, for whatever hath done the same itself, wishes mercy be granted for another for the same offense.

why, no one on this website can say to another, if you say that again, "i'm going to strangle you", and not violate the laws of these very forums!?

so upon what are you basing your principle on?

sheer emotion?

because you support Obama?

i support all humans as equal, these and all my words having nothing to do with favor for Obama or Bush or any in power as any more valuable or greater than any other human being alive, in the entire world.

these words are not based on some personal preference for one human over another.

that would be personal bias would it not?

would that not be racism in it's very root form?

to believe one human better than another?

indeed, we have had many a metophorical saying's in days past, BUT, today, IN THE PRESENT, NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH DAYS PAST, WE NOW STRICT LAWS PASSED THAT DEEM THERE IS A "DEFINER" OF HATE SPEECH, AND THAT BE THE GOVERNMENT.

so, if the government be the DECIDER OF WHAT IS HATE SPEECH, THEN ITSELF MUST BE THE TOTAL EPITOME OF """NONE HATE SPEECH""", OR HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THAT TO LEAD IS TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE?

we have sexual harrassment laws, that deem many a metophorical, or "figure's of speech", now a crime, and punishable by law, if spoken to another.

let's see, how many "metophoprical" sayings could once be spoken, without another deeming offense?

NONE!?

not really...

to deem something was a figure of speech, or had a metophorical meaning, BOTH PARTIES...BOTH PARTIES...BOTH PARTIES, BOTH THE SPEAKER AND THE HEARER, MUST BE IN AGREEMENT, THAT SUCH WAS INDEED THE CASE...

such sayings most often used between friends...

but then whom is a friend?

ONE THAT RESPECT THE VIEWPOINTS AND ABILITIES OF ANOTHER AS VALID, AS WELL AS THEIR OWN?

the statement in itself, show's no such thing exist in this case, lol...

nor in many of our politics today, and why you wish to validate such double standards is plain to see...

for whomever be loyal to Obama, and the dem's, will make it ok, and whomever be loyal to the pub's, will make it not ok...

so, there has to be a LOGIC THAT CUTS THRU THE BIAS?

that is the point in all essence, WAS IT OF BIAS, WHICH THEN BECOME, WAS THERE INTENDED MALICE...

there is no mistake, in the context spoken, there was malice, lol...

not that how he speaks bobther's me, for the more anyone speak, the more you know who they really are, BUT FOR THE MATTER OF PROTECTING THE UNDERPRIVILEDGED, THEN THAT BE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERTENT MATTER ALL TOGTEHER, for the only true patriotism, is to protect the underprivilieged of one's own country, is it not?

the weak, the vulnerable, any with no power for their voice to be heard?

but as to the validity of excusing oneself OF WRONG DOING, LOL...

both parties must know, IN ADVANCE EVEN, that if one say, "if i tell ya, i'll have to kill ya", that such is a joke, or shall we say metophorical?

this being accomplished by having a repore with all parties involed previously...

there is no place for such to be used amoungst the general populous, BY ANY LEADER, for a leader has no repore with ALL HE SPEAKS WITH!?

if our leader's, have no better insight, and wisdom, and control, over their emotion's than this, than we are being led BY THEIR FEELING'S!

i do not wish to be led, nor my families fate, left to the whim's of another human being's FEELINGS.

emotional control displayed, BE THE VERY ESSENCE OF SELECTING GOOD LEADERSHIP, if any still truly recognize that whom hath control or reside in power, decide the fate of ALL OTHER HUMAN'S IN EVERY WAY?

so, leader's are to be held to the HIGHEST OF STANDARD'S, for they have the GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY UPON THEIR BACKS, BEING THE LIVES AND FATE OF BILLIONS!

if one hath greater responsibility, then one hath GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY.

if one hath greater accountability, then ONE MUST NOT FALL PREY TO SELF VALIDATION, or excusing oneself in all cases, but rather cares about the concern's of other's, so NEVER EXCUSES ONSELF FROM ANY ACCOUNTABILITY, as was in this case...

if he looked sqarely in the camera, and stated, "that was totally wrong, and inappropriate, then we would know we have a good leader, who is not but a self validator...

but, what we got was a self validation, WHEN HIS OWN SELF TOLD HIM, SUCH WAS NOT GOOD, OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE ADDED TO IT, THAT IT WAS A FIGURE OF SPEECH.

not to mention, NEVER, IN MY LIFE, HAVE I EVER EVEN BEGUN TO SAY, THAT I WOULD STRANGLE ANOTHER, FOR ANY REASON!

perhaps you are used to hearing such yourself, where you live, but in these parts, people that have true concern and respect for each other do not speak in such ways...

validating such in no way dimminishes what the words tell, about the calibur and character, which again is based upon caring about other's as having equal value and viewpoint and ability as oneself, of the individual that speaks them.

THE VERY LAWS OF THE NATION GOVERNING SPEECH THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED, IN NO WAY LEAVE ROOM FOR SUCH THINGS IS THE CRITICAL THING TO SEE...

in other words, we have laws now holding any to "possible" crimminal intent?

whether it be overt sexual words, hate words, and in all of these cases, who shall DEFINE THE VERDICT?

OUR GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEM?

since the laws are NOT BEING ENFORCED UNIFORMLY, TOTALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD, WHICH MEANS IS IN ALL CASES, THIS MEANS THEY SHOULD NOT BE LAW.

that is the essence of the point, of how HUMAN'S THEMSELF, in the rush FOR EACH, to protect their own feelings, are TIGHTENING THE NOOSE ABOUT THE NECK FOR ONE AND ALL!

and we all know, those that hang first, have always been and shall always be, in a society run by currency, those with the least amount of money?

and now, we have those listed as "least wealthy", further and further from those with the MOST MONEY?

so now, after the so called recession, even the BOTTOM OF THE UPPER CRUST IS VULNERBALE TO PROSECUTION, BECAUSE WITH EACH RECESSION, THE FEW WEALTHY GET WEALTHIER, RAISING THE CREAM TO THE VERY TOP......SO HIGH ONE CAN HARDLY SEE TO THE TOP...

i would put a sack over your head and buck ya for glory.

just a figure of speech!

niiiigger...

just a figure of speech...

why you so touchy...

your to god damn sensitive...

how many use it with total racism in their heart, and proclaim just a figure of speech?

we have children, whom if they hear such things, AND REPEAT THEM, ARE EXPELLED FROM SCHOOLS FOR HATES SPEECH, OR FOR THREATING OTHER?

a student of eight, where my brother in law is a teacher, was just expelled for proclaiming he would "bash in" a teacher's head...

JUST A FIGURE OF SPEECH INDEED...

no doubt, he heard it from another, as all human speech is learned, and from many a movie's, and since these things are being pumped into the environment at A RATE GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE, since we have not EVER, EVER, EVER, HAD EVER-PRESENT MEDIA IN ALMOST ALL PLACES ON EARTH BEFORE, then we should be LESSENING THE LAWS OF OFFENSIVE SPEECH, NOT TIGHTENING THEM!!!

but, they are TIGHTENED, to create revenue, but more and most, SOLEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO USE SUCH LAWS AGAINST ANY VOICE THAT OPPOSE THE GOVERNING BODY...

a double standard CREATED INTENTIONALLY, TO ENSNARE THE WEAK, THE LESS WELL SPOKEN AND LESS PRIVILEDGED...

the very first time, that words were first deemed to be "sexual harrassment", AND A LAW WAS WRITTEN, the noose was tightened...

the very first time words were said to "hate speech", the noose was tightened, for again, WHO SHALL BE THE ONE DECIDING IF YOU HAD TRUE HATE IN YOUR HEART WHEN IT WAS SPOKEN?

DOES SOMEONE HAVE A STETHESCOPE, CAPABLE OF KNOWING THE TRUE MOTIVE AND INTENT OF ANOTHER'S WORDS?

IT IS SUBJECTIVE, and always has been, and why two, BOTH PARTIES, must agree that such was just a figure of speech.

so, being that is the case, and ALWAYS HAS BEEN IN OUR SOCIETY, THEN BIDEN IS ONLY EXCUSED.......IF THE REPULICAN'S WHO GOVERN, WHOM HE SPOKE IT ABOUT, AGREE THEY SMILED AND TOOK NO OFFENSE TO HIS STATEMENT.

and, since HE SAID IT ABOUT ALL THE REPULICAN'S, WHOM ACCUSE THE CURRENT ADMINI OF NO ABILITY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, THEN ***ALL***OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THEY WERE NOT OFFENDED, AND BELIEVE THERE WAS NO "MALICE" INTENDED, BEFORE HE WOULD AGAIN MEET ANY STANDARD OF CIVILITY AND LEADERSHIP OR SELF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIMSELF, AS SET DOWN BY OUR OWN SOCIETY ITSELF IN ALL DAYS PAST.


if you wish to pull records, for all WHOM HAVE BEEN ARRESTED FOR ISSUING A THREAT OF BODILY HARM, then carry on.

your eye's and ear's should be open enough to already have all the evidence you need to know this already.

Question asked:

and, since HE SAID IT ABOUT ALL THE REPULICAN'S, WHOM ACCUSE THE CURRENT ADMINI OF NO ABILITY TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, THEN ***ALL***OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THEY WERE NOT OFFENDED, AND BELIEVE THERE WAS NO "MALICE" INTENDED, BEFORE HE WOULD AGAIN MEET ANY STANDARD OF CIVILITY AND LEADERSHIP OR SELF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR HIMSELF, AS SET DOWN BY OUR OWN SOCIETY ITSELF IN ALL DAYS PAST.


Answer: there is no standard which requires EVERY individual of a group not be offended by statements against it,,,


question aked:

why, no one on this website can say to another, if you say that again, "i'm going to strangle you", and not violate the laws of these very forums!?

Answer: because those are FORUM laws, not laws of the land and the analogy is off because it is one of a PERSONAL Threat,,,,not a general one

general threat 'if I saw someone desecrating the flag it would be the last thing they ever did'


personal threat ' when I see YOU damage a flag it will be the last thing you do'



see the difference?

if such generalized statements were punishable by LAW, as opposed to private guidelines on a forum or private property or club,,,


we wouldnt have half the participants who post on these boards,,,

if the essence cannot be identified, then it will no longer be granted.