@threattonature I am done with the subject ngl. Didn’t even read what you just wrote -respectfully let’s just move on. I won’t even hold you for people quoting you and bringing up random shyt like Epstein. My simple point was that NDAs are not nationally banned. They’re not even banned in a state like NY. Certain states and cities have more stringent limitations but they’re in the minority. Budden’s primary problem is that they shoot in New Jersey, which is not favorable to the employer even though he most likely (a) put a NY choice of law provision in his agreement or (b) put a mandatory arbitration clause in it if he’s smart so anything wouldn’t go to court. The other maneuver, which I used is that you can have a confidentiality clause against the employer saying that they won’t say anything bad about the employee which they will want because they want another job. So it’s a “you don’t pop off” and we won’t say anything to smear you. The problem is when someone has nothing to lose. Mel is not someone who is in a position to gain sympathy for suing Budden. It would probably cost her more opportunities than anything. Which is why I think anything wouldn’t be handled privately (if I advised her).
The Official Joe Budden Podcast Thread
- Thread starter Kidd Dibiase
- Start date
You don’t know what the world strawman means because it doesn’t apply here. You keep speaking in broad terms because you don’t understand law and no matter how simple I try to speak you can’t understand what I’m saying. I am literally a specialist - pretty highly paid for this type of law and everyone here knows that so you arguing with me on this type of law is like you arguing with LeBron on basketball. Take a seat. And the Nîgga literally brought up Epstein I was responding to are you dyslexic?
I am not arguing (you’re not qualified to argue the law)- I am explaining slow as fukk - not for you because your comprehension sucks - but for everyone else watching this nonsense. Homie said you cannot make someone sign an NDA for this type of stuff. Now anyone with a fukking modicum of business sense knows that you cannot preemptively make someone sign an NDA for discrimination - NDA protect business secrets more than anything. So waiving away those rights as a condition of employment was never a fukking thing. You can’t entirely waive away federal rights as a condition of employment - fukk are you talking about? The distinction you’re making between types of NDAs doesn’t make any sense in this context.
Even signing contracts that limit the statute of limitations are legally challenged every day. Why would I ever be talking about that or why would that even be the topic?
The federal law is about preemptive NDAs before anything has happened. Therefore, the only context would be after an event arises (during employment) or post-employment, which is what I was talking about. And it’s what his link was talking about. I was responding to his own link that he didn’t read and apparently you failed to read yet you keep typing at me. So to be simple - yes, Mel could raise a claim via counsel during her time at pod and then sign an NDA and be prevented from speaking (defer to what my previous post said for why that’s unlikely here because of NJ law).
Last edited:
"A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."
I dont believe anything you claim to be an expert in when you cant even follow a conversation. Nobody brought up settlement NDAs but you, the conversation was about rather of not Joe could've added something in a contract to prevent being sued harassment or a hostile work environment.
Then you have the nerve to respond like a pretentious a$$hole and not even understand the context of the conversation. fukk outta here
No, the context was rather or not Joe could've preemptively made her sign an nda before anything happened, and @threattonature posted a link clarifying that couldn't happen.
then you qouted him all smug calling him wrong for reasons he wasn't even talking about.
Then what the fukk was the whole purpose of you quoting breh and saying he was wrong when this is essentially what he said?
You just wanna argue like a female
She turned the wig comment on Joe like
‘I knew it’d be you to comment. And btw an angry fan called you gay and I tried to back you.
But you kinda free and loose with it, so I don’t know.
But you trolling’
No mention of the wig ever again
Gizmo_Duck
blathering blatherskite!
She turned the wig comment on Joe like
‘I knew it’d be you to comment. And btw an angry fan called you gay and I tried to back you.
But you kinda free and loose with it, so I don’t know.
But you trolling’
No mention of the wig ever again
And then Marc with the foam comment
Tiffany Cross doubled down on her attacks on the Joe Budden podcast…and Charlamagne said he agrees with Joe Budden 
@47m:00s:
Voice of Reason
Veteran
Charlagmage and NLP are bowing down to Joe Budden