Anderson Cooper is Gay.

[Dexman PE PMP]

 

[Road Guy]

I always found it more hilarious that the former host of the mole tv show became a big time CNN anchorman...

I remember watching during the Katrina disaster and trying to figure out where I knew this guy from!

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I always found it more hilarious that the former host of the mole tv show became a big time CNN anchorman...

I can't take the guy seriously because of that. Every time I see him I think of the 'Anderson's House' edition of The Mole and start hearing 'Tiny Bubbles' in my head.

 

[Kephart P.E.]

Gay pride and the type of in-your-face behavior that comes with it is all about supporting the Democratic Party with money and votes. The Dems have a long history of creating a victimhood and an "us vs them" mentality. They point to past injustices and tell everyone that nothing has changed since then, people believe them, get a chip on their shoulder and join a cause that does little more than act as fundraising/lobbying for the Democratic Party. They do this with race, religion, gender, economic class, workers unions and now sexual preference.

The latest example of this is President Obama's sudden reversal on his stance against gay marriage. As soon as he changed his position a huge amount of money flowed into his re-election warchest. On a side note, his sudden reversal begs the question - if gay marriage is in fact a fundamental right, why did he not support earlier? Was he prejudiced against gay people or did he feel that their civil rights were less important than his own political career at that time?

You might be correct, the the Democrats and the LEFT are not the only ones that cry about victimhood.

In the South of the 1950s and 1960s, white segregationists portrayed themselves as the victims of “outside agitators” and a “liberal Northern press” intent on destroying the South’s “traditional way of life,” i.e. white supremacy. Thus, many white racists saw the murder of civil rights workers as a legitimate act of self-defense, the protection of “states’ rights.”

This chip-on-the-shoulder “victimhood” has remained an element of American right-wing politics ever since. Whenever truly discriminated-against groups, such as blacks and women, have demanded their rights, the Right has cast the reforms as attacks on American traditions.

In recent years when gays have sought basic civil rights, their struggle has been spun as an aggressive “gay agenda” assaulting Christian values. That was the ugly climate in 1978 when a conservative San Francisco city official, Dan White, assassinated Harvey Milk, California’s first openly gay elected public official, and his political ally, Mayor George Moscone.

More recently as gays have sought the right to marry, they are accused of trying to destroy the institution of marriage.

A “Defense of Marriage Act” is deemed necessary to protect heterosexual couples. You see, even though the gays are the ones actually facing discrimination, they are portrayed as the “victimizers” and heterosexual couples are the “victims.”

 

[engineergurl]

I'd like to teach the world to sing...

 

[Master slacker]

Excuse me, but this thread needs some more gay:

 

[MA_PE]

Is Cooper still gay?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Whenever truly discriminated-against groups, such as blacks and women, have demanded their rights, the Right has cast the reforms as attacks on American traditions.

I don't have a problem with equal rights. The problem with the left is that they try to fix an imbalance in rights by skewing things in the other direction. The most famous example of this is Affirmative Action. Forcing employers to hire minority workers in order to meet a quota or percentage of workforce, even if they are far underqualified, is NOT equal rights. It's just unequal rights in the opposite direction.

 

[engineergurl]

I don't have a problem with equal rights. The problem with the left is that they try to fix an imbalance in rights by skewing things in the other direction. The most famous example of this is Affirmative Action. Forcing employers to hire minority workers in order to meet a quota or percentage of workforce, even if they are far underqualified, is NOT equal rights. It's just unequal rights in the opposite direction.

Is that what you think it is? Cause when I sit and watch my co-worker who got hired on a few years after me, with only a high school diploma, half of his experience was in the field was running equipment,and a starting salary of more than what I make now go out to lunch with the bosses, I'm reminded that it's there for a reason sometimes. I know I only got my job because I'm a chick, but I work daum near twice as hard as the guys to prove my worth because of it...

on a side note though... I think we all forget that the laws need to change with the times. The issue with some places I've worked was the only way to over come the nepotism was afirmative action... it didn't have anything to do with the color of you skin or your sex... that quota got you a job, but it never got you into the good ole' boys club, which meant you were doomed from the start because you "only got your job because of affirmative action.

just saying

 

[DVINNY]

^^^ You made the point for him. Get rid of affirmative action, then when employeed on merit and not 'quota meeting ability' you have a shot at not having a career anchored to the "quota"

just sayin.

 

[Dark Knight]

I don't have a problem with equal rights. The problem with the left is that they try to fix an imbalance in rights by skewing things in the other direction. The most famous example of this is Affirmative Action. Forcing employers to hire minority workers in order to meet a quota or percentage of workforce, even if they are far underqualified, is NOT equal rights. It's just unequal rights in the opposite direction.

Is that what you think it is? Cause when I sit and watch my co-worker who got hired on a few years after me, with only a high school diploma, half of his experience was in the field was running equipment,and a starting salary of more than what I make now go out to lunch with the bosses, I'm reminded that it's there for a reason sometimes. I know I only got my job because I'm a chick, but I work daum near twice as hard as the guys to prove my worth because of it...

on a side note though... I think we all forget that the laws need to change with the times. The issue with some places I've worked was the only way to over come the nepotism was afirmative action... it didn't have anything to do with the color of you skin or your sex... that quota got you a job, but it never got you into the good ole' boys club, which meant you were doomed from the start because you "only got your job because of affirmative action.

just saying

I'd love to respond properly to that statement, the one about minority workers being under-qualified, but I am a minority worker and my opinion is probably biased. So, I will better bite my fingertips and type nothing.