Shucks, and here I thought Crazy-Eyes had done something entertaining.
Sorry, I should have posted this yesterday.
Wouldn’t a non-disclosure agreement be something you sign before you take a job or are let into confidence? Wouldn’t holding out on paying someone for services performed constitute per se evidence that the agreement was signed under duress (and therefore wholly invalid)?
Any ideas about what the staffers have to say?
They apparently say that the story isn’t true at all.
Wow, being asked to sign such an agreement in the first place is a bad sign! “We might be doing some bad stuff later on, see, so we’d really appreciate it if you could, like, promise not to ever tell anybody about it when it happens…” :eek:
Easy – he’d use one hand to grab each of his opponent’s wrists, and the third to go for the thro- . . . wait, this is Gacy, think lower . . .
I fail to see how it could be possibly legal for someone to refuse to discuss criminal activity they witnessed with the police. I don’t really think that a simple disclosure agreement would absolve anyone from providing evidence to a criminal investigation.
And furthermore, asking someone to sign such an agreement AFTER the criminal activity was alleged (theft of information from a volunteer laptop)… Would this not be criminal consipiracy? You’re demanding that someone withhold evidence of your crime, and effectively giving them a cash payment to shut up.
Except the campaign never paid, so that brings it somewhere near the realm of extortion.
Yes. Rather than paying someone not to talk they are refusing to pay an amount owed unless they promise to shut up.
Well, let’s see how well that holds up in court…
Ladies and gentlemen, these are JOSH levels of cluelessness.
I really like;
“the man who introduced her said he wished the Tea Party movement had been “a little more conservative.”"
Just let that last bit sink in.
From the above link
[QUOTE=Bachman]
“But in my opinion, that wasn’t feminism, that was Jesus Christ who did that. Because Jesus Christ did more to lift up women… We didn’t need the 1960s to tell us that, all you have to do is read Proverbs 31.”
[/QUOTE]
I assume she is talking about the second half of Proverbs 31 and not the first half
[QUOTE= Proverbs 31 6-7]
Let beer be for those who are perishing,
wine for those who are in anguish! Let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
[/QUOTE]
But in any case that was old testament, not something Jesus said. The best Jesus did for women was to suggest stoning for adultery was not cool, and letting women wash his feet.
Bachmann doesn’t make mistakes like that, just ask her. Must be something wrong with your bible.
JOSH levels? Google/Urban dictionary isn’t helping here. UD suggests JOSH is a good thing.
Acronym for a certain trollish poster that I do not desire to have hijack this thread.
The majority of scholars have long since concluded, on available evidence, that the early Christian church centered around Jerusalem was very egalitarian regarding the role of and respect for women in their community.
What if they said “Jehovah”?
Don’t forget about the oil in the hair, too. That was supposed to be pretty cool back in the day.
Some guys would find that stone sexy. Maybe not Jesus, but some guys.
Please do us all a favor and don’t use the commonplace acronym if you don’t want their attention. Saw that poster, don’t like. Please do not contaminate good threads with any reference to the acronym. I’m seriously begging you. 
Congressional ethics office investigating Bachmann
Congressional ethics?
But still, Crazy Shelly being investigated.