It's not a secret -- the lawsuit against Deen is on account of her being the owner (and ergo the responsible party) of a business run by her brother, alleging assaults and harassment (by the brother, not Paula). The plaintiff's tenure goes back only to 2005 which is in no way 30 years ago, though some day it will be. And it's got nothing to do with anything Deen said except circumstantially in relation to that business.
This bidness of what PD said 30 years ago is some kind of media red herring that has become an internet myth. I'm not even sure where it came from. But it's got nothing to do with the suit.
Paula Deen was NOT fired from FoodNetwork, Target, etc. because of the lawsuit...
all of them have referenced her use of the "n-word" as the reason for the severing of ties.
Pogo Wrote:
Ummm... don't think so. Link to any of this?
Nobody said she was "fired"; that's not how TV contracts work. Her contract was allowed to expire -- that's it. They said nothing about a reason; they didn't have to. A contract is finite. It expires and is either renewed or not depending on the interests of the parties You could look it up. And nobody referenced things said 30 years ago. If they did, you could link it, and you can't.
Approximately 12 companies that were working with Paula Deen, most of them quite profitably, simply "allowed their contracts to expire" because they wanted to go in different directions and the timing was just bad. Really? Come on now, Pogo...you aren't that clueless. The legal battle between Deen, her brother, and the former employee had been public knowledge for awhile. The companies only severed ties with Deen after her deposition became public knowledge and the "n-word" controversy began.
So you have nothing and were just making it up. Ass-umptions.
That's what I figured.
I'm sure you can quantify this too. I'll be amused to see it. Especially the "darling" bit.
Baldwin has attacked photographers, he called a black photographer a "drug dealer" and a "crackhead," and "a coon." He called a reporter a "toxic queen" and threatened him with physical violence.
Alec Baldwin?s goes on alleged racist rant against Post photographer - NYPOST.com
And yet...Capital One, Hulu, 30 Rock don't seem to be letting his contract expire...they don't seem to want to go in different directions...
Must be nice to be a Hollywood DARLING!
So you have nothing and are just making it up. Twice now I asked for documentation and got naught but ass-umptions
This is getting repititious
Again, Paula Deen is not "destroyed" because her show gets dumped, and the private businesses who do so exercise their right to enter into a contract with whom they want. You can't step in and force them to write a new contract they don't want. I doubt this is more than a bump in the road for PD's future. Look at Lush Rimjob. He lost all his sponsors, yet he's still there.
I find it very telling that you want to quibble over my word choice rather than dealing with what the thread is trying to address - why people have reacted to Deen in one way and Baldwin in a very different way for arguably similar events. That being said, Paula Deen has lost millions of dollars of potential income, she has lost fans, her reputation has been severely damaged. You may not feel that is "destroying" someone...but many others would argue that if they lost a large chunk of their livelihood and reputation they'd feel pretty frickin' destroyed. Rush Limbaugh is an entirely different case because the people he "lost" were not his fans...not to mention, I think he lost approximately 2 sponsors? Come on, now.
I think it was like 98 but who's counting.
Word choice is important; when you say "destroyed" you imply permanent damage. I don't think you're in a temporal position to know that, nor do I think it's a reasonable prediction. This whole faux outrage kerfuffle is kind of stupid. It too shall pass. No reason to make a freaking soap opera out of it. Yawn.
As to "why people have reacted" to Deen and/or Baldwin -- what people? The message board wags who keep flogging this dead horse, trying to find politics in a TV cook and an actor? Who the hell cares what they think?
Moreover I doubt either the Food Network, Target, Wal-Mart, or for all we know Paula Deen herself, can be classified as "liberal". And a TV cooking show has nothing to do with politics in the first place, so her affiliation is irrelevant to anything.
She campaigned for Obama...I think we can classify that as liberal. And if a tv cooking show has nothing to do with politics...why did you jump at the chance to compare her to conservative Rush Limbaugh?
I made no such comparison at all. That was TwoThumbs. Read much?
I've been making the point throughout that PD is not a political figure, her program is not a political show, and the lawsuit is not a political lawsuit. Why would I bring Limbaugh in? That would be inconsistent, would it not?
I missed your link (again) to the campaigning thing but who the hell cares -- she's a
FREAKING TV COOK, not a politician. You people that insist on trying to find a political angle to everything just to score points for your chosen "team" on a story that has nothing to do with politics in the first place make me puke my guts out. This is the kind of piddling petty horseshit that breaks down discourse into a meaningless football game of cheap dig-points. Full of sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.
Next time you want to make specious claims, look for some kind of documentation first. When you don't find it, that means it doesn't exist. You're not entitled to your own facts, so you don't get to just make 'em up. And rest assured, bring bullshit in here and you
will get called on it.
