Comments on: Michelle Bachmann stiffs her campaign staff, they retaliate by ratting to the feds

By: TooGoodToCheck

TooGoodToCheck — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:35:00 +0000

I feel like everyone who’s _not_ Michelle Bachman should pick up the tab. Because by completely failing at that job, they’ve done a greater public service than I am ever likely to do.

We should be starting a collection now to pay them to work for for Paul Ryan 2016 too

By: niktemadur

niktemadur — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:33:00 +0000

Seems she cherry-picks her moral choices as much as she does the bible, probably with some BS about “the ends justifies the means”.

It would seem that God’s righteous love of guns and for-profit medical systems, as well as his hatred of gays, worker’s rights and Kenyans, is in perilous political ground in one of only two countries (the other is Israel, of course) that have ever mattered in the 5,000 year history of the Universe.

By: niktemadur

niktemadur — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:21:00 +0000

Even a crazy clock may look hot twice a day.
But I wouldn’t mind wriggling my tongue in her face, flagrantly. But only because I enjoy the thought of making the batshit crazy lady as uncomfortable, if just for a minute, as she makes all of us.

By: That_Anonymous_Coward

That_Anonymous_Coward — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:29:00 +0000

Ask that McMahon woman?

By: That_Anonymous_Coward

That_Anonymous_Coward — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:27:00 +0000

At minimum she could have learned that from how her husband handles his burly “massage” therapist hiring…

By: rick stanley

rick stanley — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:26:00 +0000

u made me look that up.

By: CastanhasDoPara

CastanhasDoPara — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 23:07:00 +0000

That’s a mighty fine preemptive self-Streisanding she just gave herself. What a goof.

By: Michael Smith

Michael Smith — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:01:00 +0000

The CMS should be able to automatically scale the image.

By: bkad

bkad — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:51:00 +0000

[Edited for brevity.]
I agree with this. There’s no reason to believe, without support of the original article and in defiance of common sense, that the confidentiality agreement actually prohibits disclosing illegal activities.That’s sensationalistic. Now, it might be a bad agreement, I can’t speak to that….

By: xunker

xunker — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:45:00 +0000

True true, I am not a lawyer so I don’t understand their motivations in every case. Wheels within wheels, etc.

There are a lot of pointless things in such contracts — once I signed one that stated, explicitly, that my term of employment is terminated on the event of my death. Of course, that could give the term “working stiff” a whole new dimension..

By: allotrope

allotrope — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:29:00 +0000

Indeed, they never waver from the principle that government regulations get in the way of honest business,

By: Rich Keller

Rich Keller — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:16:00 +0000

Chiropteroguanopsychosis seems to be a common diagnosis these days.

By: billstreeter

billstreeter — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:06:00 +0000

But couldn’t they still sue (and or fire) you for ”fraudulently” reporting a crime even without the NDA? Kinda makes the NDA totally mute and pointless doesn’t it?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:40:00 +0000

Ah, but Jesus said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven.

She’s doing them a favor by not paying them.

By: I_hate_turtles

I_hate_turtles — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:31:00 +0000

Please don’t propagate the original author’s assumption that the 2 (NDA agreement, non-payment) are somehow related. Yes there might be terms in the NDA that are bad and somehow affect the staffer’s decision, but forcing users not to disclose illegal activities wouldn’t be one of them. Such terms are not valid and can safely be ignored by the staffers. If *that* were the problem they should be smart enough to know that (they were presidential campaign staffers for god’s sake) and sign it and move on. So I’m sure that the motivations were otherwise and this hiding of illegal activity clause is just sensationalistic.

By: Baldhead

Baldhead — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:30:00 +0000

Is it just me or is there a pattern with republican candidates screwing over their own staff? The US economy must be terrible indeed for people to put up with this and continue to believe this party has an interest other than self interest.

By: fuzzyfuzzyfungus

fuzzyfuzzyfungus — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:26:00 +0000

Omerta is a ‘family’ value, right?

By: plyx

plyx — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:26:00 +0000

Batshit crazy in MY Michelle Bachman? It’s more likely than you think.

By: angusm

angusm — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:01:00 +0000

At what point in the proceedings does saving $25,000 by stiffing your employees stop looking like a good idea? And how long ago did we pass that point?

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:59:00 +0000

But .. but .. but .. she’s a god fearing Christian! Impossible!!

By: Jellodyne

Jellodyne — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:59:00 +0000

Those people had ONE JOB, to elect a crazy lady to the White House. If they can’t do one simple job, maybe they don’t deserve pay.

By: dave3

dave3 — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:51:00 +0000

Maybe God told her not to pay?
After all, she’s only following HIS plan. Right?

By: soylent_plaid

soylent_plaid — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:51:00 +0000

As I’ve said before, Republicans: eminently principled people.

By: Not Woot

Not Woot — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:51:00 +0000

Yeah, she’s pretty hot for a crazy lady. I don’t mind the 8MB.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:50:00 +0000

From the sound of it “I’m no criminal mastermind” is also a phrase that’s very applicable to Bachmann herself.

By: xunker

xunker — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:48:00 +0000

Without seeing the language of the NDA it’s impossible to say for sure what’s what here, but we can assume a few things. I’ve signed quite a few NDAs in my life, and when my lawyer goes through them I see mentions like this some times. As he has explained it to me:

It’s not there to make you not report a crime since it’s illegal to contractually require someone to not report a crime, like you say. With a proper serverability clause, though, the whole NDA isn’t void, only to offending clause.

Instead, these clauses are likely here to scare you in to not reporting a crime because, under these kind of clauses, if you report a crime and the report gets dismissed or gets a court acquittal, they can then sue you for having reported them “fraudulently”. I use fraudulently in quotes, because it doesn’t mean that they didn’t do anything wrong, it just means they weren’t found guilty of doing anything wrong (which are two different things).

Anyway, one school of thought says it’s there to bully you in to not reporting things because there is a small chance the charge won’t stick and you’ll get sued. So unless you are 101% sure your accusal will carry weight you are opening yourself up for a law suit.

Of course, the counterpoint to this is that it could also be here so a law-abiding organization has recourse if it gets hit with a legitimately-fraudulent (see what I did there?) accusal, too.

By: bluest_one

bluest_one — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:36:00 +0000

She’s a reckless with your bandwidth as she is with campaign money.

By: lknope

lknope — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:25:00 +0000

I’m no criminal mastermind but…wouldn’t it make more sense to pay people to keep their mouths shut rather than not pay them unless they keep their mouths shut?

By: Box of Cotton Swabs

Box of Cotton Swabs — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:22:00 +0000

It’s been happening a lot lately.
Hey, GIMP is free! ; )

By: TooGoodToCheck

TooGoodToCheck — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:20:00 +0000

You’re all insane. Downsample Michelle Bachman? You barbarians! Why not just crop the Mona Lisa while you’re at it?