Paula Deen

[king.solomon]

Which is worse...calling someone a ******....or calling someone a motherfucker?

One is a personal attack.

The other attacks an entire race.

 

[Ava]

The food network has the right to not renew her contract.

Yes, and that is what some of us love about capitalism and the free-market. It isn't perfect, but I want the freedom to take the risks and rewards.

 

[martybegan]

The food network has the right to not renew her contract.

This is not about rights, rather it is about the fact that something said 30 years ago creates an almost pavlovian response by certain parties to remove themselves from any relation with a person. This is especially galling as this appears to be purely defensive, as opposed to being the result of some campaign to get her taken off the air.

Do you really want to be in an environment where the best solution to any problem like this is basically to get rid of the person and hope it all goes away?

 

[tinydancer]

Here's the plaintiffs deposition. While the likes of the Sarah G's and the Lakhotas of the planet are too busy name calling themselves to do some research, I took the time to find the actual deposition.

Some one please tell me what this is all about? I think it's a shakedown from this former manager and her lawyers and liberal asswipes are having a field day decimating a good woman's reputation.

From last night.


In the plaintiff’s own words

In Jackson’s deposition taken Feb. 11, she recounts how Dora Childs, an employee at The Lady & Sons, told her “probably sometime in 2010” that she felt discriminated against when a white male kitchen manager was promoted over her, adding, “and that Paula made racist comments.”

Deens’ attorney, Franklin, asked Jackson: “You have never heard Paula make a racist remark, have you?”

“Not heard it,” Jackson replied.

“You have never known Paula to discriminate against a person based on gender, have you?”

“I’m not aware.”

“And you have never known Paula to sexually harass anyone, have you?”

“Not me.”

Paula Deen: Key details in deposition, court documents overlooked by national media | Amarillo Globe-News[/B]

 

[AmyNation]

The food network has the right to not renew her contract.

This is not about rights, rather it is about the fact that something said 30 years ago creates an almost pavlovian response by certain parties to remove themselves from any relation with a person. This is especially galling as this appears to be purely defensive, as opposed to being the result of some campaign to get her taken off the air.

Do you really want to be in an environment where the best solution to any problem like this is basically to get rid of the person and hope it all goes away?

Look, I think it's silly to not renew her contract over what she said in the deposition. However, the food network is allowed to be silly. They can choose not to renew for any silly stupid reason they want. I don't specifically care what reason they gave publicly.

However, I'd bet they didn't make this decision on a whim, or base it on an emotional response. They weighed what profit she would bring in with potential profit loss and made the decision they felt was best for their company.

 

[Jackson]

Which is worse...calling someone a ******....or calling someone a motherfucker?

Both terms show how stupid the communicator is. An IQ of a beet.

 

[Caroljo]

You could at least spell her name right....DEAN.

 

[Gracie]

My thoughts? Just how many damn threads are there going to be made about the same subject??

 

[Caroljo]

People are HUMAN and we have ALL made mistakes and said things we wish we could take back. Unless they show she's said these things "recently", and if this was really 30 years ago, it should just be dropped. The whole thing is stupid....I think someone was just out to get her for some reason, and they succeeded. It sucks....

 

[martybegan]

The food network has the right to not renew her contract.

This is not about rights, rather it is about the fact that something said 30 years ago creates an almost pavlovian response by certain parties to remove themselves from any relation with a person. This is especially galling as this appears to be purely defensive, as opposed to being the result of some campaign to get her taken off the air.

Do you really want to be in an environment where the best solution to any problem like this is basically to get rid of the person and hope it all goes away?

Look, I think it's silly to not renew her contract over what she said in the deposition. However, the food network is allowed to be silly. They can choose not to renew for any silly stupid reason they want. I don't specifically care what reason they gave publicly.

However, I'd bet they didn't make this decision on a whim, or base it on an emotional response. They weighed what profit she would bring in with potential profit loss and made the decision they felt was best for their company.

No, someone in their PR group had a panic attack and just by default chose to can her ass.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You could at least spell her name right....DEAN.

Um, actually it's spelled Deen.

Paula Deen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[earlycuyler]

People, in general, need to grow a thicker skin.

Ya. Just don't give it any power.

 

[Spoonman]

The food network has the right to not renew her contract.

Yes, and that is what some of us love about capitalism and the free-market. It isn't perfect, but I want the freedom to take the risks and rewards.

the nice thing about freedom of choice is you alone are responsible for the outcome. personal responsibility is a great thing