• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paula Deen Allegedly Asked Black Staffers to Dress Like Aunt Jemima

sangha said:
Actually, some of the sexual stuff has been corroborated...by Paula Deens' brother, who is the one who is at the center of many of the accusations.
Click to expand...

Paula Deen admitted it herself in the deposition. I read the entire thing, and her excuse, when asked about the pornographic images laying on the table in the office were, "Well, boys will be boys." A lawyer was like, "Do you really think that it was OK that your brother had pornographic images laying on the desk in his office? Does that sound OK to you for that type of material to be in your workplace?" to which she replied, "Well it all depends on who comes in the office, right? Who sees it?" She could not get it through her thick, butter-encrusted skull that it is NOT OK in the workplace, no matter WHO is there. She's thick. Very thick.

And re: Bubba embezzling $30G from the restaurant. I don't know if it's considered embezzling if Deen knew about it. She funneled $300,000 into the Oyster Shack to keep it afloat.

The deposition is a very interesting read. I read both Deen's and Jackson's. Took a while, as they were both pretty long, but interesting reading, for sure.
 
Superfly said:
She funneled $300,000 into the Oyster Shack to keep it afloat.
Click to expand...

They should do a Restaurant Impossible episode based around it. The 'roided out limey guy would go mental if he saw what was going on there, and I'd watch the **** out of that. :lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
Not involved in it, but affected in some way.

It's not really meaningful, it's a distraction from trulymeaningful informmation which does have a direct affect on people, but is also kind of boring. Real news doesn't get ratings most of the time.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're just using your personal preferences as the standard for what "real news" and "meaningful information" are. That's a very weak standard.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Smeogal. I thought his last line was about white conservatives disagreeing with him, but looking back, I'm pretty sure I misinterpreted it
Click to expand...

I'm confused.

On the Paula Deen matter, I don't think anyone who hasn't physically harmed someone should be permanently defined by regrettable choices they've made when they have apologized and are trying be better people. I believe in forgiveness, redemption and restoration. I think this is a pretty good policy to have since no one on earth is perfect and we never know if we'll be the one who needs forgiveness in the future; maybe not in an identical situation but something else. She has apologized to the people she hurt even in tears. I don't understand why people are refusing to love her through this chapter in her life or help her be the better person she's obviously trying be. I often wonder what Martin Luther King would have done if George Wallace, Bull Connor and others would have gotten on TV and in tears apologized for things they did that in my opinion were far worse than anything Paula Deen did. I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King would have held out his arms, embraced them and graciously accepted their apologies.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
It sounds like you're just using your personal preferences as the standard for what "real news" and "meaningful information" are. That's a very weak standard.
Click to expand...

No, I'm using the objective standard of whether or not the story actually affects people in some way that makes it "need to know" info. It's highly objective. I'm just as entertained by teh non-stories as everyone else, though. As a football fan, I've sought out info on the Hernandez case. I'm as guilty of the stupidity as anyone else.
 
Relax. Listen to Frank Zappa's Electric Aunt Jemima, and let Paula Dean live out her own little fantasy in her weird little world. Never liked the old bag, with the "Y'all come on in" schtick, anyway. I bet she's secretly exchanging tweets with Weiner.
 
Smeagol said:
I'm confused.

On the Paula Deen matter, I don't think anyone who hasn't physically harmed someone should be permanently defined by regrettable choices they've made when they have apologized and are trying be better people. I believe in forgiveness, redemption and restoration. I think this is a pretty good policy to have since no one on earth is perfect and we never know if we'll be the one who needs forgiveness in the future; maybe not in an identical situation but something else. She has apologized to the people she hurt even in tears. I don't understand why people are refusing to love her through this chapter in her life or help her be the better person she's obviously trying be. I often wonder what Martin Luther King would have done if George Wallace, Bull Connor and others would have gotten on TV and in tears apologized for things they did that in my opinion were far worse than anything Paula Deen did. I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King would have held out his arms, embraced them and graciously accepted their apologies.
Click to expand...

She's someone that lives in the public eye (something notoriously fickle and vindictive), and I think questions over her sincerity are legitimate. But in general, I agree about forgiveness being more productive, socially
 
Smeagol said:
I'm confused.

On the Paula Deen matter, I don't think anyone who hasn't physically harmed someone should be permanently defined by regrettable choices they've made when they have apologized and are trying be better people. I believe in forgiveness, redemption and restoration. I think this is a pretty good policy to have since no one on earth is perfect and we never know if we'll be the one who needs forgiveness in the future; maybe not in an identical situation but something else. She has apologized to the people she hurt even in tears. I don't understand why people are refusing to love her through this chapter in her life or help her be the better person she's obviously trying be. I often wonder what Martin Luther King would have done if George Wallace, Bull Connor and others would have gotten on TV and in tears apologized for things they did that in my opinion were far worse than anything Paula Deen did. I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King would have held out his arms, embraced them and graciously accepted their apologies.
Click to expand...

First off, she makes her money through public image that she sells. She tarnished her own rep. She can still run her business, do her own publishing, get a job, and live her life. the woe is me crap from her is a load of BS as she has millions of dollars. The public doesn't hold any sway over her enjoying her life. I say give someone else a chance at a cooking show now that the butter queen has finished off her own reputation that was already in the crapper before this whole racism business began because of her lying about her diabetes.

As for forgiving her she stands the same in my mind today as she did before this. She is a creepy looking bitch whose fake smile and scary butter infused recipes were way over the top for me, and I do love my butter. I do not care that she is racist or not, i am just really happy her plastic smile will be removed from the grocery store check out line because damn that is one scary looking woman. Her smiling face is something i would expect to see right before being tossed into a wood chipper with 20 pounds of butter to make a tererun donut. That opinion has not changed since the first time I saw her on a magazine and screamed what the hell is that.
 
Hatuey said:
Paula Deen Allegedly Asked Black Staffers to Dress Like Aunt Jemima - Yahoo! TV



Conservatives: She isn't racist.
Liberals: Of course she's racist.
Libertarians: You don't have to work for her if she's racist.
Independents (with Conservative lean): This isn't racist because she asked nicely.
Independents (with Liberal lean): You guys kidding right?
Other & Unknown: Unintelligible post.
Zyphlin: 6,300 word essay.

I did enjoy Fox News' take on this.



I genuinely did. They basically hammer out what is so wrong with this entire situation. The problem isn't so much her use of racial epitaphs. It's the entire culture which she allowed to exist in her place. Porn at the work place? Racial attacks? Homophobic remarks? If your boss is willing to use racial epitaphs, have plantation styled weddings, dress her workers as Aunt Jemima, that's not something which stops 20 years ago unless a person can show a track record of having changed. Paula Deen just seems to have been doing the same **** for 20 years and hoping nobody caught on.

The Food Network did what any business would and should do with people like this. Let them cater to racists if they want on their own platform, works for Glenn Beck.
Click to expand...



OMG, who the hell cares? This is nothing but mindless diversion from the real problems.
 
Tucker Case said:
No, I'm using the objective standard of whether or not the story actually affects people in some way that makes it "need to know" info. It's highly objective. I'm just as entertained by teh non-stories as everyone else, though. As a football fan, I've sought out info on the Hernandez case. I'm as guilty of the stupidity as anyone else.
Click to expand...
This is the first time you've included "need-to-know" in your standards which is different from your original standard of "directly affected." Those are separate things even if they can be related. Regardless, when I say that your standard for "meaningful" and "real" news seems based on your personal preferences, I mean that because "meaningful" is an inherently subjective descriptor and because you're definition of "real news" is not based solely on the definition of "news", the judgments your making amount to nothing more than personal preference or perhaps just your personal idea of what meaningful, real news is supposed to look like.

Ultimately, the Hernandez and Zimmerman stories among others are "real news" according to the definition of "news" which is what you would look at if you were hoping for a more objective take on the subject. As far as "meaningful", you may define that as "need-to-know", but then other people may define it differently so if you want to objectively evaluate the news, you'll need a less subjective word.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
This is the first time you've included "need-to-know" in your standards which is different from your original standard of "directly affected."
Click to expand...

I assumed it was obvious. My bad.

Those are separate things even if they can be related.
Click to expand...

So people don't need to know about that which directly affects them?

Regardless, when I say that your standard for "meaningful" and "real" news seems based on your personal preferences, I mean that because "meaningful" is an inherently subjective descriptor and because you're definition of "real news" is not based solely on the definition of "news", the judgments your making amount to nothing more than personal preference or perhaps just your personal idea of what meaningful, real news is supposed to look like.
Click to expand...

Well, then you're wrong, because it's not based on personal preference. That's just your mistaken understanding of them that causes you to believe that which is not true. :shrug:
 
Did Paul Deen hold a gun to Dora Charles' head and make her work for her?
it's difficult to know what exactly happened between those two, but Ms. Charles ended up making $71,00/annually.
No one seemed to have a problem with the fact that Paul Deen was with a married man for 10 years. I think his wife should write a book and tell us her side.
 
Tucker Case said:
I assumed it was obvious. My bad.
Click to expand...
Okay.

So people don't need to know about that which directly affects them?
Click to expand...
I didn't say that. I said that "directly affects" and "need to know" are separate things that can be related. I can certainly "need-to-know" things that do not directly affect me.

Well, then you're wrong, because it's not based on personal preference. That's just your mistaken understanding of them that causes you to believe that which is not true. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Oh really? Which one of my positions is inaccurate? Please explain.

1. Meaningful is a subjective term and therefore, declarations about what constitutes 'meaningful' news are based in personal preferences for certain ideas of 'meaningful' news over others.

2. The Hernandez and Zimmerman stories meet the definition of "news" thereby making them objectively "real news".
 
Last edited:
lolabird said:
Did Paul Deen hold a gun to Dora Charles' head and make her work for her?
it's difficult to know what exactly happened between those two, but Ms. Charles ended up making $71,00/annually.
No one seemed to have a problem with the fact that Paul Deen was with a married man for 10 years. I think his wife should write a book and tell us her side.
Click to expand...

I'd read it.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I didn't say that. I said that "directly affects" and "need to know" are separate things that can be related. I can certainly "need-to-know" things that do not directly affect me.
Click to expand...

Why would you need to know something that didn't directly affect you? Want to know, sure, but you wouldn't need to know it.

Oh really? Which one of my positions is inaccurate? Please explain.

1. "Meaningful is a subjective term and therefore, declarations about what constitutions 'meaningful' news are based in personal preferences for certain ideas of 'meaningful' news over others."
Click to expand...

That one is totally inaccurate. How one subjectively defines what is "Meaningful" can be based on reason and logic, rather than just personal preference.

Subjectively defined =/= defined by personal preference. Just because you mistakenly believe that anything that is subjective must be based on personal preference, rather than reason or logic, doesn't mean that you are correct.

I have a great many subjective beliefs which are not in keeping with my personal preferences. For example, I have the subjective belief that cheating on my wife is immoral because it would hurt her. But my personal preference would be to get a blowie from every woman I meet.
 
Tucker Case said:
Why would you need to know something that didn't directly affect you? Want to know, sure, but you wouldn't need to know it.
Click to expand...

NEED

1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: "Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues ... shared a common vision in the needs of women" (Olympia Snowe).
3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

need: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

That one is totally inaccurate. How one subjectively defines what is "Meaningful" can be based on reason and logic, rather than just personal preference.
Click to expand...
The personal preference is the result of your use of reason and logic. Moreover, it is a fact that you prefer your conception of "meaningful" over others. Even further, even if it was just reason and logic without preference as you contend, you've admitted above that your idea of "meaningful" is subjective and not objective as you originally argued. Since that was the point of contention that got us here, you've inadvertently submitted. While I would appreciate a more explicit "I was wrong and you were right," I'll take this.

Oh and please answer #2. Accurate or inaccurate?
ThePlayDrive said:
2. The Hernandez and Zimmerman stories meet the definition of "news" thereby making them objectively "real news".
Click to expand...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
NEED

1. A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
2. Something required or wanted; a requisite: "Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues ... shared a common vision in the needs of women" (Olympia Snowe).
3. Necessity; obligation: There is no need for you to go.
4. A condition of poverty or misfortune: The family is in dire need.

need: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com
Click to expand...

As those definitions show, need is more than simple desire. :shrug:


The personal preference is the result of your use of reason and logic.
Click to expand...

No, the personal conclusion is the result of my use of logic and reason. My preference is still for random blowies.

Oh and please answer #2. Accurate or inaccurate?
Click to expand...

Why would I respond to something that has nothing to do with my point? My point is about important news, not the most general definition of news possible. Kim Kardashian's baby meets the definition of News, it doesn't change the fact that it's meaningless entertainment rather than something of worth and substance.
 
Tucker Case said:
As those definitions show, need is more than simple desire.
Click to expand...
I never said that need was "simple desire." :shrug:

No, the personal conclusion is the result of my use of logic and reason. My preference is still for random blowies.
Click to expand...
Semantics.

The bottom line is that you argued that your standard for "meaningful" news was objective. However, you admitted that your standard was subjective after I pressed you. You keep dodging your initial mistake with your semantic beef, but the mistake is still there. :shrug:

Why would I respond to something that has nothing to do with my point? My point is about important news, not the most general definition of news possible. Kim Kardashian's baby meets the definition of News, it doesn't change the fact that it's meaningless entertainment rather than something of worth and substance.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with your point. You said that those stories were not "real news" - those were your exact words. The issue, however, is that they are, in fact, "real news" according to the definition of "news". That's just a "no true scotsman" fallacy.
 
Odds that Chick-fil-A hires her to come up with a "signature recipe?"
 
Paula Deen allegedly spanked one of her children once. Child abusing bitch!
 
rocket88 said:
Odds that Chick-fil-A hires her to come up with a "signature recipe?"
Click to expand...




My guess is that's not going to happen.

I have never watched any of her shows or eaten in any of her restaurants, But I do love Southern food (My fathers family is from the Nashville, Tennessee area and I lived in the South half of my life. But she (From what little I know about her), appears to be a great Southern cook who has stepped in it up to her eyebrows.

I don't wish the lady any bad luck, but it looks to me like she has a serious problem, which she can only blame herself for. And it might get worse before it gets better.

How much more stuff like this: Paula Deen’s Cook Alleges Racism, Slurs by Celebrity Chef - ABC News, is waiting to come out ?
 
Neosteve said:
Paula Deen allegedly spanked one of her children once.
Click to expand...
Child abusing bitch!
Click to expand...




All kidding aside, I actually find that a lot worse than the other allegations against her.

Why would anyone, who probably would never strike another adult, think that it is okay for them to physically abuse their own children?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom